Minuteman Blog Central

For the entire slide show of photos, click here:

http://www.minutemanhq.com/~video/BF/PDF/borderfence9.pdf

These photos include welding of cross bars on the fence posts and unloading some of the 160 panels that were delivered last Friday!

To see the entire photo slide show, remember to click on the link at the top of this update!

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forums, click on the title link!

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Form 990, Informational Return for Not for Profit Organizations, for calendar year 2005 has been completed and submitted to the IRS.

Link to 990: http://www.minutemanhq.com/~video/2005_990.pdf

Given the egregiously false or erroneous reporting—as well as some outright malicious lies about the status of MCDC finances that this organization has endured—the Board has decided that this year and this year only MCDC will emulate publicly-traded company standards and release MCDC’s first year audited financial statements, in addition to the normal 990 documentation.

Link to independent audit:

http://www.minutemanhq.com/~video/MCDC_2005_FS.pdf

We note that we are releasing our organizational IRS Form 990 and the additional audited financial statements on deadline, as promised, when promised. The independent auditors’ report from Salmon Beach and Associates is a clean finding, and attached to the audited financial statements.

Our total income was $418,493.00.

$112,500.00 of income was in unrestricted grants from Declaration Alliance.

Our Total Expenditures were $449,667.00

Our Program Services were $280,920.00 which was 62.47% of our total expenditures.

Our Management and General Expenses were $23,348.00 which was 5.19% of our total expenditures.

Our Fundraising Expenses were $145,399.00 which was 32.34% of our total expenditures.

All these expenses paid were for both goods and services—including product hard costs, consulting fees, and expenditures for professional materials and services rendered.

Summary

The overall financial activity for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps for calendar year 2005 was judged by independent auditors to be absolutely clean with no derogatory findings.

62.47% to programs
5.19% to management/administration
32.34% to fundraising

The percentage allocations of expenditures to delivery of programs and services on monies donated are much better than most first-year startup national organizations. The expenditures breakdown on the 2005 calendar year IRS Form 990 on page 13 are itemized into categories, which are summed up as follows:

BANK CHARGES: Self explanatory

CAGING FEES: Amount charged for processing contributions

CREDIT CARD FEES: Fees charged for processing credit card contributions

DONATION EXPENSES: Expenditure to another non-profit for services assisting with background checks

EDUCATION EXPENSES: Production of educational materials/pamphlets

FIELD SUPPLIES: Supplies required for field operations other than equipment.

FUEL EXPENSE: Reimbursement for fuel costs such as generator fuel for border operations

FUNDRAISING EXPENSES: Hard costs for fundraising event expenditures.

GARBAGE REMOVAL: Expense incurred in trash removal from the border.

HALL RENTAL: Rental for field headquarters during border operations.

LIST RENTAL EXPENSES: Payment for list rental to other organizations for education, mobilization and fundraising purposes

LODGING: Lodging reimbursement for field operations

MEALS: Meals reimbursement for field operations

OFFICE EXPENSES: Overhead for Arizona headquarters

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES: Border field operational expenses

PROGRAM & MANAGEMENT EXPENSES: Education, training, mobilization and fundraising programs, services and management for border operations which includes expenseable field equipment

PROGRAM SERVICES: Miscellaneous field expenses not falling under other categories

TELEMARKETING: Fundraising

UTILITIES: Power expenses at field office for border operations

VOLUNTEER BACKGROUND CHECK: Monies spent on background checks for those volunteers who did not have a valid concealed carry permit which would necessitate a background check for issues such as violent felony convictions.

FORM 990, PART IV, LINE 57
LAND BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT:

Machinery and capital equipment for border operations

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!

Updates from local television on the case of some of our Border Patrol agents going 25 feet into Mexico chasing drug smugglers.

How about this, Mexico? You keep your folks on your side of the border and we''ll keep ours on our side. Deal?

Border Patrol agents allegedly cross into Mexico; Mexican officials upset

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=5678186

EAST EL PASO COUNTY, Tx - Mexican law enforcement and government officials say they are upset at several Border Patrol Agents for allegedly crossing into Mexican territory to stop drug smugglers.

Mexican officials tell ABC-7 they have no problem with US agents catching drug smugglers, however they say there is no excuse for crossing into Mexican territory to do so. Officials held a news conference in Juarez to address the alleged border crossing.

A US Border Patrol spokesman tells ABC-7 their investigation into the incident shows the US agents went about 25 feet across the border and he says that it is not so unusual.

Doug Mosier tells ABC-7, "This is a very high trafficking area for narcotics that we''re talking about here and this kind of thing occurs from time to time...not just by Border Patrol but really agencies from both countries...we think these actions by the officers really represent a really tense situation that involved cross border narcotics."

Mexican authorities say if they determine US agents did cross the border, they will then file a petition in international court to extradite the agents to face criminal charges.

Border Patrol Agents Could Face A Federal Weapons Violations Charge

http://www.ktsm.com/news/local/4635346.html

Monday, November 13, 2006 - Two Mexican municipal police officers testified today that Border Patrol agents crossed into Mexico with their weapons drawn while they were chasing a suspected drug smuggler, violating U.S. federal law. It all happened last Thursday when Border Patrol agents say they chased the suspected smuggler east of the Fabens Port of Entry. They then watched as the smuggler''s pickup truck became stuck in the Rio Grande. Juarez police say the pickup truck was spotted in El Millon, a town east of Juarez. Mexican federal police say the Border Patrol agents could face charges of carrying illegal weapons into Mexico. Stay tuned to NewsChannel 9, both on-air and on-line, for the latest updates on this story.

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!

This report from the absolutely absurd category.

From today''s El Paso Times:

Mexico criticizes U.S. Border Patrol agents
By Louie Gilot / El Paso Times
Article Launched:11/14/2006 12:00:00 AM MST

Mexican officials are upset that U.S. Border Patrol agents apparently crossed the border into Mexico without permission while chasing drug smugglers last week.

On Monday night, the Mexican attorney general''s office, known as the PGR, announced it was investigating the "probable incursion of North American police into Mexican territory."

~SNIP~

The incident occurred Thursday afternoon when Border Patrol agents chased a marijuana-loaded pickup that got stuck in the Rio Grande near Fabens. Police officials from the Mexican village of Guadalupe Distrito Bravos said that when they arrived at the scene, they found the agents on the Mexican side of the river and had a brief standoff.

~SNIP~

The city of Juárez issued a statement "condemning that authorities from other countries enter a national territory without respect for sovereignty."

~SNIP~

To read the entire article:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_4654537

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!

Democrats really would like to hold on to the majorities they just managed to get when the American public fired the Republicans.

Now, they''re re-thinking illegal immigration. Note that the article says that "lobbyists and Democrats have less than a year"--which shows you exactly who (with any power) supports amnesty in Congress today: lobbyists and the Democrat leadership.

From today''s Washington Post:

Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration
Explosive Issue Not A Top Priority For Incoming Leaders

By Darryl Fears and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 13, 2006; Page A03

When election results started rolling in Tuesday, Cecilia Muñoz said that she and other immigration advocates were "holding our breath." One by one, Republicans who had fought tooth and nail for stricter immigration laws fell, turning control of Congress over to the Democrats.

By morning, a 700-mile Mexican border fence passed by Republicans in a pre-election gambit had fallen flat with voters. A sharply worded GOP bill that targeted illegal immigrants and spurred marches by millions of Latinos in the spring appeared likely to fade into memory.

"I think this is the best environment we''ve had on the issue in quite some time," said Cassandra Q. Butts, a senior vice president for the pro-immigration Center for American Progress.

But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats'' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.

"It''s not without its challenges, for sure," said Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "You''ve got opposition in both parties. You still have restrictionists in the Republican Party. You have Democrats who''ve been reluctant to move on any kind of worker program."

~SNIP~

To read the entire article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111200909.html?referrer=email

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!