Tag Archives: arizona

George Stephanopoulos Lashes Out at Republican Carly Fiorina: Are You Running for the Wrong Job?

Former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos on Thursday attacked Republican Carly Fiorina for opposing the current unemployment plan in the Senate. The Good Morning America host derided, ” And are you running for the wrong job? How do you create jobs in the Senate, if you don’t pass legislation? ” Stephanopoulos also recycled the California candidate’s June 9 joke about Democratic opponent Barbara Boxer’s hair. Citing the nearly month-old gaffe , he challenged, “I have to ask you about what everybody saw right after the primary, that hair comment, off-mic. Why not apologize for that?” Each Stephanopoulos question either repeated a Boxer talking point or attempted to force Fiorina onto the defensive. The GOP hopeful asserted, “Since the stimulus bill passed, the unemployment rate in California has gotten worse. It was a little over ten percent when the stimulus bill passed in February of ’09. It’s now 12.4 percent.” In a surprised tone, Stephanopoulos retorted, “You think that’s because of the stimulus?” When Fiorina offered an alternative to the Democratic unemployment bill, the ABC host recited, “But 200,000 Californians right now are going to lose their benefits.” Apparently, it didn’t occur to Stephanopoulos to wonder what responsibility the incumbent, Boxer, has for California’s problems. A transcript of the July 1 segment, which aired at 7:08am, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jon, thanks very much. Let’s get more on this, now, with Carly Fiorina, the former chairman of Hewlett-Packard. Now, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in California. CARLY FIORINA: Great to be with you. STEPHANOPOULOS: And let’s start with immigration. The President is going to give a speech. Certainly going to take on Arizona’s tough, new immigration law. His attorney general calls it unconstitutional. They’re going to file suit. You said, it’s right for Arizona. But you wouldn’t recommend it for California. Isn’t that trying to have it both ways? FIORINA: No. I think, sadly, the people in Arizona have been placed in a terrible position. Border security is the federal government’s job. And it should remain the federal government’s job. Unfortunately, the federal government isn’t doing its job. And we have a situation where portions of the border are virtually lawless, where we have members of drug cartels, Mexican drug cartels well inside the Arizona border, on lookout posts, observing our law enforcement officials. That’s an untenable situation. And what’s going on on the Mexico/Arizona border is truly dangerous. So, I believe the federal government needs to do its job. Secure the border. I also think the federal government needs to do its job and create a temporary worker program that works. It’s very important in California for agriculture, technology. We don’t have a temporary worker program that works. STEPHANOPOULOS: You believe the Arizona law is constitutional? FIORINA: I do. And I’ve read the Arizona law. If you read it, 20 pages, it’s not difficult to read. It’s actually less onerous than federal immigration law. It’s certainly less onerous than the immigration laws in Mexico or virtually any other country. I think, sadly, the people of Arizona felt they had no choice but to protect their citizens. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the number one issue in the country, jobs. FIORINA: Yeah. STEPHANOPOULOS: California has the third-highest unemployment in the nation. Two million people out of work. And more than 200,000 Californians are going to lose their benefits if Congress doesn’t extend the unemployment benefits. That’s stalled in Congress right now. If you were in the Senate, would you vote to extend benefits? FIORINA: Not the way it’s put together today. STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not? FIORINA: Because the problem with this bill has a lot of other things that are appended to it, which add to the deficit, which increases taxes. You know, that’s what Congress always does. I think people are tired of professional politicians because they see a lot of political posturing on both sides. But, they don’t see problems being solved. First, I think, we need to be focused on job creation. And we haven’t been focused on job creation. So, let’s give, small businesses, for example, a two-year payroll tax holiday if they would hire unemployed workers. I would far rather have seen us focus on job creation over the last 18 months. STEPHANOPOULOS: But 200,000 Californians right now are going to lose their benefits. FIORINA: Absolutely. And, so, why can’t we put forward a bill that does nothing but extend unemployment benefits? Why do we put all these other things on top of it? So that we have a deficit-busting, yet another, deficit-busting bill. You know, Californians are worried about two things, whether they’re Democrats, independents or Republicans. They’re worried about jobs. We have 2.3 unemployed people, as you point out. Third-highest unemployment rate in the nation. But they’re also worried about out-of-control spending. Because they don’t understand. They’re cutting back in their families and businesses. But they see Washington, D.C. Getting bigger and bigger and more expensive. STEPHANOPOULOS: But- And you’ve said, passing legislation in the Senate is not the way to create jobs. And are you running for the wrong job? How do you create jobs in the Senate, if you don’t pass legislation? FIORINA: Well, what I actually said was that passing stimulus legislation in the Senate is not the way to create jobs. Since the stimulus bill passed, the unemployment rate in California has gotten worse. It was a little over ten percent when the stimulus bill passed in February of ’09. It’s now 12.4 percent. STEPHANOPOULOS: You think that’s because of the stimulus? FIORINA: I think the stimulus bill has been an utter failure because it’s not focused on job creation. We spent over $800 billion of taxpayer money and the unemployment rate has gotten worse, not better. In fact, what we’re doing in California is destroying jobs because of high government spending, high taxation, thick regulation and too rich entitlements. I’m running because I think California’s a harbinger of what’s to come in this nation if we continue down this path, the destruction of jobs. STEPHANOPOULOS: Your opponent, Senator Boxer, passed legislation in her committee yesterday, to lift the liability cap on British Petroleum. She says that BP has to pay for all of the pollution. Would you vote to lift that cap? FIORINA: Well, I think, in essence, it has been lifted. Bp has agreed to a $20 billion fund. I think the President did exactly right to conclude that agreement with BP. I think it’s probably unfair to ask BP to pay for the workers that have no longer have work, given the President’s ban on offshore drilling, which a federal judge has challenged. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you wouldn’t vote to lift the cap? FIORINA: I wouldn’t say that. I said BP should pay for all of the cleanup costs, whatever that turns out to be. And clearly, $20 billion is way above the original cap. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, we’re just about out of time. I have to ask you about what everybody saw right after the primary, that hair comment, off-mic. Why not apologize for that? FIORINA: You know, I regret the comments, because I gave people the opportunity to talk about something superficial and petty. I’m probably insufficiently sensitive about hair. I started this campaign bald, literally, because I went through chemotherapy and battled cancer last year. But, this is an election about serious issues. And those serious issues include how are we going to create jobs? How are we going to get government spending under control? And how are we going to create a more accountable bureaucracy in Washington? You know, people are tired of a level of incompetence in Washington bureaucracies and lack of accountability, that we would not tolerate anywhere else.

View original post here:
George Stephanopoulos Lashes Out at Republican Carly Fiorina: Are You Running for the Wrong Job?

Arizona Writer Latest Journalist to Pass Through Media-Democrat Revolving Door

Investigative journalist John Dougherty of Arizona deserves a hand from everyone concerned with liberal media bias, because he has given it up. Dougherty, pictured right in a photo from his website, has, shall we say, crossed the border from being biassed to seeking the Democratic nomination for US Senate . In the late 80’s he was involved with uncovering Charles Keating’s use of campaign contributions to five senators-including John McCain, whom Dougherty would most likely face in an election-in exchange for putting pressure on banking regulators. He also investigated Governor Fife Symington, polygamist leader Warren Jeffs and Sherrif Joe Arpaio. Whatever else he has done in the past, Dougherty has already succesfully morphed into a politician, writing a blog for the Huffington Post on illegal immigration and its relationship to crime that directly contradicts the conclusions he reached in an article he wrote for the High County News. Dougherty told Jilted Journalists that, if elected, he would hire investigative reporters as his staff to investigate other politicians and that he “can’t wait to hold hearings at the US Senate.” He also said that he shares much of the Tea Party’s frustration with government, although “‘Government is not the problem, corrupt government is the problem,’ he said, blaming lobbyist spending for putting corporations and special interests ahead of people. Government needs to be ‘much more aggressive,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘tough,’ he said.” If elected, Dougherty would join a long line of journalists who sought public office: Senators Harry F. Byrd (both Senior and Junior), President Warren Harding, Clare Boothe Luce, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, William Randolph Hearst and even McCain’s challenger in the Arizona Republican Primary, JD Hayworth. As one of the most famous journalists ever to run for public office, Dave Barry once wrote: “And of course the most agonizing question is: Why, really, do I WANT to be president? Is it just so that I can have a limousine and a helicopter and a big plane and a huge staff of boot-licking lackeys waiting on me hand and foot? Yes.” That just about sums up the attraction of journalists to politics.

Read more:
Arizona Writer Latest Journalist to Pass Through Media-Democrat Revolving Door

Milwaukee Dem: Arizona Is "a Ways Removed from the Border"

Peggy West, member of the Democrat Executive Committee of Milwaukee, has decided the whole Arizona anti-illegal immigration thingy is a bad idea since Arizona isn’t close to Mexico….

African Lion Burgers Served at Arizona Restaurant as Part of Its World Cup Promotion

By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterJune 23, 2010: 5:19 PM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — A small Arizona restaurant found itself at the center of a nationwide backlash that included a bomb threat after it announced plans to offer lion burgers this week as part of a World Cup promotion. But following the supply chain back to the mom-and-pop butcher that processed the alleged lion meat turns up an even more bizarre tale. The story started when Cameron Selogie, owner of Il Vinaio restaurant in Mesa, Ariz., bought about 10 pounds of so-called African lion meat, planning to mix it with ground beef to make burgers honoring the FIFA World Cup's South African location. Selogie sent an e-mail newsletter to his restaurant's patrons advertising the special. That newsletter — which was the sole publicity Selogie had planned — exploded into a media blitz when one of the e-mail recipients turned out to be an animal activist. She spread word to a local TV station, and the news has since circled the globe, even garnering a brief write-up in the online version of London's Daily Telegraph. Lion burgers are an attention-grabbing idea, but it raises the question: How, exactly, does an Arizona restaurant manage to get its hands on African lion meat? Welcome to the mysterious world of back-alley exotic meat purveyance. Selogie said he bought the meat through a Phoenix distributor, Gourmet Imports-Wild Game — a one-man operation owned by Rick Worrilow. Selogie says he did his research, and was told that the meat came from a free-range farm in Illinois that is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture. Meanwhile, Worrilow, who essentially serves as a middleman between farms, meat processors and restaurants, also said the meat came from a completely legal plant in Illinois. And even though he didn't know the name of that plant, Worrilow said he was confident that the meat was inspected by federal regulators. So where's this supposed African lion farm in Illinois? Well, here's one clue: When the meat arrived at Il Vinaio on Tuesday evening, Selogie said it came in packaging with the name “Czimer's Game & Sea Foods.” Czimer isn't a free-range farm. It's a butcher shop located just outside of Chicago in Homer Glen, Ill. Lions, ligers and bears … Czimer's website advertises standard wild game: pheasants, quail, ducks, venison, buffalo and so on. But then, sprinkled through the product list, some wilder offerings pop up. Like llama leg roasts. Or camel cutlets. And African lion meat. You can snag it in shoulder roast, steak, tenderloin or burger form — or, for a bargain, try the ribs at $10 a pound. So where does Richard Czimer, the company's owner, get these lions? The meat is the byproduct of a skinning operation owned by another man, Czimer said in an interview with CNNMoney.com. He declined to name that gentleman. “This man buys and sells animals for the skin, and when I need something and he has ability to get it, I will bargain for the meat. It's a byproduct,” he said. And where does that mystery man get the lions? “I wouldn't have any idea,” said Czimer, who operates a small retail store in addition to his wholesale business. “He has his sources, and I do not infringe on his business, just as he does not infringe on mine.” He's willing to take a hands-off approach: “Do you question where chickens come from when you go to Brown's Chicken or Boston Market?” he asked. Czimer's exotic-meat dealings have landed him in hot water before. Back in 2003, Chicago newspapers covered his conviction and six-month prison sentence for selling meat from federally protected tigers and leopards. Czimer admitted to purchasing the carcasses of 16 tigers, four lions, two mountain lions and one liger — a tiger-lion hybrid — which were skinned, butchered and sold as “lion meat,” for a profit of more than $38,000. His supply chain may be murky, but like the Arizona restaurateur and the meat salesman, he expressed total certainty that his lion meat is USDA-approved and thoroughly inspected by regulators before it reaches his processing plant. But here's a twist: The USDA says it doesn't inspect lions bred for meat. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration. Is it legal to eat lions? Yes, according to the FDA's communications team. The African lion isn't currently a federally protected endangered species and it qualifies as a game meat, FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said in an e-mail. While the African lion is not considered endangered by U.S. regulators, it is classified as “threatened” by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, an international protection agreement. As for Czimer, his shop is officially registered with the FDA and has been inspected by state regulators, Heardon said. Meanwhile, back in Arizona, Selogie is taking the protests in stride. He plans to have bins of ice water outside for picketers who brave Arizona's 100-degree heat to protest as he serves up the burgers on Wednesday and Thursday night. “I do feel bad that people are so concerned about this. But for most people, this is the king of the jungle and that's the only reason they can give me for their concern,” he said. “We're not doing anything to endanger the species.” To top of page added by: EthicalVegan

Video: Mexican Drug Cartels Threaten Arizona Police

Mexican drug cartels have been a problem along the border for a long time. However, in Nogales, Arizona, the cartels have taken things one step further by threatening to shoot police officers with snipers from across the border. Make sure you check out this post at the Eyeblast blog for more details.

Read more:
Video: Mexican Drug Cartels Threaten Arizona Police

Is Illegal Immigration Raising Arizona’s Crime Rate? NY Times Says No; Relevant Figures Say Yes

On Sunday, New York Times reporter Randal Archibold offered up more of his slanted reporting on Arizona’s pending new immigration enforcement law, suggesting that supporters of tough immigration enforcement are fostering fear by exaggerating the problem of violent crime on the border with Mexico: ” On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas .” But does his evidence stand up? Two conservative writers say no, pointing to FBI statistics that show crime in towns outside major metropolitan areas and rural counties crime has increased substantially. When Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, announced that the Obama administration would send as many as 1,200 additional National Guard troops to bolster security at the Mexican border, she held up a photograph of Robert Krentz, a mild-mannered rancher who was shot to death this year on his vast property. The authorities suspected that the culprit was linked to smuggling. “Robert Krentz really is the face behind the violence at the U.S.-Mexico border,” Ms. Giffords said. It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement. But the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol . While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe. That Mr. Krentz’s death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process . Archibold again pompously implied fear-mongering on the part of supporters of immigration enforcement: Moreover, crime statistics, however rosy, are abstract. It takes only one well-publicized crime, like Mr. Krentz’s shooting, to drive up fear. …. Crime figures, in fact, present a more mixed picture, with the likes of Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator behind the immigration enforcement law, playing up the darkest side while immigrant advocacy groups like Coalición de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Coalition), based in Tucson, circulate news reports and studies showing that crime is not as bad as it may seem. For instance, statistics show that even as Arizona’s population swelled, buoyed in part by illegal immigrants funneling across the border, violent crime rates declined, to 447 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2008, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available from the F.B.I. In 2000, the rate was 532 incidents per 100,000. Nationally, the crime rate declined to 455 incidents per 100,000 people, from 507 in 2000. Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer seconded Archibold’s assertion about crime dropping on the Arizona border in her Tuesday front-page profile of Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail in Arizona: While border crime has decreased in this state in recent years , the killing of a prominent rancher in the south by what the police suspect was an illegal immigrant set off rage across the state, and helped fuel a tough new state law directed at immigrants. But Tom Maguire researched the actual FBI statistics and came away with the opposite result, though his results are not definitive: …the stats reprinted below tell a different story — measured by violent crimes per 100,000, the non-MSA portion of Arizona has seen a dramatic increase in crime….these numbers do not support the case that the rural and border areas of Arizona are getting safer. Quite the contrary, actually. Maybe the Times can turn a reporter loose on that. Taking off from Maguire’s spadework, Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner explained: …essentially, the FBI crime stats are broken down by region and while crime has fallen 20 percent in cities from 2000 to 2008, in towns outside major metropolitan areas and rural counties crime is up 39 and 45 percent, respectively. In other words, it sure looks like crime is way up in the border regions of Arizona.

View original post here:
Is Illegal Immigration Raising Arizona’s Crime Rate? NY Times Says No; Relevant Figures Say Yes

Edit: US Supreme Court rules in GMO alfalfa seed case: Planting ban stands until deregulation

By a vote of 7-1 the lower court decision was reversed. So many people do not understand how important this verdict is to our environment and the safety of our food supply. Let's hope we can fight this and ban this crop from being grown to open the door to a moratorum on all GMO crops. WE MUST ALSO NOW FIGHT FOR LABELLING. They simply cannot be allowed to continue this assault on our food system. EDIT: This article by Reuters which I initially posted did not give the entire story. Please see post with information as reported by Center for Food Safety. While some parts of lower ruling were reversed, at least the ban on planting reportedly still stands for at least another year. We still have time to fight. My original comment has then been edited as well. added by: JanforGore

Should the federal government sue Arizona over the state’s new immigration law? Why or why not?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said recently in an interview that the Obama Administration's Justice Department would sue the state of Arizona over their controversial new immigration legislation. They're expected to bring a suit in the next few days to prevent the law from going into effect July 29. What do you think? Should the federal government stay out of Arizona's business? Or is this law so abhorrent that it requires federal intervention? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008151-503544.html added by: afitzgerald

AZ Anti-Immigrant Wing To Target Children

Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce legislation this fall that would strip citizenship status of those children born in the U.S. to undocumented citizens, dubbed quite offensively as “anchor babies,” as the state’s anti-immigrant wing goes even crazier than previously thought possible. —JCL Yahoo! News: “Anchor babies” isn’t a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation’s toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots – the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. – for their next move. Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they’re on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona – and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution – to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone’s immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists – things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential “anchor baby” bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the “anchor” and leave. Read more

Arizona community demands School "lighten up" black/latino mural faces

It is difficult to fully explain the impacts of Arizona's burgeoning and overt anti-immigrant climate these days. To outsiders it must seem like either the inmates have finally taken over the asylum, or alternatively that someone is finally standing up to an inept federal government. To those of us living here, it further appears as either a formalized decree of misguided policies that have long been in place below the radar, or a chance to finally push a brewing agenda to its logical and necessary extreme on a statewide scale. While all of these sentiments possess a kernel of truth, more to the point is that Arizona today has in many ways simply become a veritable theater of the absurd. To wit: legalizing racial profiling, banning ethnic studies, dismissing teachers with accents, lauding “ethnic cleansing” policies, militarizing the border, seeking to abolish the 14th Amendment (the one that makes the bill of rights applicable to the states and makes anyone born here a citizen), and more. Still, all of this pales (pun intended) to a recent localized atrocity that speaks volumes to the climate of antipathy and purification being plied here in the desert. In a twisted feat of modernized and imposed “passing,” artists in Prescott have been pressured to “lighten” the dark-skinned faces on a just-completed public mural due to a backlash inspired by a city council member who said that he failed to see “anything that ties the community into that mural.” In other words, the appearance of a brown-skinned face in the mural is not reflective of the community – despite the fact that demographic data indicates that people of color comprise over 15% of the regional population, and that in Arizona as a whole this demographic represents an estimated one-third of the state's inhabitants. In fact, and as a partial explanation for the mural flap, a 2008 population trend study commissioned by Yavapai College shows that the percentage of nonwhite residents in the area has doubled in the last twenty years and is continuing to rise. Mirroring patterns seen statewide, one can sense the backlash from people attempting to maintain the “old guard” status quo of well-defined power and race relations in the face of rapid change, as reflected in this comment from Prescott City Councilman and local radio host Steve Blair about the disputed mural: added by: timetide