La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet MurguÃa used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
something for nothing from Obama?
something for nothing from Obama?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Young Con rap song
Young Con rap song
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Obama puts a 31-year-old in charge Charge of Dismantling G.M.
Obama puts a 31-year-old college dropout in charge of dismantling G.M.
The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M.
WASHINGTON — It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism.
But that, in short, is the job description for Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.
By DAVID E. SANGER
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
is Nancy Pelosi is well beyond menopause?
is Nancy Pelosi is well beyond menopause?
or it may be she getting senile.
or it may be she getting senile.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Morris: STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS
RESISTING O'S WORLD - STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.
This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.
The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.
As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.
Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.
We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).
All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.
If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.
There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.
But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).
To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.
Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.
The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.
At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.
This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.
The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.
As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.
Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.
We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).
All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.
If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.
There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.
But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).
To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.
Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.
The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.
At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Mexican Drug Lord Orders Deadly Force
Mexican Drug Lord Orders Deadly Force
The reputed head of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel has instructed his army of associates to use deadly force if necessary to protect their increasingly contested trafficking operations, even against U.S. law enforcement, according to authorities here and in Washington.
The threatened offensive by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted man, was described by U.S. officials as being highly unusual, given that his associates have avoided violent confrontations with American law enforcement officers, and have kept their blood feuds with fellow traffickers largely south of the border.
Guzman is believed to have delivered the message personally in early March, during a three-day gathering of his associates in Sonoita, a small Mexican town just a few miles south of the Arizona border, according to U.S. intelligence bulletins sent to several state and federal law enforcement officials.
The reputed head of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel has instructed his army of associates to use deadly force if necessary to protect their increasingly contested trafficking operations, even against U.S. law enforcement, according to authorities here and in Washington.
The threatened offensive by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted man, was described by U.S. officials as being highly unusual, given that his associates have avoided violent confrontations with American law enforcement officers, and have kept their blood feuds with fellow traffickers largely south of the border.
Guzman is believed to have delivered the message personally in early March, during a three-day gathering of his associates in Sonoita, a small Mexican town just a few miles south of the Arizona border, according to U.S. intelligence bulletins sent to several state and federal law enforcement officials.
Monday, May 04, 2009
anyone seen DHS Janet Napolitano newest girlfriend ?
anyone seen DHS Janet Napolitano newest girlfriend ?
I heard she a hottie..........................
I heard she a hottie..........................
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Obama leaves the barn door open for Mexican border jumpers?
Obama leaves the barn door open for border jumpers?
Friday, May 01, 2009
importing swine ? Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
importing swine ? Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
Chance border visit surprises Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
Traveling with three international media correspondents during one of his routine trips to survey the progress of the international border fence being erected along the California-Mexico border, Minuteman Project president Jim Gilchrist observed four Mexican nationals setting up what appeared to be a gasoline-powered metal cutting machine last week.
“The group was apparently preparing to cut through the old, unreinforced border fence in Campo, California ,” Gilchrist said.
Britt Craig of the Campo Minutemen organization, who routinely accompanies Gilchrist on the fence surveys, summoned nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents who said they would set up an observation point for that area of the fence. One agent surmised that the group was going to cut a hole in the fence large enough to drive a vehicle through laden with either illegal aliens or drugs, or both.
The Mexicans, in their early twenties or younger, retreated back into Mexico about 100 yards to a cluster of boulders, leaving the machinery under a tree about 30 feet from the border fence. There were large plastic bags stacked against one of the boulders. Gilchrist said none of the men appeared to be armed.
http://www.minutemanproject.com
Chance border visit surprises Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
Traveling with three international media correspondents during one of his routine trips to survey the progress of the international border fence being erected along the California-Mexico border, Minuteman Project president Jim Gilchrist observed four Mexican nationals setting up what appeared to be a gasoline-powered metal cutting machine last week.
“The group was apparently preparing to cut through the old, unreinforced border fence in Campo, California ,” Gilchrist said.
Britt Craig of the Campo Minutemen organization, who routinely accompanies Gilchrist on the fence surveys, summoned nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents who said they would set up an observation point for that area of the fence. One agent surmised that the group was going to cut a hole in the fence large enough to drive a vehicle through laden with either illegal aliens or drugs, or both.
The Mexicans, in their early twenties or younger, retreated back into Mexico about 100 yards to a cluster of boulders, leaving the machinery under a tree about 30 feet from the border fence. There were large plastic bags stacked against one of the boulders. Gilchrist said none of the men appeared to be armed.
http://www.minutemanproject.com
Thursday, April 30, 2009
anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?
anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?
looks like border security would be nice to have now.
looks like border security would be nice to have now.
150K jobs saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir
150K job saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir
Friday, April 24, 2009
info on Chris Simcox, Arizona senate canidate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....
Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]
In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.
He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.
Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]
In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.
Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".
On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.
Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]
Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]
[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.
[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"
Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]
In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.
He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.
Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]
In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.
Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".
On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.
Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]
Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]
[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.
[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"
Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?
Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?
Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
can he be charged with insider trading ?
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)
Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."
A 'very sweet deal'?
Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.
see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)
this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor
Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
can he be charged with insider trading ?
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)
Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."
A 'very sweet deal'?
Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.
see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)
this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor
Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Chris Simcox vs Mccain in 2010 senate primary
Minuteman founder to run for Senate against McCain
PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.
Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.
Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.
Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/
PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.
Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.
Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.
Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/
looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate
looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate seat, new blood would be refreshing
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Texas considering secession ?
Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk
AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.
Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.
At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."
Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.
Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.
A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.
"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.
Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.
Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."
Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.
"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.
By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.
Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.
At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."
Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.
Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.
A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.
"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.
Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.
Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."
Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.
"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.
By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, April 04, 2009
OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT
OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT
By DICK MORRIS
GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.
This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.
And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.
Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.
Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.
And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?
When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.
Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.
But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.
The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
By DICK MORRIS
GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.
This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.
And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.
Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.
Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.
And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?
When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.
Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.
But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.
The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)