The facts that he is part of the Anti-Inmigrant movement.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
If you are not White and thinking in vote for Mr. Tancredo. You should be looking at his most rhetoric comments about other ethnicity.
Newsweek: Edited by Pro-Immigrant.
April 3, 2006 issue - The lights were on, the cameras were rolling, but the special guest star was nowhere to be found. Last Friday afternoon, 55 men and women from 30 countries sat in a Denver conference room, clutching small American flags as they waited to be sworn in as U.S. citizens. The 12:15 starting time had come and gone, and some people were getting impatient. "For heaven's sake," one woman said, sighing. "What is the holdup?" A few minutes later, they had the answer. Tom Tancredo, the Republican congressman, was coming to welcome the new citizens. He was hard to miss when he breezed in, 25 minutes late, dressed in a dark suit and an American-flag necktie. Even so, few in the room recognized him until one man whispered, "He's the guy who sits on the border chasing illegals."
Tancredo may not be a household name yet, but he's doing everything he can to change that. As the House and Senate debate the nation's immigration and border-security laws, the four-term Coloradan has positioned himself as the loudest, angriest voice against the estimated 11 million illegal aliens now living in the United States. They are "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation," he says. He laments "the cult of multiculturalism," and worries about America's becoming a "Tower of Babel." If Republican presidential candidates don't put the problem atop the agenda in 2008, he says he'll run himself, just to force the front runners to talk about it. Not that he thinks he'd win the White House. He declares himself "too fat, too short and too bald" to be president. If the Republicans lose the election because he's too tough on the issue, he says, "So be it."
Not so long ago, Tancredo was regarded as little more than a noisy pest on Capitol Hill. His colleagues shook their heads at his tireless demands for crackdowns on American employers who hire illegals and his idea for a 700-mile-long fence along the Mexican border. But in recent months, some of those same Republicans have come to realize that, while Tancredo may be a crank, he is a crank with a large and passionate following. Anti-immigration sentiment has always simmered, and it flares up about once a decade—the last time it hit this level was 1996, when California Gov. Pete Wilson made it the centerpiece of his failed presidential campaign. Tancredo was one of the first politicians to tap into the latest surge of anger. In states with large numbers of undocumented workers, voters complain that poor illegal’s are overwhelming public schools, clogging hospital emergency rooms and bankrupting welfare budgets. And they worry that inadequate border security makes it easy for would-be terrorists to sneak into the country. Tancredo's colleagues are listening. When he arrived in Washington, he started the Immigration Reform Caucus. The group attracted just 16 members. Today, there are 91.
Tancredo's anti-immigration campaign is also brazenly, almost gleefully, taking aim at George W. Bush and Karl Rove. The president had once hoped the immigration debate would center on his proposed guest-worker program, which would allow illegal’s—who fill millions of unskilled, low-wage jobs—to stay in the country for a set period of time. This was Bush the pragmatist, the former border-state governor who wanted to acknowledge the importance of immigrant labor to construction, fruit farming and other chunks of the U.S. economy. "He doesn't think it's morally right that a group that has been critical to the strength of the economy is operating in the shadows," says a senior Bush aide who, following policy, spoke anonymously. Meanwhile, Rove pushed the pure political benefits of the plan: immigrant-friendly policies would help the party reach out to the fast-growing Latino vote.
Instead, the immigration debate has split the GOP, with many Republicans in the House and Senate, worried about alienating voters, openly opposing the president. In December, the House tossed aside the worker program and passed a bill that features tougher security at the Mexican border—including Tancredo's cherished fence—and crackdowns on illegal’s who are already here. "You can't ignore him," says a GOP leadership aide who wouldn't be named because he wanted to keep his job.
In the Senate, Republicans, led by John McCain and Arlen Specter, have been working to come up with a compromise that would include border security, a guest-worker program and a way for illegal immigrants to "earn" citizenship. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a presidential contender with one eye on the anti-immigration vote—and the other one on outflanking McCain—has threatened to put forward his own get-tough plan this week if the senators fail to come through.
Mr. Tancredo I don’t understand why you had demonstrated too much active anger against Undocumented Immigrants and to a multiculturism that already had been existed here before you even born.
Or it’s because you are one of many xenophobou’s against Undocumented immigrants and specially Mexicans or another ethnicity?
So if you lamented the Multiculturism ; So you deny my existence , my culture, my ethnicity, as well as others.
So you want or promote the Monoculturism? What this meaning to you? Ethnicity stereotype or you have not been able to adjust or assimilate to the Multiculturism on this Country? Monoculturism, Xenophobia, ethnic stereotype, definicion of race, racial segretation is Racism here in other part of the world.
Then as an American Citizen not White. How do you want me to vote for you?………
Could you explain me and others without anger, sentiment, and without raising your high level of xenophobia against my culture,and ethnicity.
Why I should be vote it for you...and what would you do for me to change this point of view?
Or look at this video on the House of Democrats in Arizona how the tone and xenophobia against mexicans has been increase.
Minuteman Meets His Hour of Crisis
By Jennifer Delson
Los Angeles Times
Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist is battling three of his board members in court for control of the organization.
Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist was confronted by three associates who had been his closest allies when he arrived at his group’s headquarters in Lake Forest in late January.
“Jim,” said Marvin Stewart, “the board has terminated you as president.”
Gilchrist recalled that it felt like his heart sank to his stomach, prompting him to instinctively yell, “You’re all fired.”
“No, Jim, you are fired,” Stewart said.
Gilchrist, who rose to fame in 2005 as the leader of the citizen group that began patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border for illegal immigrants, soon discovered that the trio had gained control of the Minuteman bank accounts and website. In a recent news conference outside Orange County Superior Court, the three board members said the takeover was triggered by Gilchrist’s mismanagement and by missing money, though they provided no evidence of misappropriated funds.
Gilchrist, who denies the allegations, has filed suit in Orange County Superior Court to regain control of the Minuteman Project, claiming that he was illegally ousted from a corporation he formed and was the sole voting board member.
“These are people I would have trusted my life with and they were conspiring against me behind my back,” Gilchrist said. “They are kidnapping my child.”
The story behind the vote to dismiss America’s most famous anti-illegal immigrant fighter contains allegations of hubris and missing money, jealousy and greed, backstabbing and extremism.
It may also be the almost inevitable result of a rapidly growing organization whose membership is swollen with passionate individualists not known for getting along with others.
“They are taking the law into their own hands and doing it in a dramatic way,” said Luis Cabrera, a political science professor at Arizona State University. “It’s tailor-made for attracting people who want attention and a thrill and want to execute their agenda.”
Though others had proposed similar ideas, Jim Gilchrist’s battle cry for citizens to guard the border — amplified in appearances on conservative talk radio shows — launched 200 Minuteman groups, garnered intense media coverage and set off a national debate on immigration.
Gilchrist’s first sortie to the Arizona-Mexico border in April 2005 attracted 200 volunteers, who used cars, trucks, private planes, radios and night-vision goggles to spot illegal immigrants for U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The event drew heavy criticism, including some from then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and President Bush, who called the participants vigilantes. But it also made Gilchrist an overnight leader in the fight against illegal immigration.
Although many of his supporters were leery of the media, which they perceived to be left-leaning and biased, Gilchrist, a one-time journalism major at the University of Rhode Island, welcomed the questions and cameras.
The 58-year-old made a striking appearance with his green eyes and well-coiffed silver hair. At outdoor events, he was partial to windbreakers, polo shirts and baseball caps with military logos or anti-illegal immigration slogans. On television, he wore blue suits with crisp shirts and colorful, but tasteful, ties.
Gilchrist “is the real reason the Minuteman Project took off … that is what inspired me,” said Eileen Garcia, a Laguna Beach resident who helped form a women’s Minuteman auxiliary called Gilchrist Angels.
Steve Eichler, former executive director of the Minuteman Project, said that Gilchrist “started with a lawn chair at the border and embarrassed the White House. Millions of people have been affected by him and the Minutemen. Jim Gilchrist is a rock star.”
The rapid growth of the Minuteman Project created friction with veteran anti-illegal immigration activists such as Chris Simcox, who had patrolled the Arizona-Mexico border for years in near anonymity. Their relationship initially cordial, he and Gilchrist formed the Minuteman Project, but Simcox left after a month and now runs a splinter group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
“I think he was jealous and it was clear he wanted my segment of the Minuteman campaign to fail,” Gilchrist said.
Simcox declined to comment for this article.
Management of the rapidly expanding Minuteman Project proved to be even more of a headache for Gilchrist, a retired accountant from Aliso Viejo who critics say is not detail-oriented.
Much of his time was spent appearing on radio and television — 2,700 times in less than three years, according to his organization’s statistics. Gilchrist crisscrossed the country speaking at meetings and on panels. He co-wrote a book about the Minuteman phenomenon, and he ran unsuccessfully for Congress.
This left little time to run the organization.
“People wonder why we are disorganized,” Eichler said. “It’s the beginning. We are getting it organized….We had to play catch-up.”
Gilchrist said he also had to manage people at the fringes of the debate on illegal immigration.
“There are extremists drawn to this issue on both sides,” Gilchrist said. “And then there are a few real extremists. Their personalities need to be fed with more and more attention. There’s often a jealousy that I’m getting the attention.”
To help, Gilchrist surrounded himself with three allies who would eventually cross him: Barbara Coe, a star in the anti-illegal immigration movement who spearheaded Proposition 187, an initiative — thrown out by the courts — that denied government services to illegal immigrants; Deborah Courtney, a crime victim turned gun-rights advocate; and Stewart, a black minister who first joined Gilchrist on the border to show critics that Minutemen weren’t racist.
Coe, 73, had met Gilchrist when she appeared with him on radio shows about illegal immigration and said she soon realized the movement needed this kind of charismatic leader.
“Once he got it in his head he was going to do this, he was very energetic and was able to draw people in,” Coe said.
Stewart, 55, had taken three days’ vacation from his job at the Veterans Administration in Long Beach to troll the border with a sidearm. (As the founder of My Lord Salvation Ministries, Stewart publishes a newsletter about Christians’ civic responsibilities but does not have his own church.)
Courtney, 46, the gun-rights advocate, met Gilchrist while working on his congressional campaign.
She said she quickly saw that although he was very popular, Gilchrist had trouble as a leader.
“I knew Gilchrist was in over his head,” Courtney said. “He doesn’t pay attention to detail. He doesn’t have the attention span.”
Gilchrist had incorporated the Minuteman Project in Delaware and made himself the only board member, public documents show. He invited Coe, Stewart and Courtney to serve on the board — he says in an advisory role; they say as voting members. Gilchrist also appointed three others to the board. None of the new board positions were reflected in the Minuteman’s corporate papers.
By the fall of 2006, the relationship between Gilchrist and his board began to deteriorate quickly.
There were public accusations of secret bank accounts, missing funds, sloppy accounting and donations that had been collected without the full board’s knowledge. None of the claims were made in court and proof wasn’t offered. But the seriousness of the charges drove the former allies further apart.
Coe, Stewart and Courtney said in interviews with The Times that they finally concluded that there was as much as $750,000 missing from Minuteman accounts. They said they filed a theft report with the FBI and asked for an investigation.
Gilchrist, in turn, says he filed a theft complaint with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, alleging that the dissident board members illegally took money and the Minuteman website from his corporation. The FBI and Sheriff’s Department did not return calls seeking comment.
With tensions rising, the trio of dissenters met in late January, even though Gilchrist couldn’t attend. The three board members allied with Gilchrist said they did not attend because he wasn’t going to be there.
Coe, Stewart and Courtney met at the Lake Forest Minuteman office, which had been locked by Gilchrist. After they said the Pledge of Allegiance outside, they adjourned to a nearby sushi restaurant where they voted to oust Gilchrist.
Three days later, Courtney, Coe and Stewart met with Gilchrist and told him he was out.
Coe said she was heartbroken and shaken up.
“Nobody will ever replace Jim Gilchrist,” said Coe, who has since resigned from the organization because of her conflicted feelings. “He was an icon of American patriotism.”
In early February, papers were filed with the state of Delaware showing that Stewart was the organization’s new president and Courtney was the new treasurer. An official with the Delaware secretary of state’s office said no one but Gilchrist could legally make those changes.
Less than three weeks later, Gilchrist sued Coe, Courtney and Stewart, alleging they illegally voted him out of his organization, misallocated organization funds and commandeered his website. A ruling is expected March 21 on his application for a restraining order against the three.
Gilchrist remains bewildered by the turn of events.
“Before, I just believed we were all in this for the same reasons,” he said. “Now I ask myself what is in the mind of the person standing next to me. This has changed me. I was so open and I wanted to believe in everyone around me. Then I was hijacked.”
Gilchrist says he’ll continue his fight against illegal immigration despite what he sees as a temporary setback.
“My adversaries still have more wackos than we have,” he said. “This will keep us from moving ahead for a very long time, but hopefully we will triumph in the end. I will stay in this war.”
All Minuteman Groups just want your money and either they wont protect our Country, our Borders, why they are not going against or haunt the Employers who hire those undocumented Inmigrants rather than hunting undocumented Inmigrants like animals.
No. they rather creat anger and confrontation between communities and why this behavior you will continue to see more rather than minimize just because they are racists and, xenophobics.
Just look at the comments from Mr. Gilchrist that they are a few extrememist on this Group.I wonder is they are not from K.K.K.
And what ever I say to you in this letter or blog wont change they way you think just because that was planted on your mind and being racist and xenophobic are Dangerous behavior!!!
Friday, March 30, 2007
What a Fiasco from a Minuteman Group. Did you believe your donations were using for protect our Country? Just look at this report and make your mind straight. They are using you............
Edited by me.
I would go so far as to call you a Treasonous Dog who is deserving of the hangman's noose!" I don't often open a column by quoting a reader, but this love note from Minuteman Michael McKinney of San Clemente was so heartfelt and so evocative of the prevailing sentiment of those who disagree with my radical theory that we should let the lawmen administer the law in this country that I just had to give it prominence. And who says the Minutemen are vigilantes?
I've learned a couple of things about the Minutemen in the 24 hours since my last column about them.
Perhaps most interesting is that founder Jim Gilchrist could end up winning control of the group and its bank accounts in court and yet suffer a huge financial loss. In fact, he personally might be better off if he does lose in court. This was explained to me by one of the board members he's fighting, Deborah Ann Courtney, who I knew before she ever got mixed up with Gilchrist. When Gilchrist incorporated the group, Courtney told me, he did so in Delaware as a 501(c)(4) corporation, which meant it did not need to pay federal income tax on the donations it received. The IRS, however, has three years to grant that status, and that deadline is still a year away.
One requirement is that the entity have a board of directors. If Gilchrist is successful arguing in court that there is not a legitimate board and that the Minutemen is essentially a sole proprietorship, he will likely not be granted the tax-exempt status. That means, Courtney says, he's on the hook to pay taxes on $1.5 million to $2 million in donations, return the donations, or some combination of both. Didn't he used to be an accountant?
The other thing I've learned is that there's more than one anti-illegal-immigration group that calls itself the Minutemen. In fact, nobody really knows how many there are. Gilchrist founded the Minutemen Project about the same time another group started to patrol the border. That group has become known as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, is national in scope and "above reproach," according to its leader, Chris Simcox. He claims "13,631 apprehensions of people from 26 countries including Poland and Belarus, (and) 286 lifesaving rescues of men, women and children." Of Gilchrist's group, Simcox says: "Jim's Minuteman Project is given way too much credit for doing what? Holding a few protests and ranting and raving." Also, Simcox says, the San Diego group being investigated in the migrant camp vandalism is affiliated with neither him nor Gilchrist "because they could not conform to our SOP and code of conduct." For you civilians, SOP means "standard operating procedure."
Yeah, I'll testify to the ranting and raving. But the important thing here is that Minutemen are fighting among themselves.
So the Legislative Counsel of California has opined that all recounts of electronically cast ballots must be done through the paper audit trail. Had Judge Michael Brenner known that on Monday, he might have ruled in Trung's favor and not Janet's. Trung attorney Mike Schroeder thinks the opinion would have been "very persuasive" with Brenner. Phil Greer, Janet's attorney, says the opinion "has no legal basis" and would carry no more weight than a "friend of the court" brief. "Mike is grasping at straws," Greer says.
Regardless, I was more curious as to why Brenner didn't have access to the ruling. The Leg Counsel's four-page opinion is dated March 19. So why wasn't it introduced in trial last week, as were the Elections Code, an Attorney General's opinion, the Secretary of State's guidelines and a bunch of case law? The opinion was requested by Sen. Dick Ackerman, who says he didn't release it until after the trial because of the Legislature's "internal policy" not to have its counsel's opinions become a part of a lawsuit. Schroeder said he intends to make it part of his probable appeal.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
T.J. Maxx data theft worse than first reported.
Data stolen covers transactions dating as far back as December 2002. We should be blame to Undocumented Inmigrants for this too Mr. Lou Dobbs?
BOSTON - Information from at least 45.7 million credit and debit cards was stolen by hackers who accessed TJX’s customer information in a security breach that the discount retailer disclosed more than two months ago.
TJX Cos., the owner of about 2,500 stores, said in a regulatory filing late Wednesday that about three-quarters of those cards had either expired at the time of the theft, or data from their magnetic strips had been masked — stored as asterisks rather than numbers.
But TJX acknowledged it still knows little about the full scope of the breach, in part because the hacker or hackers accessed TJX’s encryption software and could have known how to unscramble the information.
In addition, TJX deleted much of the transaction data in the normal course of business between the time of the breach and the time that TJX detected it, making it impossible to know how many total cards were affected.
“There is a lot of information we don’t know, and may never be able to know, which is why this investigation has been so laborious,” TJX spokeswoman Sherry Lang said on Thursday.
The company provided an update of its investigation in a regulatory filing made after business hours Wednesday.
TJX says its computer systems were first breached in July 2005 by a hacker or hackers who accessed information from customer transactions dating to January 2003. TJX says it didn’t find out about the breach until about three months ago.
Information from 45.7 million cards was stolen from transactions beginning in January 2003 and ending Nov. 23 of that year, TJX said in the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. TJX did not give estimates of the number of cards from which information was stolen for transactions occurring from Nov. 24, 2003 to June 28, 2004.
TJX said in the filing that “substantially all stolen data” from the latter period “were deleted in the ordinary course of business subsequent to the believed theft but prior to discovery of computer intrusion.”
Lang said TJX was investigating why information stolen during the initial nine-month period in 2003 wasn’t being routinely deleted.
The filing also says, “We believe that the intruder had access to the decryption tool for the encryption software utilized by TJX.”
The filing also said another 455,000 customers who returned merchandise without receipts had their personal data stolen, including driver’s license numbers.
The filing gives the first detailed account of the breach initially disclosed in January by Framingham-based TJX, the owner of T.J. Maxx, Marshall’s and other stores in North America and the United Kingdom.
The filing says the company “does not know who took this action, and whether there were one or more intruders involved.” Also unknown is whether there was a single continuing breach, or multiple, separate intrusions.
Police charged six people in Florida last week with using credit card numbers that investigators believe were stolen from a TJX database to buy about $1 million in merchandise with gift cards.
The gift cards had been purchased from Wal-Mart stores, and were used to acquire electronics and jewelry at Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club warehouse stores.
TJX’s Lang said Thursday that the company could not yet confirm whether the data used in those thefts originated at TJX.
Gainesville, Fla. police have said they believe the Florida suspects bought the card numbers from someone else, and weren’t the TJX hackers.
In Wednesday’s filing, TJX said for the first time that Dec. 18, 2006, was the date it first learned that there was suspicious software on its computer system.
TJX said it believes hackers invaded its systems in July 2005, on later dates in 2005 and also from mid-May 2006 to mid-January 2007. The company said no customer information was stolen after Dec. 18, one day before it hired General Dynamics Corp. and IBM Corp. to investigate. By Dec. 21, those investigators determined that the computer systems had been breached and that an intruder remained on the systems.
TJX said it notified federal authorities Dec. 22, and on Jan. 3, TJX officials and Secret Service agents met with banks and payment card and check processing companies to discuss the computer intrusion.
The company issued a news release Jan. 17 disclosing the breach but did not say how much data was stolen.
TJX is facing an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and lawsuits from individuals and banks accusing it of failing to do enough to safeguard private data and of delaying disclosure of the problem.
The company said in Wednesday’s filing that its forensic investigation of the intrusion is ongoing and it is continuing to work to strengthen and protect its computer systems.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Broken Borders: Broken Promises.
Another Minuten Civil Defense Corps. Scandal
By Investigator Abbie Boudreau
I advise you weeks ago that may sure that you know where your donations going to. Did you know where? Just look at this investigation and as well as the Scandal of Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman Project.
Did you believe on them? Again make sure the money you donated is going to a great cause or anyone who really need it.
ABC 15 Investigator Abbie Boudreau obtained the federal documents to expose where hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations are not going.
"Less than 5 % of the money is actually going back to the volunteers on the border. Is that correct?" reporter Boudreau asked Chris Simcox, the president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
In a previous interview with ABC 15 News, Simcox told Boudreau most of the donations go back to the volunteers on the border.
"For gas, generators, food, anything else that they use for the border watch operations," Simcox said.
But the volunteers we talked to on the front line told us a much different story.
"We have to buy our own food, buy our own amenities, buy our own everything," one volunteer said.
Last April, the ABC 15 Investigators questioned Simcox about his group's finances, and accusations of mis-using funds.
"I think all of the folks who have not agreed with our philosophy or who have been concerned with where the money is going," Simcox said. "They are all gonna have egg on their face and they are gonna look pretty foolish."
Nearly one year later and we've obtained the 990 form, which is the organizations' first IRS tax form. The group filed as a 501c-4 charity.
"It's not clear from an accountants view here, as to what that money is being spent for," licensed CPA Bob Hockensmith said.
Hockensmith reviewed the 990 forms.
He said it showed the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps brought in $418,000 and spent nearly $450,000.
He said most of the money is going toward fundraising costs, and management fees, but less than 5% actually made it directly back to the volunteers.
"Field supplies, fuel, meals, and volunteer background checks, and that comes out to about $17,700, which is about 3.9% of the total $450,000," Hockensmith said.
He also questioned why a lump sum of $174,000 was spent on "Program and Management" expenses.
"Is that possibly a salary; is that possibly a management fee, a consulting fee?" Hockensmith said. "So it's very possible that money went out the door to another person or entity to services rendered, not specifically for equipment or supplies."
We caught up with Simcox and asked him to explain.
"Where is that money going?" Boudreau asked.
"The people that donate their money are quite satisfied," Simcox responded.
Original Minuteman Project founder, and former CPA, Jim Gilchrist talked to ABC 15 News about the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps 2005 tax form.
"I've forgiven him more than once, and I have no room for forgiveness anymore," Gilchrist said.
In this exclusive interview with ABC 15 News, Gilchrist also questioned where the money is going.
"After reviewing the 990 and seeing where the bulk of the money literally goes to fundraisers and only a few percent of every dollar, a few cents of every dollar goes to the fence project," he said.
He's talking about Simcox's plan to raise $55 million dollars to build that 70 mile border fence.
Gilchrist points out he would actually have to bring in $1.83 billion dollars in donations to reach that goal.
"Is this funny to you?" Boudreau asked Simcox.
"Yes, it is," he said. "It's a waste of my time, and it's a waste of your time."
Chris Simcox told us he believed our numbers are incorrect, but he refused to further explain why.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
CNN's Lou Dobbs Refuses to Reject Idea
of Impeaching Bush
CNN anchor Lou Dobbs appeared with the ladies on ABC's The View on Thursday to deliver some rather liberal opinions. He stumped for a minimum wage increase, railed against the influence big corporations have on politics, and pushed for universal health care. But the ABC co-hosts did not even touch illegal immigration, the one issue where Lou Dobbs is famously conservative. Rosie O'Donnell asked the question she has been obsessing on
More See & Hear the Bias
lately: "Mr Dobbs, do you think that some Senator for principle, if not for follow through, should call for the impeachment of George Bush?" Dobbs did not answer the question. Instead, he sighed and exclaimed "boy" before listing his complaints about Bush administration failings. ABC went to a hard ad break before O'Donnell and Joy Behar could get a definitive yes or no out of him.
On Wednesday's edition of The View, O'Donnell asserted that "someone, I believe, should call for the impeachment of George Bush" so "the world knows that the nation is not standing behind this President's choices, that the nation, a democracy, feels differently than the man who is leading as if it were a dictatorship, and that we represent this country, he does not lead as a monarch." For more, including video, check the January 25 CyberAlert: www.mrc.org
The transcript of the January 25 interview with the anchor of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
Rosie O'Donnell: "Lou Dobbs was a lifelong Republican. Who knew I would become such a big fan? But when I realized he had a voice beyond partisanship, he won me over. I love his book. I love his show. His latest book, 'War on the Middle Class,' tells us who's winning and who's losing. Please welcome Lou Dobbs to the show."
[Cheers and applause]
O'Donnell: "How are you, sir? Great to see you. So Lou Dobbs, how did 9/11 change your life and career?"
Lou Dobbs: "Well, I think it changed all our lives. Like most people who live and work in New York, I lost people I knew, friends. I took it personally. I think most Americans took it personally. It raised the standard, I think, for all of us, both in government, in the conduct of our lives, and certainly for us as journalists."
O'Donnell: "Now, why is it that some took 9/11 and sort of used it to fuel sort of the rhetoric and a hatred and divisiveness in the country and you sort of took it in the opposite direction?"
Dobbs: "Well, I think that's a choice for all of us. I, I think one of the unfortunate things that we've seen happen in this country is, while we're engaged in a global war on radical Islamist terror, we focus on fear, we focus on limitations, and this country has a tradition of focusing on hope, on aspiration and achievement. And I think too much time in the public dialogue in the national leadership has been on fear and limitations rather than achieving what we should."
Guest co-host actress Tina Fey: "This is being bugged."
O'Donnell: "Yeah, really. George Bush is bugging this room. You people at home don't hear it but there's tremendous breakup in the speakers right when you were talking about government. But I'm sure it's just an audio problem and it's not a conspiracy. What do you think about the minimum wage issue we were talking about in the beginning of the show?"
Dobbs: "I've been calling for the minimum wage to be raised for years. You pointed out, $5.15 an hour. The fact that the Senate blocked it, we put up on our website those Senators who insisted upon business tax breaks to be coupled with a minimum wage increase. To me it is absolutely heinous and reprehensible that Congress, and both parties, frankly, are responsible, but primarily the Republican party, chose not to raise the minimum wage. This nonsense that the minimum wages somehow will make it impossible for small business to function, to make profits and create jobs, is absurd. In point of fact, Congress is only following the lead of the states. 28 states and the District of Columbia have already raised the minimum wages, their minimum wages, above the the federal level. And guess what? Studies between 1997 and 2004 show that those states that have raised the minimum wage are actually prospering. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the principled voice of business in this country now, unfortunately, is utterly wrong. It's conducting a propaganda campaign. You know, if there is such a resistance to the minimum wage, you wonder why the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable doesn't come out and say, you know, 'Congress, why don't you roll back those eight pay increases that you gave yourself over that course of a decade?'"
O'Donnell: "It says in the polls, 83 percent of Americans are in favor of raising the minimum wage."
Joy Behar: "They don't seem to pay attention to what the American people say."
O'Donnell: "How is it that Congress and the government now seems to be so out of touch with the wants and desires of their constituents?"
Dobbs: "In part because both the Democratic and Republican parties are owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate America. Big business and special interests spend over $2 billion a year to lobby 536 folks in Washington, the president, 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen and women. No wonder the middle class, some 250 to 280 million people in this country can't find a voice in Washington. There is hope. There's a possibility. The Democrats have an opportunity in Congress."
Behar: "Do you think they'll rise to the occasion?"
Dobbs: "I have to say they did manage to pass the ethics reform. It's not as strong as any of us would have liked, but at least it's a start. The failure, the failure on the minimum wage is annoying as the dickens."
Behar: "But you said it was primarily the Republican party that voted against it. How many Democrats actually voted against it out of 50 Sen, out of 100 Senators?"
Dobbs: "The point of fact, they got a majority vote, but they need 60 to move to legislation."
Behar: "So this is the fault of the Republican party?"
Dobbs: "Oh, no question about it, no question about it."
Fey: "You're an independent now."
Dobbs: "Yes, ma'am."
Fey: "Do you feel there's no difference between the two parties, which I whole heartedly agree that there's too much overlap."
Dobbs: "There's not enough difference. And the way I see it, Tina, I believe in the two-party system. Just that right now I don't believe in either of these parties. They have sorely disappointed us. The level of national leadership, the quality of national leadership in this country -- 300 million people have got to be able to do better than that."
Behar: "You haven't given the Democrats a chance yet. They just got in and they have some incredible candidates out there right now. We mentioned Webb before. We've got Obama, you know, there's Joe Biden, there's Hillary. I think you have a lot of, a lot of talent now."
O'Donnell: "But what he's saying, Elisabeth, Joy, is that there's not a lot of difference between big business owning and lobbying a Republican Senator verses a Democratic Senator."
Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "It's not about the people anymore, is essentially what you're saying."
Dobbs: "300 million people. In 2004 we put forward two candidates. Kerry and Bush, both men of privilege, from privileged families, both Yale educated, both members of skull and bones. Now that's diversity, isn't it?"
Behar: "And also, weren't they both C students?"
Hasselbeck: "You're also pretty furious over the healthcare situation going on in the country. Do you think universal healthcare is the solution?"
Dobbs: "I think it absolutely is. There is no excuse for this country not to provide health care for all -- we've got the best health care system in the world. How can we reasonably deny that system and great care to anyone? And principally, by the way, it's the middle class. It's not the poor. We have medicaid and medicare for the poor and aged and infirm. In the middle class, half of whom are making less than $35,000 a year in this country."
Behar: "A lot of doctors, they don't take medicare, you know. I'm not on it yet, yet. But, but they don't take it. They don't take, they don't take insurance, either. I mean, you have to do a third party put it in. I mean, it's amazing what it costs to get a mammogram these days."
Hasselbeck: "If the universal health plan is a solution, how do you implement that without removing the competition from companies, and making it hard to get your-"
Dobbs: "Here is what competition has bought us right now, and that's what this administration has been pushing, the Republican party, for a long time. What competition has bought us is more than double-digit increases in health care costs. 48 million Americans don't have health insurance and meanwhile this administration and corporate America are arguing that gold-plated insurance, health care insurance is just, you know, it's overdone, and we've got to roll it back. That's what competition has brought you. There are other ways to achieve competition and reasonable care. First, take care of the people."
O'Donnell: "Right. Mr. Dobbs, do you think that some Senator for principle, if not for follow through, should call for the impeachment of George Bush?"
Dobbs, sighs loudly, then: "Boy-"
Dobbs: "You put a fellow who prides himself on being a straight talk, yeah."
O'Donnell: "Well, that's why I ask you because there are very few people you could ask that to in the public eye. And I'm just curious if."
Behar: "You're not running for anything you can tell."
O'Donnell: "Do you think that this nation should do it to say this that, if nothing else, to tell the rest of the world this is what we stand for?"
Dobbs: "I have to say, that when we look at the performance of this administration on healthcare, on the minimum wage, on free trade, 30 consecutive years of trade deficits, now a few trillion in debt, the conduct of this war and kindly the dissembling-"
O'Donnell: "Yes or no? We've got five seconds, sir."
Behar, forming her hand into the shape of a gun and pointing it at Dobbs: "Yes or no? Come on! Gun to the head."
Dobbs: "I would encourage Senators or Congressman-"
O'Donnell: "Ah, Lou, you disappoint me."
ABC then went to black, because of a hard ad break about 56 minutes into the hour, then to an ad.
Anti-Immigrant Fanaticism and Xenophobic Movement thru all United States against Mexicans.
President George W. Bush has planned a March visit to Mexico, during which his rhetoric will likely soar in describing the close connection between the two nations, and the need for a comprehensive immigration accord. Unfortunately, the language from his fellow Republicans doesn’t soar so much as sink into the gutter, and it is likely to descend even lower as Congress takes up immigration reform in the next couple of months.
There is no question that one needn’t be a xenophobe to think that the United States should do something to stem the tide of illegal immigration. There are eloquent and effective arguments for stricter border controls that don’t paint Mexico as a nation of criminals. After all, if the world’s richest nation can’t control its borders, then no state has a chance of fulfilling its end of the social contract.
But why do so many comments from the anti-immigration right sound like slams against Mexicans?
A fountain of such remarks is Congressman Tom Tancredo (Republican, Colorado), Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchannan, Minuteman Group, and many others. Angered by a Bank of America program to issue credit cards to undocumented residents in the United States, the gentleman from Colorado recently equated illegal immigrants to terrorists, and not for the first time. The plan in question is rather benign, but that is beside the point. It was simply another chance to hop on a soapbox and denounce immigration and, by association, Mexico, so Tancredo willingly obliged.
Tancredo, whose commitment to fighting immigration is roughly analogous to Senator Joe McCarthy’s to communism, is far from alone in his zeal. A short rundown of 2007’s early highlights in anti-immigration fanaticism:
• Employing an unmistakably martial vocabulary, Rep. Steve King (R, Iowa) encouraged a “policy of attrition” against illegal immigrants.
• Influential Republican activist Paul Weyrich somehow termed bilingualism “the worst kind of racism imaginable.”
• State Senators in Tennessee and Arizona, perhaps inspired by Representative King’s militant rhetoric, called for more aggressive rules of engagement for troops deployed along the border, which would likely lead to more unnecessary deaths of Mexican migrants. National Guard commanders, deferring to common sense, responded that we are not at war with Mexico, so such a change is unnecessary.
• Delegate Jack Reid introduced a bill into the Virginia General Assembly that would make it a felony to knowingly assist an illegal immigrant.
It bears mention that not all Republicans are of the inflammatory, blame-Mexico-first ilk (the president not least among them), nor are all Democrats particularly enlightened. The race for the Democratic presidential nomination seems to be taking a populist turn, and taking shots at illegal immigration could turn into the political rhetoric de jour for some.
But no matter which side of the aisle they come from, such attacks represent a strategic error for anyone who wants a secure border.
Comments from prominent Americans have an enormous impact in Mexico, a fact that largely goes unnoticed north of the border. When an editorial from the New York Times or the Washington Post deals with Mexico, it is a front-page story in Mexico City. Likewise, when Tancredo shoots off his mouth Mexicans of all political stripes take notice (and offense). Comments such as those above further inflame a perpetually testy diplomatic relationship.
There is no unilateral solution to our immigration problem. We need Mexican authorities to help crack down on people-smuggling coyotes and to otherwise discourage the mass exodus. Even if we erected a wall spanning the entire length of the border, the most determined of immigrants would make their way to the United States, whether through tunnels, by overstaying student or tourist visas, or coming through Canada.
The point is that we need to avoid xenophobic, racist and rhetoric comments against Mexicans because we as legal residents and U.S. Citizens who are from Mexico are paying the price.
There will be no secure and functional border without USA Government, Mexico’s and other Countries cooperation. Because without a reinforcement and functional Immigration system it will continue the back log from many of them that are still on the shadow do the broken system.
We want a secure border, but does the anti-immigration movement insist on behaving like a bunch of xenophobic boobs against Mexico and Mexicans.
Provoking anger, confronting ethnicities, creating new movement of racist again Mexico and Mexicans and I am tired of that and Many of them as well.
STOP FINGERPOINTING TO
MEXICO OR MEXICANS.
I AM TIRED OF HEARING XENOPHOBICS COMMENTS
Friday, March 23, 2007
GOP Immigration Extremists
Geraldo Rivera one the most notorouis, versatile, honest and profesional Journalist.
Until the last election cycle, Republicans had a reasonable chance of becoming the permanent majority party in this country. But in the lead up to the November 2006 elections, the GOP was hijacked by extremists on the immigration issue.
Led by candidates like Arizona's J.D. Hayworth, the party essentially adopted the position of the Minutemen and similar radical groups, which promulgated a wildly exaggerated portrayal of a tidal wave of brown people overwhelming our southern border, running loose to rape, steal and murder on the streets of our cities. It is no accident that various hate groups have declared common cause with the Minutemen. Similarly, it is no accident that these various activist anti-immigration groups scarcely mention our long, undefended border with Canada.
By adopting a position at odds with the President and Republican Senate moderates like Arlen Spector, the GOP insulted Hispanic Americans, fueled the rise of radicals like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and led the way to their resounding November defeat.
Granted that the war in Iraq was the single most galvanizing issue for most Americans; for Hispanics, it was immigration and they made Republicans pay for the insults.
Item: In the elections of 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for the GOP. In 2006, that number was down to 27%. The effect of that seismic shift among the nation's fastest growing ethnic group of perhaps two million votes was the utter defeat of radical candidates like Hayworth.
Why do you think that the majority of Cuban Americans, alone among U.S. Latinos is solidly Republican while the majority of every other Hispanic group is Democratic? Like Dominicans, Mexicans, Venezuelans and every other sub-division within the Latino community, Cubans tend to be more socially conservative than Anglos on issues of faith like abortion. All are similarly entrepreneurial, hard working and traditional as opposed to secular and progressive.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the way Cubans are treated when they enter this country without proper documentation, as opposed to how their immigrant colleagues from other national backgrounds are treated is one important factor in their choice of political affiliation?
All an illegal Cuban refugee has to do to gain rights in this country is touch U.S. soil. Once they achieve that milestone, there is a presumption that they are political refugees with status. If a Dominican or a Mexican, (or a Haitian for that matter), were to swim onto that same stretch of Florida beach, they'd be locked up, and restrained until either deportation proceedings or voluntary deportation.
The President's trip to Latin America should have been an eye-opener to those advocating the construction of a mighty wall to keep Latin America out. We build a wall or even just talk about it and we fuel the radical movement led by Hugo Chavez and his left-wing comrades who say, 'see the gringos hate us'.
Wall building exacerbates, rather than regulates the flow of illegals. Is there a person reading this who really believes that a man with a hungry family who has marched across the length and breath of Mexico and miles of parched Arizona desert because his family back home is hungry will be seriously impeded by a wall? What are we going to do if they climb over or tunnel under it, shoot them?
Aren't we turning our backs on the continent that since the Monroe Doctrine we have sought to hold close.
And with a U.S. unemployment rate of fewer than 4.5%, where would we find the workers to replace the eleven or twelve million undocumented workers who are here? The current jingoistic anti-immigrant hysteria is bad politics, bad business, smacks of racism and blissfully ignores recent history.
Until the mid-19th Century most of the American Southwest was Mexico. Since the conquest of Texas in 1836, and the treaty that forced Mexico in 1848 to cede the Southwest and then added insult to injury by imposing the Gadsden, Arizona purchase of 1853, generations of Mexican citizens have been allowed back into their former territory whenever we needed their sweat and toil. We have spent a Century and a half winking and nodding at undocumented seasonal workers who risk everything to cross illegally just to get a job to feed their families.
Isn't it reasonable to think that residents of Mexico might hold some affection and nostalgia for their lost North America Empire, especially if part of their family still resides on this side of the modern line? Haven't Native Americans in recent decades experienced some small amount of belated justice? Where are the casinos and oil leases for the Mexicans forcibly excluded from their historic lands along with the Apache, Navajo, Sioux and Seminole?
Jews didn't forget Jerusalem after a forced exclusion of 2,000 years. Is it so breath-taking that the collective Mexican consciousness remembers back just 154 years to the time when towns from Santa Fe to Los Angeles to San Francisco were theirs?
However it happened, all agree that modern boundaries are now firmly and forever established. Every reasonable commentator understands that. But history is relevant when it comes to how we treat these 'visitors'.
All most of the undocumented want is a fair shake and a chance to work hard and realize what we proudly call the 'American Dream'. Give them the chance to regularize and legitimatize their status and watch, as they become another beautiful component of the national mosaic. Maybe even Republicans.
MINUTEMAN FOUNDER UNDER ATTACK BY INTERNAL TERRORISTS.
Look at the comments from Jim Gilchrist calling to their peers from the Minuteman Project Internal Terrorists.
Obviously he is looking for other interest rather than just focus on Illegal Inmigration like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchannan and many others. All of these Xenophobics people just trying to gain popularity to take $$$$$$$$ advantage from the American citizens. They are the ones that creating anger, fear, confussion, confrontation between communities and ethnicities.
For years, Jim Gilchrist had been concerned about the illegal alien invasion of America, which is so evident in southern California. On September 11, 2001, as he watched the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, he was outraged that these terrorist-murderers were mostly illegal aliens, here on expired visas.
Three years later, the government had done nothing to secure the borders, and Jim Gilchrist decided that letters and phone calls to politicians clearly weren’t enough. On October 1, 2004 he founded The Minuteman Project and launched a recruiting program that called together patriotic Americans to stand watch on the borders, report to the Border Patrol, and try to stem the tide of illegal aliens and terrorists who daily, in the thousands, infiltrate America. With about 1,200 volunteers from every state in the union Gilchrist and his hand-picked co-organizers successfully conducted the largest Minuteman assembly since 1776.
For his efforts, Gilchrist, a wounded combat Marine veteran and retired CPA, has been routinely attacked by the usual suspects: special interests, pro-unrestricted immigration groups, amnesty supporters, drug lords, and others, in and out of government.
Now Jim Gilchrist is under attack from a different sort of terrorist: covert subversives who managed to gain Gilchrist’s trust, only to breach that trust by attempting to kidnap the organization he founded. Gilchrist has effectively led The Minuteman Project since its inception, but according to the propaganda voiced by these brazen corporate raiders, Gilchrist is a bad guy. These hostile corporate raiders claim they are taking over The Minuteman Project to “save” it.
Save it? Hijack and take it over, is a more apt description, says Steve Eichler, the Minuteman Project’s Executive Director. He supports Gilchrist and is outraged at the high-handed manner in which a gang of isolated insiders have moved to oust Gilchrist.
Deborah Courtney, Marvin Stewart, and Barbara Coe have all been trusted confidantes, said Eichler, and it is devastating to Jim and me, personally, to realize that they have been covertly manipulating to take over the Minuteman Project.
Courtney, Stewart and Coe claim that they are the Minuteman Project, by virtue of them having voted Gilchrist off the Project’s so-called board of directors, a board that never existed.
That’s pretty funny, says Eichler. The Minuteman Project is incorporated under Delaware law, and Jim is the only corporate officer. There is no board, so just how is it that three supposed board members meet secretly and vote off the founder and president, then vote to give themselves access to the bank accounts and withdraw money? What will they claim next, that Marvin L. Stewart is the president of the United States in an attempt to oust the president from the White House?
These people were simply confidantes and a board of advisors, explained Gilchrist. They were not a decision-making corporate board. Even if the seven-person board they claim to have been a part of existed, how could three people, who couldn’t even constitute a quorum, meet secretly without notifying the others, and take any sort of legal action?
There is also the question of bank fraud, adds Eichler. Deborah Courtney, Marvin Stewart, and another person went to the bank with bogus paperwork, seized the Project’s bank account and withdrew Minuteman Project funds, causing the Project’s outstanding checks to bounce. We’re not talking about a simple policy disagreement, here. This is white collar crime, and we intend to pursue it as such.
An Orange County Times article (Ousted Minuteman Leader Seeks Court Remedy, by Jennifer Dilson, Feb 27, 2007) refers to the non-existent board of directors having ousted Gilchrist, and refers to Gilchist’s claim that the renegade board had stolen 20,000 letterhead stationery and envelopes bearing Gilchrist’s personal signature, had hacked into the Minuteman Project’s website, and had stolen money from the Project s bank accounts (about $4,000, according to Gilchrist, who filed a criminal report of theft with the Orange County Sheriff), and had diverted money from other sources. Gilchrist plans to meet with investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation next week to discuss any federal criminal violations that may have been perpetrated by the takeover collaborators.
Gilchrist is concerned that Courtney, Stewart and Coe will use the stolen Minuteman Project materials, including access to the Project s mailing list, to send out bogus appeals for funds. Our supporters are dedicated patriots. They don’t deserve to be deceived by bogus fund-raising appeals, says a concerned Gilchrist.
Attorneys for both sides presented their case Feb 26 to Orange County Judge Randell L. Wilkinson. This morning the court ruled in Gilchrist’s favor by expediting the matter and setting a court date for a formal hearing on March 21 at 1:30 PM in Santa Ana Superior Court.
And look at message from Mr. Gilchrist on the MinuteMan Radio show.
One Response to “AUDIO: Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Radio Network”
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
“The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on
which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection
to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today
Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our
culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the
recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the
press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which
has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal
excess during recent years.” - Adolph Hitler
Do you believe he has a notorious Hitler relationship? or he trying to tell to others if you are Black, Brown, or any other color or ethnicity you are not belong to this Country or Community..
Think twice before you donate some fund to this Minuteman Project.
This will affect you on your future......................
Monday, March 19, 2007
American Selling ID Papers to Illegal Inmigrant’s. Another set back for Lou Dobbs.
Lou Dobbs has been motivating, demostrated on his show that the illegal Inmigrants are the major source of Identify Theft. Looks Who's talking..
Sunday, March 04, 2007
HARLINGEN, Texas — Asked by a federal judge why she sold her birth certificate, Rosie Medellin said she needed a few bucks and did not really think it through. Bobby Joe Flores said he sold his ID documents to buy drugs. Margarita Moya and her son did it to raise money for medicine for a loved one.
Their documents were destined for illegal immigrants.
In all, seven defendants pleaded guilty in Corpus Christi this past week to charges of selling their birth certificates and Social Security cards for $100 each. Seven other defendants pleaded guilty to buying or reselling those documents as part of a ring that sold documents to illegal immigrants seeking jobs in Dodge City, Kan.
The federal government's attention has been on stolen or fabricated identity documents, and officials say they know little about people who sell their own legitimate documents.
Defense attorneys said prosecution for selling an ID may be something new.
"I've been practicing criminal law for years and this is the first I've seen in our Southern District," said Grant Jones, who represents a roofer with sporadic employment. "If they've [the government] been aware in the past, they've now decided to enforce the law."
However, Jones said his client told him that document selling was a well-known way to earn a quick buck.
Prosecutors declined to talk about the case until a sentencing hearing in May before U.S. District Judge Hayden Head Jr. in Corpus Christi. The defendants face anywhere from probation to five years in prison.
Jones considers it just a twist on the more familiar cases of identity theft.
"Maybe 10, 15 years ago somebody had to come up with a new idea: Why steal them? Why not just buy them?" he said. "They pick out people who are in need, who don't care. You're a poor person living down in the barrio; some guy says 'Hey, listen, I'll give you a hundred dollars. The guy says 'OK, I need a hundred dollars."'
In this case, the defendants ended up with the cash — and a double holding a job in Kansas.
Government raids at meatpacking plants in six states in December stemmed from an investigation that uncovered up to 4,300 workers with questionable documentation.
Tim Counts, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman in Bloomington, Minn., said that investigation revealed documents were available for a price in places as open as Kmart parking lots. He said genuine documents were the most expensive, costing up to $1,500, and the most effective against detection.
"We don't have an all-inclusive picture of it," he said. "What we do have is evidence and information from individual cases. ... We definitely know it happens."
The issue also has turned up elsewhere.
In June, a man pleaded guilty in Concord, N.H., to selling five genuine Texas birth certificates and six Social Security cards to informants. Three years earlier, 10 people in Beardstown, Ill., were charged with receiving or transferring real documents that originated in Texas. In August 2002, a man in Green Bay, Wis., was charged with intent to sell documents including genuine Puerto Rican birth certificates and Social Security cards.
Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said there is not much specific information on the extent of the problem.
"Irrespective of the mode of identity theft, the issue itself is prevalent and it's something we're striking at very aggressively," Knocke said.
Friday, March 02, 2007
U.S. Anti-Immigrant Groups Meet with Belgian Racists
Posted: February 26, 2007
The Robert A. Taft Club, a right-wing organization linked to The American Cause, founded by Patrick Buchanan in 1993, hosted a speech on February 23, 2007 by Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke, leaders of the racist and xenophobic far-right Belgian party, Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang), in Arlington, Virginia.
In their speech, titled "Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the End of Free Speech in Europe," the Flemish Interest leaders claimed that the large influx of Muslim immigrants in Flanders and Europe present a danger to Western culture. The event at the Robert A. Taft Club was widely promoted on the Internet by American racists and anti-Semites, who lauded the Flemish Interest's platform.
According to news accounts, Buchanan met with Dewinter and Vanhecke and reportedly gave each of them a copy of his anti-immigrant book, State of Emergency. The two Flemish Interest leaders also claimed to have had a series of meetings with American leaders and organizations supportive of their views.
On February 22, Dewinter appeared as a guest on "The Political Cesspool," a Tennessee-based radio show that often features white supremacists and anti-Semites as guests. During the interview, Dewinter mentioned several times that representatives of the Flemish Interest were here in America "looking for support for [our] cause."
Flemish Interest was formed in 2004 after a ruling in Belgium's highest court declared its precursor, the Flemish Bloc, a racist organization and cut off its state funding, causing the group to disband. Flemish Interest is deeply hostile to immigrants and minorities, and its members have a history of espousing racist and anti-Semitic views. It has made headlines in Europe as one of the founding members of a new racist and anti-Semitic political group in the European Parliament called "Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty" (ITS