Euphoric Reality: National Guard was confronted by uniformed Mexican force

posted at 11:38 am on January 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

I’m loath to trust blog exclusives nowadays, but Heidi claims she’s got National Guard and Border Patrol sources telling her that last week’s border standoff involved a Mexican military or paramilitary force carrying AK-47s, wearing uniforms flak jackets, and advancing in a tactical formation. She says the Guard didn’t retreat but merely withdrew to a more strategically advantageous position. Hmmm:

When the Mexican unit came within approximately 100 yards of the EIT site [i.e., National Guard observation base -- ed.], the Guardsmen repositioned themselves in order to maintain surveillance and tactical advantage. They observed the Mexican unit sweep through the EIT site, and then rapidly withdraw back into Mexico. No shots were fired by either the Mexican gunmen or the Guardsmen. Border Patrol was on the scene within minutes of the Mexican unit’s withdrawal.

The two sides allegedly never got closer than 100 yards.

Follow the link to find out who she thinks the Mexicans were.

Update: Relax, says Dan Riehl. We might be talking about as few as four men. And they might have had a very good reason for being there.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

do you have a sense of decency or compassion in your arsenal? As if shooting mexicans will solve anything…

crr6 on January 9, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Glad you’re just a moonbat, and not one of the serious people, crr6. The discussion is based on a documented incident of armed foreigners crossing our border in a para-military operation, and confronting the National Guard and/or Border Patrol.

None one knows if they were “Mexicans” and I suspect no one cares, and they have fully earned the right to be summarily shot dead, right where they stand. You need to recuse yourself from any discussion involving security of … anything. You ain’t right.

csdeven, it will be my honor if called upon to shoulder that Remington .30-06 of yours…

Jaibones on January 9, 2007 at 9:33 PM

At the absolute least, Bush is a compulsive liar.

Bush lied! People… er.. lost their jobs! And died!

At least the post suggesting that Bush should be hung ala` Saddam has mysteriously disappeared.

But really, Mexicans are tops. They take all the spotlight away from all the other organised crime groups from other countries (and internal groups, too), along with allowing people to ignore the basic principle of supply and demand. After all, if it wasn’t for those damn Mexican drug cartels, there’d be no drug problem, right? …erm..

Reaps on January 9, 2007 at 9:37 PM

I’ve seen AK47′s and AK74′s in Mexico on more than one occassion but usually in the hands of the Federal Police forces. The military uses G3′s and a licensed production of the HK G36 they call the Fire Snake or something like that. M16′s are also prevelent south of the border (wonder how much longer that phrase will be revelent). The new Mexican G36 clone isn’t well known and the NG troops may or may not have had weapon ID training including that model.

We will never know if this incursion was Mexican military, paramilitary or drug runners (or D All of the above). The fact remains that our nations leaders on all levels will not protect our nation effectively. While Mexico protests and demands we hand over our BP agents who accidently chase drug smugglers less than 50 yards over the border we have absorbed the insult of hundreds of armed military incursions over the past few years. Our local police have documented numerous illegals carrying Mexican military ID here.

And yet we send our NG to the border with orders not to do anything and maybe worse yet without ammunition. We retreat in the face of armed invasion. What’s even worse soon someone will call us “moonbats” for being concerned about any of this.

Buzzy on January 9, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Jaibones on January 9, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Thanks for handling that for me.

Damn skippy! We will put some holes in some mofo’s and I don’t get a rats patootie what nationality they are. Come across our borders armed and see what you get. Well, I guess crr6 would give them a map to the nearest welfare office!

CRIPES! Where do these people come from?!

csdeven on January 9, 2007 at 11:16 PM

that Remington .30-06 of yours

Pardon me, .270

Jaibones on January 9, 2007 at 11:28 PM

At the absolute least, Bush is a compulsive liar.

Gregor, I know you’re pissed about the borders; so am I. But I think if we’ve learned anything at all about Bush, it’s that he’s not a compulsive liar. I like him, and I think he’s honest and decent.

He told us in 2000 that he was not a conservative, but he liked conservative Federal judges (bing), that he likes to spend your money (bing), that he likes Mexicans (bing!), and that he will try to be friends with the people who hate his guts (bing!!!).

I believed him, and he never changed the plan. Our mistake was not nominating a conservative. Did one run against him? I can’t remember… But in a difficult world and a long 8 years, if everyone who doesn’t like a particular policy of the President decides he should be whipped, then we’d be whipping all of them on a pretty regular basis.

I’d rather be whipping Steven Colbert and his friends…

Jaibones on January 9, 2007 at 11:36 PM

The biggest cause of illegal immigration is widespread tolerance for businesses which exploit illegal alien labor. I see it every day here in California. It’s right out in the open. At a local level, it’s profitable, so local officials don’t crack down on it. Solving this problem is hard, but it’s far more important that any border fence.

As long as businesses are allowed to openly exploit the labor, illegal immigrants will find a way in, fence or no fence. If this were stopped, by cracking down on businesses and enforcing existing labor laws, the mass movement of illegals would stop, and pretty much the only people crossing into America illegally would be drug smugglers and terrorists.

sandberg on January 10, 2007 at 1:04 AM

I don’t have my head in the sand. I’m completely opposed to illegal immigration, for many reasons. But being concerned about armed hispanic insurrection against the US government on orders from the Mexican government is just crazy talk, man.

Look at it from the hispanics’ point of view. They would get their asses kicked. And what would they possibly stand to gain from it? It does not make sense.

sandberg on January 10, 2007 at 1:13 AM

“We attack at siesta!”

Black Adam on January 10, 2007 at 2:28 AM

“Yo Quiero Spectre Gunship”

Black Adam on January 10, 2007 at 3:07 AM

Claymore mines & the U.S./mexican border = a win/win for us.

Read more about it, here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m18-claymore.htm

Wuptdo on January 10, 2007 at 9:37 AM

sandburg, I can’t agree more that enforcing our federal laws regarding the hiring of illegal aliens would be the most effective means of ending the invasion although we need to end the anchor baby mess and stop providing benefits and services to illegals too.

I have to disagree regarding the border fence though. More than just a symbol, “fences make good neighbors”.

As for “armed hispanic invasions” I would suggest that if the small band of armed whatevers hadn’t decided to turn back they might have conquered clear up into Utah by now since our soldiers weren’t allowed to have any bullets.

Can anyone think of any small nations with substandard military that have totally embarrassed us in the last 50 years or so due to our elected officials corrupt agendas and asinine restrictions on military personnel?

I’m surprised we haven’t surrendered to Mexico already (maybe we have).

Buzzy on January 10, 2007 at 11:27 AM

The problem is much worse than I thought. It’s understandable that the far left liberal brain farts choose to live life wearing blinders, but it’s evident that there are far too many conservatives that choose the same path.

There’s far too many, even within the conservative base, who just don’t get it.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM

jaibones, be careful about mentioning guns in connection with defending your liberty, Bradky might call you names as he did othersin this thread. ;-)

honora, why the test? Did you think you had been banned? We wouldn’t want that, your presence is valuable.

People who don’t belong here are taking what isn’t theirs. Those who are charged with the responsibility for stopping them are failing their duty. They aren’t even pretending to look the other way, but are boldly waving our enemies in.

To paraphrase what AZ_Redneck asked in the linked thread above, when will the status quo reach the point where citizens will have no choice but to assume the responsibility abdicated by our government? Can we afford to wait for another (two, three, four) election cycle(s) in the hope of changing the leadership and returning the rule of law to the forefront of government’s tasks? As I responded in that thread, our own Declaration of Independence provides the answer in succinct and eloquent form. It is one of the finest pieces of rhetoric ever penned, ever thought, and it is perfectly relevant today.

Freelancer on January 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Illegals don’t belong here. I couldn’t care less what ethnicity they are, breaking U.S. laws to enter the U.S. should lead to immediate forfeiture of any chance at future lawful entry. Any government official who doesn’t begin from that position is failing his oath of office.

What happened on the border may have been a navigational error on the part of the Mexican gunmen, and it may not. What is true is that the moment they crossed the border they were subject to our laws, and properly there should have been some attempt to communicate with them. I don’t desire violent confrontation, and wouldn’t want to have to give that order, but if it came to that, it wouldn’t be wrong. What disturbs me is that they moved across the border, carrying weapons, and were allowed to move back with no consequences, not even a verbal confrontation. The reverse would not be true.

Our President, unfortunately, has invited this sort of behavior through his decisions to avoid enforcement of our national sovereignty. While that isn’t proof, or even strong evidence that he is “in bed with the drug cartels”, it is suggestive that they (drug cartels) are appreciative of our current policies vis-a-vis immigration and border security. The operative question at this time should be:

Why are our President, and many other U.S. government officials, serving the interests of foreign criminals better than the citizens of their own country?

Combining the wisdom of Occam and William Goldman (NOT W. Mark Felt aka Deep Throat), we should follow the money. In the case of politicians, it should really be follow the votes.

Freelancer on January 9, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Bingo. Whether you think Bush is a compulsive liar (I don’t) or whether you think he’s just too wimpy to enforce the border for fear of offending various constituencies (I do), it’s clear that his lack of action on enforcing the border has invited further incursions across it, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. That alone is a pretty damning indictment of his record.

thirteen28 on January 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

English-speaking kids have been kicked off a bus in St. Paul.

Entelechy on January 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

What’s wrong with you Entelechy? Dont you know that those invaders who refuse to have filthy Americans socialize with them just want a better life for themselves? What are you…RACISTS?

*sarcasm*

DwnSouthJukin on January 10, 2007 at 1:12 PM

To paraphrase what AZ_Redneck asked in the linked thread above, when will the status quo reach the point where citizens will have no choice but to assume the responsibility abdicated by our government?

Freelancer on January 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM

I agree completely, but I fear that once we as a nation reach this point it will quickly become a race/civil war that will escalate into a war with Mexico. No doubt the US couldwin, but will we?

bubbadog89 on January 10, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Whether you think Bush is a compulsive liar (I don’t) or whether you think he’s just too wimpy to enforce the border for fear of offending various constituencies (I do) …

thirteen28 on January 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Thirteen28 …

I understand the desire to believe that it’s that simple, but as I pointed out earlier … in order to believe that, you have to believe that Bush is brain dead. You have to believe that the President of the United States somehow doesn’t see the damage his actions are causing the country.

That is just too far fetched for me to accept. When you look at everything that’s going on as a whole, it’s impossible to accept that it’s nothing more than inaction over a few constituencies.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Bush is a “uniter, not a divider.” This the “century of the Americas.” Bush is very honest, but wrong-headed.

CitizenJim on January 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I agree completely, but I fear that once we as a nation reach this point it will quickly become a race/civil war that will escalate into a war with Mexico. No doubt the US couldwin, but will we?

bubbadog89 on January 10, 2007 at 1:15 PM

It’s becoming more and more apparent that this would not be a war against Mexico. It would be a war of U.S. citizens against the U.S. Government. A war against Mexico would require that the U.S. Government was on the opposite side of the argument, which isn’t the case here. In this situation, the U.S. Government and Mexico are on the same side.

There’s one other problem which conflicts with those arguments that an invasion from Mexico would suffer a horrible defeat at the hands of the U.S. Those who have argued that are assuming that our military would be at war with Mexico. These people forget that our government has done absolutely nothing thus far to indicate that they are not in full support of opening the border and giving full amnesty to all.

Aside from that, any armed conflict by the radical groups such as La Raza would no doubt take place within city blocks and would pit merciless gangs such as MS-13 against ordinary U.S. citizens. There would be no contest. It would be a full scale riot within multiple cities. The only way the military would be able to contain this sort of attack would be to implement Marshall law, confiscate all weapons.

On top of this, imagine that there would be no way to know the enemy. Would we round up all Hispanics? Not a chance.

So for all of those who laugh at the suggestion that radical reconquistas are awaiting orders to attack with violence … please explain to me how you would suggest we would defeat a couple million La Raza and MS-13 gang members suddenly burning down our cities?

Sorta like France stopped their riots? By GIVING IN and giving them what they want.

That’s your answer, and that is where this President is taking us.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Cripes, deep breath everyone. I’m going wait and see just what the heck happened, through my Guard channels before I assume an invasion, druggie cartel swarm or “navigation error”…

I’ll let Allah know what I can find out.

major john on January 10, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Thirteen28 …

I understand the desire to believe that it’s that simple, but as I pointed out earlier … in order to believe that, you have to believe that Bush is brain dead. You have to believe that the President of the United States somehow doesn’t see the damage his actions are causing the country.

That is just too far fetched for me to accept. When you look at everything that’s going on as a whole, it’s impossible to accept that it’s nothing more than inaction over a few constituencies.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM

It’s actually pretty simple for me to believe. One human weakness that we all have is the tendency to take the path of least resistance. Bush has done that here, as he is clearly afraid of offending Hispanics as well as the business lobby that wants the cheap labor that illegals provide.

Denial is another human weakness, and that’s how Bush justifies his inaction on border enforcement. Instead of facing up to the problems it causes, he talks about things like “jobs Americans won’t do” and the need for a “guest worker program” for “hard working immigrants who just want to feed their families”. In his mind, this give him justification for his continuing denial of the problems brought by illegal immigration and his taking the easy way out.

It’s what politicians do all the time. Look at entitlement spending – politicians on both sides of the aisle know it’s out of control and that it has the potential to do severe economic damage to this country. But then they kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with for fear of the wrath of various political constituencies (e.g., seniors).

We both agree on the basis problem of illegal immigration and agree that it needs to be stopped. But we’ll just have to disagree on the motives, as I’m not going to attribute to malfeasance what can be more easily attributed to simple human weakness as discussed above.

thirteen28 on January 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Thirteen28 …

Only one problem with that theory …

The same weaknesses you describe can also be used to explain your belief.

Your other comment goes to support my claim that Bush is a pathetic liar, or just plain stupid. I think we can agree that he is most likely not stupid.

So when you write that he claims illegals are “doing jobs Americans won’t do” … do you believe that he actually believes that? Americans won’t do roofing jobs? Americans won’t do construction? Americans won’t work at Wendy’s? Americans won’t work at meat packing plants.

And what about the huge number of hospitals going bankrupt due to billions spent on free services to illegals? What about the polls which show 85% of Americans are against amnesty? Does he simply not see all this due to “human weakness?

Or is it more likely that those who want to dismiss alternate agendas are more likely to fit that description?

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Your other comment goes to support my claim that Bush is a pathetic liar, or just plain stupid. I think we can agree that he is most likely not stupid.

It’s not an either/or situation. Even the smartest people can be in denial and can take the easy way out. Why should Bush be any different when virtually every other politician has done it at one time or another?

So when you write that he claims illegals are “doing jobs Americans won’t do” … do you believe that he actually believes that? Americans won’t do roofing jobs? Americans won’t do construction? Americans won’t work at Wendy’s? Americans won’t work at meat packing plants.

Yes, I can believe that he really believes in what he says. People believe in things that are demonstrably untrue all the time, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Case in point – many of use on the right believed Bush was one of us, a fiscal conservative, a law-and-order guy that would enforce our immigration laws, willing to stand up to the liberals, and so forth. Yet the evidence was there all along that he wasn’t these things, yet we believed it anyway, because that’s what we wanted to believe, evidence to the contrary be damned.

And what about the huge number of hospitals going bankrupt due to billions spent on free services to illegals? What about the polls which show 85% of Americans are against amnesty? Does he simply not see all this due to “human weakness?

See response to previous quote.

Or is it more likely that those who want to dismiss alternate agendas are more likely to fit that description?

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM

So am I in denial if I refuse to believe that Bush and his administration knew of the 9/11 plot and allowed it to happen for some alternate agenda, when simple government incompetence and general western denial of the threat of islamic terrorism will suffice as an explanation? Would I be in less denial if I believed the alternate agenda some have charged him with on that issue?

Am I in denial if I refuse to believe the “Bush lied, people died” mantra regarding pre-Iraq war intelligence, when virtually everybody in every major intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD’s in his possession – not just the CIA, but British, French, German, and Isreali intelligence as well – when there are other explanations that will suffice (intelligence was wrong, or Saddam was allowed time to move/get rid of the WMD’s)?

Am I in denial if I refuse to believe Barney Frank’s charge of Bush engaging in ethnic cleansing regarding the ineffectiveness of post-Katrina rescue efforts, when simple governmental incompetence can easily explain that?

Ok, call be a denier then. You win.

thirteen28 on January 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Even the smartest people can be in denial and can take the easy way out.

People believe in things that are demonstrably untrue all the time, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

thirteen28 on January 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM

As this thread consistently proves.

You even wrote it yourself …

“I’m not going to attribute to malfeasance what can be more easily attributed to simple human weakness …”

It’s simply much too painful to look at the facts and see what’s actually happening. Most would much rather just go home, watch their favorite television shows, take their kids camping, and hope for the best. Even though all evidence and facts point to something much more complex than the President of the United States actually being unaware of the wishes of 85% of the population.

Give me a break! What’s amazing is that even if you are 100% correct, than it makes Bush out to be blind to the realities of the country he’s currently in charge of protecting. And somehow … there are still 25% of Americans who still support him. As low as that number is … it’s far too high.

Your own argument makes him as bad a President as Jimmy Carter.

As for your 9/11 comparisons … those have easily been debated and each claim proved to be ridiculously false, exagerated, or manipulated. Something that has yet to be even attempted by any on this thread regarding immigration related issues. You don’t pick apart facts and prove them wrong. You simply claim that it’s much easier to believe Bush means well. Case closed.

The problem I have with this is that without accepting the true cause of the problem, it’s impossible to solve. You wrote that you agree that it needs to be fixed, but you apparently ignore the fact that not a single person on this administration agrees with you or cares what 85% of Americans want. If what you believe is correct … then there is no hope. There is no outcome other than a borderless society. You are being completely ignored by your President, and yet you defend him as somehow being this meek little cowardly, well-meaning man.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 3:11 PM

It’s becoming more and more apparent that this would not be a war against Mexico. It would be a war of U.S. citizens against the U.S. Government. A war against Mexico would require that the U.S. Government was on the opposite side of the argument, which isn’t the case here. In this situation, the U.S. Government and Mexico are on the same side.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I agree that it would be a war fought by the citizens against the USG. IF the citizens win then the newly cleansed government would be forced to expell the invaders, the illegal aliens. I’m sure that they won’t leave voluntarily, bloodshed would be involved. I don’t think that Mexico would stay on the sidelines while “their” citizens are being killed in the U.S. in its weakened state of civil war.

A better scenario, if there is one, would be that the next WMD attack in the US is traced back (after 4 years of congressional hearings) to the weapon and attackers crossing the border in broad daylight. It’s a pity that it might take hundreds of thousands of Americans dying from an attack before our government seriously starts to protect our borders. Far better this happens then millions in a civil war.

bubbadog89 on January 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

You are being completely ignored by your President, and yet you defend him as somehow being this meek little cowardly, well-meaning man.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 3:11 PM

I fail to see how referring to him as meek or cowardly (which admittedly I have certainly done in this thread, albeit indirectly) constitutes defending him. Can you explain that one? I say he’s weak and taking the easy way out because he’s too much of a wimp to stand up to Hispanics and the cheap labor lobby … and I’m defending him?

Ok, if you say so.

thirteen28 on January 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Thirteen28 …

Point taken.

Gregor on January 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2