/ February 4, 2008 09:19 PM
Janet Murguia of La Raza went on Lou Dobbs last night after the new group she is associating herself with, We Can Stop The Hate, said that Dobbs fuels hate and racism. (and no I won't link to their site and nor should you. The less attention this faux group gets the better).
Below is the full "debate".
I personally was disappointed with Lou Dobbs. I thought that he performed poorly and let Janet Murguia rant on and on endlessly and not challenging her accusations against Chris Simcox and James Gilchrist - both of the Minuteman Project - and Dan Stein of FAIR as outright vigilantes and racists. Dobbs let it go, though he did call her accusations ridiculous.
Now I'm not saying that Murguia won the debate between them. On the contrary, she came off looking like a lunatic wacko set to destroy the lives of individuals on innuendo and unproven claims. Her only claim against Simcox as being a hate filled racist vigilante is that he went into a federal park with his weapon. He didn't discharge it or "hunt down Hispanics" and kill them with it. No, he simply had it with him. Another telling point is when Murguia complains that Americans have guns as if that is a bad thing! An absolutely ridiculous statement from her, which makes you wonder whose constitution she goes by. She states it as if any gun carrying American is a vigilante out to kill Hispanics.
Murguia also claims that La Raza represents all 44 million Hispanics in this country. That's funny because I know a ton of Hispanics that are opposed to the group. Has she asked, and had permission from, all 44 million Hispanics in this country whether she can represent them? Have they all contacted her and given her the de facto anointing to speak for all of them? How many members does La Raza have in the Hispanic community that have signed up with them? Things like this are stated as a "fact" by Murguia.
Of course none of her "facts" and accusations can be proven and were all based off of what two groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), decided to pull out of their asses. When presented with the FBI stats on hate crimes against Hispanics and them not going up much at all, Murguia simply reiterated the ADL stats, that have no backing, saying that hate crimes against Hispanics have gone up dramatically. Here's just one example from their website in regard to Jim Gilchrist:
Good thing he doesn’t engage in hate speech. We still think that Mike Huckabee shouldn’t be accepting the endorsement of someone who says he is “proud to be a vigilante.”
They post this on their website as a fact, that he is a vigilante, but in reality Gilchrist at the time was being sarcastic in response to the idiocy of President Bush calling the Minutemen vigilantes before they had even gone to the border in their organized "neighborhood watch" program. Gilchrist said if watching the border and reporting to the border patrol illegal aliens they spotted made him a vigilante, then he's "proud to be a vigilante". It's "facts" like these that the group is using to slander people as racists.
As far as these two groups, the ADL and SPLC, I'd just like to point out a few things that are ironic. The Anti-Defamation League is now in the business of defaming people without proof or just cause. The Southern Poverty Law Center no longer has anything to do with law or poverty and everything to do with accomplishing their agenda through any means necessary. Of course both of their goals are open borders and a flood of more illegal aliens that they can get legalized and then "represent" the rights of. They have a monetary and power driven agenda for wanting our immigration laws to not be enforced.
On the website they state that their "extremist" and "racist" tags against individuals and groups are supported by the two groups above and that they are "two of the country’s most respected observers on these issues". Respected by whom? Only people who support their cause? Another "fact" they create out of thin air. These two groups are respected by about 5 people in this country and they are all working for the above mentioned groups.
As for Murguia and La Raza (The Race), it is obvious what their goals are, Hispanic domination of the United States at the expense of the American people as a whole. Their perpetuation of racism and hate in this country is all one sided...
... from their side.
Lou Dobbs Vs Janet Murguia Part 1 of 3
Lou Dobbs Vs Janet Murguia Part 2 of 3
Lou Dobbs Vs Janet Murguia Part 3 of 3
This entry is in the following archive(s):
Next and Previous Entries:
Posted by Digger on February 4, 2008 09:19 PM (Permalink)
The National Council of La Raza is guilty of aiding and abetting illegal immigration with this statement found via a google search of nclr.org:
"If you happen to be undocumented, do NOT disclose your immigration status or the immigration status of your co-workers to your employer, or to anyone."
The title of this document?
What Every Worker Should Know
Posted by: Ruthiness on February 4, 2008 11:24 PM
From this link there is more evidence of their elitist background:
In “1968—The Hispanic organization, the Southwest Council of LaRaza Unida, is created with a $630,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, which supports the movement to bring massive numbers of Mexicans into the U.S. From 1968 to 1992, Ford Foundation grants to radical Hispanics totaled over $31 million. And according to Henry Santiestevan (former head of the Southwest Council of LaRaza), It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the Ford Foundation is the Chicano movement .” (14)
Included in the list of well financed ‘radical Hispanic’ groups are the National Council of La Raza (i.e., The Race), MALDEF and LULAC. One other caveat is that the US Attorney General Gonzales is rumored to be a card carrying member of NCLR, a charge that he has never denied. What better way to achieve the goal of a North American Union than to arm a ‘5th column’ of rabid racist Hispanics organizations that will support massive illegal immigration creating a de facto elimination of our borders as the CFR desires. Some wags have even said that the CFR initials probably stand for Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller. (15)(16)
Along with the non-profit foundations that are funding the racist reconquista rabble, there has been a concerted effort by our own government to aid and abet the massive illegal alien anarchy you see in our streets. Below in the numbered references you can find three well researched articles by this author that document how our government and the non-profit foundations are promoting, aiding and abetting the illegal alien anarchy: (17)(18)(19)
Posted by: Ruthiness on February 4, 2008 11:34 PM
Lou Dobbs missed th point, she was talking about hate speech. he sounded like Bill o Reiley. shame on him. What dressing u want
Posted by: rawdawgbuffalo on February 5, 2008 10:26 AM
Dobbs got owned last night. Murguia won the debate hands down. Dobbs is a one-trick pony and I'm sick and tired of his hate-mongering masquerading in the garb of free speech. Whenever he doesn't have a senator on his show he talks of how idiotic these politicians are and when he has some senators as guests he grovels at their feet. I personally enjoyed watching Murguia make Dobbs sweat last night.
Posted by: Deepak on February 5, 2008 12:31 PM
I was disappointed with Dobbs' performance at first, but the more I thought about it, he went about it the right way, all things considered. While it would have been more immediately satisfying to have him shut off her mic and refute her rhetoric, it would have been off-putting and heavy handed. He did a good job of allowing her space to showcase her insanity and lack of decorum. The feeling I got was she was so scared of an honest debate that she had to not allow him to reply or finish a statement.
What I was wondering the whole time, was when is he going to bring up the obvious pot/kettle argument about NCLR. You have to wonder how it's free speech when it's for them, but "hate speech" when it's against them, and the fuzzy logic needed to rationalize such an argument.
Posted by: Somedude on February 5, 2008 03:03 PM
Murguia and ADL invested a lot of time documenting the hateful rhetoric spewed by Dobbs and other of his ilk. Some of the hateful comments they've documented are quite shocking. All are offensive. Hopefully decent Americans will see this.
Posted by: Ralph on February 5, 2008 03:19 PM
I thought Dobbs was being polite. I think he showed restraint. He is not Falafel Bill and has too much class to cut off someone's sound. I believe by letting Janet Murguia rant with no real substantiation, Dobbs let viewers see that she was a raving nut and has absolutely no manners.
Posted by: Brad on February 5, 2008 08:46 PM
I can hardly believe that anyone would think that Janet Murguia *won* anything. She was rude and barely let Lou say two words. I thought Lou was WAY more gracious with her than he should have been. He should have smacked her face for her outrageously rude behavior, constantly shouting him down, drowning out anything he wanted to say in response. She acted like a spoiled brat from high school.
She also paraded cardboard "fact sheets" as if they were facts but they proved absolutely NOTHING. I can't remember the last time Jim Gilchrist or Chris Simcox appeared on Lou Dobbs and neither of these men were ELECTED by anyone to be the spokespeople for the patriotic movement. They speak only for themselves and do NOT reflect the attitudes of the majority of Americans. I do not believe either of them are racists but I also don't believe either of them speak for me.
For Janet Murguia to come out slinging her "codewords" of "propaganda" using a VERY few examples was totally weak and immature.
I believe in most cases, Lou invites the people whom he is attacking and they often decline to appear. He has OFFERED the microphone to his opponents and in fact, he has been quite gracious in allowing the likes of Luis Gutierrez, Anthony Romero of the ACLU AND Janet Murguia to share his microphone and his stage.
The attempts by the NCLR to silence critics of illegal immigration smacks of McCarthyism and Elitism. How dare you question our agenda to import millions of illegal slaves and legalize them as Americans while their loyalty remains with Mexico? How dare you question US, the group that has the backing of the elites like Rockefeller and Rothschilds, you lowly peons. How dare you make a claim to the First Amendment using JUST A PIECE OF PAPER called the Constitution?
In my opinion, Janet Murguia looked like a desperate woman who knows her agenda is being overcome by the TRUTH.
The American People spoke in June of 2007 to defeat one of many attempts at AMNESTY and we will not stop until we have FORCED our government to ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS AND SEND ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS HOME TO THEIR MOTHER COUNTRY.
If NCLR put HALF their energy into improving the lives of the people whom they represent in THEIR OWN COUNTRIES instead of trying to get Americans to bend over backwards to accomodate illegal aliens, perhaps they could really make a DIFFERENCE in the lives of these enslaved people.
What REALLY chaps my ass is the NCLR gets some of OUR tax dollars to spew this ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.
The NCLR is backed by the Mexican government and this is ALL part of the lobbying campaign by Mexico to have the United States become the welfare program for Mexico. They ship all their poor and their criminals to the US for US to pay for and deal with. What a great deal for Mexico. For Americans, not so hot a deal.
Posted by: Ruthiness on February 5, 2008 11:35 PM
I was watching an old WWII movie the other day. The US was fighting Nazi's in Germany and the GIs referred to the Germans as "Krauts," sauerkraut being a popular food of the German people. I suppose one could accuse the Americans of hate and racism, except both sides were white!
This is not about race, it is about protecting one's culture from too many at one time who assimilate slowly or not at all, some refusing to assimilate at all but expecting us to make Spanish an "official language;" a proposal agreed to by all the Democrat candidates during the Miami debate.
In my community, the illegals cluster together. If approached by a citizen, they plaster on a formal phony smile, say good morning, and hold the smile until the citizen leaves. It makes me feel like an outsider in my own country.
What to do about Barack McClinton and congress? My own open borders congresswoman is reelected cycle after cycle. I don't even know if there is someone running against her this year.
Posted by: ken pope on February 6, 2008 11:13 AM
If you go onto the SPLC website you will see that the US border patrol (yes, our federal law enforcement agency) is listed as guilty of hate speech; demonstrating that these people are truly whaco.
Please note their ommision of Mexico's southern border patrol which performs the same fuctions.
Posted by: ken pope on February 6, 2008 11:21 AM
"Murguia and ADL invested a lot of time documenting the hateful rhetoric spewed by Dobbs and other of his ilk. Some of the hateful comments they've documented are quite shocking. All are offensive. Hopefully decent Americans will see this."
Funny thing is, talk is cheap. Behavior matters, such as streaming across our border without permission. The difference between consentual sex and rape is permission. The difference between a bank loan and and bank robbery is permission.
Sorry the illegals are offended by words. Consider that we are even more offended by their behavior. And you can bet I'm veerry glad that Americans carry guns. Foreign nationals who come here legally (true immigrants) can carry guns, too.
As far as documented hateful comments at least the comments are documented, which you can't say for the illegals.
Posted by: ken pope on February 6, 2008 11:35 AM
FYI: American Border Patrol is listed as a hate group by SPLC. This is not the same organization as the U.S. Border Patrol.
Posted by: Anonymous on February 6, 2008 12:05 PM
Hate speech? There are two exceptions to freedom of speech. The first is assault, one may not threaten another with physical or property injury. The other exception is fraud. Hate speech is a a democrat conjecture that I do not accept. If one wants to engage in hate speech go for it, it's not illegal (yet).
I appear to stand corrected as far as the SPLC.
Posted by: ken pope on February 6, 2008 05:20 PM
At no time did NCLR suggest that hate speech is not legal. At no time did NCLR lobby any government to pass a law making hate speech illegal. NCLR HAS petitioned individuals and various media to stop hate speech. I can't believe I have to explain this.
Posted by: Ralph on February 6, 2008 06:28 PM
Why is it always HATE SPEECH when rational, logical thinking people disagree with unreasonable EMOTIONAL, ILLOGICAL LIBERALS?!? I think I answered my own question...
Posted by: April on February 6, 2008 08:04 PM
As unbelievable as the audacity of this woman (who is expressing the views “La Raza”) appears in this interview, you have not seen anything yet -it will continue to escalate….they break the law in sneaking across the border, they steal benefits from our socialist government (and therefore money from the US taxpayer), and plop out their brood who become anchor babies due to the misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment…..
Now, (out of the shadows) they are brazen to the point where they want to dictate who can appear on television, and what words they can say.
This is, pure and simply, an invasion. They are taking your money (through our socialist government who will come to your house with guns if you do not pay your taxes), diluting and eventually supplanting your vote. It needs to be stopped, and at any cost.
Posted by: Stan on February 7, 2008 09:22 PM
Hispanics are the second race populating prisons in the US (Blacks are first). To see this statistics go here:
Hispanics are responsible for the degradation in many living communities in California and elsewhere in the US over last 30 years.
Hispanics tops the race with problems to learn English and other assimilation issues into the US society.
And the list could go on and on!
Janet Munguia, these are facts!, not hate speech!
Do you want to eliminate the HATE out of the immigration debate? Why don't you start by taking first on Brown Supremacist groups like The Mexica Movement or La Voz de Aztlan? Is it because they are "your people"?
And for your information!, I'm not a White of European descent. I'm a Mexican who came LEGALLY to the United States through job sponsorship, I followed the rules and I have never been discriminated in any way. So please! do not dare to say that you "represent me".
Posted by: Ernesto on February 10, 2008 11:44 AM
I witnessed the debate. Janet Murguia was respectful, logical, eloquent and patient while slack jawed, heavy jowled Lou Dobbs sneered, gloated, and interrupted her, as he is often does with his invited guests.
His portraying the farm workers who harvest the crops we all eat as "illegal aliens" equates our neighbors to the south with Martians and shouldn't be taken seriously.
As soon as a comprehensive Temporary Agricultural Guest Worker Exchange Program that guarantees fair and equal treatment for farm laborers from employers is put into place, the nations crops will no longer rot for lack of harvesters, who will no longer be illegal.
What will Lou gripe about then? In any case, I'd like to see him return to the Wall Street Journal and off the airwaves.
Posted by: Objective_Observer on February 19, 2008 06:43 PM
This woman Janet Murguia the President of one of the most racist groups in the U.S.today-and its name is the RACE needs to explane to all of America what hate speech really is? I guess she should know first hand! I rest my case!
Posted by: Fred on March 11, 2008 11:43 PM
Post a comment