Dobbs got under the skin of liberals when he challenged them on illegal immigration.  The voicebox of the left, Media Matters for America, challenged Dobbs claiming he spent an inordinate amount of time on the illegal immigration issue and the debate over the failed amnesty bill of 2007.  Dobbs simply asked hard questions and was labeled a racist passing along “myths” for his efforts.  In one memorable television segment, Dobbs skillfully defended himself telling MM’s Paul Waldman on the air, “Your report is a scurrilous attack, and you pretend it has some scholarly basis.  It is an absolute pitiful joke.”

Now, the left is demanding Dobbs be removed from CNN for airing segments suggesting that a copy of President Obama’s original birth certificate be produced so the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of his Presidency can be put to rest.  It seems Dobbs could even be on thin ice with his boss, Jon Klein, the President of CNNwho, according to sources told Dobb’s staff that the issue was “dead.”

The head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, J. Richard Cohen went a step further and wrote a letter to CNN stating, “Respectable news organizations should not employ reporters willing to peddle racist conspiracy theories and false propaganda. It’s time for CNN to remove Mr. Dobbs from the airwaves.” The head of the lowly-rated MSNBC also has stated that any question of the authenticity of the birth certificate is simply racist.

So, again Dobbs becomes a racist for raising an issue, asking questions that might embarrass the President and certainly far-left organizations who think CNN should never question the authority or authenticity of the Obama administration.  Dobbs himself has stated he thinks Obama is a U.S. citizen, but that a paper copy of the birth certificate would put out the fire.

This administration wants no opposition and it has openly stated that conservative talk hosts have been an impediment to their agenda – especially the national health care initiative which is certainly the biggest issue facing the country.  The left will manipulate the outcome anyway they can and trying to eliminate voices who oppose them, or simply raise questions, is a means of accomplishing their goals.  The left wants to destroy conservative values and the way to do that is to destroy conservative voices of opposition.

Lou Dobbs who is considered a moderate in most circles is too conservative for such groups who want to forever redefine America.  They forget that a healthy democracy is one in which serious questions are raised – and where opposition is essential to it.  But, again they want no opposition.  And with their dominant control of Washington they will continue to try to push their leftist agenda through the legislative process as fast as they can because they know they have a limited time-frame before America’s reasoned masses fully awake and put an end to this out-of-control nonsense.

If you’re not familiar, the S.P.L.C. is one of those groups who did good work in their day (the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965), but, having run out of dragons to slay, are now casting about for reasons to carry on with their anti-white-racist mission in an era where a black President presides over a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate while the wealthiest, most admired and most powerful people on Planet Earth include Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods, whatever Sean Combs is calling himself these days, and the black writer on 30 Rock. 

Chris Burgard “Border”

The S.P.L.C. has become a good illustration of the old adage that if all you have is a hammer pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail.  The group operates from a presumption of racism, i.e., the belief that every white person is a racist until they prove otherwise by adopting a Somalian orphan, personally spitting in David Dukes’ beer, and/or shopping for clothes at Target like Michelle Obama does.  All of which made the S.P.LC. a very unlikely source for an objective review of Chris Burgard’s spectacular documentary Border.

Frankly, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could have seen Border and then written the scathing review that the S.P.L.C.’s Larry Keller wrote. (I was going to say “any English-speaking person,” but then I realized how that would sound).  Then again, Keller barely touches on Border itself, mostly confining himself to casting aspersions on the character of filmmaker Burgard by mentioning that Chris is a former ballet dancer and Ferris Bueller stunt man, that he has cats named Smith and Wesson, and that– are you sitting down?– Burgard grew up in Wisconsin and yet likes to wear cowboy hats and ride horses!!! 

Now, why does this sound familiar?  Oh, yes.  Now I remember: a favorite trick of Lefties is to disparage men of action they despise and fear by calling them cowboys.  Remember that notorious cowboy Ronald Reagan?  You know– the guy who won the Cold War?  Earth to the Left Wing:  AMERICANS LOVE COWBOYS!  PRETTY GIRLS LOVE COWBOYS!  MOST LITTLE BOYS IN AMERICA WANT TO BE COWBOYS WHEN THEY GROW UP!  KNOW WHO HATES COWBOYS?  BAD GUYS!  So just for future reference, if you’re looking for something to call a guy to get the American people to mistrust or dislike him, try “community organizer.” 

The reviewer also calls Burgard a “nativist,” which according to the dictionary means “one who wishes to preserve or revive an indigenous culture,”… “one who would protect natives from immigrants,” and “one who would favor the rights of natives over those of immigrants,” which I guess makes me a nativist, too.  Come to think of it, that would make most Americans nativists.  Not to mention our Constitution, which must be a nativist document because it charges the President and Congress with defending our borders from foreign invaders, which is what Border is all about. 

What Border is most decidedly not about is xenophobia, racism, or being anti-immigrant, as any English-speaking person (there, I’ve said it) who’s actually seen the film could tell you.  Border makes it clear that the illegal immigrants themselves, for all of their lawlessness, are the real victims here– along with the ranchers whose property (and even lives) are endangered, the small border towns being bankrupted, and the American people whose security and native culture has been under assault for decades by a federal policy of unrestricted, unregulated immigration.  

You can quibble with the fine points of Border, if you wish.  What you can’t quibble with, at least not truthfully, are the film’s basic themes: that illegal immigration victimizes, and even kills decent, working class people on both sides of the border every day and that the bad guys are the coyotes who bring them across, the businessmen who profit from it, and the gutless politicians who don’t care.  Which is why you would think that the Southern Poverty Law Center would be more supportive of Border’s powerful message about poverty-stricken people at our southern border breaking the law: the words “southern,” “poverty,” and “law” are right in your name, folks!  Wake up and read your own letterhead! 

And while you’re at it, next time you decide to review a movie, try focusing on the film itself rather than just doing a hatchet job on the director.  You wouldn’t want people to start calling you a hate group.  Just imagine how that would sound.