The Self Publisher

(This essay was once the Introduction to my web page when I was advertising my own books.)

Ralph Waldo Emerson, who in my opinion is America's most important philosopher, once said in his Essays: First Series,”

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Some of the more daunting challenges of self-publishing are that you have to be your own writer, editor, typesetter and publisher. In addition, to creating literary works, the self-publisher is burdened by publicity, marketing and bookkeeping. I am fortunate to have a wife who helps me in some of these chores.

Prior to POD publishing, making self-publishing affordable for almost anyone, I figured that none of my work would ever get beyond creative writing classes--where, back in the 1970s we classmates used to thrill one another with our politically incorrect efforts, innocently oblivious to the conformity nightmare with which most well-published writers have to contend. Reading and writing unedited stories by those who wear their hearts on their sleeves is as thrilling as reading a novel by Gogol (who invented wearing the heart on the writer's sleeve--he played a part in inspiring the current movie, Namesake, for which I recently wrote a review). Self-publishing, as well as creative writing classes, are exhilarating experiences that the general public can share only by digging beneath the obfuscation of the giant media and corporations that want to guide your reading habits (and maybe even your political thought processes).

Although I do not know anyone who writes racist or bigoted material, many writers are suppressed and constricted to narrow scopes of writing delineated by the "requirements" of each publisher. They all fear that they might offend some minority or ethnic group. This phenomenon was thematic in the movie, Amadeus, when the Austrian Holy Roman emperor, Joseph II, censored some of Mozart's best operas for fear of offending some of the multitudinous minority groups in the empire. Since I discovered POD publishing, I do not submit manuscripts to the "big" publishers anymore, but with the few that I did, years ago, I noticed that a common word used in rejection notices is that a work does not "fit" the needs of the publisher. While I was still in college I submitted to a literary agent a short, non-fiction story about a certain smuggling place along the border and described some of the clever methods used by smugglers of illegal aliens. The agent did not think he could sell the item, unless it was made a "human interest" story that told the story from the viewpoint of the illegal aliens. He indicated that he thought that I could not do that because I was "on the wrong side of the fence." That was in the early 1970s, and, to prove him wrong, I immediately sat down and wrote a 400-page novel told from the viewpoint of two illegal aliens. Although I sent a copy to the Library of Congress and registered it, I never published it. Nowadays, I would be disappointed if told I “fit” somewhere because of the connotation of conformity. Conformists can only write what’s been written before, but with just enough re-wording to keep them, and their publishers, from getting sued for plagiarism.

The above experience was my first exposure to the social thought that a story about smuggling, as told by an immigration officer, did not "fit" anywhere in the psyche of the American mind. I remember a lesson in creative writing where my instructor, Francis Fugate, author of Viewpoint: Key to Fiction Writing lectured the class on the trick to developing a sympathetic character, one the reader can identify with, or one the reader can become concerned about. He posed the image of an imaginary fistfight between himself and another professor. When you see a fight, what is the first reaction of the observer? I saw what he was getting at, for Americans always quickly side with the one they consider the underdog. Rooting for the underdog is a trait of nearly every American—unless he is mentally unbalanced, a sadist, or otherwise neurotic. However, in arguendo, I submit that Americans are often confused as to who the “underdog” really is.

As a career immigration officer, there is no way that I can consider an illegal alien an “underdog." The American social "deck" is stacked in his/her favor from apprehension, though the justice system to the rewards he/she gets for violating our immigration laws, as contrasted with the legal immigrants who abide by the rules and patiently await their turn for an immigrant visa. All nations have quotas on immigrants; if they didn't they could no longer have a national identity or patriotic citizens. The ancient Romans were the first to learn that unchecked immigration (they called it an invasion of barbarians) will lead to the destruction of a republic, or an empire. America is far from ready to accept the fact that the immigration officer is the real underdog in the battle to protect our borders. If his opponent were simply the illegal alien, his job would be easy; but the illegal alien is in alliance with every liberal, left-wing activist, unscrupulous employer of illegal aliens in the country, and probably most Congressmen, and certainly with President Obama. Consequently, the main battle I fought in my INS career was with the bureaucracy, which I consider abjectly corrupt, and battling that collective "villain" almost ruined my life. I was, and perhaps still am, unequivocally the underdog in that battle, but that is another story. My own advocacy had little impact; it was not until 9-11-01 that illegal immigration was first seen as a problem in this country. Even now, the public and the established government think the military, not immigration law enforcement, is the solution. The problem will never be solved until we have a national identity document, then we will never have to question the credentials of another worker—not even the President’s credentials.

Nowhere in the annals of American history have there been more lies, myths and anti-government propaganda promulgated by special interest groups than in the area of illegal immigration. Debunking them by proving that illegal aliens do not pay more into the economy than they take out in services is always ignored by the mainstream media. It does no good to illustrate how they insidiously break down our national, cultural values, our character and, indeed, our national fabric. Even if they did pay into the system more (in revenue) than they take out, they are still illegal, and tolerating them goes against the grain our cultural belief in the rule of law. However, the only profit of exploiting illegal aliens goes into the pockets of their unscrupulous employers. It is my belief, and I often illustrate, that continual toleration of illegal immigration will lead to anarchy and national chaos. I am not speaking of Hispanic Americans; in fact, I believe they are more the victim of illegal immigration than the rest of the population, and I value them as citizens; in fact, my wife is one. There are some employers who exploit illegal aliens that do not want to hire any Hispanic unless he/she is in the country illegally (only illegal aliens “fit” their agenda).

Now, back to the subject of writing, for which I also have a passion.

Although I do not depend on it for a living, I consider myself a professional writer, and I can write about any subject and assume any viewpoint. My most recent novel is a historical biography of Paula Maxwell, the girl whom Billy the Kid wanted to marry.

Political correctness in editing and publishing is, by no means, new. In fact it was once much worse, but we can revert to those times if we are not careful. One of the best novels ever written, Cervantes' Don Quixote, (which some claim is the first novel) had to be read by an official "censor" before publication. You can read Cervantes' censor's remarks in the middle pages of the unabridged versions. In those days of the Inquisition, writers had to walk a fine line, but Cervantes somehow managed to publish this story, which is a satire on the stagnation of classic literature--and, fortunately, he got it past the official censor. He did it by creating a pathetic, yet congenial, character that was a product of the Inquisition and State censorship, a character too ignorant to recognize the fish bowl existence of writers in the late Sixteenth Century. His protagonist, Don Quixote, a mentally unbalanced and delusional old man, revives his personal concept of the erstwhile knight errant who, "in days of old, when knights were bold," demonstrates and lives out his fascination with the old, stagnated heroic tales of medieval times, and makes a futile effort to reconcile his current experiences with those of the past. Don Quixote frequently quotes from such archaic sources as The Song Of Rolande. Cervantes does not tell us his protagonist has a brilliant, but warped mind; he leaves it to the reader to figure that out. Contemporary readers at the time that Don Quixote was published were aware that some two hundred years thence the armored knight and steed were made obsolete by the invention of gunpowder and the cannon. Before reading a historical novel, I recommend that the reader read the introduction and any critiques that are available. This will not destroy the story, for they are written discreetly. When the protagonist is seriously delusional, the reader is taken along for a ride like someone trying to make sense of a narration by Cantinflas, or one who, for a while, is sympathetic with Nabokov's Humberto Humberto. Vladimir Nabokov had a passion for “playing” with the reader, and that is one reason his work is mentally challenging. It might be said that a good novelist exploits the same human frailties that a psychopath, a slight of hand artist, or even a Ponzi scheme operator might.

The novelist develops characters who, if they were “normal,” would not make a good story. My story, That Zorro Guy, found in the “short story” index of this web site, is an example. Another example, which is worthy of only anecdotal treatment, came at a time when, as an INS criminal investigator, I was sent to Los Angeles' Sybil Brand female detention center to institute deportation proceedings against an Egyptian female named "Medusa Salaam." I departed headquarters wondering how any mother could name a child "Medusa," and after listening to her lies and dissembling efforts for a short time, I determined she was a black prostitute from East Texas. When I disappointed her by telling her I could not deport her to Egypt, she wanted to know if I could just put her on the next INS bus-lift to Tijuana! I began to suspect that she had a mean pimp she wanted to get rid of—maybe the one who was responsible for assigning her the street name, Medusa. I went back to the front office to check out before leaving the center and told them that the woman I had interviewed was a U.S. citizen (and therefore an LAPD, not INS, problem). The young lady psychologist who had interviewed her for sanity refused to admit she'd been been duped; to her, the young woman was still Egyptian, Medusa Salaam, not Ruby Mae Smith of Carthage, Texas! Psychologists would not understand the subtle ways that immigration officers have at getting to the truth with frauds. Nor can hardly anyone believe that immigration officers, not infrequently, encounter citizens who lie about being illegal aliens; but of course not as many as they encounter who falsely claim to be U.S. citizens. When I encountered a person I suspected of being a false claimer to illegal alienage, I often use what I called the qui vive approach to see if the person is really a loyal citizen of the country she claims. This approach is often necessary when, for example, a Latino from South America claims to be a Puerto Rican to avoid deportation. Used in tandem with the shibboleth (mispronunciation of a word common to a nationality that the speaker claims to be a member of), the qui vive is very effective. Since all illegal aliens are escorted to their countries’ consuls for an interview before being deported, they are not going to get past a consular officer who must issue them a provisional passport to re-enter their country. Nevertheless, much time (and embarrassment) is saved—for immigration immigration officers and consular officials alike—if the arresting officers can easily detect these frauds who are naïve enough to think they can scam the immigration authorities and get free transportation for a vacation in some foreign country.

One thing the above anecdote illustrates is that anyone can be a pretty good story-teller, and even an illiterate prostitute can do it, if they encounter a gullible listener. When it comes to fiction, having a reader, or a listener who is willing to suspend disbelief is essential, and what the skilled writer does is induce that willingness into the reader before he/she loses interest. It is probably the skill most emphasized in creative writing classes.

Some of Mark Twain's best satire has come to light only in recent years as his old manuscripts that were rejected by editors (when he was not self-publishing) have recently been published. A good example is his short story, The War Prayer, which can be viewed in its entirety (about 500 words, I'd guess) on several web sites by merely typing in Mark Twain's The War Prayer in your browser window. That story might be described as an expose' of religious fundamentalism and how the Old Testament scripture can be played against the New Testament to justify just about anything. Even today, those who oppose wars, even if only for economic reasons, like presidential candidate, Ron Paul, are called names (the old uninvited speaker at a war rally held at the church in Twain’s short story was later called a “lunatic” because, as one observer said, “…nothing he said made any sense…”).

In some ways, since Twain, and perhaps even since Cervantes, social conventions have changed for the better, but there is much pressure for more censorship from certain groups, particularly the fundamentalist religious groups that have in recent years begun to retrogress back toward where we were in the days of the Inquisition. Some, such as Rick Santorum, demand teaching “intelligent design” in “science” classes.

Some writers do not understand the concept of viewpoint and the many ways in which it is applied. I was fortunate to have the late Francis Fugate as my mentor in creative writing classes. He authored what I consider the best book ever on the subject of viewpoint, Viewpoint: Key to Fiction Writing, which we used in his class. Viewpoint goes much deeper than grammatical constructions; it is a necessary component of consistent characterization and depicting personality traits. He once told of receiving a phone call after midnight, and when he answered, he could hear a juke box and billiard balls clicking. In a drunken slur, a man asked, “This Fugate? “ Fugate responded, “Yes.” Then, without introduction or qualification, the caller asked, “Which is it, to who, or to whom?” Even drunks may argue about grammatical conventions, but viewpoint is a subject that goes much deeper. Some writers cannot avoid the colloquial even when narrating a novel using the the third person viewpoint. This is why any novelist narrating from any viewpoint, other than the first person, must have a basic knowledge of grammatical conventions, if he wants to be published. Francis Fugate once said that probably more manuscripts are rejected for “getting out of viewpoint” than for any other reason. Every character in a story has a different viewpoint, and their mode of speech in dialogue makes up part of their character traits.

I once thought that self-publishing was demeaning to a true artist's skills until I learned that these great authors self-published:

William Blake, Robbie Burns. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Samuel (Mark Twain) Clemens, Alexander Dumas, Zane Grey, James Joyce, Rudyard Kipling, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Allen Poe, George Bernard Shaw, Henry David Thoreau, Virginia Woolf, Margaret Atwood, Tom Clancy, Stephen Crane, Wayne Dyer, Carl Sandburg....

That's company any writer can be proud to be a part of. I hope that other self-published writers will take heart. Understandably, self-published authors are scorned by the large, corporate book publishers, but they are not as oblivious as they might pretend to be. More and more good quality publishing is coming into print by self-publishers who do not want to undergo the humility of rejection and/or extensive editing for political correctness. If we are not getting their patronage, we are at least getting their attention.

(The above list of famous, self-published authors was compiled by the Trafford Publishing Company.)

Jay Leno Trashes Whites

Soon after Obama was elected, Jay Leno lamented that the Lord had taken away George Bush, but that He had given them (the Tonight Show), Joe Biden. I haven't heard more than one or two Biden jokes, mainly because Biden's stupidity is genuine, not a stereotyped, icon like that created for Bush by Leno and NBC.

Leno's show has been going down the toilet since Obama became President. There is no better source for humor and satire than a psychopathic liar, like Obama. Leno knows it, but true to his yellow streak, and like the rest of the media, he ignores the daily, multiple lies. During Reconstruction in Texas, the biggest clown in the Carpetbagger Texas Senate was the black State Senator, Matt Gaines. He even kept the Yankee carpetbaggers in stitches. Blacks seem to be natural entertainers, especially of the clown variety, but in recent years true black humor has been suppressed by the NAACP.

All the late night show hosts still make a futile effort to exalt Obama, like Sisyphus trying to push his huge stone to the summit of a mountain. Leno goes out of his way to find (mostly white) idiots for such segments as "Jaywalking," and "Jeopardy All Stars." Moreover, he misses the mark with his "white trash" jokes: Leno will never admit it, but the ideas for those mechanical "rigs" I've seen probably were devised mostly by minorities, including some Italians.

Not all Americans are as stupid as Leno thinks. He caters to dumbed-down audiences that are like Pavlov dogs: automatons that cheer and laugh when his planted, audience shills give them their cues. National humor will take a beating until the present so-called stand-up comedians like Leno, Letterman and Maher are replaced by real humorists--humorists who recognize humor when they see it and have the testicular fortitude to take advantage of it. On the other hand, maybe real humor is gone forever. With the advent our national "diversity," it seems that only a white American can be the butt of modern, network, comedian jokes.

Jay Leno and other "comedians" have helped the coinage of a new term since Obama became President. It is no longer politically correct to call Leno and Maher and Letterman "brown-nosers." Nowadays, "black-nosers" seems more appropriate.

Job Exporters Find An Unlikely Ally

(Revised from an earlier version.)

It’s interesting that one of the most influential liberal newspapers, the Huffington Post, tells us just how whimsical Obama is. However, Obama will still do just fine in November, 2012 as long as dumbed-down, doped-up, American voters’ memories go back no further than November, 2011.

Last October was when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long a formidable force for cheap labor, a force against immigration control, and long a private think tank dedicated to global government and the exportation of American jobs, recruited America’s most powerful individual to advance its assault on American sovereignty.

That new partner was none other than the darling of the Occupy Wall Street Movement: Barack Obama. Essentially, turncoat Obama ended the Occupy Wall Street Movement. That's right: The same Obama who is now excoriating Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for allegedly exporting American jobs while Romney was still Bain's CEO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/obama-free-trade_b_1003846.html

(The new free trade agreements accelerating the exportation of hundreds of thousands of American jobs easily got Congressional approval and Obama’s blessing and signature.)

Will Innuendo Be Enough For Dewhurst?

At the beginning of his campaign for U.S. Senator from Texas, candidate David Dewhurst, in a TV ad, touted the fact that his father was a veteran of the military and made a Procrustean effort to reconcile that with his own career. It didn't work, so now he resorts to a single negative ad of innuendo against his opponent for Texas Senator, Ted Cruz.

Innuendo is the way spineless detractors libel their opponents. In civil law, it is still prosecutable as libel, but when one becomes a public figure, such as a politician, libelers are protected by a more liberal interpretation of the law by tort courts.

The astute voter should ask these questions:

Has Ted Cruz been convicted or indicted for a crime? The answer is “No.”

The astute voter should then ask, “Has David Dewhurst committed a crime?”

The answer is a simple, “Yes.”

Aiding and abetting the illegal entry of aliens into Texas or any part of the U.S. is a felony. The Texas Dream Act, which David Dewhurst supported, not only gives illegal aliens an illegal stay of deportation, but abets the further entry of that alien’s extended family and all who know him/her. Aiding and abetting the illegal entry of aliens is prosecutable under Title 8, United States Code, 1324. Like many other politicians and like unscrupulous employers who encourage the entry of illegal aliens to enter and remain in the U.S., Dewhurst probably will never be prosecuted. However, the damage he and others of his ilk do to this country is immeasurable when you consider the cost of harboring the third world immigrants of the world, most of whom will never be able to survive without welfare benefits.

In 1952, then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX) managed to earmark the infamous "Texas Proviso" into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That Proviso took the teeth out of an otherwise good immigration law, for it exempted Texas employers of illegal aliens from prosecution for transporting and harboring them. The Texas Proviso was deleted from the law in 1980, but the hardcore exploiters of illegal immigration in Texas continue to operate as if immune from the law. David Dewhurst zealously panders to that group.

Texas Attorney General Fights for Texas Voter ID

Article in the the Amarillo Globe News 7/8/2012:

“Texas Attorney General Abbott returns to D.C. for voter ID fight | Amarillo Globe-News”


http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2012-07-07/abbott-returns-dc-fight

Texas needs this law more than any other state. In addition to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in the State, there may be some actually serving in political offices. With the advent of the Obama prepotency, we have been reduced to two branches of Government, with the Supreme Court dangling by a thread and kissing up to Obama in hopes of retaining some Constitutionally awarded powers (and like Obama, usurping the power of Congress by edict, as the Chief Justice did by “editing” Obama Care without remanding it to Congress to decide whether the mandate is a tax).

The City Council of El Paso voted to boycott Arizona due to that state's victory in the Supreme Court authorizing civil authorities to arrest illegal aliens. El Paso is suspect due to the enormous amount of corruption recently uncovered by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. These people fear transparency as much As Obama, perhaps even more, for if they are ever arrested, we'll find out whom their fingerprints really belong to, and how many fugitives are among them.

There is some hypocrisy on the part of Governor Perry, however, for the Texas Dream Act, supported by him and David Dewhurst, is nothing more than a backdoor amnesty for Texas' large illegal alien population. History shows that when one member of a (large) extended family gets a foot in the door, the extended family soon follows. If you doubt it, check out the last two amnesties, 245(i) and Extension of 245(i) since the 21st century began. Perry and Dewhurst count illegal aliens as legal residents to give them a break on college tuition. His "You don't have a heart!" speech, denouncing those who are tired of illegal alien amnesties [3 since 1987: IRCA, 245(i), and Extension of 245(i)], during the GOP Presidential debates, got him laughed out of being a viable candidate for President. Texans need to start rewarding those who abide by the law, not illegal aliens. Dewhurst’s biggest fear of Ted Cruz is the fact that he has been a consistent advocate of border control and opponent of amnesty for illegal aliens.


Senate candidate Dewhurst is attacking his opponent, Ted Cruz with one single negative ad. Every U.S. citizen who has a 401(k) account has money invested in the corporate factories in China and many of the third world countries. In fact, pressure on the American corporations abroad transfers pressure to our politicians to a "let 'em come," policy in reference to the economic refugees that those countries want to get rid of and send over here to be tax burdens on homebound Americans. This fact also debunks the mainstream media's attack on Mitt Romney for having money invested abroad. Instead of not "connecting" with the common people, as the Obama-biased media trumpets, he is the epitome of the average American who has money invested in stocks or in a 401(k) plan; all are foreign investors to a degree larger than they realize.

The Latest Presidential Election Polls

According to an article on today's Yahoo web page, the polls are not changing substantially and it appears to be a dead heat between Obama and Romney. Admittedly, Yahoo is certainly not a reliable source for any kind of information due to their total lack of concern for fairness and balance. They are heavily biased on the Democrat side.

In his ruling on ObamaCare, Roberts capitulated, perhaps thinking that America is ready for Government by edict, without legislation. Roberts is relatively young and appears to be trying to kiss up to Obama perhaps in hopes that the Ruler will share his new prepotence with the remnants of the Judicial branch, and keep intact at least a facade of Supreme Court power in our new, two-branch Government.

The wantonness of the Democrats is appalling, They are celebrating the demise of our Republic by applauding the new precedents of the executive and judicial branches in power-grabbing. About those polls: The old caveat, "Be careful what you ask for; you may get it," comes into play here. Before long, we'll see how they, and those who have not emigrated to some other country, like the new U.S. Government.

Human Rights Watch Group Slanders Law Enforcement

How does the so-called, Human Rights Watch Group get away with slander, defamation of character and libel against present and former Federal law enforcement officers? Moreover, how do they get away with pretending to be a United Nations-sponsored organization in the heading of their publication, which, on the web site, is in faded letters, and even though the UN logo is followed by a disclaimer? Their disclaimer, like the fine print on suspect products, fulfills the requirement of law, but does nothing to erase the false impression they convey to readers. Their tactic is much like the biased mainstream media that tries to represent something, but usually stops just short of a criminal act. Sometimes the media crosses that line, and I think the HRWG has crossed it in their web page. They are trying to hijack credibility by giving the impression that they are UN affiliated. This alone demonstrates their dishonesty and false claims to being a valid organization. The HRWG membership includes communists, anarchists and criminals.

Defaming Federal law enforcement agencies and individual agents has long been a practice of HRWG. Although there have been a few bad apples in the Federal Agencies, they have been dealt with without any input or contribution by the HRWG. Most Federal agents, however, are dedicated to a patriotic preservation of our international borders and protection of our sovereignty against the invasion by third-world international parasites (illegal aliens) that the HRWG wants to protect, coddle and nourish. The honest agents have nearly always survived their attempts to get indictments from trumped-up false charges that are nothing more than harassment and attempts to intimidate dedicated officers.

The leaders of this movement include racketeers who lead the so-called, “sanctuary movement,” a thinly disguised criminal enterprise of smuggling and harboring illegal aliens, led by the Unitarian Universalist Church and some other pseudo-religious subversive denominations. Their real aim is to increase their economic and political power by building up their membership. Their targets are the illiterate, third world invaders and trespassers that are looking for American handouts and welfare. These conspirators in subversion of Federal law are engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise, one the aims of which is to dodge payment of taxes as a “non-profit” organization. Many churches have, or sponsor, “shelters” for illegal aliens to stay in while spurious applications for asylum are processed. They can buy a lot of time while the asylum applications are being processed, and in the meantime they get temporary work permits. In the meantime, some of these shelters farm out the illegal aliens as cheap day labor that further enriches the coffers of the sponsors. Income tax evasion is sometimes the only way that clever, enterprising criminal organizations can be put out of business, as in the case of Al Capone and his fellow racketeers. The claim of religion, or alliance with religious organizations, should no longer be a carte blanche that protects American racketeers. We need an Executive Branch that is willing to take them on, expose them for what they are, and take prosecutorial action—not one that uses them and illegal aliens for leverage to advance his own agenda.

Supposedly, the HRWG and their subversive supporters get by with defaming Federal officers by their allegation that the officers are “public figures” and not protected by the slander, libel and defamation laws that protect average citizens. Their attacks in Internet publications are mostly against honest, law-abiding enforcement personnel. Much of their “research” sources consist of border and Mexican tabloids or mainstream, border publications whose distortions are just as lacking in integrity and no more credible better than those of the Mexican tabloids. Any scurrilous, spurious story about Border Patrolmen violating the civil rights of illegal aliens sells big along the border. Truth, to their readers, as well as to their publishers, is totally irrelevant. The HRWG thrives upon false, distorted abuse charges trumped up against Federal agents by crooked lawyers who make a living protecting drug dealers and illegal aliens, who are usually one and the same. Fortunately, they are not taken seriously by any educated, honest, logically-thinking citizens. In addition to attacks against Federal lawmen, they sometimes publish screeds that try to undermine immigration law enforcement. An example is an essay published by Jennifer Chacon, a former HRWG activist (and former member of the Obama staff), who once published an essay on the web that made the ridiculous comparison of deportation of illegal aliens to the slave, Dred Scott, who was separated from his family by the slave market. My personal answer to her absurd Dred Scott analogy is mentioned on the web on the Pat Dollard web site:

http://patdollard.com/2011/05/feds-change-how-border-security-is-gauged-in-effort-to-hide-failure/

As you can see, the HRWG, digs deep, in some cases, goes back over twenty years, to try to dig up dirt that can be misinterpreted, through deliberate distortions, to show that I, or other agents, was guilty of human rights violations. They also use these tactics to try to discredit sources, like myself, that write and speak about the problem of illegal immigration and advocate proper measures to deal with it. We who regularly advocate border control and retention of our national sovereignty are primary targets. In the early 1990s, fighting these spurious charges became every day activities for many federal agents, especially those who tried to do the job they were sworn to do. They, like Sheriff Joe Arpaio is today, were primary targets of these attacks. Complaints were filed anonymously, even by felons inside federal prisons, and were entertained as valid by INS supervisory staff and apparently entertained by Janet Napolitano who was U.S. Attorney for Southern Arizona at the time. Anonymous, telephone complaints were made against agents who were not even on duty the alleged date of the violations, and one such complaint was made against me. My answer was short: “I was off duty that day.” No supervisor, or Napolitano’s office, carried the case any further, but neither did they issue any memo or word to say that we were “cleared.” If you read the current headlines you can see that things have only gotten worse as Governor Jan Brewer leads the battle against those making spurious attacks against her, Sheriff Arpaio, and most all law enforcement officers in the the war that the Obama Administration has declared against her, Arizona and immigration law enforcement. We have to be ever vigilant to answer in kind these peoples attack, but in my case, I’ll continue to answer, but stick to the truth.

If these seditious “human rights watch groups,” succeed in their goal of bringing about anarchy through scurrilous attacks on lawmen, they will show their true colors. They will then hide and try to get those weak, illiterate parasites they purport to “represent” do their fighting for them. But when that day comes, true Americans will ferret out the real leaders, and someday they will get what they ask for, but not what they expect. The atrocities they accuse lawmen of today will suddenly seem totally innocuous in comparison to their just deserts.