What Hot Aug 16

Dr. Virginia Abernethy has a Ph.D. in anthropology and has earned the right to talk about human culture. However, her academic studies and the professional papers she's written are evidently intellectually above what the average person–or at least above the average reporter–c an understand, but more importantly, are totally irrelevant to PAN. Part of the purpose of the smear campaign against her, PAN, me and anyone who accomplishes anything in our movement, is to distract us from the goal at hand. I am not facilitating that distraction. Furthermore we are all unpaid volunteers with a paltry 24 hours in each day of our measly 7 day-weeks. Until after we get our initiative passed in November, we are not discussing anything extraneous to PAN, our initiative, or the mission of PAN's National Advisory Board.

I personally don't know what other organizations PAN supporters support, their religions, other issues they care about, or personal belief systems they have -- and until I can see how those things relate to PAN and The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (Prop 200), I don't care about our supporters' personal lives.

PAN is the highest common denominator for a lot of diverse supporters. You love diversity, don't you? Well, PAN is supported by people in both major political parties and people not affiliated with any party, people of all colors and no color, conservationists and non-conservationists, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, pro-2nd Amendment and anti-gun advocates, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists, atheists, and on and on. None of these things are related to PAN, so why should I or other PAN leaders care about it? The fact is, we don't, and you can't make us.

Now why don't the media focus on obviously racist, anti-American organizations like La Raza, MeCHA, LULAC, MALDEF, and militaristic Aztlaners that support our opponents? In fact, why don't the media devote 1/10 of the time, space, and resources on how many people are killed or otherwise victimized by illegal aliens, as they do on poor-people-dying-in-the-desert stories?

Jealous national organizations and other PAN wanna-be's with self-serving agendas can just keep their unsolicited and unwanted opinions to themselves.

"Responding to whatever inaccuracies about me may have been published, let me say exactly what my position is. I have been accused of being a racist and a white supremacist, but I am neither.

I prefer not to use the designation "white" and I have rarely described myself with that term. "White" denies the diversity of my background and culture at the same time that it is vague in some respects. I am European-American. There is richness and texture in this, parallel to other designations in common use in the United States, e.g. African-American, Asian-American, etc.

In the [now dozens] of interviews with Arizona media, I have consistently distinguished between "supremacist" and "separatist." The Arizona Republic quotes an Illinois source, Eric Ward [a Southern Poverty Law Center wannabe] in calling me a supremacist. The AR accurately quotes my rebuttal, where I distinguish between a supremacist and a separatist. [See Arizona Republic story published August 7, 2004.]

Regarding separatism, I always point out that most ethnic, religious, and cultural groups are happy and proud to be with their own. For example, African-Americans in Atlanta had public demonstrations in order to get black-oriented schools. As long as I can remember, Jewish students have had access to Hillel and B'nai Brith on many college campuses. A Jews-only dating service is said to be available on-line. Vanderbilt just opened a Jewish Student Center, and an Asian-American Student Association and a Caribbean Students Association are also located on campus. Most college campuses have ethnic houses.

Speaking of racist and supremacist, look up statements from La Raza [the Race], which can be found through Barbara Coe's organization "911" in California. Many Hispanic statements are not separatist. But certain La Raza supporters have told "gringos" to get out of California, and that is supremacist. Who are they to order other people around?

Now "racist." No one who knows anything calls me racist. That label is a dozen years old and won't stick because I consistently say that immigration hurts first and worst our own poor, many of whom are minorities and established immigrants. End of story.

Labels are the last resort of people who are losing the intellectual argument. These are the SHUT UP words. So long as we shut up on cue, they win. And we lose AMERICA."

From one of thousands of loyal PAN supporters who can't be bought or fooled (and who actually alerted us to this smear campaign.

I admit I was somewhat puzzled over the 'spat' between Kathy McKee and Russell Pearce, Randy Graf, and Rusty Childress. I have the highest regard for them all, and was sad to see these brave people on seemingly different sides. From my vantage point, I can't say Prop 200 would have made the ballot without FAIR's help. I don't know anything about Virginia Abernethy that I made judge her as a plus or minus. None of the quotes in the AZ Republic article on Ms. Abernethy would lead me to a minus. REALITY CHECK: The AZ Republic is publishing every piece of crap they can find to derail PAN.

1) FAIR came into the game in the 'fourth quarter', when historically signature numbers go up, regardless of the initiative.

2) No one will ever know if true PAN volunteers would have reached the goal, because

3) FAIR grandstanded when they held the collected signatures for turnover-publicity, allowing no time for pre-verification. I believe this put the effort in unnecessary peril for the sake of a photo op.

4) Since Arizona is up to its ears in illegal aliens, it would certainly seem that Kathy McKee has accomplished more in 12 months that FAIR has in 20 years.

I believe FAIR owes the volunteers of PAN an apology. In asking Kathy McKee to "step

aside", you have proven that all the negative rantings about FAIR were absolutely true.

Perhaps it time for FAIR to "step aside". There are similar initiatives popping up in many

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040809/dcm066_1.html
Press Release
Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform

What FAIR Believes ... One Unified American Community
Monday August 9, 6:56 pm ET

Arizona's Prop. 200 is About Upholding U.S. Immigration Laws
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Today the Federation for American Immigration Reform issued the following statement:

FAIR firmly believes in the motto e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one" -- that people of all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds who embrace the ideals of our constitution are part of one unified American community. We also believe that America is a society based on the rule of law and that rampant illegal immigration threatens the principles for which this country stands.

A recent public opinion poll shows that 74 percent of Arizona voters support Proposition 200, which would require the state to withhold benefits from illegal immigrants if federal law bars them from receiving those benefits.

While organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the virtually unknown Center for New Community would like to tar all supporters of immigration reform with the same brush, there is a time for complete candor and sober assessment. When there is evidence someone has crossed the line, we are compelled to speak out: Views expressed by a Ms. Virginia Abernethy, a Nashville, Tennessee advisor to Kathy McKee -- appointed after the signature turn in and utterly uninvolved in the signature gathering process -- are repugnant, divisive and do not represent the views of the vast majority of Arizonans who support Proposition 200. These views were reported by the Arizona Republic on Saturday, August 7, 2004. We do not know why she was appointed by Ms. McKee, but FAIR and everyone FAIR represents categorically denies and repudiates Abernethy's repulsive separatist views.

This gross error in judgment by Ms. McKee -- appointing someone whose views are so marginal and discreditable -- continues a long pattern of similarly inexplicable and erratic conduct by McKee, and confirms the need for both to step aside at this juncture. Beyond the actual turn in of signatures, Ms. McKee has had little to do with advancing Proposition 200 for months.

The only separatism we advocate is separating Virginia Abernethy and Kathy McKee from this effort before they do any more damage. We believe this is the prevailing view among activists and advocates in Arizona. Ms. McKee no longer has a following and no longer any substantial support. Having turned in the petitions -- mostly generated by other organizations -- Ms. McKee no longer has any useful role in any case.

Proposition 200 is about enforcing our immigration laws, protecting the safety and security of our nation, and lifting the enormous financial burden that mass immigration is placing on the shoulders of law-abiding taxpayers in Arizona. These are the issues to discuss in this effort -- and these are issues on which there is agreement, across all ethnic groups and political blocs.

Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform

Symbolism is important in politics, and the fact that President Bush has chosen Mexico as the destination for the first foreign visit of his presidency says a lot. Mexico holds the potential to be one of our most promising foreign relationships, or one of the United States’ biggest headaches. President Bush is wise to put Mexico at the top of his foreign policy agenda.

On the bright side, Mexico has freed itself of the yoke of 70 years of corrupt one party rule with the election of Vicente Fox as its new president. President Fox has his work cut out for him, and it would be unrealistic of us, or the Mexican people, to expect that he will turn the country around overnight. Mexico is also emerging from the severe economic crisis of the early 1990s, and under NAFTA has become an important U.S. trading partner.

The danger looms in the belief that there is a short cut to the type of reform that needs to occur in Mexico. Presidents Fox and Bush, as well as many leading congressional Republicans seem to believe that we can move from where we are now, to a fully integrated North American economic and labor market immediately. While that is a laudable long-term goal, rushing from point A to point Z could prove disastrous. . . . .

High on President Fox’s agenda is freer access for Mexican workers to the U.S. labor market. While this may seem, on the surface, to be a good idea - given Mexico’s worker excess and our tight labor market - it a sure-fire prescription for getting us right back where we started. The idea of a U.S. “safety valve” for excess Mexican labor has not really benefited either country.

Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher

Ira Mehlman, media director of FAIR (Federation for American Immigrant Reform), agrees that “American Jews need to look out for their own self-interest,” but noted that immigration is an American problem, not just a Jewish one. “This is not about right-left politics,” he said, “it’s about excessive numbers of immigrants coming here and placing a burden on our communities, our schools and our economy.” He and others argue that aside from Jewish concerns, with up to 1.5 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arriving each year, America cannot properly absorb them; the current policy will lead to social and economic upheaval, in addition to jeopardizing national security, these observers say.

, , , ,

The Marin Independent Journal's headlines screamed. Rick Oltman, chairperson of the Republican Central Committee of Marin was removed from his post for publicly agreeing with the beating of illegals in Southern California.

Then the headlines screamed he'd been reinstated and without showing any regret other than he shouldn't have spoken publicly.

(The CP tried numerous times to get a response from Mr. Oltman but was unable.)

Intent on adding to its string of losses, and just as most Arizonans rejoiced in their initiative's ballot status, FAIR again attacked Kathy McKee, founder and chairman of PAN. FAIR's screed against McKee and Dr. Virginia Abernethy was posted, then within two hours removed from the American Patrol website. Someone with good sense evidently moved quickly to limit damage.

Nevertheless, the episode makes us dust off some records that FAIR might rather forget.

At a 1996 public meeting on immigration in Aspen, Colorado, FAIR employee Ira Mehlman [in a taped lecture] criticized Pat Buchanan, the only presidential candidate advocating a reduction in immigration numbers, and advised conference attendees to vote against Buchanan in the coming election. Why was Mehlman, as a representative of FAIR, whose proper mission is to focus on policy not candidates, campaigning against Buchanan?

At the same meeting, Aspen City Councilmen undertook to urge their fellow Council members to pass a Resolution that called for an 80% reduction in legal immigration numbers, whereupon Mehlman spoke up to suggest modifying the Resolution so that it called for a reduction of 50% at most. Why did Mehlman advocate considerably less of a reduction than the number on the table?

What are Ira Mehlman's motives? Should FAIR's failure to achieve any reduction in illegal immigration over 25 years, much less elimination of it, despite expenditures of tens of millions of dollars, give rise to doubts about Mehlman's and FAIR's sincerity, integrity, and competence?

Doubts are not dispelled by Mehlman's May 16, 2003, comment to Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher of Jewish Week: "American Jews need to look out for their own self-interest...." Does Mehlman's August 26, 2001, Commentary published in the Arizona Republic clarify that self-interest? He writes that one cannot move to "a fully integrated North American economic and labor market immediately. While that is a laudable long-term goal,...."

GOAL??? Does Mehlman mean that a borderless United States and Mexico would be a good thing although it will take some time to get there? Are Mehlman and FAIR clueless or just uncaring about the well-being of average and poor Americans?

Our question today is, do Mehlman and FAIR want to resolve our border problem by reducing immigration to an acceptable number, or is their real aim to keep themselves perpetually in the lucrative business of opposing immigration? Equivocation, obfuscation, deflection, and undercutting promising avenues all derail real action.

Finally [but we may think of more], FAIR's failure to put any serious time or effort into helping pass a significant immigration reduction bill [such as Congressman Tancredo's moratorium bill which FAIR did not even mention in the previous congressional session] nullifies sincere reduction efforts.

Is derailing resistance to mass immigration FAIR's true purpose, as many veterans in this movement have suggested?