What Makes Anyone Think It Was A Mistake?
One of the most common memes lately is how the first demonstrations in support of Illegal Aliens, and some aspects of the later ones were mistakes.

Immigration Activists To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory
One constant in the immigration protests this year has been the ability of the activists to sabotage their own position. With the White House and the Senate poised to deliver most of their agenda, they overreacted to the House proposal and staged a number of demonstrations that proved so provocative that it undermined their allies in both places. Many of these protests specifically targeted George Bush, although he opposed the House bill and had worked for normalization for years.

My opinion of that reaction, is that those who hold it have not reflected upon the origins of these demonstrations.

What makes them think it was a mistake?

As I pointed out in Pinko De Mayo

All we have to do is look at the main organisation that organised these demonstrations

ANSWER
{ I used red fonts here because it is so appropriate}

AMSWER is a MARXIST organization, whatever gave anyone the idea that such a body cares about improving the life of individual people? The Hundred Plus Million slaughtered by Marxism over its reign? The shining example of the New York Times Star Reporter who covered up the HOLODOMOR Genocide in Ukraine under Stalin and who is reported to have said, when asked how he could justify his actions if not as a Human Being, then as a Journalist,

"The deaths of a few tens of millions of peasants are of no consequence, when weighed against the Future Victory of the Revolution"??

You think I exagerate??

Christopher Hitchens lays this out perfectly in

Anti-War, My Foot The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington

""International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the genocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists— have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.



The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary.

One of the primary tenents of Marxism in the Past was

"The capitalists would begin to suffer from a falling rate of profit.

? The workers would therefore be ?immiserized?; they would become poorer as the capitalists struggled to keep their own heads above water.

? The poverty of the workers would drive them to overthrow the capitalist system ? their poverty, not their ideals.

The problem was Capitalism did not cooperate and the workers condition improved. OOPS.

So they altered the their definitions

A Polish born American economist and a Marxist, Baran is the author of The Political Economy of Growth (Monthly Review Press, 1957). In it, for the first time in Marxist literature, Baran propounded a causal connection between the prosperity of the advanced capitalist countries and the impoverishment of the Third World. It was no longer the case, as it was for Marx, that poverty ? as well as idiocy ? was the natural condition of man living in an agricultural mode of production. Rather, poverty had been introduced into the Third World by the capitalist system. The colonies no longer served the purpose of consuming overstocked inventories, but were now the positive victims of capitalism

America being the most successful o the Advanced Capitalist Countries, naturally gets to bear the total burden of blame,

No, I do not believe ANSWER made any mistake at all in how the demonstrations were presented to the American Public,

For them to have made a mistake, would imply their purpose was to improve the lot of those marching, instead of stirring up Class Conflict in pursuit of their own political goals.

What happened in France last Fall, does not suit their aims, they would prefer to see that level of Class Struggle and Revolution HERE

The Great Cox & Forkum illustrates and alternate version of this Duality of Purpose in

Meeting of Minds

"[T]he left's attempt to capture the pro-immigration side of the argument creates a false alternative, with both sides taking for granted the false premise that the effect of immigration is to destroy America and merely disagreeing on the desirability of this outcome."

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

|