Jim Gilchrist Sides With Sanctuary Policy Police Chief?
 

Had a hard time keeping silent on this one too

Picked up the story from American Border Patrol (bless his heart), and was reading the comments after it. Jim sided with the police chief who declared he wasn't going to check immigration status. I think it was inspired by his problems with Barbara Coe, and I understand, and actually don't care if he takes issue with her. But to side with illegal immigrant sympathizers and their policies is sacriligious.
I certainly have no cause to chastise others on the evils of dis-unity, let's all get along within the movement, etc. Quite the opposite. I don't care if we fight, challenge each others propriety, and/or sue each other over infractions. My philosophy has been and remains to be that nobody is above being scrutinized. But that in itself should not give rise to take the side of our opposition when those agendas are boldly counter to those of our own.
Call Barbara names, sue her, have her investigated, tell everyone that you think she's this or that. But don't side with the open borders lobby unless you really are with them
Jim....please re-think your comment on this one:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_17628939

Like I wrote: The problems often start from within.

I agree that Jim Gilchrist dropped the ball on this one. He should have fought alongside the rest of us to make it known that it is unacceptable for any police Chief to say that addressing issues of being in the country illegally are not a concern that he should undertake.

It takes minutes for any cop to run any of us through their vehicular electronic data system. The same can be done with a connection made to ICE data bases. It isn't that hard of a thing to do.

Since ICE does not pick up illegals then we must provide a means of delivering them to ICE.

It isn't that hard folks.

What ???
 

Am I missing something here? Gilchrist hasn't said he is for the lack of enforcement by the Police Chief. He said he understands the dilemma.

Here are his quotes:

The illegal aliens involved in the 911 attacks on America would have been among the ones Jim is saying wouldn't be as big a threat as CCIR. I don't know how else to interpret that.

Many police chiefs and sheriffs use the money dodge, as does congress, the senate, and just about every open borders advocacy person/group to justify non enforcement, ie we can't afford to build the fence, we can't afford to deport 12 million people, etc
I'm sorry, but I see this more as an effort to compliment that mindset.

Since when is it the policy of immigration law enforcement proponents to justify the sanctuary policies of police chiefs? How did Barbara's comments on this matter seem extremist to Jim. If they were, am I not an extremist then?

"The California Coalition for Immigration Reform is comprised of some of the most incurable racial and ideological supremacists who present a far more dangerous threat to our domestic tranquility and rule of law than most of the illegal aliens at issue here."

I couldn't agree with the statement that Jim above at all. I have met with CCIR members a number of times and they are some of the best people in this world.

This one statement alone could invalidate everything else he said. Jim may not like Barbara, and she does not like me at all, but it is improper to impugn the character of the fine members of CCIR.

This post is indicative of the issue I brought up in this thread. I believe that none of the high profile "leaders" (Gilchist, Nightingale, Coe & Schwilk) are not motivated by their desire to save this country, but by their egos. This is clear by their insistence on ideological purity.

Nightingale and Gilchrist have not been leading much in this movement lately. Nightingale leads on her own starring role, but hasn't applied it to the immigration issue much. Gilchrist is also resting on the laurels of the past. They are not leading, and therefore shouldn't be included using the term. When was the last Nightingale led illegal immigration related event? How 'bout Jim? Seen any border ops which were (are) the foundation of his organization lately? At least Schwilk and Coe are operative, regardless of their coexisting abrasiveness, egotism, and other distasteful characteristics. I believe you need to stop viewing/referring to some of these folks as leaders. Granted there are too few people taking forward positions these days, but there still are people doing things. The movement is not dead simply because a few shitheads got in the spotlight and did some damage

Comments:
 

I received an E-mail just the other day from Jim Gilchrist, full of fire and brimstone, saying he was initiating some more action.

Here in my part of the country there has been quite a dwindling of patriot action. Only a small handful still have fire in the belly. Seems they must be getting burned out. At the same time I see more and more politicians, congress, senate, Mayors, becoming more aggressive and responsive.

As to Police Chiefs and Sheriffs we, here, have always had the majority of them that don't want to get involved in immigration issues. It's not only the money excuse but also _ "not my job" - "too much work", "I don't get paid for that", "it's the Fed's problem". AND some are sympathetic to the poor beggars. The elected officials keep a sharp eye on voter attitude and they are prone to pandering for votes. New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie, as popular as he is with Republicans, is an outrages butt kisser to the Latino/Hispanic community.

Furthermore, Mayors and law enforcement are attacked viciously, and sued, by the ACLU, PRLDEF, Hispanics and sympathizers, liberals, socialists, communists when they try to enforce laws or pass anti-illegal immigrant ordinances.

I don't think that's true. The repbulicans and democrats have infighting all the time, yet they still live on. I think our problems stem from usual human attention span unless stimulated and supported by large donor bases, media support, and political intervention. I'd allege the illegals would be in our shoes right now had there not been those factors I mentioned.

Minuteman Project Supports San Jose Police Chief Moore
 

AyatollahGondolah.

I meet and converse with law enforcement officers almost every day. All of them bring up the same problem about enforcing our laws: allocation of resources available to enforce our laws.

Chief Moore is in a predicament that no one can fix without either cutting law enforcement priorities to the public in general, or cutting back on enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

San Jose stands to lose 300 officers. That is an enormous loss of resources...a loss that requires Chief Moore to spread his troops very thin in the daily combat against crime. The federal government is the true villain here. The federal government deliberately denies the funding necessary to supplement local law enforcement with USBP and/or ICE agents. Then, when a state or local government attempts to pass laws to enforce immigration laws themselves, our President files suet against them to prevent them from doing so!

Every soingle police officer, deputy, or FBI/DEA agent I have ever talked to appreciates the support of the American public in the efforts to stop the rampant illegal alien invasion of our country and the accompanying criminal drug cartel influence that is rapidly creeping into every major city.

The most counter-productive thing we could do is attack our law enforcement officials and blame them for things they cannot fix. Even if the officers resign in protest, their successors still can do nothing when the federal government continues to interfere with efforts at the local levels to enforce American laws.

This is a predicament perhaps never before seen in America. Our response and remedy should be to continue replacing members of the U.S. Congress, Senate and state governors as quickly as possible to reverse their cavalier and reckless disregard for immigration law enforcement.

As far as the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, William Gheen's ALIPAC, and Jeff Schwilk's now defunct San Diego Minutemen, I hold my ground in my accusations of their lack of integrity or character. These organizations are not influential forces that will provide for a solution to the illegal alien dilemma.

I have no regrets at suing some of the sinister elements in our movement (and winning all four suits), or having one arrested and put in the slammer for six months.

The alternative would have been that the Minuteman Project would have been stolen by a bunch of hoodlums...some of whom who were convicted by a jury of 10 men and 2 women last June of US Postal fraud, federal bank fraud, federal bank theft, and violation of federal internet laws.

The rule of law applies to all of us on U.S. territory...not just illegal aliens.

If I did not bring legal action against the bandits attempting to steal my organization, then they would have seized it mercilessly and plundered it of every dollar being donated to it by a concerned public for their own personal financial gain. To make matters worse, some of you gullible followers believed every lie the witch-hunting hijackers blasted out on the internet, causing the MMP and other similar groups to stall in their abilities to move the illegal immigration issue to the forefront for the past four years.

The racial supremacy group La Raza has gained much ground in those four lost years, including a Congressional grant of about $15 million...something us law abiding groups cannot not get from our Congress.

If we immigration activists despise the rule of law, then that makes us no better than the illegal aliens and their sympathizers who routinely ignore our laws.

Furthermore, If I may quote Rim05:
"It is my opinion that in-fighting has caused more harm to what we started some 5 or 6 years ago than anything else."

Keep listening to the blatant propaganda of groups like ALIPAC, Schwilk's old SDMM, and CCIR and you will be "goose stepped" right into the final demise of the movement to bring our nation back under the rule of law.

I rest my case.

Jim Gilchrist, President, The Minuteman Project
-operating within the law to support enforcement of the law-

I would love to hear an interview of Mr Gilchrist done on SOS radio. Furthermore I would expect that the interview be done in a respectful and considerate manner but that all the "hard" questions that are seldom touched be asked.

Lets look at some of these. There have been accusations of selling endorsements for profit. There have also been allegations that monies donated to the MMP are not used for anything other than personal use.

What relationships does MMP have with the Diener group and others?

Jim's opinions on CCIR, Alipac, Jeff Schwilk and others.

These are the types of questions that should be asked.

Where is the MMP headed?

Anybody interested?

Jim,

I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on you here.

The chief has gone way beyond simple economics of his workforce, to politicizing his department policy. I cite:
San Jose police officers are looking to greatly improve its frayed relationship with immigrant communities amid allegations of overaggressive policing and racial profiling. Moore, for example, has in his short tenure as chief discontinued a policy in which cars of unlicensed drivers stopped for minor traffic violations were impounded for a month -- a policy many felt unfairly targeted the undocumented Latino community.

You see? He's more interested in not offending the illegal population than he is defending the rest of the citizens from unlicensed drivers. He's also ordered his officers not to investigate immigration status. Can you say sanctuary city?
You are a seasoned veteran of the propaganda war, and I'm certain you can see it when you read it. I urge you not to let your anger at Barbara coe blind you to the other enemy. I won't fault you for being skeptical where she's involved. I know there's some history, and I also know she can be quick on the condemnation side. But don't side with the chief when the evidence shows he's more interested in spreading propaganda than he is conveying economic constraints, just because she sees that too. She can be right on this, and still be a jackass on other issues.

I don't have any love for schwilk, and I was not aware that SDMM was defunct, but last I heard they still had a clean-up effort going on the hwy. I am certainly no fan of people who try and get 100 x more mileage out of their deeds than they actually perform, and I'm not afraid to say that, but I still commend them for that they do, when they do it. Jeff is an excitable boy, and his mouth has left me wondering whether his value has exceeded his harm, but I still never side with the propagandists on the other side.
My opinion of Gheen is about the same as Schwilk, but I won't say the same about all of the people that collect around ALIPAC. Good people in the company of a few jackasses doesn't make them all jackasses. Likewise for CCIR people.
I'm no goose-stepper, and I've been apologizing to injured people over my association with Nightingale for the same reason. Nightingale's a cockroach. But I still don't side with our opposition just because she's involved. If I have to; I condemn them both at the same time

Rim05 your contributions in terms of participation and dedication are unquestionable. Believe me I fully understand not being able to go places as often as I used to.

I would hope to have you join us on SOS radio some time.
The reason we created it was so that we could gather as a group from our homes over the telephone.

I would love to hear what you have to say on SOS radio.

"The most counter-productive thing we could do is attack our law enforcement officials and blame them for things they cannot fix. Even if the officers resign in protest, their successors still can do nothing when the federal government continues to interfere with efforts at the local levels to enforce American laws."


Jim there is a world of difference between heads of police like Mr Moore and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I know that we would all like to see more like Joe Arpaio and none like Moore.

I would also like to see you come around more to our side of the issue.

It seems of late that you are more on the side of the pro-illegals.
I understand compassion but we must unwaveringly stand for what we believe in.

This is our land, our country and those who make it easier for illegals to stay
dishonor those who gave everything to secure it.

Outside perspective.
 

This is a California thing, and I'm not one. But maybe I can offer some outside perspective from someone who does not have a dog in this fight without sounding like a referee.

Infighting has definitely split up several good groups in my region. Going way back, years, to Farmingville, Long Island. The group leader invited Chris Simcox to speak. About 1/2 were in favor and 1/2 had a thing about Simcox and objected so strenuously that they "walked" splitting the group. It was downhill from there and not long after that the whole organization folded and closed their website.

I met Simcox later at another group meeting in New Jersey and I had an uneasy feeling. Although he wasn't implicated two New Jersey groups came to loggerheads and relations cooled to the frigid. In that case a new group, in a different town, was supposed to be a satellite , subordinate, to the main group. Things fell apart when the new group began soliciting donations for themselves. The groups split.

Same thing in Connecticut. A group of activists in Darien, in the South, organized and coupled with a group up North in Danbury. The Darien leader performed surveillance of all McDonald's restaurants in Connecticut then printed his report. The Northern group didn't like some aspects and decided to split, which they did. Relations and cooperation cooled to the point on non-cooperation and communication.

Of course everyone knows the history of the Simcox Minuteman breakup and demise.

On the matter of police and politician attitudes, we here have the Nations champion scofflaw, sanctuary city Mayor. I would like to say that generally police and Mayoral attitudes nationwide follow party lines, Democrats liberal, Republicans conservative. However, this one is variously a Democrat, then a Republican then an Independent, depending on which window of opportunity is open and which path offers the least resistance.

Rodney King said: "Can't we all just get along" ? And the answer is no - not on your life. It just isn't the nature of the beast. It's one of Murphy's Laws. If they can find something to argue about and be disagreeable - they will.

And my point is, if at first you don't get along, don't let that get in the way of your work ethic. Do it alone; find other people; but do it

Certainly.
 

Absolutely, positively agree. Spot on. My philosophy precisely.

Over the years many of the groups have tried to recruit and enlist me as an ally and colleague and I have always side stepped.

Eventually I came to the conclusion that as a lone wolf my best option was to be an Infragard member. As such I have a vast legitimacy and partners with resources.

Jim Gilchrist said that he would be a guest on SOS RADIO! this week

We talked about some sort of format that will include a little of the past, a little of present, and a little of the future of MMP. We don't want to get bogged down with subjects that have already been wrung out in the courts; just a recap of the history with a few comments and questions. We're still working on it. It'll be tasteful as we've done in the past.

I am delighted that Jim Gilchrist will be on SOS Radio. I am looking forward to his appearance.

Sounds great AG!