Civil Rights Groups to GOP Presidential Candidates: Distance Yourself from CPAC’s White Nationalist TiesOf course, the Peter Brimelow speech was in 2012, and featured a talk about the problems caused by the conflict between white English-speaking Canadians and white French-speaking Canadians. Vandervoort is not what anyone would call a White Nationalist—he's speaking up for the English language, regardless of race.
Today, People For the American Way, America’s Voice, and ColorOfChange.org released an open letter to Republican presidential candidates urging them to make clear that they don’t support CPAC’s ongoing relationship with ProEnglish, a group led by white nationalist Bob Vandervoot. Despite CPAC’s troubling history of welcoming white nationalists as participants and sponsors, Republican leaders continue to headline the conference. CPAC has included ProEnglish as a sponsor in the past, and in 2012, CPAC hosted a panel on race featuring Vandervoot and infamous racist writer Peter Brimelow. This year, ProEnglish is again participating as a sponsor of the conference.
“Anyone who aspires to our nation’s highest office has a responsibility to be clear about what they stand for and what they stand against,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “These candidates need to make it perfectly clear that they won’t truck with white nationalists and that they reject intolerance and bigotry.”
Frank Sharry, Founder and Executive Director of America’s Voice, stated, “The GOP strategy of winning support from their base by cozying up to extremists on the right is sure to backfire, as it did in 2012. Latino, Asian Pacific Islander American and immigrant voters are watching these 2016 hopefuls closely, and any candidate that aligns with anti-immigrant extremists doesn’t stand a chance.”
“As Republican leaders and activists gather at CPAC to discuss the future of their party, GOP Presidential hopefuls have to decide whether they're going to be the type of leaders that confront racism in their ranks or cravenly shrink from that responsibility in order to exploit hatred for political gain," said ColorOfChange.org Executive Director Rashad Robinson. “The clearest signal the GOP could send that they are interested in changing course and opening an honest dialogue with Black voters would be removing Representative Steve Scalise from the #3 House leadership position for his association with David Duke and extremist hate groups.”
But look at who's opposing him—and us.
Frank Sharry calls his (Astroturf) organization America's Voice.
The mission of America’s Voice (AV) and America’s Voice Education Fund (AVEF) is to harness the power of American voices and American values to enact policy change that guarantees full labor, civil and political rights for [illegal] immigrants and their families. We work in partnership with progressive, faith-based, labor, civil rights, and grassroots groups, networks and leaders to policies and legislation that will stabilize the lives of 11 million Americans-in-waiting [I. E. illegals] and put them on the road to full citizenship.Illegals, of course, don't necessarily want "full citizenship" in the US. Most of them are patriotic Mexicans and have "full citizenship" at home. But they'll take "full citizenship" in the US to avoid deportation.
But America's Voice is supporting criminals in the hope of making their crimes legal. President Obama and the DNC should distance themselves from them. This is especially true since the crime involved is organized, enterprise crime—America's Voice takes money from employers who know they're hiring illegal labor.
Let's look at ColorOfChange.org next. Their motto is "Changing the color of democracy" and they describe their mission this way : "ColorOfChange.org is an online community committed to strengthening the political voice of black America."
So they're black nationalists, and the illegal aliens Frank Sharry is trying to make in to American citizens are (mostly) Mexican nationalists, and if that's the case, how can they claim to be "civil rights" groups, somehow morally superior to white nationalists?
I mean, the worst you can say about most white nationalists is that they like America just the way it is. This, as I note in my discussion of the Giuliani versus Obama kerfuffle, what's called "patriotism".