new democratic network
new democratic network: Page 1
Drop Dobbs: illegal activity-supporting racial power groups and far-left want Lou Dobbs off CNN - 09/17/09
A coalition of illegal immigration-supporting far-left and/or racial power groups has launched a campaign called "Drop Dobbs" to get advertisers to pull their ads from CNN's Lou Dobbs show (dropdobbs.com, mediamatters.org/blog/200909150031): "...The effort aims to let companies know that their continued financial support of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight makes them complicit in the hate speech and wild conspiracy theories that he promotes..."
Campaigns like this - following on the heels of the somewhat successful similar campaign against Glenn Beck - stand a greater chance of success given the fact that Dobbs' ratings aren't as high as they once were. What you can do about this is raise awareness about the groups involved and cut them off from support, both financial and ideological.
For instance, help organize a campaign against bills that would fund the NCLR. Or, do something as simple (but too difficult for some) as leaving comments at blog and news postings by or discussing the groups; those comments should have the goal of discrediting those groups or their supporters.
See the following links to the names of the groups involved for our coverage of each group:
* National Council of La Raza (funds extremists, gave award to someone who'd proposed genocide)
* League of United Latin American Citizens (CA chapter thinks U.S.-Mexico border might be invalid)
* Southern Poverty Law Center (misled about hate crime statistics)
* Media Matters for America
* Frank Sharry
* Reform Immigration for America
* Center for New Community
* Hispanic Institute (see below)
* Dolores Huerta Foundation (promoted demographic hegemony, hatred against Republicans)
* National Hispanic Media Coalition
* National Puerto Rican Coalition
* New Democratic Network
* Netroots Nation (from Dailykos and others)
* Voto Latino
UPDATE: Janet Murguia of the NCLR says, among other things (huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/join-nclr-and-the-drop-do_b_290584.html):
For two years, I have tried working behind the scenes with CNN to bring some fairness to the relentless bias of CNN programming due to Dobbs' show... The Drop Dobbs coalition is compiling a list of those advertisers supporting the Lou Dobbs show and will be reaching out to educate them about this issue. We recognize that many advertisers may be unaware that FAIR has been designated as a hate group, so we are contacting those companies before publicly releasing the list. However, unless and until Dobbs and CNN disassociate themselves from this hate group, we will be asking advertisers to withhold their support...
UPDATE 2: See also the similar group "Enough is Enough!". Communications for that are being handled by a DNC official; it would be interesting to know to what extent if any the Obama administration is involved in either group. Could someone (perhaps Judicial Watch) file some FOIA requests?
The Hispanic Institute's board is at thehispanicinstitute.net/about/boardofdirectors. In addition to one board member who was with the National Association of Realtors, another is quite interesting:
Napolitano immigration meeting: you weren't represented (vast # of loose borders groups, Obama/Janet anti-287g) - 08/20/09
Earlier today, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security held a closed-door meeting with a group of what she calls "stakeholders" (dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1250792978709.shtm) but was actually a vast pantheon (see below) of far-left, racial power, corrupt business, and in general loose borders groups all of which want some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. There were at least 98 participants in the meeting, and none of them represent your interests or the interests of the great majority of American citizens. Why exactly they'd hold the meeting isn't clear; aside from guest workers and minor details they're all pretty much on the same page. Perhaps it was a strategy session to see how they could fool as many people as possible whenever they decide to push for amnesty.
The President said specifically that when it comes to the local police charged with enforcing federal immigration law under 287(g) agreements that he wants these local law enforcement agencies held accountable.
Noorani’s other question concerned the 287g program, which gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration law. Noorani asked Napolitano to revoke the authority of agencies who have clearly violated the spirit of the agreement, and that the immigration reform community looked forward to seeing that happen. Napolitano responded, “Me, too.”
Other statements from those attending the meeting are here. Here's the intro to the DHS's press release:
"Today’s meeting on comprehensive immigration reform was an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders and build on the significant time I’ve spent on the Hill meeting with members of Congress on this critical subject. I look forward to working with President Obama, my colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor organizations, the interfaith community, advocacy groups and others as we work on this important issue.”
UPDATE: Griswold of CATO weighs in with a slab of Policy-As-Highschool (cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/21/the-president-drops-by-to-tout-immigration-reform). After Napolitano gave her "opening remarks we broke up into smaller roundtable discussions of about 15 people each moderated by DHS officials". They then reconvened and Napolitano discussed what they'd learned. Then, Obama entered the building and made his speech "about 20 feet from where I was sitting". Griswold also refers to himself as a "small fish"; he's much too modest since he was some kind of inspiration for Bush's 2004 anti- and un-American guest workers plan.
And, there are so many groups that I've split the list into two parts. The religious, union, city/police, and miscellaneous groups are here. The following has the major groups, the business groups, and the single libertarian:
Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network offers "Making the Case: 7 Reasons Why Congress Should Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this Year" (huffingtonpost.com/simon-rosenberg/making-the-case-why-congr_b_193621.html). As one might expect from the source, all seven are actually reasons *not* to pass "reform".
His first reason is that we need "reform" in order to remove the "trap door" that allows employers to pay illegal aliens below the minimum wage:
it needs to be understood that these undocumenteds are already here and working. If you are undocumented, you are not eligible for welfare. If you are not working, you go home. Thus, in order to remove this "trap door," we need to either kick five percent of existing American workforce out of the country -- a moral and economic impossibility -- or legalize them. There is no third way on this one. They stay and become citizens or we chase them away.
1. Even if they aren't eligible for welfare, they can still get it either illegally or legally through their U.S. citizen children.
2. Many unemployed illegal aliens are remaining in the U.S., such as by being intermittent day laborers.
3. We don't need to "kick" that 5% out of the country at once. We could take steps to encourage them to leave over time if our political leaders would let us. Given the job situation and the fact that citizens can obtain a host of benefits, illegal aliens leaving and freeing up a job for a citizen would be a net economic gain. "Chasing them away" over time is not a drastic step, and it's the only realistic public policy.
He also says, "[l]egalization does not create a flood of new immigrants", which is obviously absurd. Then:
NDN admits: Census padding with non-citizens to gain race-based power ("Latinos" meet in DC; redistricting) - 01/19/09
Fernanda Santos of the New York Times offers "Immigration Tops Latinos' Wish List at D.C. Meeting" (link), discussing a meeting held today in Washington DC featuring John Trasvina of MALDEF, Rosa Rosales of the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network. As could be expected, it falsely assumes that those racial-power-seeking leaders represent all Hispanics ("[MALDEF] hosted the event, the second annual Latino State of the Union, a gathering of advocates, civil rights activists and lawmakers representing the interests of the Latino community").
[He] said that the Latino vote is now too important to be ignored and that might help speed things up in Congress, especially as congressional district lines will be redrawn after the 2010 Census. Certainly some Republican leaders are urging their party to figure out a way to regain Latino support that eroded during this presidential election... "I anticipate a dramatic shift in power toward heavily Latino parts of the United States" following the redistricting, Mr. Rosenberg said. "Remember: in redistricting, we count people, not citizens."
In other words, Rosenberg wants to dilute the votes of U.S. citizens using legal immigrants and illegal aliens in order to gain political power. See also Should illegal aliens count towards Congressional representation?, "Under bill, illegals wouldn't count toward political clout", and Crooked Massachusetts Dems: count illegal aliens to save Cong. seat.
Note also this:
"[Trasvina] mentioned that Latinos have "friends in high places" in the Obama administration, like the Interior secretary designate, Ken Salazar; the Labor secretary designate, Hilda Solis; and the White House's director of intergovernmental affairs, Cecilia Munoz, formerly a vice president of the National Council de la Raza.
In remarks read by Tina Tchen, who will be the White House director of public liaison, Mr. Obama said to Latinos, "You showed how powerful you are on Nov. 4" and that the appointments are "a measure of my commitment" of forming a government that reflects the nation's diversity.
Darryl Fears of the Washington Post offers "Republicans Lost Ground With Latinos In Midterms". As might be expected, it's so full of misleading statements, superficial analysis, hidden agendas, and hidden assumptions that a full treatment would be novel-length:
...Latinos [gave] the GOP only 30 percent of their vote as strident House immigration legislation inspired by Republicans and tough-talking campaign ads by conservative candidates roiled the community. It was a 10-point drop from the lowest estimated Latino vote percentage two years ago, and a 14-point drop from the highest...
Of course, GOP votes from other groups were down as well. The percentage drop may be have been greater among Latinos, but that doesn't mean that it had anything to do with immigration or related ads. And, the idea that there could be a "community" is identity politics at its finest, but is untrue since, for instance, there are obvious differences between Cuban-Americans in Miami and Mexican-Americans in Texas colonias. And, not all of those "tough-talking" ads were from "conservatives"; perhaps that's why he used that word and not "Republicans". And, while a few of the ads may have gone overboard, if "the community" objects to enforcement of our laws, perhaps we have a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. And, needless to say, HR4437 wasn't "strident".
Then, he quotes "Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network" as saying that the "Republican Party is hostile to Hispanics". Obviously, he's biased. And, just as obviously, that's false. Not even those GOP leaders that support our immigration laws are hostile to one ethnic group. They just oppose, for instance, those like Rosenberg who support massive illegal activity as an "ethnic thing".
Latinos by and large supported the millions of marchers who protested House immigration proposals in the spring, and there are recent signs that Republicans are working to bring them back to the party (via rightwing Cuban - and thus non-Chicano - Mel Martinez).
Those marches might have indeed had widespread support, and most Americans should consider that alarming. Those marching were doing so in support of illegal activity, and many were in fact foreign citizens making a show of force in our streets. Many of those marching seem to think that they have a right to move here at will, and some of those even called the U.S. their "homeland". And, some of the organizers of those marches have links to foreign governments and Mexico's PRD party.
[HR4437] would make it a felony to assist any illegal immigrant, frightening the Roman Catholic Church. It worried rights groups because it would step up enforcement that could cost illegal immigrants their jobs, homes and lives.
As far as I know, the Pope didn't weigh in on 4437. However, Cardinal Roger Mahony did pretend to be "frightened", but then later admitted he was full of it. As for those "rights" groups, perhaps they shouldn't be supporting illegal aliens working illegally. And, perhaps we shouldn't encourage banks to give loans to illegal aliens, since that ends up encouraging political corruption. As for the last, stepped-up enforcement would reduce such issues, since many fewer would try to come here. Those "rights" groups actually encourage people to try to cross, resulting in more tragedies than their would be if they discouraged them from trying to cross the desert in summer.
Don't expect Darryl Fears to do a deeper analysis of this issue, since he's simply an illegal immigration supporting hack.