May 182010
With the latest crisis that can’t go to waste, the Obama Administration is now using the Arizona immigration law to codify the Latino vote against Republicans in an attempt to save the Democrat majority. I guess one could say it’s ironic that the same party that excused its own segregationist past by revising the intent of the ‘Southern Strategy’, has now implemented its own.
It does so at its own peril.
Blacks are not impressed by the law-breaking, self-inflicted adversity suffered by illegal aliens, in fact some are downright hostile. All one need to and look at the make up of South Central Los Angeles, formerly the black community.
It is brown and the Latinos there have been quite public with their intent to drive blacks out. Peacefully by breeding, violent if necessary.
Read the rest.
May 182010
FAIR has just released its fiscal study of the cost of illegal immigration in Arizona which shows a dramatic rise over five years from $1.2 billion annually in 2005 to $2.7 billion annually in 2010. Based on FAIR’s estimate of 500,000 illegal aliens residing in the state, the study adds their cost of education, Medicaid, SCHIP, incarceration, welfare and general categories. The study then subtracts revenue collected from them by property, sales and income tax to derive the net $2.7 billion illegal immigration is costing Arizona taxpayers.
While Arizona is facing a barrage of attacks by open border special interests, lawsuits and nationwide boycotts, the new cost analysis further justifies Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to put into place an effective, lawful enforcement strategy that enhances public safety and reduces taxpayer costs. Even if the threatened boycotts against Arizona result in lost revenue, the money lost will be far less than the $2.7 billion Arizona taxpayers shell out annually to subsidize illegal immigration. Governor Brewer’s balance sheet is mathematically sound and the bill is clearly a benefit for Arizona in every possible way.
Based on a massive propaganda campaign launched by the open borders special interests, we expect the boycotts will build, additional lawsuits will be filed and an injunction is possible. That said, the public in Arizona, and across the country, overwhelming support the law as shown in poll after poll, and should the bill be changed, we are certain it will withstand judicial scrutiny because of the constitutional protections included in the bill — which FAIR helped craft.
Source: Fair
May 182010
Gary Pierce, elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, was not very happy with the Los Angeles City Council vote to boycott Arizona passing SB 1070. Commissioner Pierce offers his services to help, as he explains in a letter to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands.
If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Gary Pierce’s page.
May 182010
Editor’s Note: Video and audio available below the fold.
Yet another liberal bemoans the unbridled free speech that resulted from President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 call to no longer enforce the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine.
This time it’s Phoenix, Arizona Democratic Mayor Phil Gordon. (He is not the Phil Gordon who plays poker. The latter seeks to relieve you only of your money, not of your First Amendment rights.)
Mayor Censor participated in a May 14 panel discussion put together by the George Soros-funded, John Podesta-run, Marxist Van Jones permanent job place-holding Center for American Progress entitled “When Federal Government Failure Leads to Local Upheaval-Arizona and Beyond.”
At which Mayor Censor designated the absence of the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine and the free market radio choices made by the American people that resulted as in part contributing to the passage of Arizona law 1070, which calls on state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws.
Says Mayor Censor:
“I think it goes back to the Reagan era when the fairness doctrine was dropped, and instead of requiring both sides of a debate to be aired, only one side was given the chance depending on who was providing that.
May 182010
Arizona did it again! Fresh from signing a law that reinforces a federal law giving police the right to ask a person stopped by police for an unrelated matter to produce papers proving the right to be legally in the US, followed by a law banning schools from teaching minority/ethnic studies courses advocating separatism, group superiority and subversion of this country, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed
legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide “trained and competent” interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English. Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law.
If it was always the law, why the need for this law? Because of a lawsuit of course. A unilingual Spanish speaking woman in Arizona was treated by a unilingual English speaking optometrist in his Arizona office. The woman’s underage 12 year old daughter offered to be the interpreter; fearing legal, insurance and medical problems if the child misunderstood the optometrist refused, asking the mother and child to return with an English speaker over 18 or alternatively, visit some Spanish speaking optometrists. Instead, the Spanish speaker, whether legally in this country or not, understood enough of this country to file a discrimination suit against the English speaking optometrist. Refusing to settle, the optometrist finally won after the Arizona Attorney General took a year to decide no laws had been broken.
Read the rest.
May 182010
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has been a vocal critic of the new Arizona immigration law, told Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Monday that she had not reviewed the law in detail, but nevertheless repeated criticism she made in April on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that the law is a “bad law enforcement law.”
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder said he hadn’t read the law either, although he too has criticized it. He told the House Judiciary Committee he’d “expressed concerns” about the Arizona law, “on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law” from newspaper and TV reports. Holder has questioned whether the law is constitutional and has said the federal government may challenge it in court.
On Monday, Sen. McCain asked Napolitano, who is the former governor of Arizona, about the law during a hearing on the federal response to the oil spill off the Gulf Coast –“Have you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the state of Arizona?”
“I have not reviewed it in detail, I certainly know of it, senator,” Napolitano replied.
But when McCain subsequently asked if she were “not prepared to make a judgment on it,” Napolitano told McCain the law was “not the kind of law I would have signed” and that it was a “bad law enforcement law.”
Read the rest.
May 182010
Arizona did it again! Fresh from signing a law that reinforces a federal law giving police the right to ask a person stopped by police for an unrelated matter to produce papers proving the right to be legally in the US, followed by a law banning schools from teaching minority/ethnic studies courses advocating separatism, group superiority and subversion of this country, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed
legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide “trained and competent” interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English. Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law.
If it was always the law, why the need for this law? Because of a lawsuit of course. A unilingual Spanish speaking woman in Arizona was treated by a unilingual English speaking optometrist in his Arizona office. The woman’s underage 12 year old daughter offered to be the interpreter; fearing legal, insurance and medical problems if the child misunderstood the optometrist refused, asking the mother and child to return with an English speaker over 18 or alternatively, visit some Spanish speaking optometrists. Instead, the Spanish speaker, whether legally in this country or not, understood enough of this country to file a discrimination suit against the English speaking optometrist. Refusing to settle, the optometrist finally won after the Arizona Attorney General took a year to decide no laws had been broken.
Read the rest.
