September 9th, 2013

Anti-Illegal Immigrant Activists Assault Videographer during Public Rally in Arizona 173

By Carlos Miller

 

If there is one thing the Riders United for a Sovereign America motorcycle club hate more than illegal immigrants, it is a videographer named Dennis Gilman.

And that hate is evident in Gilman’s latest video showing a group of leather-clad, tattooed men (and one woman) surrounding him as they assault, intimidate and insult him on the Arizona State Capitol lawn during a rally Saturday.

One man claims the state capitol is “private property,” which would be laughable in any other state except Arizona, which actually sold the state capital to a private company in 2009, only to try to buy it back in 2012, but learning it would cost them much more than they sold it for, so now they’re stuck leasing the property indefinitely where it will cost them even more in the long-run.

The bikers were one of several organizations that had rented out the lawn for the We Are America Tour, which was promoted as a public event.

“Hey motherfucker, get the fuck out of here,” one of them tells him to the backdrop of an immigrant woman onstage speaking against amnesty for illegal immigrants because unlike her, they didn’t arrive here legally by marrying an American citizen.

It wasn’t the shiniest moment for the Arizona-based motorcycle club, whose code of conduct states they shall “never harass, taunt or intimidate others.”

“They didn’t want me there because I’ve exposed them to connections to neo-nazis,” Gilman said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Sunday night.

Gilman has done more than that. Much more than that. But I didn’t have all night to interview him, so I’ll just give you one example of what he has done with his video camera and let you read this Phoenix New Times profile to get the rest of the scoop.

In 2011, during a recall election for Arizona senator Russell Pierce, who sponsored a controversial and unconstitutional anti-illegal immigration bill, Gilman (along with Phoenix New Times reporter Stephen Lemons) exposed that Pierce’s supporters had recruited a sham candidate named Olivia Cortez to run against him and his opponent, Jerry Lewis, in order to split the opposition vote and increase his chances of winning.

Cortez ended up having to drop out of the race and Pierce ended up losing the election.

Check out the video below to see more of that story.

 

So it’s not surprising that they view Gilman as a menace. One organizer of Saturday’s rally went as far as to accuse him of inciting riots.

According to Raw Story:

Heller, an anti-immigration activist in Phoenix and strong supporter of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, described Gilman in an exclusive interview with Raw Story as a provocateur. “They entice riots,” she said of Gilman and another reporter, Stephen Lemons from the Phoenix New Times. “They’re not like regular reporters. They don’t have an ounce of class. … I don’t consider the New Times ‘media.’”

Gilman said that police ended up responding to Saturday’s incident, ordering him to leave the area.

“This is nothing new. I’ve been smacked around so many times over the years and police have never done anything,” he said.

UPDATE: Here is the Phoenix New Times report on the incident.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • CCHH

    Embarrassing. “Unbiased” journalism?

    “…woman onstage speaking against amnesty for illegal immigrants because
    unlike her, they didn’t arrive here legally by marrying an American
    citizen.”

    Newsflash, even if this unsubstantiated comment is true she still had to follow the law to get her citizenship. Deal with all the red tape and pay all the fines. And she had only a few months to do it.

    Carlos failed on this one and lowered himself to the level of the Neanderthal biker club.

    • Levi Dietrich

      Ya carlos mucked up on this. Loading it with Biased political language

      • Proud GrandPa

        One may forgive or at least ignore biased language. One may not, however, ignore or forgive repeating false statements on this blog or a failure to check facts first. Bias would have been ok if only truth were present.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Unsubstantiated comment? I merely condensed into one sentence what she said in several sentences.

      • CCHH

        Newsflash.

        Marrying an American citizen does not make you an American citizen.

        And you injected your political opinion into your story while demeaning someone you give no opportunity to reply.

        • Carlos_Miller

          I don’t know how long you’ve been reading this blog, but I’ve always injected my opinion in stories without giving an opportunity to reply because I leave the comments section open for people to reply.

          Newsflash, that’s what blogs do.

          • CCHH

            Been here since the very beginning. And that doesn’t change the fact that marriage does not make one an American Citizen.

          • Carlos_Miller

            No, but it does allow an immigrant to remain in the country legally while they apply for citizenship, which if you reread my sentence, is exactly what I said.

          • crazyassmofo

            One thing I can say about this comment section is that Carlos has never censored any of my posts whereas other sites would have done so in a heartbeat.
            Much respect to you for that.

          • psychokillers911

            I agree crazyassmofo. Carlos let’s everyone speak their mind, whether he agrees with their point of view or not.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Yes, the link to the free press was embarrassing. It lack credibility as a legitimate news source. Just a liberal rant sheet against anything American or patriotic.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        Newsflash Gramps!
        Some folks think liberal/progressive politics are extremely patriotic.
        No one group owns the “Patriotic” or “American” brand.
        Right wing does not own it. Left wing does not own it. Muslims do not own it. Christians do not own it. Atheists do not own it.

        Sheesh

        • Proud GrandPa

          Free enterprise and personal responsibility are American and patriotic. Any group or politician advocating socialism or a welfare state is unpatriotic and anti-America.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Prove it.
            Aka, I’m not buying your bare assertion.

            The so-called welfare state is myth.

            Name calling about socialism is just another silly scare tactic. Which I also not buying. But hey, it’s not like any religious leaders ever spoke of compassion for the poor, the hungry or sick.
            Dismissed

        • vlad the impaler

          democrats traditionally were the working mans party,but have been hijacked by liberals and feminists who concentrate on minority issues all the time like obongo,republicans are crap too,who do you support if you don’t like any candidates?the big names swallow up all the competrition ensuring them a win.its no longer a functioning democracy and a lot of people don’t vote at all.and those who do have a small pool of idiots to choose from.

  • Levi Dietrich

    This whole article is poorly put together. I do agree that it was wrong for them folks to assault the cameraman, however The Heavy political overtones ruined this story for me. Stories should be reported as they happened, not filled with implications based on opinion.

    • vicente ansel

      As a witness to the incident, I repeat….the cameraman was never “assaulted”. The cameraman was the one lead away by police because he was violating a permitted area that the group of Bikers had secured for the rally. No charges were filed against the Bikers and the filming was crafted in such a manner to make it appear that an assault was being committed. They were merely attempting to place obstacles in front of the camera lens as he (the cameraman) was being belligerent and aggressive….End of story!

      • Proud GrandPa

        Thank you, Vincent. As a civil rights advocate for religious free speech I can tell you that our lawyers have defeated the temporary ‘privatization’ of public forums as you described here.
        .
        I could be mistaken and it may be legal in AZ. Depends upon how the contract is crafted and other issues. Any of our resident lawyers know more?
        .
        If what Vincent reports is true, then this is a no brainer. The photog is wrong and the bikers justified in his removal. I will keep an open mind.
        .

  • psychokillers911

    I believe I would call the bikers “pro-legal immigration” and not the politically charged term “anti-illegal immigration”.

    That being said the assault against the photographer was unwarranted and those who committed the attacks should be charged.

    • Rob

      Anti-illegal immigration, pro-legal immigration, it doesn’t make a shit to me. So what if there are two ways to say the exact same thing? I see no reason to dismiss the article based on that alone. To me, the politically correct “you should say it this way, and not this way, so it doesn’t offend me” attitude is even worse.

      • Farid Rushdi

        I don’t think it’s about political correctness. I think it’s about covering the truth. Heller, the “anti-immigration activist” is an example. Is Heller advocating that no immigration occur? That’s what the writing says plainly. I’ll bet anything that Heller is instead against illegal immigration and “pro legal-immigration.”

        I’m not sure that’s political correctness. I think that’s biased reporting, the thing that keeps liberals from watching Fox News and conservatives from watching MSNBC.

        But, to each his own ….

        • Carlos_Miller

          You’re referring to a block quote from Raw Story.

          • Farid Rushdi

            You’re right — I thought I mentioned that in my comment. For that I apologize.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Right.. I mean we never see plain old hostility towards anyone who speaks with an accent or somehow seems different.
      Xenophobia is dead! Long live Xenophobia!

      Seriously.. What is your basis for saying they welcome “legal immigrants”?

    • Proud GrandPa

      I agree the blocking of the photog was wrong. Other than that I don’t find much truth in this article. Carlos should revise it.
      .
      This kind of thing sets back photog rights and makes legitimate civil rights advocates and potential donors want to avoid PINAC. You have to be fair and objective.

      • crazyassmofo

        You always speak in collective terms as to how you think others will view PINAC whenever you take issue with PINAC.
        Like a veiled financial threat that has no real teeth.

        Still waiting for the 3 website links to sites you allege are “anti.cop”…that we know don’t really exist or are not really anti-cop?

      • JdL

        Other than that I don’t find much truth in this article. Carlos should revise it.

        Who are you, God? How presumptuous to tell Carlos what he “should” do. But as long as we’re on the subject, maybe you “should” start your own blog and run it any way you please, and stop trying to lecture Carlos about how he “should” run his own. Or would that be too much effort?

        • Proud GrandPa

          Question: Who are you, God?
          .
          Answer: No, but I played one of his friends on television once. =smiles=

        • Proud GrandPa

          Seriously, JDL, our blog host Carlos Miller has expressed ambitions of getting funding for a better blog. If he wants to attract donors, he needs to post honest articles.
          .
          Ambition without honesty is mere pretention.

          • Carlos_Miller

            Every time you mention that I am not “honest,” you make yourself look like a fucking liar because you have yet to prove how I was not being honest.

            Having a different view than you on the immigration debate does not make me dishonest.

            It just means we have different opinions.

  • crazyassmofo

    This whole issue is a no-brainer.

    People who are here illegally have violated and are violating the law.
    They do not belong here.

    They had no right to be here when they came across the border, meaning they have no right to be here now or for any process to be offered to them to give them amnesty or citizenship.
    They are criminals.

    They need to go through the proper procedures to enter the US legally and wait their turn so their numbers can be accounted for with respect to our pace of integration.

    There should be no amnesty for these people.
    They are Mexicans that belong in Mexico.

    It is estimated that ten to twenty million illegals are in the US.

    Give them ninety days to vacate the United States or be subject to arrest and deportation, no-pay work brigades and domestic slavery positions, medical experimentation and organ harvesting.

    After all the criminals are weeded out and this issue is handled, then arm the border with landmine fields and roving attack drones. All those crossing the border will be executed.

    • http://www.facebook.com/grahamshevlin Graham Shevlin

      I have to believe that this is a Poe…

      • crazyassmofo

        And why would you….have…to believe that?

        • crazyassmofo

          Oh, I stand corrected.
          It is 30 million now plus another 30 million over the next ten years,

          In an open letter published on Saturday, the National Association of
          Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) challenged the conventional
          wisdom that there are just 11 million illegal aliens inside America
          right now, arguing there are far more than that.

          “The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO)
          believes the current estimate of up to 11 million aliens now residing
          illegally in the U.S. is a gross underestimate,” the organization wrote.
          “The more likely figure is 18 – 20 million and rising daily.”

          They former Border Patrol agents, who remain active in the ongoing
          discussions regarding immigration and law enforcement through their
          organization NAFBPO, point back to the 1986 amnesty which had original
          estimated there were less than a million illegal aliens inside America
          at the time. As amnesty was implemented, though, it turned out there
          were closer to 3 million.

          “Empirical data collected during processing of 2.7 million persons
          during the last amnesty established that for every alien estimated to be
          eligible for amnesty three will actually benefit,” the group wrote.
          “Even after this incredible failure was discovered, Congress negligently
          failed to demand a methodology be developed to provide them factual
          information on the number of individuals who enter and remain illegally
          in the United States, obviously a willful oversight.”

          “Of more serious concern, twenty seven years after the first amnesty
          was granted, Congress continues to refuse to demand aggressive
          enforcement of existing Immigration laws while passing more to mollify
          America,” they continued. “The promise to the American public in 1986
          was a lie.”

          NAFBPO argues it is “malfeasance in governance and fraud on its face”
          for members of the U.S. Congress to “even contemplate another amnesty
          without verification of this basic information.”

          “Repeating amnesty using these erroneous calculations again in 2013
          presents the real prospect that the United States will immediately be
          burdened with 30 – 33 million new residents of unknown origin or
          criminal background,” NAFBPO writes. “That number will then be followed
          during the next ten years as at least an additional 33,056,946 new
          immigrants are added to America’s population as a result of passage of
          S.744.”

          NAFBPO adds that it believes existing U.S. infrastructure cannot
          support the massive influx of new people, either newly legalized illegal
          aliens or the unprecedented wave of legal immigrants the bill would
          bring in. “The United States infrastructure cannot withstand such an
          extreme addition to that number of people taxing our social and criminal
          justice systems,” NAFBPO wrote. “We don’t need to import or legalize
          criminals.”

          NAFBPO adds that it believes, contrary to the popular political views
          inside the beltway in Washington, that America’s immigration laws “are
          not broken.”

          “Congress has facilitated them to be ignored and/or abused for
          political expediency to such an extent that we now face a national
          security issue involving millions of aliens within our country and
          others waiting around the world to take advantage of our unwillingness
          to protect our national sovereignty,” NAFPBPO wrote.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Crazy, you right-wing conservatives are all alike.

      • crazyassmofo

        Wrong again gramps.
        You make way too many assumptive errors to be deemed credible.

        I am truly non-political, have no affiliations, nor look to others for shared political ideologies while also being agnostic in the religious sense.
        I don’t associate myself with group-think or any collective especially in regard to politics and religion.
        The mindset of people in organizations are of fanatics or gang members.

        So you couldn’t be more wrong with your blanket statement of condemnation.

        I just happen to have an opinion as an individual citizen based upon law, commerce and the psycho-social considerations of culture..

        In fact, I am deeply considering the possibility relinquishing my American citizenship within the next few months.

        Because I choose not to engage in commerce with a defunct corporation that is further fucking its people in the ass.
        I got the serious heads up was to what was going down in America’s future back in 1994. This included the banker and investment firm malfeasance. housing and mortgage fraud, dollar, gold and oil prices, massive unemployment, etc.
        And all those things eventually came to pass.
        I was very lucky to have two really good insider sources to this information far, far in advance of events coming to fruition.

        There are many more developments to come and it isn’t going to get any better for those in the US. The police state is clearly one of them.

        I bugged out of the US after selling all my properties at the height of the market in 2004.
        Those in my profession are now barely hanging on where now 70% of those in my line of business did not make a profit last year.

        I merely went where the opportunity and money is which is a sound financial decision. America is no longer and will no longer be the place for the sole, little guy entrepreneur to do well. You will have to be a mega-corrupt-corporation, NGO, governmental, or police state gang member to survive with your lovely Hillary, I mean…Obama-care being enforced upon you by the barrel of an AR-15 toting political terrorist IRS agent.

        The party is just starting gramps.

        • Proud GrandPa

          Welcome to the party. You are a little late. Glad you joined us at last.

      • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

        you should know, being one yourself.

    • JdL

      People who are here illegally have violated and are violating the law.They do not belong here.

      And where do YOUR ancestors come from? Are you descended from Native Americans? If not, get your OWN ass out of America, bozo!

      • crazyassmofo

        I am quarter Cherokee and exited the failed US years ago.
        Any further questions?

    • 2wheeljunkie

      They are here because of the demand for cheap labor. Fine anyone caught employing illegals $250,000 for each worker. Demand will dry up in a hurry when their businesses go belly up from fines.

  • Farid Rushdi

    This is the first time I have seen a bias in the reporting here, or at least some other-side-of-the-coin investigations.

    Though Carlos didn’t write it, when I saw the video title as “Violent Tea Party Mob attacks Media,” I at first went to another site without reading before coming back and looking closer.

    In a quote from the “raw story,” — “Heller, an anti-immigration activist….”

    Not many of those around. Heller is probably an “anti illegal-immigration activist,” something that many of us are.

    What’s wrong with someone speaking against amnesty for illegal immigrants? My family came from the Middle East years ago. It took hundreds of pages of documents, a five year wait and someone willing to guarantee they would cover our expenses for three years if we couldn’t.

    Are people like us unreasonable?

    And why use anti-immigration in any form? They are pro legal-immigration. That’s like saying people like me who are pro-life are anti-choice. That’s how biased writers get their view in the story without making it obvious.

    Say the bikers were wrong and I’ll throw a “hallelujah” and become part of the amen chorus.

    That all said, I’ll still come here 3-4 times a day and hope this was just a hiccup.

    • brian schneider

      “people like me who are pro-life are anti-choice. ”

      Well? Yes.

      • Farid Rushdi

        What I was saying is that someone who is pro-choice will refer to me as “anti-choice” for purely political, biased reasons. Someone who agrees with me will call me “pro-life” for the same reason.

        • Proud GrandPa

          Truth trivia:
          In the early 1990s magazine editors from around America met to discuss this very issue. Their intent was to downplay the ugly fact of abortion and try to clean up the image. That is when most major mags agreed to use the politically correct term “choice” instead of abortion in order to make it less offensive.
          .
          I am pro-life. I like the shirts that say, “Choose Life!” I’ll have to get me another one.

          • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

            Yes, we get it, you two forced-birthers are anti-women and pro-slavery.

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            Before I could be forced-birth, I would have to have been forced-pregnancy. I never force anyone into anything.

          • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

            Except for forcing women to carry to term a fetus they don’t want. That form of slavery you are okay with. There is no such thing as a ‘pro-life’ movement, just the forced-birth movement.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rockinghorseguy Rockinghorseguy AnRockinghorse

            You think you know that about me, don’t you? Climb down off your high horse and think a little before typing. I’ve been a card carrying, dues paying member of the Libertarian Party for nearly thirty years now. My opinion on abortion is that I don’t give a crap. But, for me to be forcing anyone to give birth, I would first have had to force her to get pregnant. Just a little exercise in logic.

            Damn, wrong account. This is Flashing Scotsman.

          • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

            Being a libertarian doesn’t make you a good person. Tends to be the opposite, actually. Libertarians are a bunch of ‘might makes right’ bootstraps no clue how the world works jerks 9 times out of 10.

            —for me to be forcing anyone to give birth, I would first have had to force her to get pregnant.—

            Do you also think you have to force someone to buy an automobile before you force them off the road?

    • MongoLikesCandy

      “people like me who are pro-life are anti-choice. ”

      If either side were ever honestly assessing the matter, it’d be anti-abortion and pro-abortion. But nobody wants to be seen as pro-anything-distasteful or anti-anything-at-all, so opposing sides slice it up like so much bullshit. Its all a big propaganda game.

      And if you are anti-illegal immigration, just freakin’ say so. You actually have a valid argument, and should make it. The anti-illegal immigration crowd often come across – validly or no – not as pro-legal immigration, but as the anti-nonwhitepeople crowd. Which is an even less effective label.

      • Farid Rushdi

        It’s the bias in journalism that makes us come across as “anti-nonwhitepeople crowd” because we’re labeled as “anti-immigration” when in fact we are “pro legal-immigration.”

        That’s why we go crazy when the press sprinkles their bias in there.

        I was born in Lebanon. I am a naturalized American. I am not white. I love legal immigration.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        Sadly, a more accurate description would be Anti-Abortion vs Pro-Birth Control.

      • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

        No, if we were doing an honest assessment, forced-birther and pro-choice would be the most accurate. The forced-birth folks want to force women to give birth regardless of how those women feel about doing so, and the pro-choice folks want people to be able to choose to have an abortion if they feel one is necessary.

  • Nowarsyria

    This is very disappointing to see on pinac Carlos,

    By the way, I support the Tea Party’s message.

    • Farid Rushdi

      This is why politics should never be allowed to sneak in here. Now we are dividing into camps and no one is noticing the police are still acting crazy.

      Up until now, Tea Party people (me) and Occupy people gathered here to try to change police activity.

      Now we’re eating each other alive. Sucks ….

      • Photog at Large

        Divide and conquer :( Like you said, sometimes people/groups use the tactic en masse, other times – we do it to ourselves …

    • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

      You support racism, anti-education, bigotry, anti-woman, failure to comprehend math, and ignorance of history?

      And you admit this?

  • lushr

    I would have to agree with the other commenters that the article did put a spin on the organization that isn’t necessarily what they espouse officially, despite my own thoughts on the subject (e.g. amnesty for all illegal immigrants, and kiosks at borders handing out green cards), I think that the issue could have been better framed, especially in our niche context.

  • Carlos_Miller

    All you guys blaming me for bias are only showing your own bias because you’ve never blamed me for bias against police, even though a case could certainly be made for that.

    • CCHH

      About that…

      Maybe it’s time you put on your big boy pants. You ain’t some backwater blogger anymore. You have a national voice. You choose to stand up for the lot of us.

      Are you a leader, journalist, activist? Or just another guy with an opinion?

      Your call.

      • crazyassmofo

        ….ooooh…the pressure…the collective speaks.
        Heavy stuff.
        I say fuck the collective.

      • Carlos_Miller

        Big boy pants?

        I am a journalist with an opinion. That’s always been the case.

        I am an activist when it comes to the rights of photographers. That’s something I’ve had to accept along the way.

        I’ve never considered myself a leader. If anything, maybe an educator about the rights of photographers.

        My goal is that we all becomes leaders in that we’re not afraid to make a stand when it comes to the right to record.

        • CCHH

          Well that’s what we did and you cry foul.

          You get snarky about a woman who chose to come here legally. Make it sound like marriage is automatic citizenship and an unfair advantage. And then act like you didn’t.

          We called you out. Put on your Big Boy Pants and man up. ‘Cause that ain’t journalism.

          • Carlos_Miller

            I just think she’s a hypocrite, that’s all.

          • CCHH

            That’s fine. But you made stuff up. And posted it. That’s not fine.

            Like I said, been here all along. Just TRYING to point out this ain’t cricket. And you have a heck of a lot more to lose today than a few years ago.

          • crazyassmofo

            buh bye

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            Carlos only has to be unbiased if he CLAIMS he’s unbiased. I don’t think he ever claimed that. I’m biased, and it’s ok. I admit to it. So you can take what I say with a grain of salt of you like. When it comes to standing up to photographers, Carlos is consistent. And that’s what this blog is about. None of us are going to agree with EVERYONE else here about EVERYTHING. I wouldn’t want us to.

    • MongoLikesCandy

      However you phrase it, someone will bitch. Your article is fine, although demonstrating slight biased phrasing where there is no correct unbiased way to phrase. The other articles have a bit more bias showing than you do. In fact, as someone who can read an article without bringing their own political baggage to your doorstep, I can say your article seems more about the photographer’s rights than the immigration issue.

      Your usual subject matter actually addresses a totalitarianism that crosses the political spectrum. But if you found the reverse situation at an pro-amnesty rally with a conservative blogger getting harassed, would you post it? (I’m inclined to think you would)

      • Carlos_Miller

        Of course, I would. I was always in support of Occupy Wall Street but never hesitated to call them out when they acted this way to photographers.

        • Farid Rushdi

          See, and right there is the problem (not your problem, “the” problem).

          A totalitarian police state is the same as a totalitarian government, and it’s conservatives who decry big government that tries to micromanage the people, not liberals.

          I think the Occupy people were for the most part thugs. Doesn’t mean I’m right but that’s how I feel. I am member of the Tea Party big time. Doesn’t make me right but that’s how I feel.

          When you know a person you rely on for information has differing views, part of that bond is broken. Not saying it’s right, it’s just true.

          This should be a “no politics” zone. It won’t work any other way.

          This will all blow over and things will be fine.

          • Guy Fawkes

            I wouldn’t agree with that. Many conservatives support the war on drugs. The war on drugs requires a massive cop army, and corresponding loss of civil liberties. The war on drugs costs billions of dollars and can only be possible under the auspice of a very large, aggressive government.
            Small government and the war on drugs can’t coexist.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Actually the war on drugs like cocaine and meth could be won very easily and with a low to moderate gov’t payroll. This is not the place for this discussion.

    • Farid Rushdi

      Carlos, I think the problem is that either the police break the law when they stop us from photographing or they don’t. It’s black and white. The law says we can. Hard to find a bias when you show illegal activities with the police.

      But this story cut across political lines and therein lies the problem. Politics has so many nuanced terms that when we see a particular term or word, it screams “bias.”

      Everything I read from the readers indicate this is a outlier, an anomaly and they voiced their concern.

      Regular readers take ownership in your site, and what they read made them uncomfortable.

      As a reporter for a newspaper, I hear the bias accusation all the time. Learn from it or pay no attention to it. Totally your choice.

      But know that if your readers didn’t care they wouldn’t have said a word.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Police can stop photography under certain conditions just as they can stop free speech and even religious speech. The legal phrase is “time, place, and manner”. Look these up.

        .

        In this case two of those present rented use of the space for a private event which gives them the right to exclude others. The police enforced their will on the photog.

        • Carlos_Miller

          If police are going to stop photography under the time, place and manner restrictions, they must stop all photographers, not just the guy who exposed their sham candidate two years ago, costing them a lost election.

          That’s what this is really about, which is why I included that second video.

          This guy exposed their voting scam. All this other stuff that he was creating a disturbance is typical cop bullshit to justify their assaults.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Yes, if gov’t action is going to stop photogs under time, place, and manner restrictions, those restrictions must be applied equally to all persons. Same goes for other examples of free speech.
            .
            Problem is when the censoring party is NOT gov’t, but a private citizen. At issue is whether the anti-illegal immigrant group had a lawful contract to claim public land for private use. The answer is probably, “Yes, they did.” And the legal impact is that they can exclude those photogs they dislike and allow others.
            .
            As for the voter fraud issue, I see nothing to connect that to these people and nothing to prevent their renting gov’t land. Is that what you want readers to believe? Thanks, Carlos.
            .

  • Buffalo Rick

    As someone who was there, here a few facts that were omitted from the story, as told by Gilman. The Capitol Lawn was reserved, by permit, allowing the event to determine who could be there. Gilman was asked to take his camera out to the sidewalk, where he would be free to film. HE REFUSED AND GOT HOSTILE! Police were called and he was removed and escorted to his vehicle, as to preclude his usual taunting and bellowing from a distance. Thanks to the Capitol Police and DPS. The foul mouthed man in the video is neither a member of RidersUSA or Remember1986. He appears to be an independent instigator.(Not Welcomed either) Gilman has NO legitimate press credentials, but has aligned himself with Stephen Lemmons at the Phoenix, New Times! Which, by the way, has been shrinking in size and advertisers for quite some time. Lemmons past is disgusting to say the least. Before moving to Phoenix, he wrote article like, “Feces of the Rich & Famous” and other abominations for underground rags.

    I hope you folks can do better on getting the facts straight, in the future.

    • Carlos_Miller

      What do you consider “legitimate press credentials”?

    • crazyassmofo

      I just have three questions…

      So what was the photographer doing or how was he behaving, other than filming the event, that made him stand out from the random crowd and prompted someone to approach and tell him he was not welcome and to move to the sidewalk?

      Why did these people not want him to simply film the event?

      And what about the assault and battery on the photog before police show up?

      • http://dailygrackle.wordpress.com NoelArmourson

        Commentary on the YouTube site indicates Mr. Gilman may have been
        verbally abusive to the attendees prior to activating his camera, and
        also that he has a history of La Raza activism.
        Perhaps Lushr or others who were on scene and have local knowledge can provide greater insight.

        • crazyassmofo

          …and we’ll just have to leave the assault and battery by the Altamont rejects to black beauties and PCP.

        • crazyassmofo

          Only video proof of this is acceptable.

    • Proud GrandPa

      You wrote: The foul mouthed man in the video is neither a member of RidersUSA or Remember1986. He appears to be an independent instigator
      .
      Wonderful! I suspected as much. It has been my experience over scores of years that conservatives and American patriots are considerably better spoken and more considerate and polite than leftwingers. Good morals ad patriotic values show in so many ways.
      .
      Thanks for confirming that yet again.

      • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

        Yep, like all your tea-partiers and their racist, uneducated signs and inability to comprehend third grade level math.

    • bc_motoguy

      because Haters having a PRIVATE rally in a PRIVATE place with PRIVATE security would just be way too frickin logical. Ignorant Thugs. Love the Freedom. ps: wasnt hostile, and LOL @ ‘legitimate press credentials’. You are in the wrong place.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      so.. you would censor him, in a way that is explicitly not content neutral? Interesting position to take.

    • Ryan French

      Nothing of which you said warrants touching or pushing. Thanks for playing.

    • 2wheeljunkie

      Press credentials need to be a thing of the past. We are all journalists now.

  • Daniel Wood

    What the fuck is wrong with you people? Regardless of your views of immigration, a man who was peacefully recording a public event in a public place was bullied and assaulted! I don’t give a fuck if somebody with a video camera is atheist, Christian, straight, gay, communist, or capitalist, he has the same first amendment right to record video! You all are letting your political views blind you to what happened here! What if he was a conservative filming at a pro-immigration rally and was treated this way by Hispanics, would you feel the same way?

    • crazyassmofo

      Some people who claim they want freedom actually want freedom from freedom.
      Most people putting on political events such as this are just like people voting for their favorite sports team…or in this case, gang members.

      • Proud GrandPa

        The foul mouthed gang member was not with the group. He was an outside agitator.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          Was the foul mouthed agitator surrounded & escorted away by police? Or would that have been a violation of his First Amendment rights?

          • Proud GrandPa

            Good question. Did the permit holders want him escorted away too?

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            The question was “was the foul mouthed agitator surrounded and escorted?”. You see that would be equal treatment. Or am I missing something?

        • crazyassmofo

          …sure he was gramps…sure he was.

  • S W

    From what I viewed (and from what most people know to be true) idiots like this use their cameras to take pictures of those who oppose them so that they can later use intimidation tactics against those opposing them – these tactics are, in fact, ANTI freedom of speech because they ‘attempt’ to silence their opponents – who are greater in number than they! Good job, bikers!! I hate bullies like this ‘videographer’.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      “Bullies”. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Right on. S.W. A photographer or journalist can misuse his/her legal rights to intimidate or smear people he dislikes. We conservatives see this all the time. It is called liberal media bias and it stinks.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        I call bullshit. If someone is “smeared” there is a legal solution. But not getting your way, is a totally different thing.

    • bj

      So who gets to decide when filming is ok and when it’s not?
      No one does. The Constitution ‘decides’. Unless it’s private property, the public has a right to film. If you don’t agree with that lobby your elected representatives to amend the Constitution. (I’m betting your view will be in the minority.)

  • vicente ansel

    Sorry Carlos, but you obviously wrote this article relying on one individuals account of it. I was present at the rally and was only a yards away from the so-called “assault”. Mr. Gilman was never assaulted. What was left out of your “story” was that the coalition of groups sponsoring the rally had a permit to occupy that portion of the Capitol lawn. Mr. Gilman was at first politely asked to leave and do his filming from the sidewalk. Gilman then became verbally abusive and continued to film ignoring the requests for him to move from the permited area. When some of the “tattooed, leather clad Bikers” placed obstacles in front of the camera lense in order to encourage Gilman to move, Gilman became very aggressive and attempted to push everyone aside. The police arrived, saw that there was a permit for the event and realized that Gilman was indeed inappropriately attempting to create a “scene”. The police did what was lawfully required by removing Gilman from the permitted area. There were credible media sources that were present who were more than welcomed to film and write as much as they wished without incident.

    • bj

      What’s all this discussion about ‘permits’?
      I don’t live in the US and am not fortunate enough to live in a state with a Bill of Rights. (I’m from Australia.) I envy the US Constitution because it provides an overarching legal framework for legislation passed by elected representatives. I know it doesn’t always work in theory but you have a legal ‘compass’ and citizens can challenge unconstitutional laws. My opinion is that this talk about ‘permits’ holds absolutely no weight constitutionally. Where does the 1st Amendment say you have the right to free speech but only if you have a permit. It’s rubbish. I don’t understand all the political discussions going on here in this forum but I know enough to confidently say that the videographer had a constitutionally protected right to film. The Supreme Court has upheld that right. To all of you in the US, you are incredibly fortunate to have the Bill of Rights. Don’t throw it away! bj

    • crazyassmofo

      The video presented here shows that Gilman verbally refused the request to leave and specifically stated that he would do so when law enforcement showed up and told him to do so.
      The enforcers could have and should have waited for law enforcement as they announced they had been called…rather than trying to be enforcers prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

      Upon placing obstacles in his camera’s view it is obvious that these people made a circle around him…thus surrounding him…as he rotated around with his camera to show just this.
      One can then see that one of the men began to get physical with Gilman and this was the first physical contact. Instead of waiting for law enforcement who truly have the authority to physically contact and remove a trespasser, this guy chose to take that power unto himself and push Gilman. It does not matter what Gilman may have said verbally prior to this no matter how insulting as long as it was not a threat of harm to another, which it wasn’t.
      Just because you feel insulted or abused by what I may say does not give you the right to touch me. And if you did, you would be missing that hand.

      Gilman should have been, at worse, charged with trespassing should the permit holders actually had this right.
      But those bikers who chose to physically contact or push him should have been charged with assault and battery…as there was no justifiable self-defense on that level.

  • Carlos_Miller

    I will probably lose some readers after I say this, but that’s ok.

    For you guys to come in here and try to strong-arm me into how I should write my stories is complete bullshit. I’ve never allowed anybody to do that in the six years I’ve been running it, including Pixiq and well as other employers who ended up firing me over this blog – not to mention the occasional cop who reaches out to me and asks me to tone it down in order to win more cops over – so I’m not going to allow you guys to do it.

    You guys are no different than the jack asses in this video with your bullying tactics. I imagine you would do the same to me if I walked up to one your rallies with a camera, knowing I don’t agree with you.

    You call me biased? Take a look in the mirror to see the definition of bias.

    I’ve never refrained from stating my opinion in stories, so I’m not going to begin doing it now just because some of you have gotten your panties in a twist.

    If you want to know the truth, I can’t stand these anti-immigrant people. I used to work as a reporter in Arizona and these are the same fuckers who could call me and leave messages after I had written a story about a Mexican dying in the desert, celebrating his death while accusing me of being illegal because they said I had an accent.

    Yet most of these people are transplants from the Midwest who moved to Arizona, oblivious to the fact that Mexicans have been living in Arizona centuries before it even became a state.

    Also, the reason there has been such an increase in illegal immigration since the 1990s was because the introduction of NAFTA lifted trade tariffs, forcing hundreds of Mexican farms to shut down, leaving thousands of Mexicans unemployed.

    We created this issue, so it’s a little hypocritical to pretend otherwise. These Mexicans would much rather be in Mexico.

    There is nothing inaccurate in this story. You saw the video. They just didn’t like him and I explained why.

    Those of your creating different scenarios to justify their assault on him are no different than cops who do the same. What hypocrisy.

    • pete

      Carlos. Keep on keeping on. This isn’t a blog about politics. To nitpick about your “spin” on a story is maddenly off subject. If this guy has been a complete asshole up to the point the video was shot is irrelevant. Even obnoxious people can’t be told they don’t have the right to videotape in public. These people tried to infringe on this guys rights. THAT’S the story.

      • Proud GrandPa

        The cameraman was the one lead away by police because he was violating a permitted area that the group of Bikers had secured for the rally. _Vincent was there…

        • pete

          Doesn’t matter. The fact is this event wasn’t access controlled. People could just walk up and listen. Anyone, well, except this guy. If they didn’t want him there, call the police. They chose to act like thugs. Hell even the speaker tried to intervene on his behalf. To bring up all this other nonsense is missing the point of this blog and Carlos’s post. Who gives a shit how he portrayed the rally. That doesn’t change what we all saw on video.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Access control? Are you guessing?
            .
            As for your question, I care about Carlos’ integrity and honesty or lack thereof in PINAC posts. So do potential donors and advertizers.

          • pete

            I didn’t see any security people, fences etc. the people in the video kept telling him to go to the sidewalk. Not something said if there are controls. Likewise, this makes no sense unless the same people who acted like thugs had no problem letting him in yet freaked out when got near the speaker. Makes no sense. Regarding Carlos, it’s so condescending of you to presume what is good for him. I think his “fuck you” was proof he doesn’t give two shits what you think.

      • vicente ansel

        Let me put this in some very basic terms so that even you will understand. Have you ever gotten a permit to use a public ramada at a local park for a party or event that you were sponsoring? Let’s say that you have. What if some drunk or unruly stranger walks into your party and begins insulting or harassing your guests disrupting your event. Don’t you have every right to summon the police to have that unruly individual removed despite the fact that it is a public facility? Of course you do. This is exactly what happened with the disruptive New Times reporter. Gilman has a long reputation for antagonizing people and then using the response he receives as a method to discredit the people he had just provoked. Comprende amigo?

        • JdL

          Let me put this in some very basic terms so that even you will understand.

          When logic fails, resort to empty insults, eh? Pretty pathetic! Comprende, amigo?

        • Carlos_Miller

          You’re full of shit to say he walked up and started insulting and yelling.

          You can see there are several cameras used by people who were not getting assaulted, so surely one of them has the video to proof what you are alleging.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Troll Alert => Foul language, personal insults
            .
            Don’t feed the troll…even him.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Actually, language you find objectionable does not make someone a troll. Let me introduce you to a term you might find useful. It’s called “Freedom of expression”. Once upon a time, it was even a founding value for great nation.

        • pete

          Please put it in 2nd grade logic. If its a private event then make it private. Control who comes and goes. That isn’t what happened now is it? Likewise, call the cops. Fine. Acting like thugs is, well, thuggish. Lastly, don’t mansplain your idiocy to me when you have no clue from where I come. The bottom line mate, … Err sorry…amigo, is no matter what the guy did before, that doesn’t justify the punkish nonsense that was actually captured on tape.

    • CCHH

      Sacrifice your integrity for emotion and you have nothing. Are nothing. Your word means nothing.

      “…immigrant woman onstage speaking against amnesty for illegal immigrants
      because unlike her, they didn’t arrive here legally by marrying an
      American citizen.”

      The truth is she said nothing of the sort. The way the internet works is we can actually watch the video posted. We can actually hear what she says. The truth is that comment is all you and totally false.

      • Carlos_Miller

        The truth is obviously whatever you want it to be. I didn’t quote her directly, i just condensed what she was essentially saying into one sentence.

        But CCHH, since I have lost all credibility in your eyes, please don’t come back.

        • CCHH

          What a shame. Your ego got the best of you.

          I was a supporter for a long time. Posted many a link here and sent many people here.

          • crazyassmofo

            buh bye.

          • Carlos_Miller

            And just for the record, I’m not banning you from posting here. Nor am I banning you from stating your opinion

            It just appears that you are unable to get past the fact that I have a different opinion than you do when it comes to the immigration debate, so why bother posting here anymore?

          • CCHH

            I appreciate the dialog.
            This has never been about immigration or opinion. But you know that,

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            I’m a big supporter of the site also, and do my best to send people here. I stand by what you’re doing, and I look forward to my first opportunity to film a LEO doing his job, whether he does it right or wrong. And I will continue to be a supporter of the site.

            My only beef is with being called, by association, anti immigration. I am not anti immigration, and neither are the people in the video. We are anti illegal immigration. There IS a difference. Just as I understand that you disagree with me on this Carlos, I hope you can understand that I disagree with you.

          • JdL

            Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

          • CCHH

            So long sucker.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Sheesh! It’s a blog. Am I the only one who sees the irony of those very strong biases attacking Carlos Miller (owner, creator, maintainer primary contributor of this blog), for appearing to have bias of his own?

      The internet is wide open. This place is not an echo chamber. If that is what you seek, you are in the wrong place.

      • Proud GrandPa

        VoC, the issue is not bias. The issue is falsehood being spread as if it were truth on another website and being repeated here uncritically.
        .
        Carlos erred on several matters of truth; bias prevented his checking the facts. That is why we must disagree with him.
        .

        • Carlos_Miller

          The facts are very clear, so please shut the fuck up, Proud GrandPa.

          Just because some xenophobic asshole comes here and claims the videographer started yelling at them, doesn’t exactly make it true.

          You saw how many cameras were recording at the event, so until I see some video proof, I’m going to go with what I’ve seen, which was a bunch of Village People rejects surrounding the videographer while pushing him.

          • Proud GrandPa

            I believe this is known as an argument from silence. Yes, those videos may show the photog did not harass first. Maybe the videos will show the police were mistaken to remove the photog. Who knows, maybe the police will discover that the property useage contract was not signed and the photog was not treaspassing. Maybe historians will discover the photog does not have a history of provocation, in which case one could wonder if he were telling the truth.
            .
            Maybe…
            .
            But until then I sincerely ask you which version seems the more credible?
            .

          • jimmarch

            “Proud GrandPa”:

            When a group of people physically attack somebody, a number of ugly truths kick in:

            1) The assailants are cowards. Period, end of discussion.

            2) A mob effect can kick in and somebody can end up very dead, very quickly.

            Lethal force is a reasonable response to a mob attack.

          • Carlos_Miller

            Which version sounds more credible?

            The only version that I’ve seen on video so far. Have’t you learned anything from reading this blog?

          • Carlos_Miller

            The “argument of silence”?

            So the fact that there is no counter-video posted just means they have the video that would prove me wrong, only they are preferring to not to post it because they are choosing the argument of silence?

          • Proud GrandPa

            I am disappointed in your logic, Carlos. The argument from silence is YOUR argument. In this case it means the unknown videos might prove you right if (a) they exist, and (b) they don’t prove you wrong.
            .
            You were very brave in your subway photo case. Don’t undermine that. We want to think well of you. This was not one of your more honest, better posts. That’s what the complaints are about.
            .

          • Carlos_Miller

            Please shut up about me not being honest unless you can prove I lied.

        • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

          —The issue is falsehood being spread as if it were truth on another website and being repeated here uncritically.—

          You, of all people, have zero right to offer that as a criticism.

    • crazyassmofo

      This is true regarding NAFTA.
      If one were to look to or put any faith into politics or politicians, the last chance to have attempted to steer the right course would have been electing the business man Ross Perot as president because he was interested in running the country as a no-bullshit, no-excuses business.
      This is why they shut third party out of all debates after him.
      The political duopoly had been threatened.
      So now they closed the door.
      Game over.

      • Proud GrandPa

        You right wing conservatives are everywhere. I bet you even believe in a free market and in personal responsibility, don’t you?

        • TheFlashingScotsman

          I see what you did, PGP.

    • http://azzmador.com/ Azzmador

      Carlos, I am a fan of yours, and you’ve inspired me to become a photographer/activist in addition to having a very effective local politics blog. I don’t like the amnesty bill, but I support the photographer and the first amendment, and I think these bikers are shitheads.

  • Howard

    This discussion is way off topic and isn’t what I come here for.

    To get it back on track towards the rights of photographers and journalists and the general public, I want to know the following:

    1. Was the event open to the public or only to a select audience? If only to a select audience, is that even legal when it was held on state property? Does the owner of the property make a difference in a case like this?

    2. Does an organization that has a permit to hold an event on the state capitol grounds get to control who is in that space and demand that people leave for any reason short of being disruptive?

    3. Was the photojournalist actually being disruptive or simply responding to the others who were trying to block him from covering the event? If the photojournalist was disruptive, where are the photos and videos of that? There were clearly many people there with cameras. We see in the video that others were taking pictures of the person making the video. Do they have stories to share that can back up one side or the other?

    4. If the journalist who made the video believes his rights were violated, is he taking any legal action against the police, the state capitol administration, or the group that held the event? If not, why not?

    5. If the people holding the event believe he was disruptive to their organization are they pursuing any legal action against the journalist such as a restraining order? If not, why not?

    As far as the specific issues around the rally and the reporting by Carlos or one group or another, remember that everything is biased. I disagree with at least 75% of what I read on political and news sites. And I also expect there to be bias in everything I read. A journalist writing without bias is nearly impossible, although many strive to achieve that as a goal. But if you accept that there’s bias, and read everything accordingly, then you’re in a better position to evaluate everything you read. And you’ve got to accept that blogs probably have more bias than a large professional news organization web site.

    Carlos, keep up the good work!

    • Proud GrandPa

      2. Does an organization that has a permit to hold an event on the state capitol grounds get to control who is in that space and demand that people leave for any reason short of being disruptive?
      .
      In other locations the answer may be a qualified no. Christian evangelists and religious people used to face this all the time by secularist event planners who didn’t like the religious message. They used contracts to try to exclude people or speech. We beat them in court. That was several years ago in several places.
      .
      Such contracts may or may not be legal in case of disruption. This is complicated.

  • JdL

    I can’t BELIEVE all the whiners commenting here! Carlos, keep up the good work! As for the rest of you who want to tell Carlos what to write, start your own damn blog.

  • jak

    what a dick,you can have the fucking wetback piles of shit.hope one takes your so called job fucko

    • JdL

      what a dick,you can have the fucking wetback piles of shit.hope one takes your so called job fucko

      You are a perfect example of an anti-immigration fanatic, reducing human beings to “piles of shit.” Where did YOUR ancestors come from, jak?

    • Mary Queen

      Bigot.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        I love that someone down voted her for calling a Bigot, a bigot. it’s getting silly in here

    • Carlos_Miller

      Considering I have skills that allow me not to pick crops nor work in construction, I doubt that will be happening anytime soon.

      If you’re worried about it, then spend your extra time educating yourself to improve your skills because you still have an advantage over people who come here with no English language skills nor anything more than manual skills.

  • Proud GrandPa

    Carlos,
    Please permit a suggestion. If your blog is to be part of a movement that changes America, not just a blog that rants ineffectively, then you need to enlist the aid of others. In particular you will need to help organize a legal organization to defend independent videographer and photographer rights to photo police and government officials.
    .
    That means you will have to play well with others, learn to graciously accept insults and criticisms, and allow others to form independent organizations greater than your blog. Ronald Reagan said that it is easy to accomplish great things, when you don’t care who gets the credit.
    .

    • Proud GrandPa

      I am part of a movement that did these things successfully for civil rights over a period of decades. As a result there are several international civil rights law firms defending religious freedom successfully and literally millions of dollars donated yearly to the cause.
      .
      Along the way I met some big talkers who did not know how to cooperate with others or work on a team. They did not last.
      .
      Here is the decision you must make. Do you have the emotional maturity to do more than talk? If not, that is fine too. Others will eventually create such legal groups. If you try to form a tax-deductible legal team and are becoming successful yet feel miserable because you are not tempermentally suited to teamwork, then forget about it and stay just a blogger. You do well as a blogger, and I like to read your articles. Nothing wrong with just a blog. Just a word to the wise…

      • Carlos_Miller

        You must think I’m your grandkid or something to constantly spew unsolicited advice. Why don’t you do things your way and allow me to do things my way?

        • Proud GrandPa

          I believe that is what we are doing, Carlos. Feel free to do your thing your way. Just expect to be criticized for articles like this one. Failure to check facts unfairly criticized Tea Party members. They spoke up.

          • Carlos_Miller

            Again, the issue is not that I didn’t check facts. The issue is that I made a sarcastic remark about a woman whom I understand is running for office when she proclaimed how she came into this country legally by marrying an American citizen, eventually becoming a citizen herself.

            I just find it hypocritical that she takes such a law and order stance when the issue is much more complex than that. I know it’s hard for narrow-minded, xenophobics to see the complexities of the issue because all they see is “illegal.”

            But anybody with a bit of sense can see that statement was just me being snide and sarcastic.

            It’s fine if you don’t agree with what I said, but to come in here and continually accuse me of not being honest is very dishonest on your part, which I realize now, I guess should be expected from these xenophobes, who are unable to view things critically.

            The fact that “they spoke up” is no different than the assault that took place on video.

            If you or the rest of the fuckers think that I’m going to change my views or the way I’m going to write my articles because you’re all pissing and moaning and whining and crying, then you obviously haven’t been reading a very long time.

            But I’ll ask you again, if you are going to accuse me of not writing truths, then be specific about the untruths that I wrote.

            Because otherwise, you’re coming across like a liar yourself.

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            Carlos, I don’t know if this particular format allows it, but it would certainly be nice if you could close this to further comment, so we can all get back to doing what we’re here for, pointing out official suppression of photography.

            I for one am not coming back to this thread. It’s not what PINAC is about. And I hope it isn’t what it turns into. Do your thing, Carlos, you’re good at it, and you deserve our support. In fact, I think I’ll go buy a t-shirt.

          • Carlos_Miller

            I didn’t turn the thread into what it became.

          • Carlos_Miller

            I appreciate your comments because they bring the usual rationality that we see in the comments section, which have allowed me to let them run unmoderated for six years.

            Yes, there were those two years at Pixiq, but I made sure they were not as heavy-handed as they wanted to be.

            I am through with this thread as well but I am not going to close it for further comment because that goes against what this blog has always been about, which is granting people the right to speak their minds, no matter where they stand on the issue.

            I’ve always welcomed cops to comment here, even though many readers wanted me to ban them, but that just never made sense to me.

            It’s funny because the cops, whom we’ve all seen come and go, usually last longer than the readers calling for them to be banned.

            Not that I ban those readers. They just stop commenting for whatever reason.

            I have to admit, I am surprised by the reaction from many readers over what I wrote.

            It’s true, I am very pro-immigrant. I am born of an immigrant in a city of immigrants.

            Just because the government classifies some immigrants are “legal” and others as “illegal,” does not make a difference to me unless either one of those are committing crimes that involve victims.

            I lived by the Mexican border for more than two years when I worked for the Las Cruces Sun-News in New Mexico back in the 1990s, frequently crossing the border and driving into Mexico to report on stories, so I have a pretty good grasp on the issue.

            But I am also biased because my mother is an immigrant from Colombia. Yes, she arrived here legally like that lady in the video (who happens to be running for office) by marrying an American citizen, hence the Miller.

            But my mother would never place herself above other immigrants who have been forced to cross the border in order to make money to send back to their families. And neither would my Virginian-born father for that matter, if he was still alive.

            That’s the part that pissed me off, which is why I inserted that sarcastic remark.

            And that got a bunch of people bent out of shape.

            As I’ve mentioned, I’ve always allowed people to state their opinions in the comments section without telling them they can’t write that (unless it is really an extreme comment, which happens about twice a year).

            So I get extremely irritated when these same people turn around and tell me I can’t write something on my blog.

            There’s a difference between stating your opinion and telling somebody else they can’t state their opinion.

            If those people can’t get past the fact that I will insert my opinions in my stories, just as they are welcome to do so in their comments, then they are not mature enough to really participate here.

            Not that I will ban them but I expect a higher intellectual level of commentary here where we are able to differentiate fact from opinion.

    • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

      Why don’t you start your own site instead of whining on someone else’s? If this site is so intolerable to you, why do you repeatedly return?

  • Nowarsyria

    So in other words Carlos, you support illegal aliens cheating the system, taking money from the American tax payer, raising the nations debt, causing dangerous pathways that facilitate the entry of murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, terrorists, stealing social security money from our seniors and disabled, and generally creating a massive financial drain on America?

    • Mary Queen

      LOL! You are a joke.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      The obvious troll is obvious

    • Bill

      …Or you can actually get rid of the welfare state

      • TheFlashingScotsman

        We’re trying.

  • Guy Fawkes

    IDK exactly what went on, but lets say that guy was a total troll. The worst reaction is to gang up on him, especially in a public place.
    They should have been as polite as possible, at which point HE would have looked like an abusive idiot as no doubt that would be caught on video by someone else. If he got too out of control let the cops handle it, again he would have wound up looking bad.

    As for Carlos’s position on immigration, it’s HIS blog, he can advocate anything he wants. He doesn’t tell me what to write on my blog and I don’t tell him what to write on his. I’m not saying you can’t say “I disagree with this because…”, but saying “you shouldn’t write this or that” is a little pretentious.

  • Mary Queen

    Can’t fix stupid Red Necks.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      I love that folks down vote the idea that you can’t fix stupid rednecks. Because, if there is one minority that needs a champion, it’s stupid rednecks!

  • SonyA57

    I’ve seen leftist anti-war, anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-business, anti-freespeach, anti-american, anti-white people, protesters bust peoples cameras, destroy public property, assault people (including police) and, they never get such special attention in the “news” media as this minor incident did. In fact the more the leftist trash beat someone, the holier the “news” media portrays them.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      “Leftist trash”? Way to class up the joint.

      More importantly, the topic of this blog & this thread is not what you might have seen in the past. It’s what’s on the video. ie, facts we can all view & discuss.

      • SonyA57

        Yes, Leftist trash, and thank you. :)

  • Ryan French

    I don’t understand why some people commenting on here believe that pulling an event permit gives you the power to assault a “trespasser?” What’s so hard about calling the police after he said he wasn’t leaving? This is not helping cure the stereotype of bikers nor is this good PR for the organization. He would have been in his right to fight back and then things might have gone really sour.

    Riders United for a Sovereign America
    Media Contact Email: RidersUSA@cox.net
    Media Telephone Number: 480-203-1051
    Media Address: 2502 E. Huntington Dr. Tempe, AZ 85282

    Do what you all do so well…

  • Bill