Rupert Murdoch of News Corp / Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda – Admits he supported the Bush Agenda in Iraq – He is part of the Bilderburg group
Nearly a year after she quit her governorship of Alaska, Sarah Palin was found guilty today of another breach of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act involving her so-called Alaska Fund Trust (AFT), which she established as a private “legal defense fund” while governor.
Timothy Petumenos, independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board (and ironically, the same independent counsel who issued the Troopergate findings nearly two years ago while Palin was the GOP vice-presidential nominee), presented the state’s Findings, Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement this afternoon from the perfectly named Adventure Room of the Captain Cook Hotel in downtown Anchorage.
In what is an extremely detailed finding, Petumenos ruled that even though Palin assigned the research of forming the fund to her former spokesperson Meghan Stapleton and even though Palin relied on extensive outside legal counsel, that “the Trust itself, as ultimately conceived, violates the Ethics Act.”
The finding is a stinging rebuke to Palin, who must now return more than $386,000 in contributions to the AFT.
It also forces her longtime political crony Kirstan Cole to be removed from serving as Trustee of the fund.
Perhaps most significantly, Petumenos demanded that “all donors to the Trust, whether they donated before or after the resignation, as promised in the supporting website information, must be publicly disclosed.” Costs of more than $80,000 incurred during Palin’s governorship can be defrayed only by contributions made after her resignation. Only $33,546 was contributed to the fund following her resignation.
In April of 2009, while still governor, Palin established the AFT as a means of paying what she alleged were more than $500,000 in legal bills owed to her Anchorage-based attorney Thomas Van Flein. According to its official website:
The Alaska Fund Trust is the official legal fund created to defend Sarah Palin from an onslaught of political attacks launched against her, her Family, and colleagues (sic).
Almost immediately afterwards, Eagle River resident Kim Chatman filed an Ethics Act complaint charging Palin with misusing her official position for political gain and receiving improper gifts.
The fund had the appearance of Palin’s formal political action committee, SarahPAC, which was raising funds to fuel Palin’s national political ambitions. SarahPAC operates under strict federal guidelines for income and expenditure disclosures. The Alaska Trust Fund, however, is actually a private trust, with no state or federal government oversight.
According to of the Alaska Department of Law’s Marjorie Vandor, “There is no executive branch state agency with jurisdiction over private trusts nor does our office handle the administration of private trusts.” As such, Palin’s AFT is little more than a slush fund with zero public transparency or accountability.
Last July, independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board Tom Daniel issued a preliminary “probable cause” finding that:
In light of the evidence that the governor expressly authorized the creation of the trust and the fact the trust website quite openly uses the governor’s position to solicit donations, there is probable cause to believe that Governor Palin used, or attempted to use, her official position for personal gain in violation of Alaska statute.
Daniel also found “payment of the governor’s legal fees by the Alaska Fund Trust will violate the Ethics Act prohibition against a public officer accepting gifts intended to influence performance of official duties.”
He particularly cited the troubling political relationship between Palin and Cole, whom Palin had appointed to several state boards in Alaska, including the Agriculture and Conservation Board and the Royalty Oil and Gas Advisory Board. Cole also serves She’s also on the board of the controversial state-owned Creamery Corporation (Matanuska Maid). Cole’s previous claims that “the governor is not, was not and has not been involved in this trust” simply did not pass the straight-face test.
Daniel recused himself from continuing with the case because his firm has done work for Democrats; he did not want the findings shrouded in controversy. Apparently Petumenos took over the case sometime in January of this year.
Andree Mcleod, the Anchorage-based government watchdog who has filed five Ethics Act complaints against Palin and who was recently transferred “power of attorney” on the AFT complaint, issued a statement today:
“Sarah Palin continues to disappoint. Today’s finding makes it obvious that she’s out for herself. I’ve spent more than two years trying to shed light on many of Palin’s wrongdoings while governor. Her typical response: to vilify and deride Alaskans who only wanted to hold her accountable for her misconduct; this should give people pause.”
Immediately following the ruling, Palin posted a new website sticking out a hand for the Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.
Palin’s attorney Van Flein of Anchorage, who was to have been the recipient of the ATF’s bounty, had foreshadowed today’s ruling with an odd posting last night on Palin’s Facebook page. “There will be times when Sarah Palin will have to take one for the team,” Van Flein wrote, “in order to continue on with her message to the country and simply resolve matters without having to incur crushing personal debt.”
McLeod was not buying into any of Van Flein’s excuses:
“Never has a governor lowered the bar as low as Palin has when she breached the public’s trust over and over again. Her arrogance, sense of entitlement and recklessness while doing the people’s business sets a very bad precedent.
“For her to be portrayed as a role model by the media is an absolute travesty. The more people find out about Palin…the more they learn that a ’servant’s heart’ does not beat within her.”
As the effective date of Arizona’s new immigration law nears, new concerns are being raised by municipal officials about how to effectively enforce it without creating a legal and financial quagmire.
At a public forum Tuesday, two southeast Valley mayors said the law could boomerang on its authors by actually reducing immigration enforcement because of its rigid legal requirements.
Meanwhile, Phoenix’s Police Chief Jack Harris estimated enforcement could cost Phoenix as much as $10 million annually in jail bookings forced by the law.
Senate Bill 1070, signed into law this spring by Gov. Jan Brewer, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It says an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person’s legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman defended the bill, noting that many Arizona law-enforcement agencies have endorsed SB 1070.
“Governor Brewer, when she signed the bill, had standing behind her representatives of several law-enforcement organizations that represent a cross-section of law enforcement around the state,” Senseman said. “They are the folks that are on the front lines of enforcing our laws. They believe this is a useful and additional tool in protecting Arizona and enforcing our laws. . . . Rank-and-file officers who actually are involved in the daily affairs have expressed their support.”
But as the finer points of the law have come under scrutiny by those who must enforce it, more worries are coming to light.
Interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley’s office recently conducted a legal analysis that questioned the practical application of the law and whether effective prosecution is possible under its provisions.
Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith raised new concerns Tuesday during an Arizona Republic forum in Tempe City Council chambers, saying the law would complicate their cities’ arrest procedures by elevating an immigration violation from a civil to a criminal offense.
That, they said, may require suspects to be read their Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent when questioned by police and the right to a defense lawyer.
Furthermore, under the law, they said, a person who can’t produce a driver’s license or other ID during a stop is not eligible to be cited and released by a police officer. That means the person must be taken into custody.
Under current law, police can investigate a person’s immigration status, and if the person is found to be here illegally, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can take over the case without local criminal charges being filed.
When SB 1070 takes effect July 29, that civil process won’t exist. The person must be charged with a crime under Arizona law. People in custody under suspicion of a criminal offense must be read the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
“We’ve now taken something that was operating through a civil process rationally and reasonably, and, in my view, for political reasons, brought it up to a criminal level that now may make it even more difficult to enforce,” said Hallman, who is a lawyer.
Harris predicted red tape will bog down his department.
“To get the evidence would require lots and lots of investigative work – for what?” Harris said. “A misdemeanor? It’s not reasonable.”
Smith said he told Brewer before she signed the bill that he objected to some provisions, especially those that would increase costs to cities and local police workloads.
Harris warned members of Phoenix’s Public Safety and Veterans Subcommittee on Tuesday that his department’s legal team thinks the new law makes it illegal for officers to transport suspects directly to ICE, as permitted by current law and department policy.
That means thousands of people whom Phoenix officers ordinarily would cite and release for minor crimes will have to be booked into county jail. Bookings cost $192 per suspect, and the city must pay about $72 per day for each inmate housed in county jails.
Phoenix officers booked more than 45,400 suspects into jail last year, about 14 percent of whom had ICE holds.
Harris’ analysis contradicts estimates from the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association that the new law would save the city more than $600,000 annually by using ICE to avoid jail bookings.
“It’s far more complex than we’ve been led to believe,” Harris said. “It’s not as simple as throwing them in your car and taking them to ICE. That’s illegal, and it’s not feasible.”
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/23/20100623arizona-immigration-law-miranda-rights.html#ixzz0rfw9L2Iu
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s announcement that he will mark the dawn of Arizona’s new immigration law next month with a crime-suppression operation should catch nobody by surprise.
Arpaio has been one of the most vocal supporters of the law. And he has made headlines for more than two years with his controversial immigration sweeps, typically placing dozens of deputies in neighborhoods with large Hispanic populations and ordering them to stop anyone for any violation.
What might surprise people is this: Arpaio’s agency is the only one in Arizona conducting such operations, and most law-enforcement observers say they would be surprised if other police and sheriff’s departments model their policies after Arpaio’s.
Though few law-enforcement officials will speak publicly about it, their records suggest an unwillingness to follow Arpaio’s lead. No other Arizona law-enforcement agencies have taken the same initiative Arpaio has in launching immigration sweeps.
Part of the reason is because there is no clear data demonstrating the crime-fighting effectiveness of such policies. While it succeeds in locating illegal immigrants, its effectiveness in combating major crimes is questionable, and there are concerns that such sweeps draw resources away from activities that do combat major crimes.
Advocates of the sweeps say their value is largely in discouraging illegal immigrants from remaining in the community.
However, critics suggest they simply scare legal and illegal immigrants alike and drive a wedge between members of the community and law enforcement.
While Arpaio’s past 15 crime-suppression operations have captured a variety of criminals, the majority of offenders were booked for relatively minor offenses, an Arizona Republic review of crime data shows. For example, an April sweep caught 93 people, most of whom were snared either solely for immigration violations or for minor offenses. Only two violent offenders were arrested.
Arpaio’s deputies have arrested 932 people in their operations dating back to March 2008. Of those, 708 were suspected of being in the country illegally, according to the Sheriff’s Office.
The sweeps did result in some felony arrests of legal residents on charges including assault on a police officer, aggravated assault, trafficking in stolen goods and aggravated driving under the influence. The majority of legal residents arrested in the operations were booked on suspicion of driving with suspended licenses or on outstanding warrants.
Most of those suspected of being in the country illegally were arrested when Arpaio’s deputies still had an agreement with the federal government that authorized them to act as immigration agents. The bulk of those inmates landed in jail based on their immigration status, though one was booked on suspicion of aggravated assault and another on suspicion of possession of dangerous drugs for sale.
Regardless of the type of suspects ensnared in the crime-suppression operations, Arpaio considers the ventures a success.
“I think it’s successful when you arrest 111 people,” Arpaio said, referring to arrests in an operation three months ago. “Is it successful to send hundreds of cops out every holiday to do DUIs? Why do we always pinpoint illegal immigration when we have other task forces? I’m the bad guy when we arrest illegal immigrants and other criminal activity.”
The operations are based on Arpaio’s stance that crossing the border illegally is a serious crime, regardless of whether the person commits other misdemeanor or felony violations after illegally entering the country. Critics respond that the raids waste resources when the agency has seen more than $10 million cut from its operating budget.
Not much is expected to change for Arpaio’s teams when Arizona’s new immigration law goes into effect July 29.
The law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person’s legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
It does little to expand the authority Arpaio has exercised to date.
To conduct his operations over the past two years, Arpaio relied on an agreement with the federal government authorizing deputies to act as immigration agents and a state law allowing immigrants to be charged as co-conspirators in their own smuggling. Those not suspected of a crime typically were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, at which point they could either seek voluntary deportation or request a hearing.
Because Arizona’s new law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally, sheriff’s deputies will have the ability to book suspects into jail instead of handing them over to ICE agents.
The size and scope of the sweeps have varied since Arpaio launched the efforts in 2008 near 32nd Street and Thomas Road.
A three-day sweep in Mesa last summer paid 83 deputies and supervisors to arrest 59 people at a cost of $38,387. A two-day operation in Fountain Hills in May 2008 used 13 deputies, cost $3,947 and resulted in 20 arrests.
The Sheriff’s Office pays for the operations through its general fund, state funding and grants. Arpaio is not concerned about the expense, saying the deputies in those operations would be working anyway – it is just a matter of when and where.
In October, the federal government severed the agreement with Arpaio’s office that authorized deputies to act as immigration agents. The sweeps then changed from operations in neighborhoods to efforts largely concentrated on businesses, highways and rural roads in the county, where deputies could arrest suspects on identity-theft and fraud charges or using the state’s human-smuggling law.
Roughly 60 percent of the 287 people arrested in those operations were suspected of being in the country illegally, and many were booked on suspicion of violating the human-smuggling law.
But in April, Arpaio’s deputies returned to the familiar routine of concentrating on a particular part of town, this time west Phoenix. Records for that April raid show 29 of the 93 arrested were legal residents. Ten of those legal residents were fugitives arrested by the sheriff’s warrant unit as the operation began.
The notion of the sweeps returning to neighborhoods is troubling to some critics, who worry about legal residents being caught up in the raids.
Sergio Martinez-Villaman claims that happened to him in a June 2008 crime-suppression operation in Mesa.
Deputies stopped Martinez-Villaman for failing to use a turn signal, according to the sheriff’s records. They arrested him after they say he failed to show identification.
Before he was arrested, Martinez-Villaman, a Mexican citizen living legally in the U.S., claims he gave the arresting deputy various documents, including an Arizona ID card, proof of insurance, a passport and a visa, according to court records.
Martinez-Villaman was jailed and held for 13 days when he could not pay bond, court records say.
His attorney, Scott Halverson, said Arizona’s new law might encourage more law-enforcement agencies to mirror Arpaio’s approach to immigration enforcement. It could also result in more cases like Martinez-Villaman’s.
“Even though the law tries to preclude that, the message it sent out throughout the community for law enforcement inclined to do this, is just go ahead and stop whoever you want,” he said. “This is sort of a wink-and-a-nod implicit carte blanche to stop people for suspicion, just a check to see if they’re here illegally.”
Arpaio prefers to think that the unique nature of Martinez-Villaman’s claim is a promising sign.
“You’re talking about one case, what’s one case out of thousands?” he asked. “You don’t stop enforcing the law because one person sues you – then nobody would enforce the law.”
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/21/20100621joe-arpaio-crime-sweeps.html#ixzz0rTQnGn45
Amid a growing national angst about illegal immigration, Americans keep hearing a chorus: Secure the border first. Then talk about immigration reform.
The idea appeals to public sentiment, and it seems like a simple demand.
But what do pundits and politicians mean?
Is a border secure only when no one crosses illegally and when no contraband slips through?
If some permeability is acceptable, what is the tolerable amount?
Political leaders mostly dodge those questions, and for good reason: Anyone with a minimal knowledge or understanding about the nearly 2,000-mile swath of land between Mexico and the United States realizes that requiring a secure border establishes an impossible standard.
One reason: There is no way to conclude success because authorities have no idea how many undocumented immigrants are getting through. Authorities can count only the number of unauthorized intruders captured. Such unavoidable uncertainty prevents any absolute assurances that no one is sneaking over, making declarations of victory impossible.
Another reason: The motivation and creativity of those trying to get across.
Impoverished Mexicans, willing to gamble their lives and savings to reach America, subject themselves to desert heat and extortion or torture by coyotes. Drug runners risk being caught and imprisoned or getting killed by competitors.
So the smugglers dig tunnels, create false compartments, bribe border guards, fly ultralight planes and use every means imaginable to get over, under or across the line. The more security there is, the higher the smuggling price and the greater the profit incentive.
Here is another way to consider the problem: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a leader in the anti-illegal immigration movement and acclaimed as America’s toughest sheriff, cannot secure his own jails. Every year, despite armed guards, electronic locks and video monitors, inmates smuggle drugs in from the outside and sometimes even escape.
No one would blame Arpaio. All penal institutions, regardless of security measures, have breaches. Yet imagine if America adopted a position that no new laws could be passed regarding prison reform “until the nation’s jails are secure.”
Tom Barry, director of the Transborder Project at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., said the demand for a completely secure border is a ploy by those opposed to immigration reform to prevent new policies.
“No matter how much enforcement you have, there will always be people coming through,” he said. “Since that is true, opponents to immigration reform will always be able to say the border is still not secure . . . and therefore we cannot pass immigration reform.”
At some point, the question becomes: How much border enforcement is necessary? Or enough?
David Shirk, director of the Transborder Institute at the University of San Diego, said the United States has more federal agents deployed along the Mexican line than at any time in the past century.
“It seems to me the argument can be made that we’ve gone as far as is reasonable,” he said. “The border will never be secure enough for some people. . . . Politicians are using the idea of the border as a phantom menace and establishing an unreachable goal.”
Border enforcement rises
For the past decade, critics have complained that the U.S. government does little or nothing to stem the flow of undocumented intruders.
“Our nation’s border security efforts are a litany of failure,” Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., wrote in a recent commentary for the congressional newspaper The Hill. “Ultimately, Congress must fix our broken immigration laws. . . . But we cannot address that difficult task until we, as a nation, control our own borders.”
While the success of America’s border enforcement may be questioned, historical data reflect an escalation of effort:
• Today, there are 22,800 U.S. Border Patrol agents, five times the number in 1993. About 17,000 agents work along the Southwest corridor, double the number from seven years ago. They are supported by National Guard troops, local police and thousands of port officers using everything from drug-sniffing dogs to gamma-ray machines.
• In Arizona, the primary smuggling corridor on the U.S.-Mexico line, there are now more than 3,600 Border Patrol agents, about 10 for every mile of boundary with Mexico.
• The budget this fiscal year for Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency charged with guarding U.S. borders, is about $17 billion, double what was spent in 2003.
• The number of illegal immigrants arrested by Border Patrol has plummeted by almost two-thirds in just five years, a combined result, authorities say, of fewer people trying to cross because of the economy and increased security.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the Southwest border is “as secure now as it has ever been.” Challenging the sincerity of lawmakers who demand security, she asked, “Will it ever be reached as far as Congress is concerned, or will that goal post continue to be moved?”
Still, amid a decade of record spending on enforcement – increases that began under Republican President George W. Bush, who twice tried and failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform – America’s estimated illegal-immigrant population increased from 8.5 million to 11. 9 million. The vast majority of the immigrants came from Mexico.
‘Operational control’
Apprehensions of illegal crossers in the desert began to decline only in the past few years, as the nation’s economy and job market collapsed. In 2009, Border Patrol agents arrested 550,000 undocumented immigrants on the Southwestern border, though that is considered a fraction of the total slipping through. Drug seizures continue to increase, though it is unclear how much of that reflects increased trafficking and how much is a result of improved enforcement.
Amid the ebb and flow of statistics, the calls for tighter border security continue.
But public understanding is stymied by simplistic notions of border dynamics and geography.
Those unfamiliar with the vast border zone have little sense of its challenges or the creativity of trespassers. Many ignore the value of the millions of legal crossings each year, the vital importance of legitimate trade and the fact that border crime is a two-way street.
According to Alonzo Peña, deputy assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, each year $19 billion to $29 billion from illegal-drug and human trafficking is smuggled from the United States into Mexico, where it is used by drug cartels to finance their violent operations. Only $200 million gets seized. As part of controlling the border, the southward flow of cash and arms also must be stopped.
Gustavo Mohar, Mexico’s intelligence chief, shakes his head at the idea of securing such a huge swath, an area exceeding 100,000 square miles.
“The correct word is ‘managing’ a border,” he said. “You cannot close it.”
Even the U.S. Border Patrol does not set its sights on complete security. Instead, its mission is to establish “operational control,” a term defined by Congress as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries.
This year, Border Patrol claimed success along 894 miles of boundary, less than half of the Mexican line, or about one-tenth of the nation’s land and sea perimeter. Even in sectors that are supposedly under control, Border Patrol records show, smugglers and illegal immigrants get through by the thousands.
Some anti-illegal-immigration groups acknowledge that fully securing the border is a pipe dream.
“I couldn’t, if you held a gun to my head, tell you it could ever be done 100 percent,” said Bill Davis, director of Cochise County Militia, a group of armed civilians who patrol Arizona’s southern flank. “If you can cut it down from 100,000 (illegal entries) to two people, great.”
Davis, who advocates a doubling of manpower and technology, said a border is controlled when agents monitoring surveillance cameras and sensors receive no more than one alert per night.
Appealing to fear
No matter how many federal troops and agents are on patrol, no matter how many sensors, cameras and fences are employed, many will try to sneak across the border, and some will succeed.
Each time that happens, opponents of immigration reform will be able to declare that the line is not defended, that America is not safe.
They appeal to patriotism, asking why the world’s most powerful nation cannot protect its sovereign boundaries.
They appeal to fear, suggesting that terrorists potentially could mix in with the daily swarm of Hispanics heading north for opportunity.
Public passion is so high, said the Transborder Project’s Barry, that no one does a cost-benefit analysis of border enforce- ment.
“Everybody is jumping on the border-security bandwagon, including moderate Democrats,” Barry said. “It’s not driven by anything real on the grid, not by violence or invasions of illegal immigrants . . . not based on any real assessment of threats to the nation.”
The rhetoric is magnified by fears that Mexico’s explosive cartel violence may bleed over the international line. In fact, FBI and Arizona records show crime is dramatically down statewide and along the border. Murders in Arizona decreased by one-fifth last year; aggravated assaults dropped nearly 9 percent.
Those numbers provide little consolation to southern Arizona residents weary of undocumented immigrants and armed drug couriers traipsing across their properties. Still, the statistics contradict claims of a cri- sis.
“I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse,” said Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. “Well, the fact of the matter is, the border has never been more secure.”
Calls for reform
At the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for Ameri- can Immigration Reform, press secretary Bob Dane described border enforcement without reform as “a fool’s para- dise.”
FAIR presses Congress to impose rigid immigration limits, opposing an amnesty program or an increase in the number of work visas.
Dane said most of the nearly 12 million illegal immigrants came to America for work, so there is a simple policy change that would force them out: Require employee verification and crack down on businesses that hire undocumented workers.
“Simply declaring the border is secure without workplace enforcement is like putting locks on the door with a sign that says, ‘The jewels are all yours if you can find a way in,’ ” Dane said. “The jobs magnet is the reason folks come and the reason they stay.”
Susan Ginsburg, senior policy adviser for an international nonprofit known as Borderpol, which works to make international borders safer, said it is a mistake to require border control as a prerequisite for changing U.S. policies because the existing system created a broken border in the first place.
“Comprehensive immigration reform will help because it will make the border more manageable,” she said.
Michele Wucker, executive director of the World Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said border incursions happen wherever two countries have unequal economies or black-market trade.
Wucker, author of “Lockout: Why America Keeps Getting Immigration Wrong,” said those who demand a sort of iron curtain prior to policy change are obstructionists: “It means don’t ever come up with a workable system.”
Arizona has the most to gain from a new policy paradigm, Wucker argued, because the status quo made the state a thoroughfare for smuggling. Yet the state’s political leaders, caught up in a wave of public opinion, no longer press for reform.
“When I see John McCain saying, ‘Build the dang fence,’ I’m very sad,” Wucker said. “Arizona would benefit more than any other state from immigration reform at a national level. They’re really cutting off their nose to spite their face.”
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/20/20100620border-security-arizona.html#ixzz0rON7ywqY
Posted on 11 June 2010 by oscar
From: Ponte Al DIa
The oil slick managed to obscure the death of a 15 year old Mexican at the hands of the U.S. Border Patrol, the second use of deadly force against Mexicans in the last 2 weeks.Last Monday, beneath the Paso del Norte international bridge, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot Sergio Adrian Hernández Huereka, 15, on the head. The offense? Throwing stones at Border Patrol agents.
Anastasio Hernandez-Rojas, 32, died at the hands of the U.S. Border Patrol while resisting being deported away from his five U.S. born children; one man subdued and put to death by an “undetermined number of Border Patrol agents” according to the FBI.
The Border Patrol still in denial, while none of the two victims were dangerous criminals, the president of its union stated: “It is a deadly force encounter, one that justifies the use of deadly force.”
These were blatant acts of cowardice.
The empty promises to “investigate” stir up our indignation. Rosario, the sister of the murdered teenager, reflects plainly the wrath of the innocent when she sobbed: “Damn them! Damn them!
“The number of Mexicans killed or wounded by U.S. immigration authorities rose from 5 in 2008 to 12 in 2009 to 17 so far this year” according to Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department.
The Obama administration excels in its zeal to raid and attack immigrants, yet the gravest environmental tragedy in U.S. history is met by inaction and incompetence.
“Much has been said… about the incestuous relationship between the oil industry and its chief regulator, the Interior Department” editorialized The New York Times.
This monstrous partnership has no qualms in even preventing reporters from uncovering the whole truth about the oil spill. The weight of the government is put to the service of BP by having “local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials,” including the FAA, to turn away reporters from public areas affected by the spill, reported Jeremy W. Peters.
While immigrants are denied basic human and Constitutional rights, an oil corporation such as BP is protected and abetted by our own politicians in Congress and inside the administration.
Immigrants are regarded as deserving of death for “breaking the law” for the act of crossing the border, BP destroys the environment and the livelihood of countless citizens but mercenary lawmakers and government regulators ensure such a crime does not constitute “an illegal act”.
While the Obama administration ignores the human tragedy behind immigration instituting official prejudice and violence against immigrants, a horrific oil spill makes it manifest where its true values rest.
by Natalie Rivers
azfamily.com
Posted on June 18, 2010 at 6:37 PMUpdated Friday, Jun 18 at 6:45 PM
Related:
•Arizona seeks dismissal of lawsuit over new law
PHOENIX – Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is set to take effect in just about a month.
That’s also when the federal government plans to slap Arizona with a lawsuit.
Friday was an eventful day as far as Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration measure is concerned; national praise for the author of SB 1070, confirmation the feds will sue because of it and the attorney general saying he will not represent the state.
Today the author of SB 1070 Senator Russell Pearce received a stack of signatures from Internet petitions on two conservative grass roots web sites, grassfire.com and resistnet.com, in support of Arizona and SB 1070.
“Hey Arizona we stand with you, we agree with what you’re doing and even though you have people standing against you and you have people calling you racists we right here, we don’t agree with that,” said Darla Dawald with resistnet.com
The petitions contain more than 126,000 signatures and were presented today to the Mesa senator.
It appears Senator Pearce and his allies do not have the Department of Justice on their side as it appears a suit will be filed against Arizona.
It’s now been confirmed the suit will be filed within a month and that news drew an angry response from Senator Pearce.
“Somehow they would think the law is unconstitutional,” he said. “The law of the land, it’s been the law of the land for 50 years this is the most amazing thing in the world, do you think Arizona made illegal, illegal actually folks illegal was already illegal.”
Pearce anticipates the next court battle he will fight will be over his intent to introduce legislation challenging the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which automatically grants citizenship to babies born in the United States, but whose parents are undocumented.
“It’s illegal to enter and illegal to remain under federal law yet we give you the greatest inducement to break our laws declaring your child a citizen,” he said. “To those who are here illegally, who have broken our laws. Folks you tell me where the common sense is there. It’s an abuse.”
Late Friday, Attorney General Terry Goddard issued a release saying he would not represent the state in any legal action regarding SB 1070. He cites the governor’s unwillingness to work with his office which he says will lead to a costly and distracting fight over legal representation.
Posted on 11 June 2010 by oscar
Not to be outdone the late segregationist, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will go down in the history books as an ardent xenophobe and racist. Brewer’s hatred of immigrants and disregard for the civil rights of Latinos (both legal residents and citizens) have come to fruition in Arizona’s recently passed laws aimed at criminalizing immigrants, racially profiling Latinos and denying racial minorities the right to learn about their history.
I’m speaking, of course, of SB 1070, the unconstitutional law that requires police officers to demand legal documentation of individuals suspected of being undocumented immigrants under the premise of “reasonable suspension” and HB 2281, the racist law that bans ethnic studies (optional courses, as a matter of fact) in public schools. Instead of chastising Brewer for her racist legislative actions, President Barack Obama recently invited her to the White House to discuss the controversial immigration law that the president referred to as “misguided.” This is the same president that had a “Beer Summit” at the White House with a racist police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, shortly after he arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.—a distinguished African American scholar—in his own home. This high profile arrest can be traced to Gates’ initial “inability” to verify proof of residence to Crowley even after Gates provided his Harvard faculty identification card.
As any parent should know, this is no way of rewarding bad behavior! Better yet, instead of meeting with Brewer in a one-to-one meeting usually afforded to world leaders, Obama should chastise the rogue governor and take direct action against Arizona’s racist agenda. Obama can learn a thing or two from previous presidents. For instance, in 1963, then-President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard when Gov. Wallace attempted to prevent two African American students from attending the University of Alabama under a federal court order to desegregate public schools.
An ardent segregationist, Wallace, who operated under the political platform “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” eventually caved under pressure when confronted by the military might of the federal government. Taking this historical event as a “teachable moment,” Obama needs to use all of executive powers, including unmatchable oratory skills, to immediately repeal both SB 1070 and HB 2281. While Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder contemplate legal action, individuals of Mexican decent in this desert state live in a constant state of fear, anxiety and financial insecurity.
When she originally signed SB 1070 into law on April 23rd, Brewer assured the public that racial profiling would not be tolerated. However, what does she—a white, privileged politician—know about racial >> profiling? I wonder if she, or any member of her family, has even been a victim of racial profiling? More specifically, has she ever been denied a taxicab in the city of New York or other major city because of the color of her skin? Has she ever been pulled over by a police officer for simply being in the “wrong neighborhood” or because she allegedly “matched the description” of someone suspected of committing a crime?
While Brewer and the supporters of this anti-immigrant law attempt to frame this policy measure as one of “crime” and “safety,” especially with the law’s official name, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” they have yet to produce any hard data correlating immigration with crime in the state. There is a word in the dictionary for making false accusations: slander.
While much of the attention in the media has been given to this cruel immigration law, Brewer wasted no time in attacking the Latino community, once again, with the elimination of ethnic studies programs in public schools.
In an Orwellian maneuver, Brewer, the architect of this ban—Arizona’s school chief Tom Horne—and other supporters argue that ethnic studies programs allegedly promote ethnic chauvinism, reverse racism against whites and the overthrow of the U.S. government. It is amazing how educational programs aimed at providing a more ethnically diverse interpretation of American life and history have now become eminent enemies of the state.
For instance, how is teaching a Latino high school student about the United Farm Workers (UFW) and the fact that Cesar Chavez was born in Yuma, Arizona, suddenly un-American? How is teaching a young Latina student about Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of the UFW, now a criminal act? Does this mean that Latino and Asian students can’t learn about the unconscionable Japanese American interment camps, where the state of Arizona hosted one, during the mid-20th Century since this falls under the purview of “ethnic studies” programs? The only logical conclusion here is an obvious attempt by those in power to erase the history of discrimination and social injustice committed against racial minorities in the state and beyond.
Finally, if we critically examine the motives behind these anti-Latino laws, it’s clear that many people in Arizona and beyond fear and loathe the long-term consequence of Mexican immigration in particular and the demographic boom of Latinos in general, resulting in the browning of America.
Source:http://mylatinonews.com/2010/06/arizona-gov-jan-brewer-fears-and-loathes-brown-people/
Last week, Maricopa County cut an extra $2 million worth of checks — money owed to detention officers as part of a settlement with the Department of Labor investigation into allegations that the Sheriff’s Office routinely required detention officers to check in for meetings before they’d clocked in.
But, bizarrely, when county administrators informed Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office that the checks were ready, the sheriff refused to distribute them, county officials tell New Times.
Instead, in an e-mail to employees, MCSO Director Sheridan (no first name given) said that there was a settlement only in principle: “There is no signed agreement.” The email seemed to suggest that checks for the backpay were still a work in progress: “Until such time as the agreement with the Department of Labor is complete and we receive details relating to the final agreement, we cannot verify when .. the checks will be distributed.”
The e-mail was bizarre, because, county officials says, the MCSO knew the checks were ready. (And, anyway, there was a signed agreement between the county and the feds.)
Forced to take the lead on the issue, County Manager David Smith notified current employees in an email Friday that they could pick up their checks in the lobby of the county administration this week — and asked for the media’s help in spreading the word to former employees.At that point, Chief Deputy David Hendershott fired off another e-mail to detention officers.
In it, he proffered the conspiracy theory that Smith refused to work with the sheriff’s office on distribution “to create bad moral [sic] within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.”
“Sheriffs employees should also know that Mr.Smith in an overt effort to publicly humiliate the sheriff and create a negative perception of the Sheriffs [sic] Office released his false and misleading missive to the Maricopa County Website and the media.” he wrote. “Regrettably Mr. Smith placed all involved officers names on the County’s public website exposing their identities and creating unnecessary safety risk to our employees and their families.”
The message concluded, “Sheriff Arpaio and the Sheriff’s Command staff are totally dedicated to ensuring that our employees are treated not only fair [sic] but enjoy their careers at the Sheriff’s Office.”
The sad part is, Hendershott may have been more upset about his office’s bungling the public relations part of the check distribution than the inconvenience to his officers. (Indeed, if the county manager was trying to make Arpaio & Co. look bad with his own staff, he definitely succeeded — score another one for David Smith.)
And, worst of all, moral — oops, morale — is apparently so bad at the Sheriff’s Office these days that even Hendershott’s alarmist emails didn’t have the detention officers fearing the big bad scary public. They’re too busy fearing Hendershott.
Indeed, several officers told KPHO that they feared retaliation if they picked up their checks. The problem, apparently, was that little faux-cheery enjoinder to “enjoy their careers” — to people used to Chief Deputy Hendershott, it sounded kind of like “have a nice life, suckas!”
The good news, though, is that by 5 p.m. today, close to half of the officers had made the pickup: 768 out of 1,690 affected officers.
Gerchick said the county was delighted to give the detention officers their checks.
“They earned this money,” she said. “It’s a shame they had to wait this long to get it.”
Anyone who worked as a detention officer from 2007 to 2010 is encouraged to look at the county website, www.maricopa.gov, to see if they’re on the list. And please, don’t fall for Hendershott’s paranoia and freak out if your name is on there. No one is going to hunt you down. Heck, Sheriff Joe’s home address has been widely available for years online and he can’t find anyone to attack him, even with frantic efforts at entrapment.
Just go get your check already!
Source: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/06/mcso_detention_officers_get_ba.php
GLENDALE – Prescott City Councilman Steve Blair has said he does not understand why there is a “black guy” on the mural when, according to him, Prescott has never had a “culture problem.”
He thinks the mural is political and meant to make race an issue where no issue existed before. His comments already cost him one job.
Blair said, “I have absolutely no intention to voluntarily step down!”
After controversial comments he made criticizing a publicly-funded school mural ignited a racial firestorm.
Blair said on KYCA 1490, “I disagree with the whole perspective that you would have a black guy painted on two sides of that building.”
The radio station cancelled the Prescott council member’s show because of those comments and protesters took to the streets over the weekend.
Now Blair is facing a possible recall. He says, “They’ve taken out papers to recall me, if they get ‘em, they’ll be an active recall.”
The mural was supposed to promote “Green” environmentally-friendly transportation but the response, according to artist R.E. Wall has been black and white and anything but friendly with some critics reportedly telling him, “Get the black kid off the wall, with the n-word.”
Wall says the school’s principal told him to lighten the skin of the child on the mural because of mounting political pressure. That decision has since been reversed.
Blair and Wall ran into one another Tuesday but Blair did not have much to say. “I’ve got a meeting that I gotta.”
Many people in Prescott support Blair’s critique and say the mural is an expensive, unwanted eyesore.
Councilman Blair says he has “bridges to repair” even as he blamed an old political enemy, former Prescott Mayor Jack Wilson for the backlash that could cost him his job.
Blair says, “He doesn’t like me now. I doubt he’ll ever like me then.” Blair stands by his controversial critique of the mural meant to promote diversity. He says he is speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of the city.
As for former Mayor Wilson, he says he will give Blair a week to voluntarily resign otherwise the recall process will begin.
