AZ Dust Storm

Click the picture to see it all since my blog format cuts off nearly half of it.  It's incredible.  Looks like The Mummy That Devoured Phoenix.  I heard reports that this storm was 2 miles high and up to 100 miles around / wide.

Head Of Homeland Security To Sheriff Babeu: You're Never Going To Seal The Border.

I'm just quoting this verbatim from Mike Broomheads page at KFYI but you can hear Sheriff Babeu say the below and much, much more (including "we don't need alligators") yourself ...

Head Of Homeland Security To Sheriff Babeu: You're Never Going To Seal The Border.

Sheriff Paul Babeu came on the Mike Broomhead Show Thursday to talk about a meeting he, among others, had with Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in Arizona.

As soon and the secretary opened for questions, Sheriff Babeu jumped on the opportunity to tell her how our border is ACTUALLY doing.

Babeu also thinks that this sudden interest in increased boarder security is just an “election stunt.”

“Poll data should not run national security, and be at the forefront of decision making when it comes to protecting families here in America,” said the Sheriff. “And Oh! The third year into our four year term, we think this is a real issue now? You got to be kidding me!”

According to Babeu, he said that he needed at least 6,000 men and women on our border, now.

How did our Secretary of Homeland Security respond to that?

“You’re never going to seal it…you’re never going to seal the border.”

Well no, you can't seal the border if the HEAD of Homeland Security believes you can't!  If she believes you cannot seal the border, then why would she even try?  This is what you get with Napolitano, America!  And Babeu is right, this is just an election stunt by a government which committed an act of war against Mexico and her people by arming the terrorists inside Mexico via "Fast and Furious" aka "GunRunner".

Arizona Boycott - FAIL!

Last year about this time there were calls across the land to boycott my beloved state of Arizona.  Just look at my own blogging on the topic from May, June, and July of 2010 for a sampling.  Well, well, well, here we are a year later and we find that pretty much no boycott happened.  Few contracts were cancelled in the face of city councils being ordered to review contracts with firms in Arizona.  Typical leftsts counting on the ignorance of their constituents.

What happened to L.A.'s boycott of Arizona?

A year after the City Council approved the sanction, little has changed. There's not even an ordinance specifying how the boycott should work.

In May 2010, Los Angeles was a part of wave of cities that voted to boycott Arizona after lawmakers in that state passed a controversial law targeting illegal immigrants.

City Hall staffers were ordered to review contracts with Arizona companies for possible termination, and official travel to Arizona was supposed to be suspended.

But a year later, little has changed in the way Los Angeles does business with the state next door.

The city still buys street sweeper parts from one Arizona firm and has a contract for emergency sewer repairs with another, officials say. The Harbor Department alone has four contracts with Arizona companies that total nearly $26 million.

A similar pattern can be seen across California. Boycotts in Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles County made headlines last year but have since delivered little punch.

None of those jurisdictions has canceled a contract with an Arizona-based company because of the boycott — leading some immigrant-rights activists to dismiss the high-profile calls for economic sanctions as empty symbolism.

The disappointment is especially felt in Los Angeles, where Latino elected leaders strongly backed the sanctions.

"This is a moment of hypocrisy if the city of Los Angeles says one thing and does another," said Rabbi Jonathan Klein, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. Klein was speaking to a crowd of protesters gathered at City Hall to demand follow-through on the business ban.

Protesters have complained about several exemptions the City Council has granted in the last year, including approvals of contracts for made-in-Arizona Taser guns and red-light traffic cameras, as well as a contract with a Los Angeles International Airport shuttle provider that has offices in the state.

Councilman Ed Reyes, who wrote the boycott, voted to approve those exceptions. He said the deals were in the best interest of the city. Reyes said he, too, was disappointed with the boycott's slow progress, but he blamed City Atty. Carmen Trutanich's office for taking more than a year to draw up an ordinance specifying the terms of the ban. A spokesman for Trutanich said an ordinance is still in the works. (Kirly - what a hypocrit Reyes is!  He WROTE the boycott and then voted to approve exceptions!)

Despite the lack of clear guidelines, Reyes said there had been at least one boycott victory: Last year the Los Angeles Police Department opted not to send a team of helicopter pilots to a training conference in Phoenix.

Reyes also pointed to a March letter sent to the president of the Arizona state Senate by several dozen leaders of companies with headquarters or major subsidiaries in Arizona. The letter urged rejection of five proposed anti-illegal-immigration laws, saying that when controversial laws are passed, "unintended consequences inevitably occur."

Dozens of local governments across the country imposed boycotts on Arizona after the state passed SB 1070, which required police to check the status of those they suspected of being in the country illegally. Critics said the law would promote discrimination; state officials disagreed.

In their letter, the Arizona business leaders wrote that the boycotts cost the state jobs and hurt its economy, and that further anti-immigration legislation could do more harm. None of the five laws passed.

Lawrence Glickman, a boycott expert at the University of South Carolina, said boycott organizers should count that as a success. Most boycotts end more ambiguously than the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1950s, which ended segregation on buses, or the grape campaign of the 1960s, which won fieldworkers contracts with growers, he said. (Kirly - a letter should be counted as a success???  uhm, ok, lefties, you got your letter so you're "winning".)

In the case of the Arizona boycotts, he said the target — an entire state — is less clear than a company or industry. "As an entity, a state is pretty amorphous," Glickman said.

Los Angeles city officials have struggled to define what it means for a company to be "headquartered in Arizona," the language used in the council's boycott motion.

The issue came up recently when the Board of Public Works considered a $100-million contract for a wastewater treatment plant with Honeywell, a multinational corporation that has divisions and employees based in Arizona. The board approved the contract. (Kirly - typical leftist idiots.  Honeywell is not headquarted in Arizona.)

The boycott movement lost some urgency last year when one of the law's most controversial provisions was struck down in federal court. That ruling, which halted the requirement that police check the status of suspected illegal immigrants, was upheld in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Several California entities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles County, voted to suspend their boycotts until the court case is decided.

More than 20 Los Angeles County contracts were approved while the boycott was active because they met certain exemptions, records show.

In one report to the Board of Supervisors, the county's chief executive said a contract with an Arizona company that makes undershirts for jail inmates was exempted because "additional cost, time and resources are required to resolicit the services or supplies." (Kirly - so they were basically too lazy to do the work to support their own boycott!)

Ellen Sandt, an L.A. County deputy chief executive, said the boycott was important even if it had produced few tangible results in the way the county spends its money. For the supervisors who passed it, "it was important for them to take a stand," she said. (Kirly - yep, all symbolixm and no substance with leftists.)

The boycott has been more than symbolic for at least one city. Last year, Santa Monica officials chose not to award a $3-million contract to an Arizona-based firm to replace 20 mobile homes in a city-owned park, according to Kate Vernez in the city manager's office.

They gave the business to a California company instead.

The Idiocy in Pinal County: Pete Rios

This is the kind of idiot that Sheriff Babeu has to deal with.

Pinal County Supervisor Pete Rios lost control when a citizen called him out for ignoring the citizens of Pinal County.

Supervisor Pete Rios’ Popularity Death Spiral

At the close of the Board Meeting last week, a Pinal County citizen stood to address the Board of Supervisors. As usual, Supervisor Rios told the citizen that he had only three minutes.

The Pinal County citizen began by mentioning that over a year ago, State budget cuts and cost shifts could be anticipated. The citizen continued to respectfully address the Board of Supervisors. Suddenly, Pete Rios and fellow Supervisor David Snider started laughing and smiling at some inside joke, totally ignoring the citizen speaker. It was a display of utter contempt to and for a citizen of Pinal County.

Finally, the Pinal County citizen addressed Supervisor Rios directly: “Supervisor Rios, do you want to share with us what is so funny?”

Pete Rios immediately grabbed the gavel, pounding it furiously on the desk, yelling,” You’re out of order,” repeatedly. Spittle could be seen on Supervisor Rios’ quivering lips. Rios lost control. His behavior was bizarre and reflected badly on himself, the Board of Supervisors and Pinal County.

The Pinal County citizen stood his ground proudly. He had not disrespected the Mr. Rios or the Board. It was Pete Rios who brought disgrace upon himself and his fellow Board Supervisors.

Almost immediately, the Board of Supervisors meeting degenerated to a close and fellow citizens rush to congratulate not Pete Rios but Vince Leach, the honest citizen who called Pete Rios on his disrespectful behavior.

Leaving the Supervisors’ meeting room, I overheard a disgruntled citizen commenting about Pete Rios and his behavior, ‘These guys think they walk on water . . . until you flush it.”

What an arrogant ass.

Pima County Sheriff Dupnik, Why is Jose Guerena Dead?

Sheriff Dupnik, of Pima County, Arizona has gone from unavoidable for offensive unfounded hateful comments against Conservatives when Jared Loughner murdered 6 and shot several including Arizona Congressional Representative Gabrille Giffords to unavailable for comment in the case of a SWAT raid on a Tucson home which resulted in more than 70 shots fired in 7 seconds with 60 hitting and killing Jose Guerena.  Dupnik has hid behind a spokesman and issued as many as 5 different versions of the incident.

I don't know if Jose Guerena was a good guy or a bad guy.  I do know that he was a Marine and served our country in Iraq.  I know that he was in bed asleep in his home with his wife and 4 year old son in a neighborhood alleged to have a problem with home invasion attacks.  And the video below seems to indicate that this was a "no knock" and no announcement can be heard that it was the police.  I know that the safety was on Guerenas weapon and he never fired a single shot.  And I know that nothing illegal was found in his home.  And that medical attention, which arrived within 2 minutes of being called, was kept on hold for more than an hour and then sent away.  I don't know if anyone could have survived 60 gunshot wounds, but some effort should have been made to help the poor man whose wife said he was still alive.  Allegedly, Guerena lay there dying for an hour and fourteen minutes.

Dupnik.  You're done.  Resign in disgrace.  Go home.  Go away.  And take the officers who denied medical treatment to a dying man wtih you.

The family has hired an attorney.  No amount of money will replace this young man, husband, father.  But, they deserve to know the truth of why their home was raided.  They are going to sue Pima County, Arizona for all it's worth - probably for all it'll be worth for the next 100 years.

Update:  Blackfive has a lot of information and links to even more.

Sheriff Babeu: Mr. President - Protect America First

If you wish, you can download a copy here.

Here is the text, but definitely go and download a copy to see the seal and the picture at the bottom.

May 26, 2011

President Obama says the border is more secure than ever, declared the border fence complete and said, “these people will never be satisfied, until we build a moat and put alligators in the moat.” We don’t need a moat or alligators in Arizona – we simply need the federal government to do their job and secure the border!

Last year, 219,300 illegal immigrants were apprehended in just one sector of Arizona and many with violent felony criminal records. The US Border Patrol estimates another 400,000 made it safely past them in Arizona and now reside in your community.

If the majority of regular illegal immigrants can sneak into America, what does this say about the ability of terrorist sleeper cells? The porous US/Mexican border is the gravest national security threat facing America. This is no longer just a political fight to stop Barak Obama from giving amnesty to over 12 million illegals, it’s also about protecting our nation from terrorist threats. Thousands of illegal entrants hail from State Department countries of interest--Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others. In some cases, we have confirmed their troubling ties to terrorism. Yet for those we apprehend, how many today live amongst us?

If the border is secure, why did the feds post 15 Billboard signs in Pinal County warning American citizens; Danger – Public Warning – Travel Not Recommended, due to armed drug cartel smuggling? This is 70 miles into Arizona, where Homeland Security confirms that no fewer than 100 of our beautiful mountains have been repurposed as lookouts for the Mexican Drug lords.

America can secure the border if we replicate the success of what was accomplished in the Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector has now attained a 96% reduction of illegal border crossings. The Senator McCain/Kyl 10-Point Border Security Plan is developed largely from the learned successes of the Yuma Sector during Operation Jump Start.

This plan calls for immediate deployment of 6,000 armed soldiers for a period of two years. While soldiers are deployed, the double barrier fence is completed with video surveillance, lighting, sensors and roads to support rapid deployment of US Border Patrol. Thirdly, fully enforce the law without any diversion option.

We need focus on the solution to secure our border, not on a path to citizenship or amnesty for 12 million. If President Obama were sincere, why did he not pass immigration reform in his first two years, when he had supermajorities in the House and Senate? Instead, in a purely politically and racially divisive manner, he says he’ll fight now when there is little hope of passage. The President has failed to fulfill his core constitutional duty to protect America.

President Obama led us to believe he would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re no closer to leaving than when he made these false promises. He bombs Libya for humanitarian reasons and yet ignores the outcry of neighboring Mexico in their war against the drug cartels, which have claimed over 35,000 lives and nearly toppled their government. Mexico is America’s second largest trading partner and we share nearly 2,000 miles of porous border, which presents a far graver national security threat than anything we face in the middle east.

Mexico is not our enemy. The cartels are the enemy of Mexico and America. They have brought their violence here to America. Local Sheriffs can’t fight them alone. We can address this growing threat, or we can make jokes, laugh and believe the border is more secure than ever.

Respectfully,

Paul Babeu, Sheriff

Pinal County, Arizona

President, Arizona Sheriff’s Association

2011 National Sheriff of the Year

(Sheriff Babeu is also a retired Army Major and served as the Commanding Officer for Task Force Yuma)

AZ Employer Sanctions Law Upheld by US Supreme Court

This is not directly related to SB1070 but theories abound that the 5 who voted to uphold Arizonas Employer Sanctions Law (all employers in the state of Arizona must use e-Verify or they could lose their business license) would also vote to uphold SB1070.

Supreme Court OKs Arizona’s business immigration law

(have to click the link and read it at the washington times or else they'll sue me for copyright infringement. heh.)

In a weighty case with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that requires all businesses to check to make sure new workers are in the country legally — and in the process signaled the states can have a greater say on immigration issues.

The 5-3 ruling did not directly address a second Arizona law that granted police broader powers to check immigrants’ status and set off nationwide protests by immigrant rights groups last year. But the decision does touch on many of the same issues of federal versus state authority, and seemed to show an openness by a majority of justices to action by the states.

Kris W. Kobach, a lawyer who helped write both laws and who last year won election to be Kansas’ secretary of state, said the decision signals the court majority could look favorably on the far more contentious 2010 Arizona law, known as SB 1070.

“The Supreme Court today said that as long as the state relies upon federal definitions of immigration status and relies upon federal determinations of any particular alien’s status, then that state is not in conflict with federal law. That is exactly what SB 1070 does,” he said.

He said the court also signaled it will set a high threshold before ruling that a state law conflicts with federal law.

At issue in Thursday’s ruling was whether Arizona can require businesses to use E-Verify, a voluntary program the federal government offers businesses to check whether their job applicants are work-eligible. The Obama administration and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the requirements went too far.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing the majority opinion, said that while federal law makes the checks voluntary, it does not specifically bar states from making them mandatory. Because Arizona’s law doesn’t impose criminal penalties and deals only with businesses’ licenses, it doesn’t impinge on federal authority.

“Arizona’s procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed the states to pursue through licensing laws,” the chief justice wrote. “Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the states, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the states from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority.”

Lindsey Graham(esty) cannot be trusted on immigration

Why I do not trust Lindsey Graham when it comes to immigration reform... because he called those of us who oppose amnesty "bigots".

51% say USA safer now than before 911 attacks

Buried in a report about Janet Incompetano being the most unpopular member of the Obama administration (at 23% favorable), is this little gem:

Still, 51% of voters nationwide now say the United States is safer today than it was before the 9/11 attacks. That’s up from 39% in April and is the highest level of confidence measured since April 2009.

With our borders more porous than ever, with more smuggling than ever - of people, drugs, terrorists and their supplies, 51% actually think we are safer than before 911.  This is insanity.  When the car bombs start, will these fools wake up?  When the suicide bombs begin at crowded weekend eateries, will these fools wake up?  When Beslan-style attacks on our public schools begin, will these fools wake up?

Or are these fools destined to be perpetual victims and beggars for government handouts on the backs of the tax payers?  Most of whom are not rich!

S.C. gives voter ID bill final approval

Every voter should be verified as the real person on the voter rolls in every election.  State or Military photo ID seems to be the only way.  And the rolls need to be purged of the deceased as well but that's another topic.

South Carolina is the latest state to demand that you prove your identity when voting.  All that is needed now is for Governor Haley to sign it.  And look for the ACLU and other idiotic entities to say it's an "undue burden on the poor".  Right, like a $10 state ID is too expensive.  Most states will give them to you for free if you are truly destitute because they are required for so many benefits.  Hell, I have to show photo ID every time I go to the doctor or the dentist!

S.C. gives voter ID bill final approval

COLUMBIA -- State or military photo identification will be required to vote in South Carolina under legislation heading to Gov. Nikki Haley's desk.

With a 26-16 vote, South Carolina's senators adopted a compromise version of the legislation that the House agreed to two weeks ago. The vote broke along party lines, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats voting against it.

To vote, people will have to show a state or military ID, a passport or new voter registration cards with pictures the state will issue. If they don't, they can cast a provisional ballot. They have to show a photo ID at their county voting office a couple of days later to have that vote counted.

Republican Haley has pushed the legislation for months, and it was a top priority for the GOP in the House and Senate. They say the bill is about voter integrity.

Democrats say it suppresses turnout by minority, disabled and elderly voters who lack a license, and they argued educating people on the measure and supplying a free photo ID will be expensive.

Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat, said the legislation is destined for court challenges.

"What this bill does is institutionalizes voter suppression," Hutto said.

He said a list of 178,000 voters that don't have photo identification will create problems because it is an invasion of privacy and creates the potential for identity theft.

Sen. Chip Campsen, an Isle of Palms Republican, said Democrats created that problem by insisting on the creation of the list to help identify people who don't have the credentials needed to vote.

Senate Democrats had gone along with the legislation because their version of the bill created early voting in South Carolina. The House refused to go along with that measure but is considering separate legislation to allow early voting.