• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

“If they only wanted to rob agent Rosas, they didn’t need to shoot him once in the neck and three times in the back of the head. It was an execution. The whole thing looked like a setup in order to kill somebody. The fact that five people came across about ten days ago, went directly to the monument, and got chased off tells me something more is going on. It’s provocation. It’s been going on in one way or another ever since I got out here.” This type of activity accounts for about half of the movement Craig observes on the border.

Craig bears no ill will toward the men and women who enter the country illegally. He acknowledges that he would do the same were he in their situation.

“Anybody is going to try to better themselves. Anybody is going to try to feed their family. But that doesn’t make it right.”

Because illegal immigrants are often willing to work for a fraction of what U.S. citizens will work for, Craig contends, entire industries are hurt, putting Americans out of work. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are subject to mistreatment ranging from being overworked and underpaid to not being paid at all.

“What’s he going to do?” asks Craig. “Call the cops? Just as bad as you want to be is how you can treat him. And that has screwed up the deal for everybody in the country.”

With a furrowed brow, he takes a long look at the expanse of land south of the fence. To the untrained eye, both sides appear identical — sparsely populated, serene, picturesque. But Craig’s singular vision perceives that subtle branding that separates north from south. Craig’s American dream ends at that wall. It butts up against it and goes no further. The dream that some semblance of decency and goodwill should circulate among the common psyche, the dream that young men and women should be allowed to grow up in a safe society ruled by temperance and reason, the dream that hard work is rewarded with fair pay and everyone who exerts an effort gets what he needs to pursue his happiness — this dream belongs to us, Craig knows, provided we are willing to claim it as our own.

“I don’t wish recession upon the American economy,” he says finally, “but I’ve had a wonderful time all my life, and I’ve seen a lot of drunks. Throwing them in some cold water is good for them. This may be the sobering moment America needs to come to its senses.”

With the recession, Craig has observed a marked difference in the demographics of illegal border crossers. As recently as a year ago, it was common to see large groups being led by coyotes, professional guides. Illegal immigrants pay as much as $4000 each for a coyote’s services. Most crossers seek employment in the United States because they don’t have much money in the first place. In fact, an April 2006 report from the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research group, found that minimum wages in the United States are about ten times higher than in Mexico. Families in Mexico are often held as collateral until the coyote’s fee is paid. As a result, illegal immigrants effectively become indentured servants to their guides.

“Every once in a while,” Craig relates, “you’ll hear stories about families getting snuffed because of that.”

Now, as work becomes difficult to find and maintain even for native-born American citizens, the risk of crossing is too high. Craig sees few groups of potential workers crossing these days. Instead, he sees an increased number of mules, single crossers carrying large packs stuffed with drugs.

Craig relates an incident involving two Mexican men who wandered into the Minutemen camp one evening. They looked anxious but not afraid. They were given chairs, coats, and cans of soda as they waited for the Border Patrol to arrive. Eventually, they were taken away, and the Minutemen considered it a job well done. Later, the Border Patrol told the Minutemen that the men’s shoulders had blistered red spots where their heavy packs had been.

“They were tired, and they didn’t want to walk back to where they came from,” says Craig, “so they turned themselves in to get a meal and a shower, see if there were any girls in the holding pens, and get a free bus ride back into Mexico.”

In fact, the border fence was never intended to keep out foot traffic. Put up in the early ’90s, the fence was meant to act as a vehicle barrier. But that didn’t deter the men whom Craig once watched remove a section with an oxyacetylene torch and drive their pickup across the border with 900 pounds of marijuana.

“Drugs are still selling pretty well, apparently,” Craig says.

The sentiment is echoed by Mike Streenan, owner of the Potrero General Store, located ten miles west of Campo. “I haven’t seen an illegal in probably three months,” he says. “All you have anymore is the cartels moving the drugs.”

Streenan moved to Potrero six years ago. In search of a simpler life, he found the actualization of his dream in what he calls “the greatest place on earth.” Potrero circa 2004 was a haven of sorts, set apart from the bustle of the city, a place where nobody worried about things like crime, seat belts, or expired vehicle registrations. The town of roughly 900 inhabitants was quiet and self-contained. Everyone minded his own business.

Then in the fall of 2008, the Department of Homeland Security granted the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department $5.5 million for the purposes of “reducing border-related crimes and helping secure our borders by a strong, visible, proactive presence in local communities impacted by the border.” The result was that five new sheriffs began patrolling Potrero and, Streenan says, doing little more than harassing locals for petty violations.

“They have to get money because this state is broke,” he says. “The one cop we used to have didn’t really write tickets because he dealt more with domestic disputes. Now the cops are constantly on the road pulling cars over all over the place.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader


Visduh March 24, 2010 @ 3:52 p.m.

Here we go again with the term "vigilante." The Minutemen, and especially Britt Craig, are definitely not vigilantes. They watch and they report to the duly-constituted officers of the law, the Border Patrol. A vigilante is one who takes the law into his/her own hands, and metes out punishment. There are many instances of vigilante justice in US history, but the activities of the Minutemen on the Mexican border are not one of them. These guys are just adding their manpower to watching the border and assisting the Border Patrol, as the author admits.

Vigilantism arises either when there is no legal law enforcement, or when it is so corrupted that it is aiding and abetting the law breakers. If one wants to read the accounts of the latter, look no farther than the vigilantes of the Montana gold camps in 1863-64.

The Reader put an incorrect headline right on its front cover this week.


David Dodd March 24, 2010 @ 4:29 p.m.

"A motorbike appears in a plume of dust on the American side, and the helmeted driver yells, “What’s your citizenship?”"

That's not exactly "report" and "observe".


Visduh March 24, 2010 @ 7:16 p.m.

The author didn't say the motorbike was driven by a Minuteman. He was very careful not to accuse anyone of unlawful activity. Who knows?


MrJibaro March 24, 2010 @ 7:23 p.m.

Get the illegals out. Do your part report an illegal alien. Go to www.reportanillegalalien.com


nada March 25, 2010 @ 2:57 a.m.

NOPE! The Reader has it right for once. The Minutemen are vigilantes.


Visduh March 25, 2010 @ 8:32 a.m.

nada, please 'splain that allegation. I used the dictionary definition of the term.


nada March 25, 2010 @ 5:15 p.m.

What's up with Britt "Kingfish' Craigs eye? Did somebody squirt scalding hot beans in his eye?


borderraven March 26, 2010 @ 7:01 a.m.

President George W Bush, the Commander in Chief of the US military, and of the militias, called the Minutemen "vigilantes", but while some people think the term is an insult, perhaps you will find it proper, since it refers to those citizens of a society, who are vigilant and watchful over the welfare and safety of the society. A vigilante, like a militia, will get educated of the treats to a society, and detect those threats, and rarely, but if needed, take immediate actions to sound the alarms and confront that threat. Vigilantes and militias are the eyes and ears in our society, and they have the powers to detain and arrest if needed.


David Dodd March 26, 2010 @ 7:07 a.m.

RE: #3

Visduh, it is implied that the person on the motorcycle was not a border agent with the following sententence in that paragraph:

"The men vanish in a haze of dirt, and it occurs to Stockwell that he has just had his first encounter with a Minuteman."

As I maintain, that is far from the "observe" and "report" that the armed, untrained, non-officials who lurk near the border pretend to be doing.


borderraven March 26, 2010 @ 7:10 a.m.

I have to disagree with Visduh.
A vigilante has the power to affect a citizen's arrest and must report the crime in progress, but rarely may make a physical arrest. Vigilantes cannot inflict punishment or torture, as that is the function of the court system. Vigilantes cannot commit hate crimes. Vigilantes may use the force needed to affect the arrest.


Visduh March 26, 2010 @ 5:19 p.m.

Looks like I'm outvoted on this one. That doesn't mean I have changed my mind about the term though. We could have lots of back-and-forth with the term "militia" too. That is for another day.


JohnEdwardRangel March 27, 2010 @ 9:13 a.m.

I lived in Dulzura for ten years.It is down the road( Hwy 94)from Potrero.I arrived just before Clinton began operation: gatekeeper.My grandfather and I witnessed firsthand, the terrible hardships endured by the human beings, driven into the rugged hills of the east county. On weekends my grandfather would prepare sandwiches and I would hike into the nearby hills and deliver them to those I passed on the trails. Many of them told me of the hardships they'd encountered.I had several run ins with what I came to call, The FOX (F*****g Old Xenophobes)Militia. None of them positive.The one I most vividly remember was with an armed, white haired fellow, with a thick southern drawl, who told me to go back to Mexico. I told him I was born in Los Angeles. That seemed to piss him off even more. He then accused me of being a coyote and then a drug smuggler. I wanted to tell him that I was just a humble man taking food to people I see suffering. But I didn't think he'd understand.

Robert Hagen March 27, 2010 @ 9:17 a.m.

I thought the article was vague and opaque on numerous counts, beginning with the mystery of who approached the filmmaker, and the use of the term motorbike. That sounds British, and BP ride quads, which was referenced at the end.

The Minutemen aren't vigilantes in my opinion, at least in the pejorative connotation. They definitely have the right to do what they do.

Where I take issue is calling themselves Minutemen. Thats like me thinking I'm Abe Lincoln, or Douglas MacArthur. The real Minutemen created this country.

The so called Minutemen in East County are as full of crap as Thanksgiving turkeys. They are reportedly former veterans. Unlike the Minutemen of yore, these give a bad name to the military. Primarily because they bandstand and issue grievances while taking up a logistically futile and actually inane position. The border is over two thousand miles long. If you want to catch an illegal, why not go your nearest Jack in the Box? How many illegals have been caught? Very few. Those that were are released in a day or two.

The worst thing about the Minutemen is that they created a bunch of political drama and furor, but U.S. immigration policy has been stuck in neutral for over 20 years. At what point do people say themselves, 'who is to blame for this?' instead of 'lets decry the odious illegal alien?'

The guy that owned the farm knows the codespeak. Americans won't do farm work? Please. He says it two or three times. For ten bucks an hour, Americans will do farmwork. He wants to pay alot less. Then comes the $5 per tomato argument.

The articles most desultory element of all, in my opinion, is quoting one man as being supposedly the top Minuteman in some vague romantic fashion, and then closing out by having the man with the eye patch agree to accept worker permits.

As a footnote, I find it disturbing that this 'Kingfisher' fellow is quoted at length regarding murdered Border Patrolman Rosas, but no actual law enforcement officials were interviewed on the matter. For people who call themselves Minutemen, you'd think there would be a little more respect and consideration for someone who actually got killed doing their job.

Overall, the article has enough apparent holes in it that a good editor might have said

'I love what you've got. Go get this stuff to bring it to a professional level, and it'll be ready.'

Instead, theres flavor, theres interesting real people, but theres gaping holes in the specifics of it. I liked it and read it in its entirety with interest in one sitting without my mind wandering, but its vague qualities caused me to ask more questions than were answered. However, I do think the article showed sensitivity to all parties concerned- difficult to try, more difficult to pull off. So, kudos for the article.


Robert Hagen March 27, 2010 @ 3:27 p.m.

Additional thoughts on immigration reform:

We have some 10 million undocumented residents in the U.S. It may be quite a bit more. According to the cover story, a full 8% of the population of California is undocumented (or, if you prefer, illegal.) I trip out if someone is conservative and concerned about internal security threats, and doesn't see the wisdom in getting these people on the map, and out of the so called shadow society. 10 million strangers with no papers? Its not secure, and its not good for society in general.

Getting the shadow society on the rolls, getting them squared away will help hold up wages. When they have illegal status, they depress overall wages. Now, undocumented work force has contributed to overall economic growth, but there's no denying that under the informal scheme currently employed, overall wages are driven down.

What I'm saying is that there is room for improvement. You have to give Kingfisher credit, because at least hes willing to compromise. So many people are coming at this issue from a no-compromise attitude- on both sides, that its become a hard wedge issue in SD county, and then has spread all over the country.

Europe has immigration problems due to their large population of muslims from Africa. We share with Europe the problem of large immigrant populations that aren't integrated.

I want to emphasize that I am mindful of the upset that this hot button issue causes. I'd like to see a good bill come out of Congress, and I think its doable, but truthfully, I think it can't pass with the economy not fully recovered, because jobs are hard to come by in alot of sectors, and ultimately no matter where you stand overall, the jobs in the U.S. have to be available for American citizens, if they're looking for work.

Lastly, immigration issues are not exclusive in terms of being hot button issues- look at health care reform. People differ, and theres alot of stress out there. Although I have my little feelings from the past on the Minutemen, I don't begrudge them their ideas, or position. The American way is supposed to be that if you feel strongly on an issue, you should take action. I think very few Americans are actually bigots, but in this type of issue,like playing the race card, its easy to perceive someone as being prejudiced or redneck or what have you.

Its a tough issue, but once again, I give kudos to the article for being sensitive to all parties concerned.


Visduh March 28, 2010 @ 7:35 p.m.

In response to post #13, I think diegonomics has it just about right. How many of these recent Reader cover stories have really been well-written and thought out? Not many, I'd say. This one, with its vaguely lurid headline and photo was of a similar vein. There was a time when a Reader cover story was exceptional, in-depth, and held the reader's attention to the end. Take a look at the cover stories we've seen in the past three to four months, and I think most will agree the stories have been mediocre at best. Reader, try harder!

But, diego, what is a "former veteran?" A veteran is a former warrior or at least an ex-servicemember. These folks are then "former-former warriors" or "former ex-servicemembers?" Never use two words when one will do.


l2009 March 29, 2010 @ 2:27 p.m.

I was extremely disappointed to see this story as a "Cover Story" on the San Diego Reader. The fact that you intended to positively feature a group of racist extremists such as the "Minutemen" is quite mindboggling and disappointing given all the other activities that are going on in our San Diego communities. The "Minutemen" are racists that despise immigrant’s period and do NOT differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants despite them arguing the contrary. For example, Brandon mentions that Border Patrol don't question his presence in the desert because he is a "gringo"....implying that color of one's skin determines nationality?

Officer Rosas was a Latino Border Patrol agent...I guess if he had not worn a uniform he would have been treated differently by both the "Minutemen" and his own agency. How about feature the good doings of the border patrol instead of Minutemen? These are exactly the causes why our immigration system is broken: Prejudices!!!These prejudices don't let us move forward as a country nor acknowledge the broken immigration system only prolong it. The majority of “illegal” immigrants actually come in legally but overstays their visa term. Others who try to come in legally better be ready to die waiting in line for an answer....

If a Chinese national enters our country by boat without a visa...he is an "illegal". If a Cuban enters our country by boat without a visa than he/she is welcomed with "legal permanent resident" status and eventually U.S. citizenship under our "Wet feet, dry feet policy" regardless of criminal history, etc...and nobody seems to throw a fit about it. Don't we owe a whole lot more to China than to Cuba ?!?!...

I guess this is why Tony Dolz a Cuban immigrant and one of the founders of the Minutemen Project feels he has the right to speak out against illegal immigration...fortunately there was a policy in place to welcome him with open arms and doesn't limit the number of Cubans coming to America nor checks their criminal history and has to wait almost a couple decades to be cleared by DHS. It is important to note that all of these anti-immigration flawed statistics used in the articles are funded by John Tanton a "white supremist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton

Instead let's work on reforming immigration for America. http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/

Let's stop the hate rhetoric that has prevented us to move forward in this issue for decades. History shows that people have migrated since mankind has existed. In the world, Extreme Nationalism has only proven to be disastrous (World Wars etc) and this is what the founding fathers ran away from in the first place…they were immigrants too ?!?! “Illegal immigrants” didn't exist back them because Native Americans didn't deemed them illegal.


Ponzi March 30, 2010 @ 10:03 a.m.

There are some very good comments here, even more enlightening that the story.

My opinion is that not every person in Mexico is trying to immigrate to the United States, just their poor and disentranced who are desperate for work to live and feed their families. Why does Mexico have problems with crime related to the drug trade? Because their geography interfaces with the biggest customer of illicit drugs.

Why is Mexico home to so many people who illegally immigrate into the U.S? Because their geography interfaces with the country with the biggest demand for illegal labor. In both instances the problem can be stopped by eliminating the demand.

Ironically there is a large camp of people who say that making drugs “legal” would eliminate the crime and other problems related to drugs. With that logic, it would seem we could correct illegal immigration as well by granting all of the present illegal residents, legal residency.

You see, the problem is not the supply, but the demand. It is not the Mexicans fault, but the employers who hire them. If they all had rights, the same rights we all enjoy, they could demand the legal wages and benefits that we all enjoy. That alone would stem the problem because it would undermine the cost advantage employers (who employ illegal’s) enjoy.

I feel that it’s a waste of time, for ordinary citizens at least, to be patrolling the border. It’s asking for trouble. It’s not patriotic. It's just stupid.

If Americans want to work on this “problem” then they need to focus on its cause. If Americans are compassionate, they need to find a solution that is fair to the illegal residents living here who have put down roots. We cannot deport millions of people because they are integrated into our society and economy. We can enforce the laws that we have on businesses that are breaking the law in their hiring practices and workplace standards.

This is a supply and demand issue. Those people don’t leave their familiar surroundings, family and friends to come up to the U.S. for a vacation or adventure. They don’t risk their lives hiking through mountains in 100 degree heat, or on an overcrowded small boat, or in the engine compartment of a car, just for fun. They do it because there is opportunity here and they know it doesn’t matter if they have citizenship or not, someone will give them a job.

We are such hypocrites to demand this migration stop while we enjoy foods picked by them, meals cooked by them and live in homes cleaned, landscaped and even built by them.


elmexicano March 30, 2010 @ 11:03 a.m.

These minutemen are no better than the mules coming accross with drugs from Mexico. These are just a bunch of racist vigilantes.


SDaniels March 30, 2010 @ 12:53 p.m.

re: #2 and #3:

Can we please raise the bar on this discussion at least in regards to accuracy, Visduh? First of all, this part of the piece is not describing "the author's" experience--it is from the p.o.v. of Brandon Stockwell, a student filmmaker.

And why argue pointlessly that it was not necessarily a minuteman? Who was it, then? Santa? Should we perhaps conclude, then, that you do not approve of this kind of behavior?

"A motorbike appears in a plume of dust on the American side, and the helmeted driver yells, “What’s your citizenship?” Before Stockwell can answer, a Border Patrol truck that’s following behind skids to a stop, and the half-amused agent says, “Oh, never mind. You’re definitely a gringo.” The men vanish in a haze of dirt, and it occurs to Stockwell that he has just had his first encounter with a Minuteman."

Yep, sounds pretty vigilante-ish to me, too.

And why so defensively quick to jump on the term 'vigilante,' when this was actually such a mildly phrased, and even evasive, article? With some exceptions, such as refriedgringo points out, minutemen seem to be in this piece, at least in the figure of Craig, characterized more as people who wait and watch, i.e., who are "vigilant."

Clearly, Chad's focus was not on the goings on of the summer of 2005, when tempers flared and some ugly standoffs took place between anti-border demonstrators and self-style minutemen. A lot of loosely belted holsters were stroked, and a lot of ugly, racist braggadocio was also loosely belted, as illegal lines were drawn in the sand by --yes--armed vigilantes with no legal business taking up the business of "protection."

I regret that an intelligent but misguided young cousin of mine joined this group, otherwise known to be comprised of bored retired vets and their wives, who would otherwise be watching reruns of Gunsmoke and sipping iced tea, and young, hormonally challenged bucks, who would otherwise be sitting in a circle jerk playing fantasy wargames from their laptops.

I do believe that these people come together not only out of boredom, and complex wishes to play out aggressive fantasies, but out of foundational racist, ethnocentric values. It isn't coincidence that tea-partiers and proto-terrorist religious groups (seen recently in the news) all use imagery of the 18th century new American patriot.


SDaniels March 30, 2010 @ 12:53 p.m.


They articulate these images based not on their origins in freedom for all, but on freedoms for SOME. If the figure of the American (armed) patriot is meant to reinforce and celebrate foundational freedoms, and the protection of one's birthright of citizenship (as well as warn away those without such birthright as they define it), what happened to that other very important foundational concept and practice of open border immigration, and a commitment to earn one's rights by sincere oath and demonstration of those promises, rather than on blind birth and a visual identity politics of skin color?

What happened to the values of a diverse citizenry based on a will to commit to citizenship through hard work and the all-important desire and right to pursue happiness? Mmmmhmmm...


Origami_Astronaught March 30, 2010 @ 1:40 p.m.

l2009 - Not sure which story you were reading, but I can't find any stats in here which could be deemed anti-immigration. If not neutral, the stats actually serve to debunk common anti-immigration myths.

"However, challenging the oft-cited argument that undocumented laborers lower the working wage for everybody in a given industry, the 2006 report finds that illegal immigrants “have little effect on the wages and employment of U.S.-born workers. Such effects are felt most by low-skilled U.S. workers,” to the tune of about a 4 percent decrease in lifelong earnings for men without a high school diploma."

John Tanton was part of the National Policy Institute. Zero connection with Public Policy Institute of California.

diegonomics - It should be obvious from the text that Stockwell perceived the man on the motorbike to be a Minuteman.

"For ten bucks an hour, Americans will do farmwork. He wants to pay alot less."

Wild! You interviewed Scaroni, too? :-)

"The articles most desultory element of all, in my opinion, is quoting one man as being supposedly the top Minuteman in some vague romantic fashion, and then closing out by having the man with the eye patch agree to accept worker permits."

Read again. Stockwell's perception. How does Craig's endorsement of a functional imported workers program make the story "desultory"?

Being one of such profound contradictions yourself, you should have no problem grasping Craig's willingness to embrace a solution, even if it does challenge your perception of the Minutemen as little more than a group that "created a bunch of political drama and furor."

You said it best: "You have to give Kingfisher [sic] credit, because at least hes willing to compromise."

Hope that patches up a few of the "holes" you found and thank you for the kudos.

Good input, Ponzi. Please revisit the text and you will find that virtually every point you bring up has been addressed.

SDaniels - ever the voice of reason. :-)


Visduh March 30, 2010 @ 9:02 p.m.

Before this story of vague and ambiguous descriptions is sent off to the great dustbin of mediocre Reader efforts, I'd like to mention that the term "vigilante" is highly pejorative. All sorts of folks who cannot abide the notion that someone or anyone out there resents the lawlessness of the border and its daily abuse by those who will not respect it want to put a bad label on those who disagree. (How's that for a run-on sentence?) The term is inflammatory. The term is inaccurate. The term implies all sorts of extralegal activity which the story does not involve.

If the so-called Minutemen were apprehending border crossers, holding them against their will, beating them up and/or kicking them back across the line, they would be vigilantes. This story mentions none of those activities. The closest thing to that was a motorbike-mounted person of indeterminate identity accosting a guy who was climbing the border fence.

The true vigilantes to which I referred in posting #1 did find it necessary to take some very drastic action. One of the first of twenty-or-so outlaws they summarily hanged was the elected sheriff! Now, THAT'S vigilantism. Nothing in this story, or in any of the anecdotes in these postings comes close to that sort of activity.

So, in a nutshell, I object to the term because it carries a very strong implication of lawless and brutal activity that this story does not involve. 'Nuff said.


Ponzi March 30, 2010 @ 9:08 p.m.

It IS Vigilante-like behavior... period.


Ponzi March 30, 2010 @ 9:11 p.m.

The propensity to approve of this bizarre behavior in-and-of-itself is prima face evidence of bigotry and racial bias.

This activity serves no purpose and is not appreciated by the professionals that are charged with performing this service on behalf of the U.S.

You can portray it anyway you want and try to frame it as innocent, but it is useless, unappreciated, obstructive and hateful as far as I am concerned.


David Dodd March 30, 2010 @ 9:57 p.m.

Regarding the term "vigilante", I think that any reference to "The Oxbow Incident" isn't a valid correlation anymore, although I tend to understand where Visduh is coming from because the term implies punishment. There is little evidence of punishment from the "minutemen", at least from what I have read. My issue is twofold: Ponzi put it in better words than I could, "useless, unappreciated, obstructive and hateful." My other issue is the lack of training of armed men who are not officers, wandering around in the desert near the border looking for anyone with brown skin. To me, it is a form of radical ethnic nationalism practiced in countries where the very next step is ethnic cleansing. The United States of America has a border patrol who are, ostensibly, trained to maintain the border. If the border patrol cannot maintain the border then there are much larger issues at hand, none of which can be solved by civilians with guns.


SDaniels March 31, 2010 @ 10:11 a.m.

re:#22: No run-on ;)

Yes, Visduh, we know that "vigilante" and "vigilantism" are pejorative terms. Are you familiar with some of the rhetoric of the folk for whom you argue in support, both at great length, and to ambiguous purpose? They form a clearly racist organization--check it out!

Ponzi in #24 and refried in #25 have spoken adequately for me, so I'll rest my case with them.


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!