UPDATED: This item, originally titled "Record completely contradicts Dan Stein," first reported that FAIR gave money to Protect Arizona Now while "ethnic separatist" Virginia Abernethy was a top official there. Subsequent reporting shows that Abernethy came on board PAN after FAIR made its contributions to the group. Her appointment to its national advisory board was reportedly announced in July 2004. Subsequent reporting also shows that FAIR leaders have had a lengthy acquaintance with Abernethy, dating back to 1994. I've corrected this post as needed below.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, wants you to believe his group never gave money to Protect Arizona Now, and especially not when self-proclaimed "ethnic separatist" Virginia Abernethy was a top official. Asked about reports that FAIR had contributed to Protect Arizona Now, Stein told us last night:
"First of all, we never gave that organization a dime. And secondly, even if we were going to give them a dime, we wouldn't have given them a dime with Virginia Abernethy associated with it."
Let's go to the record. An account from the Chicago-based Center for New Community notes Abernethy's appointment was announced on July 26, 2004. By August, it was making headlines in Arizona. The Arizona Secretary of State records a contribution to PAN of $50,000 from FAIR and another $50,000 from the FAIR Congressional Task Force on April 1, 2004. The next month, on May 11, FAIR gave Pan another $25,500 -- and the FAIR Congressional Task Force gave PAN $25,000. The next month, on June 11, FAIR gave PAN $50,000 and its Congressional Task Force gave $55,000.
Altogether, the Arizona state record shows $255,000 from FAIR and the FAIR Congressional Task Force for Protect Arizona Now. As Box Turtle Bulletin puts it, "In case you're counting, that's 2,555,000 dimes" -- all of it given before Abernethy appears to have joined PAN.
Which would mean that Stein is wrong about FAIR not having given money to PAN, and right about not giving it while Abernethy was on the advisory board. We care about the record. That's why we keep working at making sure it's correct.
[H/T: Box Turtle Bulletin]
Leave a Comment:
Rachel, please be sure to let your fans know that The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) should not be confused with Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (also FAIR)!
Hear, hear. I wondered what Dr Maddow was referring to at first, because I know Fairness and Accuracy does GOOD work, while the racist scum at Federation bite.
Kudos Rachel Madow for exposing the real FAIR, and the real objective of these individuals. Dan Stein cannot run away from the founder of the FAIR organization or their own history. Remember Barbara Coe and California Proposition 187 and the Gov. Pete Wilson fiasco, making immigrant bashing his last political career move. FAIR uses the suspect class of aliens as the fuel to inflame a poorly informed segment of our society that needs sacpegoats for our problems and failures. Their theme has been repeated throughout time by individuals using fear mongering against a group that cannot likely defend themselves. Good job for exposing Dan Stein. Keep up the good work.
I agree. The problem with the majority of people who support such organizations as "FAIR" is that they know who and what "FAIR" really stands for and they don't care. They are the Abernethys walking among us.
Fantastic job, Rachel. Trying to interview a lying troglodyte like Stein, while keeping your composure, was a display of professionalism that most couldn't accomplish.
I don't abide by the left or right trying to discredit any organization trying to defend the rights of real americans. It makes Rachel much less of a fair and balanced reporter.
Facts; they are beautiful things. :)
You have to wonder why these people insist on lying about fact-checkable issues. Do they really think no-one will check? Or are they just counting on people taking their word for it that they're telling the truth?
Maybe they actually believe it. Motivated reasoning is very powerful.
when you present them with facts, they say you are lying, or that your sources are unreliable, no mater how much evidence there is to back up said facts; as demonstrated on the show last night.
They aren't worried about it. All their supporters saw last night was what they wanted to see: Stein screeching about being a victim. They'll edit the hell out of it and turn it into a fundraiser for people who would never watch Rachel.
Everyone (so far) is making very good points. I'd only like to add that I don't think that people like Stein normally expect to be fact-checked, questioned or challenged. That's partly because much of the media are stenographers lobbing softball questions and no follow-ups but mainly, I think, because people like Stein are used to nature's followers: those who accept what their chosen leaders tell them unquestioningly. And, adding specifically to ral1329, Stein's intended audience won't have been watching the actual broadcast at all (but you knew that). They'll only see the cut down version (just like Glenn Beck's sheep only saw the version of 'dude, you did' that left out all the proof about Beck's climate change nonsense).
Well Anne in TX unfortunately her facts were incorrect. Kudos to her for correcting herself today though. Unfortunately after the interview though.
yeah. i feel that a lot...
The fact is she tried discredit an organization who's main interest is to ensure real americans receive jobs over illegals.
Okay, I guess we'll be seeing you in the fields picking lettuce and grapes, then? Or emptying bedpans for minimum wage?
It isn't surprising that anyone would want to disassociate themselves with anyone labeling themselves as "ethnic separatist". It also isn't surprising that they would somehow be loosely affiliated and/or support each other causes. It's just convienent to hide those affiliations when someone shines a light on them. Thanks Rachel!
These contentious interviews, like the Ben Stein one, need to have some ground rules agreed to beforehand with the understanding that if the guest continues to talk over Rachel Maddow over and over, the interview will be cut short.
Listening to two people screaming at each other is not fruitful. We forgot what the point of the whole interview really was after it went out of control.
Other than that, Rachel, we love you and your show--wouldn't miss it ever!
I think it was very fruitful, Joan. Look at all we learned. We learned how groups like this justify what they do; by denying it ever happened. What did you think the point of the interview was? lol Cutting it short would only have prevented a liar from digging himself any deeper. As it was, we saw his true colors, which I think was the point of the interview.
And it was Dan Stein, btw. Ben Stein is the funny old guy from Ferris Bueller. lol
Ben Stein is also an ex-Nixon speechwriter, science denialist, spurious economics expert, and a shameless shill for predatory lenders and other unscrupulous businesses -- I'd love to see him debate Maddow. On anything!
Yesssss, get Ben Stein on TRMS! I would laugh for days and days. There is so much she could roast him with, starting with Expelled.
Actually, watching Rachel's patient persistence was much more powerful that Chris Matthews' dogged interruption style. His rudeness demonstrated that he was not prepared to hear anything except his own talking points. Some things need to be cut off, such as blatant hate speech, but in this case Rachel and crew made exactly the right call.
Right on, Joan. I was thinking the same thing. One would like to think that everyone knows not to interrupt someone when they are speaking but apparently it's something that has to be agreed upon beforehand so we can all understand what is being said.
Best. Interview. Ever.
Rachel, you are my hero.
Rachel.... Understanding that you are always a lady, I fear that you could chose to pull your punches tonight. Please do not! I hope you give this cretin what he deserves. Here are some bullet points: Racist, yes; Liar, yes; Charlatan, class-A; Scam Artist, supreme. You don't need my input, but I feel better now having vented a bit.
Rachel, yes, keep at it. Don't relent. These folks are shameless but continue to expose them. Eventually, the rest of the world will know their true color. Other than the American Indians, everybody is a product of immigration. We all came from somewhere other than USA. They are so afraid of being in the minority for the fear of what once abused minority will do to them in retaliation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
“With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe.[71] This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit"[citation needed] individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers[72] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[73] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[74]
Stephen Jay Gould asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[citation needed] It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[7”
And the very first immigration law was aimed at restricting Chinese immigration. And the first demanded, but never realized, immigration law was 'inspired' by the immigration of Irish Catholics during the potato famine. Or, in short, all immigration laws are founded on bigotry.
You were great, Rach. He was talking over you, not vice versa. I thought you kept your cool and tore him a new one. You schooled him. Keep it up. Love ya!
I have been watching you from your beginnings as a champion
of your style, envious of your intelligence, and enjoying your wit
and more of your wit! But last night I only wanted to jump
through my screen and hug you.
My thoughts, exactly, Joan! It was the most unsatisfying interview Rachel has had on the show.
Surprised to hear you were unsatisfied. I thought it was awesome. Keep in mind it wasn't Rachel's idea to have him insult her or disagree with her about verifiable facts. How would you prefer she had handled it? Cut it short once he started getting hostile? That's the cowardly strategy they use on Faux news when they aren't prepared to be confronted with facts. Rachel was prepared as always, and handled the interview as well as anyone could.
Utah is drafting a "PAPER ,PLEASE" LAW. Cited The Spectrum 28 April 2010.
Rachael..........can you come to Canada.......your fact checking would go on for months..........what a show and what a job you do......signed.....North of the Border
Rachel some of us can also do our fact checking. Why dont you check to see when Virginia Abernathy was brought in to PAN. He wasnt lying. They made their donations to PAN before she was even there. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/fall/white-supremacy . I was completely ashamed of you last night. You were completely unfair and totally unprofessional. You deserved to get your clock cleaned by this guy. I try to understand both sides of an issue and research it also. You did your research but only selectively.
From last night's show: "We never gave that organization a dime." That was Dan Stein. Lying through his teeth.
Secondly, the article you linked to -- astonishing as it is, in how it points out just how many blatantly racist groups FAIR is tied to -- never stated the date in 2004 that Virginia Abernethy joined PAN. You failed to disprove a thing.
I have to ask: why are you wasting your time trying to defend this scum?
Unfortunately Rachel was vague and Dan Stein responded vague. I am so sick and tired of all the guilty by association crap that is being flung by both sides. Just like the crap that was being said about Obama's association with his pastor and Bill Ayers. Does that make Obama a Terrorist because he worked with him? Could the Woods Fund board be considered Obama's organization just because he was on their board. I feel Dan Stein was brought on Rachel's show under false pretenses to talk about what his organization does and he was completely blindsided with stories about a guy who new a guy who use to date a girl who's brother committed a crime. What kind of crap is that. I really enjoy watching Rachel sometimes but I was really disappointed by how she conducted herself. I think he felt attacked and defended himself. Im all for civil debate but this was a lynching from the start.
From what was said introducing Stein, he came on the show specifically to refute statements made previously about FAIR, it's founder, employees, and related organizations they worked with and supported. How is it blindsiding someone when that's exactly the topic said they wanted to talk to you about?
As for how they each conducted themselves, he was obnoxious, not letting her finish the questions and then running off on some tangent, and even after she let him go on and on, he would talk over her when she tried to bring him back on topic. He was a jerk, but she treated him civilly.
If he felt attacked, it was not by being blindsided, but by not being allowed to sidestep. He knew full well what the topic was going to be, since he contacted the show complaining about how they covered the group previously. Really, he is not some injured party here, unless it's that the truth is painful.
I stand by my first post and this was substantiated by Rachel today. Her facts were incorrect. Now to respond to you. Yes she did let him run off a little but did she act civilly? Not totally. If you were confronted with incorrect allegations you would defend yourself. Also, what was the whole "I have a blackberry" comment. Uncalled for, You are better than that Rachel.
Theweeg--There was one incorrect, marginally relevant "fact" (that Abernethy wasn't with the organization until a few months after the donations were made) yet you keep saying Rachel's "facts" were incorrect. Why is that? Why do you completely ignore the fact that he also said, "We never gave a dime to that organization" when they clearly gave hundreds of thousands of dollars?
If you listen to the video again she was vague when she asked him if they had given money to her organization not that organization. Well, that wasnt really her organization. Rachel should have specified which organization. Abernathy has and is part of many organizations as well as her own. Doesnt necessarily mean its hers. My point is she was vague and so was he. He wasnt interviewing Rachel so she better be specific.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."...Stephen Colbert
Rachael.....can you come to Canada......you could fact check here for months........wonderful show and you are the best..........Great White North
Watching the interview last night a couple of thoughts struck me:
1) Rachel is a VERY classy woman. It would be so easy under those circumstances to 1) cut the interview short, 2) resort to degrading the other person as they degrade you, 3) enter into a yelling match and any other classless tactics. Instead, Rachel was polite and only began to speak at the same time when it became evident that Dan was not going to allow her a word in edgewise.
2) People supporting this movement make my blood boil. It was very hard to watch this interview without becoming hot and bothered.
That being said. I would haved liked Rachel to switch to the AZ law specifically when it became evident this gentleman did not want to talk about the individuals affiliated with his organization. Focusing on the law itself would have been enough to establish the racist nature of this law. Perhaps asking why any one of other approaches were not used or why the law changed the federal law to presume guilty rather than presume innocent.
I thought it was a great interview. Rachel was prepared and as it's easily pointed out, he can't hide from the facts. The bottom line is this group is linked to blatant racists, and also behind the law in Arizona. That's incredibly concerning, and I'm glad Rachel is exposing it as much as she is. NOBODY else in the media has (that I've seen). This is why I love watching Rachel...she brings attention to things nobody else does.
Thanks Rachel for all your hard work and passion. If I could buy you a drink or a bottle of wine, I would in a heartbeat!
RWer lies in his teeth.
Details at eleven.
Way to go, Rachel! That fool should know better than to mess with you. If you say it, I believe it... not because I'm naive, but because history has proven you're trustworthy. KUDOS!
The weeg, nothing in that link you provided told the exact date that Abernethy started--just said that she "had been brought in." That's a little vague to be used as a repudiation of Rachel's statement, isn't it? And that still wouldn't explain why he said "we've NEVER given them a dime." That's a lie no matter how you slice it.
Ill give you a little leeway since there wasnt an exact date, Ill post it right here though what was in the report "The Center for New Community, an antiracist group based in Chicago, reported that PAN director Kathy McKee in July brought in Virginia Abernethy" JULY IS AFTER JUNE. All contributions were made before June. Also he never said they didnt give to her organization. PAN is not her organization. Ill also give you a little leeway on that also because Rachel NEVER clarified this when she asked him. Again, incorrect information.
I hated your interview about FAIR last night. Why are you doing the guilt by association BS in the interview of Dan Stein of FAIR.
I am a very loyal fan, and this style of interview is distasteful and uninformative.
This is exactly the kind of BS the right did to Obama because of his preacher, ACORN, and weather underground. Do you see?
Ideally you would have asked (maybe after the initial dust-up of who runs FAIR and what do they stand for)
1 Why do you think asking for papers is constitutional?
2. What does an illegal alien look like?
3. Why did you put in a provision where police departments can be sued for not stopping people randomly and asking for their papers?
4. Doesn't this law remind you of 1929 Germany or when Japanese were interned in WWII, both of which are seen in history as terrible acts.?
5. How can you call yourselves FAIR when you write and support laws that are very UNFAIR to US citizens who are supposed to be protected by the constitution?
6. Do you think Hispanic Americans will ever vote for Republicans that support their own discrimination?
Rachel, I love your work, but this interview was the low road. Get back on the high road. It is OK to tell us the connections, but the actions and motivation behind them is what is really important (yes I see this counts as motivation behind..)
You will now be hearing from the right about your tactics instead of the issue. The motivations are all power, money and control. The same goes for the left, but they are nicer to the humans who vote for them. Keep fighting for the results and don't get hung up on the process too much.
Well no. Guilt by association is assuming someone is guilty simply because they were in the same circles, like creating Venn diagrams out of the most tangential circumstances that you can find and shouting about it. So for example, "President Obama is racist against white folks because he sat in the same room where a guy said black Americans are angry about their historic treatment by white Americans." That's guilt by association.
Rachel's accusation is more accurately labeled as Guilt by Support, as in "these white folks seem like racists, and you, Mr. Stein, have given them more than $250,000 in cash and staff support. Why shouldn't we think you're a racist, too?"
See the difference?
Do you think that asking good faith questions of an opponent arguing in bad faith is an effective tactic? That is what you are suggesting, and I don't disagree that answers to the sort of questions you suggested would be interesting--IF they were answered honestly. Stein wouldn't have done that and I think the angle for the interview was chosen with that in mind. Asking straight forward questions to a liar is buying into their framing (of themselves as engaging in good faith) and giving them an opportunity to sound reasonable and believable while spouting comlete lies. Better he was provoked and couldn't parry without losing his temper and a measure of his credibility.
springisnow:
The one thing we have learned about government is that it only enforces the laws that it wants to enforce, and only against those it that wants to abuse. Think Bradley Schlozman (Bush DoJ civil rights division head, who allegedly hired on the basis of ideology in open violation of the Hatch Act, according to a DoJ internal report) and Gov. Don Siegelman. EVERY law should have some kind of citizen enforcement provision -- without exception.
Rachel I viewed the show where I heard the question asked "What does an illegal alien look like? I think the question that they also should have been asked, what does an American citizen look like? I would like to what there response would have been.
Seriously, Rachel, Stein is a Right Wing stooge who ought to thank you for giving him a soapbox.
I did note that on several occasions during the interview, he questioned the veracity and general reputation of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a fine organization that does excellent work. I believe you should give them a chance to correct the lies Stein attempted to spread about them on your show last night.
Yes, please give the SPLC some time on your show. They might have more to say on "FAIR".
Agreed.