Arpaio Officially Announces Campaign for Maricopa County Sheriff

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2012
CONTACT: Chad Willems

$6,000,000 Raised for Re-Election Campaign

PHOENIX, AZ – Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio formally announced his campaign today for another term as Sheriff of Maricopa County.

Through December 31st of last year, the campaign has raised a record $6 million for a sixth four-year term as Sheriff of Arizona’s most populous county. The campaign committee will continue to actively fundraise between now and the November election.

Arpaio stated, “It is an honor and a privilege to serve as Sheriff of Maricopa County. I am running for a sixth term and will continue to protect the citizens of Maricopa County by enforcing all the laws.”

The Sheriff had considered seeking another office, such as the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Jon Kyl, but determined there was still much work to be done as Sheriff.

Despite recent criticism and brazen political stunts carried out by his perennial detractors, Arpaio remains committed to serving as Sheriff by unapologetically enforcing the rule of law and being tough on crime.

###

 


Comments

  1. Go Sheriff Joe!

  2. Why didnt he run for Senate? He would have done far more good directly fighting Obama if he could change fed policy through the senate seat. Thats what we need, someone to fight the liberals in the city of Satan. Did Joe let us down?

    • It was Russell Pearce that recognized years ago Arizona must take the road of autonomy and sovereignty a.k.a. every man (state) for himself. Washington is a yard sale – always has been – always will be. Joe Arpaio deserves every honor we could bestow on him, but we are selfish and need him here as guardian of the county. The Paul Babeu campaign is a waste, I’m sorry to say; I thought he might be the one to pick up where Joe left off. NO ONE can do their best in D.C., just ask Ben “knock the hell out of Washington” Quayle. I hope I live to see the day when statues of Pearce and Arpaio are unveiled at the state capital.

  3. Sgt. Flapjaw says

    Sheriff Joe belongs right where he is. He has done more to fight against the open borders crowd than any Senator ever has. The Senators that supposedly represent Arizona cut deals with the likes of Dead Ted Kennedy. This border mess will be settled at the scene of the crimes, not where the elitists hang out.

  4. Nordine Crub says

    Too bad some of that $6 million couldn’t be paid out the the families who have lost family members in Maricopa Count Jails.

    • Nordine, you think California jails are better? New Mexico? New York? No one has cared to monitor them, not for a second, but Arpaio’s jail and depuities have been under CLOSE media and civil rights scrutiny for YEARS. If there was a genuine problem, we’d KNOW. ALlwe get it noisy posturing until the Democrats have to run off for some other political grandstand elsewhere, then after a while they wander back to reve it up again. That’s not the actions of serious and credible people who really truly care about improving ANYONE’s lives anywhere.

      The BBC sent reporters all the way from London to interview inmates and the big issue the inmates said was bland food, stupid games (Joe wouldn’t provide a full-sided soccer pitch so they had to play mini versions) and boredom… but WAAAAAAAAY better than any Mexican jail, where one is beaten on the intake, beaten during breakfast, lunch, and dinner, beaten for bed, beaten on the way out, so they weren’t in a hurry to petition go anywhere else.

      Politics politics and screw up systems that work.

  5. Ghost of Friedman says

    “I hope I live to see the day when statues of Pearce and Arpaio are unveiled at the state capital.”

    Wow. Your adoration of Arpaio is truly astounding. Why so many self-proclaimed conservatives continue to bow down to this hypocritical, corrupt, arrogant, blemish on the face of Arizona is beyond me. Never mind the myriad of sex crimes that went uninvestigated and uncharged during his tenure. Never mind the endorsement of Janet Napolitano. Never mind his jail conditions (as if poorer jail conditions in Mexico somehow ameliorate his failure here. Comparing ourselves to Mexico will make us the winner every time). Never mind his participation in the vindictive prosecution of county officers and judges–without evidence.

    He’s a savior because he takes a stand against what is largely a non-problem–illegal immigration. Go ahead and sound off about how illegals increase the crime rate and suck our tax funds dry. It’s just not true–they contribute more in sales taxes (and other taxes) than they drain in benefits, and are far less likely to commit crimes than US citizens. http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-60.pdf

    The irony is that the Sheriff’s “tough” stance on immigration is politically calculated, not principled. “I want the authority to lock up smugglers, but I am not going to lock up illegals hanging around street corners. I’m not going to waste my resources going after a guy in a truck when he picks up five illegals to go trim palm trees.” http://www.janabommersbach.com/phx-mag-jun08.php Yet, when immigration becomes a hot-button issue politically, look who is ready to step up and take the mantle. Typical of a man whose entire career as been based in political maneuvering–not principled administration of the law. But let’s worship him anyway, simply because the left hates him. At some point, conservatives need to stop using liberal hatred as a barometer for who to support. Joe needs to go, and this proponent of free minds and free markets will not hesitate to vote against him.

    • I was trying to keep an objective view until I got to this:

      “He’s a savior because he takes a stand against what is largely a non-problem–illegal immigration.”

      I have to admit that disarmed me. I wouldn’t waste my time with the source of an monumental idiotic statement like this.

    • Conservative American says

      Ghost of Friedman:

      You cite the Cato Institute as a source.

      “Liberalism”

      “Cato’s scholars also advocate positions that are appealing to many on the left side of the American political spectrum, including support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies, and equal rights for gays and lesbians.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Conservatism

      Well ain’t that something! A Pinko citing a liberal source! But that’s not all, Folks! Here’s a bit more about the positions of the Cato Institute:

      “ACLU collaboration”

      “Cato has also collaborated on occasion with the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, Nadine Strossen.”

      “Libertarian on gay marriage and sexual privacy”

      “The Cato Institute’s libertarian roots have been apparent in their research in other areas, as well. A 2006 study on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have outlawed gay marriage, was titled “Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic.” A Cato amicus brief was cited by the Supreme Court when it struck down sodomy laws in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.”

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

      Hey, your sources are almost as liberal as the sources habitually cited by TC!

      Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

    • Conservative American says

      Ghost of Friedman:

      And for your second source, you cite none other than that bastion of Conservatism, Jana Bommersbach who has been staunchly defended by Tom Fitzpatrick at the Phoenix, New Times:

      “The Stupidity of Silencing Jana”

      “To soothe the Visigoths and various other know-nothings, Channel 8 has silenced Jana Bommersbach, the single honest spokesman in its stable.”

      “By Tom Fitzpatrick Wednesday, Mar 7 1990”

      “Writing about Jana Bommersbach’s suspension from her job as commentator on Channel 8 is a tricky piece of business. It is one of those events about which it’s difficult to speak and impossible to maintain silence.”

      http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1990-03-07/news/the-stupidity-of-silencing-jana/

      And what does Tom Fitzpatrick think about Republicans?

      “WITH JON KYL, DULL DOESN’T MEAN HARMLESS”

      “Comments By Tom Fitzpatrick Thursday, Oct 20 1994”

      “Here are some things you ought to know about Congressman Jon Kyl, that passionless and aloof candidate of the Republican ultraright, before you vote to send him to the United States Senate.”

      “Kyl represents everything that is detestable about the current political state of affairs in Washington, D.C. Like his fellow congressman and pal Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh, the portly political commentator, Kyl is a sanctimonious hypocrite.”

      http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-10-20/news/with-jon-kyl-dull-doesn-t-mean-harmless/

      Amazing! You cite Bommersbach, defended by Tom Fitzpatrick in the liberal Phoenix New Times. The same Tom Fitzpatrick who refers to Senator Kyl as an “aloof candidate of the Republican ultraright” and a “sanctimonious hypocrite”.

      Hey, GF, why didn’t you just find some quotes from the Democratic National Committee or from “progressive” Democrat U. S. Congressman, Raul Grijalva?

      Have a nice day, GF! 🙂

      • Gee small world.

        New Times not engaging enough to keep its audience at its own site or is it the go-to place to be fed the latest Liberal talking points for the … er … ah … “free thinkers” who then swagger over like neo-colonialists to foreign locales like SA to impress them on the natives?

  6. Ghost of Friedman says:
    January 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    “ Never mind the myriad of sex crimes that went uninvestigated and uncharged during his tenure
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    You are obligated to include the role of the prosecutors and courts in that, but they are conspiculously absent in the wailing. The prosecutors set the tone and set the bar or what they want before they lift a finger, they react to the judges they deal with. “For the kids!!” Where were all the advocates for “the kdis” five years ago? Arpaio actually DID something about it… who else of the professional weepers and robe-tearers who act all pious now, did?

    The ENTIRE system is part of this. How many people are being not mentioned because they are inconvenient to the campaign to get Arpaio, conveniently after Parazz and Co announced they wanted to get rid of Arpaio?

    • Ghost of Friedman says

      The core of your (weak) counter-argument is that Joe wasn’t the only one involved. “Everybody was doing it.” So? Presidents don’t run the economy, but we base our decisions to vote for or against them on the country’s economic performance. In fact, the link between the president and the economy is much weaker than the link between Joe and uninvestigated sex crimes. Joe is the head–he gets the brunt of the blame, and deservedly so. His failure isn’t any less of a failure because the other side uses it for its political advantage. Are you really going to rally around a man just because you are against his attackers, regardless of the truth that supports the allegations that form the basis of their attack? That goes beyond partisan loyalty–that’s tribalism.

      And the Napolitano endorsement? And the millions of dollars of misspent money? And the fact that his enforcement of illegal immigration is nothing more than political convenience? And the vindictive prosecutions? At some point, it doesn’t matter if Parraz is the one bringing this up for his advantage. If it’s true (which it all is), then it leads to one unmistakable conclusion–corruption.

      • Conservative American says

        Hey, Einstein, you forgot something. You forgot who is standing with you against Arpaio.

        First, we everyone’s favorite MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, MARY ROSE WILCOX. That should get a lot of votes going Arpaio’s way, LOL!

        Next we have “progressive” Democrat U. S. Congressman RAUL GRIJALVA. You know Grijalva, don’t you GF? He was a member of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) while attending the University of Arizona and, as a U. S. Congressman, called for a boycott of his own state, Arizona, to protest the passage of SB1070. What a guy!

        Then we have RANDY PARRAZ. You know, the guy who was so popular among his fellow Democrats that he came in last in the Democratic primary for U. S. Senator from Arizona, garnering a whopping 14.6% of the vote. Hey, talk about a winner, LOL!

        Last, but not least, we have CHAD SNOW, the ambulance chaser attorney whose firm protects the rights of “undocumented workers” in workers’ compensation cases. The initial consultation is free but nowhere does his website indicate how much his firm’s services cost “undocumented workers”.

        There we have it, GF. Some of the “prominent figures” on your side of the issue. Stand tall and proud with your allies; MARY ROSE WILCOX, RAUL GRIJALVA, RANDY PARRAZ and CHAD SNOW.

        Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says

      Wanumba, I think arguing with Mr. Ghost is and exercise in futility. You did notice that he is still trying to get away with saying that illegals are a benefit to society. Even the most dishonest leftists have stopped trying to get away with that one.
      Their cost to all of us is well known by all but the very last clingers.

      • CD6 Businessman says

        “You did notice that he is still trying to get away with saying that illegals are a benefit to society.”

        He actually stated that illegals are less of a drain financially and that they commit less crimes and then cited a report by the CATO institute to back up his argument. There are a lot of reasons for conservatives to take issue with Arpaio and Ghost summarized my feelings quite well. Sheriff Joe needs to retire.

        • Sgt. Flapjaw says

          CD6, CATO studies are nice and have some use I am sure. The best determination of the crime issue is to check the Jails and prisons, plus personal experience to get an idea of true crime impact.
          Also, crime is not the only cost that the illegals cause to the taxpayer, as you know. Fact is, they are illegal and don’t belong here period.
          There are many who believe Sheriff Joe should retire, I find that a sincere feeling. I do not agree but repect others who do. There are very few public servants who draw the ire of the Federal Government like Joe does. He must be doing something right.

          • I find it “sincere” too. I find it sincere that the exodus of illegals in Maricopa county has cut into profits of the profit-at-any-cost crowd from CD (insert # here). I find it sincere from the woman who supported Sheriff Joe and SB 1070, then jumped sides after the illegal alien between her daughter’s legs got popped while illegally employed at the Spaghetti Company. They’re all sincere. Whether an illegal, related to an illegal, hiring an illegal, selling goods and services to an illegal, screwing an illegal, or seeking a vote from an illegal, they all speak from the heart.

      • Sgt FJ,
        Never futility if one is talking to the audience beyond the poster… other people read this and see the arguments.
        To focus too much on the poster is useless.

        • Sgt. Flapjaw says

          Wanumba, that is presicely what I was doing. I just don’t like to confront the radicals too directly on this site as they seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Many like to sit back and spew venum for their own pleasure.
          A good back and forth with someone of another veiwpoint is always constructive if both sides are thoughtful and sincere.

          • Very true. It’s good to hear a reasonable voice out there in the cacophony of Leftist shouting .. they trying to shut out anything that doesn’t adhere to the narrative.

            I’m fed up with the bad actor theatrics and hanky-sniffing of ginning up outrage against Arpaio for a five year old problem that he actually took action to address while the same moral arbitrators ignore mass murder, infinitely worse in ALL measures, and try to fog the blatent conflict of interest at the Justice Department and their back-stabbing dealings with Arpaio’s office.
            Back stabbing is putting it mildly – they were supplying .50 calibres to illegals and drug cartels.

        • True Conservative says

          And that is the joy of reading your posts. I don’t even need to bait you – you reveal yourself, and the SA, as decidedly anti-conservative with each and every post.

          Don’t worry, if ever you do stray into the realm of plausibility with your black-helicopter inspired claims, someone will be here to smack you back into line.

          Assuming, of course, you don’t disable comments again, as you did before after I exposed you for the harm you are causing the (R) party.

          I don’t care what you think. You left America for Africa years ago and we haven’t missed you. I doubt you even vote anymore. So long as people don’t associate you with the (R) mindset, there is no need to comment on you at all.

          • :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
            True Conservative says:

            January 6, 2012 at 11:04 am

            Assuming, of course, you don’t disable comments again, as you did before after I exposed you for the harm you are causing the (R) party.

            I don’t care what you think. You left America for Africa years ago and we haven’t missed you. I doubt you even vote anymore. So long as people don’t associate you with the (R) mindset, there is no need to comment on you at all.
            :::::::::::::::::::::

            So, step off your pompous soapbox and stop commenting about ME and stick to the SUBJECT.

            I was a dope not realizing long before that I could disable this level of drivel comment on anything I published. It was great.

          • Consevative American says

            NOTICE: The above poster, “True Conservative”, is a paid propagandist for the liberal left feigning to be a Conservative. Furthermore, she thinks that “foreign governments” are tracking her internet surfing and even claims to have her own “security officer”.

            With TC it always comes down to the “black helicopters, conspiracies and flouride in the water.” It’s paranoid “wingnuts” like TC who give Conservatism a bad name.

    • Christopher Jacoby says

      Wanumba, generally prosecutors don’t get involved until a law enforcement agency conducts an investigation into an alleged crime, determines that probably cause and sufficient evidence of a crime and a suspect exists, and then refers it to the prosecutor’s office. Only then, if the prosecutor concurs and decides to indict the suspect(s), do the courts get involved.

      Failure by Arpaio’s office to properly investigate these alleged crimes, is, I believe, solely the fault of the sheriff’s office. I don’t see how the prosecutors and the courts are at fault when no (meaningful) investigation was performed.

      Respectfully, will you please elaborate on your rationale that the prosecutors and courts have some culpability in this?

      • THe prosecutors inform the law enforcement what they will prosecute and what they will NOT. They also react to the reality of the judges and how they rule.

        Arpaio’s department, as with every other sheriff’s department in thecountry, can arrest, investigate, but if the prosecutors don’t rouse themselves up to prosecute, then the sheriff’s department will react accordingly.

        It’s very deceptive to infer that any sheriff’s department is a power unto itself and works in a vacuum.

        And it IS relevent to compare other jails and law enforcement, but the politcal hacks don’t want Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department to be proven to be better than other departments elsewhere – and if California’s schools are so awful, what must THEIR jails and prisons be… but that’s all Democrats and inconvenient.

        The Justice Department is on record as stating Arpaio’s department has been working at solid standards… now the Justice Department under new management and caught red-handed in a massive, evil , international illegal gun-running operation is going to be the “legal and moral” authority card to condemn Arpaio and his deputies?

        Really? This isn’t political to the nth degree?

  7. So what’s with the recall-woman in Yuma? Reading national news and it was reported this woman can’t even speak English and is evidently submitting her recall petitions against elected officials in Spanish. How informed could she be if she can’t even follow the local politics in the local venacular? How’d she find that recall mechanism so fast? Even plenty of Anglo-phones of four generations here would be hard-pressed to recall anything about recalls.

    Is recall the new illegal-lobby tool?

  8. Ghost of Friedman says:

    January 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    The core of your (weak) counter-argument
    :::::::::::::::::::::

    Rhetorical gimmick to undermine statements with up-front biased declarations of value — get the unfounded appellation upfront to negatively influence the perception that follows.

    (weak) (cheap) (spin)

    • Ghost of Friedman says

      There is nothing gimmicky about stating that I think you’re argument is weak. That’s called arguing. Those that read the argument are free to decide for themselves on its validity. At some point you’ll actually address the substance of my arguments, instead of making (weak…oops, there I go again) accusations about my arguing style. Or maybe I’m hoping for too much.

      Flapjaw: I tried purchasing some futility, but apparently the store must be in your neighborhood, because the shelves were cleared. I cited a study that backs up my point, and could cite countless others. Your response? Ignore the studies and talk about how “we know” what a drain illegals are because, well, we know. Futility is trying to persuade someone who is so inherently biased that he is immune to facts and data.

      • Conservative American says

        “Ghost of Friedman says:”

        “January 6, 2012 at 10:33 am”

        “Again, you’re trying to divert our attention from the real issue–Sheriff Joe and his bid for reelection.”

        Hey, Einstein, you just fell prey to your own imbecilic critique, LOL! 🙂

  9. Ghost of Friedman says:

    January 6, 2012 at 6:43 am

    There is nothing gimmicky about stating that I think you’re argument is weak. That’s called arguing. Those that read the argument are free to decide for themselves on its validity. At some point you’ll actually address the substance of my arguments, instead of making (weak…oops, there I go again) accusations about my arguing style
    :::::::::::::::

    Your argumenting style is weak, no parenthesis because you are sniffing about off topic throw away snark about “substance” without backing up ANY of it, and NOT discussing the reality of the legal system, the blatent politics in the patently phony outrage of political hacks who were AWOL on the very issue they want Arpaio to be smeared with, an attack that came hardly days after the recall gang announced they were after Arpaio.

    WE are SUPPOSED to believe it’s ALL coincidence?

    Now the pious fakers howl they want Arpaio to resign… but where are the calls that the Justice Department en mass should RESIGN and be prosecuted for the 200 and counting murders of FAST and FURIOUS, but we’re supposed to LISTEN to them grandstand and with great theatrical flourish rip federal certifications off deputies who the Justice Department decided not to inform “Oh by the way, we have upped the lethality of the illegals YOU will FACE on the STREETS of PHOENIX, with the hopes YOU will DIE to make OUR political point.”

    What kind of political amoral slug does one have to be to make ANY excuses or enabling of THAT? WHERE is the outrage?

    FAST and FURIOUS is a lethal atrocity, and the people who designed it and set it into motion control our national system of justice – and they are giving Arpaio trouble? He’s done nothing of the sort, but look at the people justifying this.

    These are deadly political games, and that is NOT speaking metaphorically. This is extremely dangerous.

    You don’t know what raw anarchy looks like. I DO. I warned about this blatent Democrat Party-ginned political attack on law enforcement over a YEAR ago.

  10. Ghost of Friedman says

    You accuse me of going off-topic, then bring up Fast and Furious. While I agree that Fast and Furious was outrageous, and I think Holder should be held accountable, that’s not the topic of this post. The topic is Arpaio. See, you see his ineptitude, corruption, and political opportunism as non-existent lies trumped up by left-wing radicals. I see facts. I see evidence. I could care less who brings it up and for what reason. Just as you and Flapjaw are so fond of saying “illegal is illegal”, well, corruption is corruption. To say that I don’t back “ANY” of it up is just absurd. Did you actually read my post? I cited the Sheriff himself saying, just 7 years ago, that he wasn’t that interested in pursuing illegals. How is that evidence not good enough for you to prove political opportunism? I cited a CATO institute study, and could cite countless others, proving–with facts and data, something you and Flapjaw seem to be immune to–how illegals don’t pose the drain on society as you say they do. I’m totally willing to admit that some commit crime, and that some drain welfare resources, but on the whole, they actually provide a net benefit to the US through cheaper labor and sales taxes. But heaven forbid we look at data and use reason and logic to come to a conclusion. Finally, your attempts to immunize the Sheriff from attack regarding the uninvestigated sex crimes is horrendous. Who cares if they were brought up for political reasons? If a right-wing member of the Nazi party introduces evidence that Obama has gone on the record saying that he is an avowed Marxist, do we automatically discount the evidence just because of the source? A healthy skepticism is one thing, and I approve of that. But refusal to see reason just because the source is a left-wing radical borders on unhealthy tribalism, as made evident by your disturbing desire to see Arpaio immortalized in stone. I wonder at what point Arpaio could actually do wrong in your book.

    • Conservative American says

      Ghotst of Friedman wrote: “I cited a CATO institute study.”

      So you did, Einstein, and I cited this:

      “Liberalism”

      “Cato’s scholars also advocate positions that are appealing to many on the left side of the American political spectrum, including support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies, and equal rights for gays and lesbians.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Conservatism

      Well ain’t that something! A Pinko citing a liberal source! But that’s not all, Folks! Here’s a bit more about the positions of the Cato Institute:

      “ACLU collaboration”

      “Cato has also collaborated on occasion with the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, Nadine Strossen.”

      “Libertarian on gay marriage and sexual privacy”

      “The Cato Institute’s libertarian roots have been apparent in their research in other areas, as well. A 2006 study on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have outlawed gay marriage, was titled “Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic.” A Cato amicus brief was cited by the Supreme Court when it struck down sodomy laws in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.”

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

      Like the Cato Institute, do you support homosexual “marriage”, Ghost of Friedman?

  11. Ghost of Friedman says:

    January 6, 2012 at 8:20 am

    You accuse me of going off-topic, then bring up Fast and Furious. While I agree that Fast and Furious was outrageous, and I think Holder should be held accountable, that’s not the topic of this post. The topic is Arpaio.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::

    The Justice Department supplied upgraded lethal weapons thru the Phoenix ATF office under Arpaio’s nose through the illegal networks to feed them into Mexico, then waited to have them trickle back INTO the USA through same illegal networks to be used in CRIMES and sued the Governor of AZ and landed on Arpaio’s office to interfere with any disruption of the illegal network that was distributing these weapons and last week shows up and de-certifies the sheriff’s office to check on illegal status. Arpaio’s deputies are amongst the highest risk of being murdered by illegals armed with these weapons next to the Border Patrol agents.

    Sorry-o. The two cannot be separated. The Justice Department made that irrevocable by THEIR rotten and treacherous actions. You want to ignore it and focus on a five year old resolved problem, claiming some perverted moral high ground. You are an apologist for the cover-up of mass murder. It’s worse than a dismissive “outrageous,” and you don’t want to talk about it.

    How many Phoenix agents here had lunch with Arpaio’s deputies, and local police — socialized, worked together, KNOWING they were giving out arms that were meant to come back into the states to be aimed at local law enforcement who had NO IDEA what they were scheming?

    These people give cold-blooded murderers a good name. This is sociopathic. NO ONE should have ANYTHING to do with it, provide ZERO cover for it… yet there the Democrats are … excuses excuses, change the subject.

  12. Sgt. Flapjaw says

    Cato, Cato, Cato. A Libertarean Organization, which is an open borders advocate. There are studies that prove every point of view; IE global warming. I will go through “some” of the topics that the “The Ghost” conveniently leaves out.
    Health care, Many other taxes that are not sales taxes, education, food stamps, welfare, are some of the obvious “left outs”. What about the huge underground economy? How about the total degregation of the average overall income structure that surplus labor causes? How about the reduction in other quality of life issues?

    • Ghost of Friedman says

      I didn’t leave anything out. I brought up health care, education, food stamps, and welfare. They all fit under the umbrella of “welfare benefits” which I specifically mentioned. And I specifically mentioned which taxes they do pay–sales taxes. In fact, some actually pay a form of income taxes, and all pay property taxes, through increased rent by their landlords. My point was that the amount of taxes they pay exceeds what they take in welfare benefits (food stamps, healthcare, education, etc…).

      As for the underground economy–could you be more specific? As for degregation (I assume you meant degradation) due to surplus labor, could you be more specific? Illegals take jobs citizens won’t. As for quality of life, illegals provide cheap labor which brings down the costs of goods and services, thus elevating our quality of life.

      Oh, and you can’t automatically discount stats and figures just because the organization is “libertarian.” Plus, your and Wanumba’s continuous attempts to label me as some venomous, left-wing, Democratic liberal are just sad, and patently untrue. It must be nice to be able to be the self-proclaimed arbiters of what “conservative” means, then exclude anybody that doesn’t fit your narrow (and quite frankly, historically inaccurate) definition. What about the freedom to travel and sell your labor abroad? What about capitalism? What about free trade? I guess those conservative principles go out the door when it comes to immigration. But alas, I fear my attempts at reason are lost on F and W. I’ll see you on another post.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says

        Hmmm, do I detect that what we have been reading is the opinion of an individual who is financially benefiting from illegal immigration? Are you Chad Snow? You seem to be using the same old crap, now “They do the jobs that Americans won’t do”. False, and you know it. I have been in the construction industry for many years and seen what your beloved cheap labor have done to wages there. It’s not that the illegals work cheaper as much as the surplus of labor that is available causes wages to go down. Many of the construction jobs are quite high paying and require a strong skill set.
        Artificially generated surpluses skew the free market. I think that you need to reread your economics 101 book.

        • One must ALSO note that our US legal citizens must pass certifications and training to perform work.

          After years in Third World countires and familar with construction quality there, I can attest that there is A LOT of visually substandard work now manifesting in the USA thanks to illegal labor – people who do not have the tested competencies in the work they are doing for lower wages. The complaints and losses in materials and redos are frequent topics amonst people who’ve had work done, not knowing the hires knew enough to appear competent, by without the depth of solid training.

          A lot of competenceis are gained on-the-job, but without the higher level of detail and code awareness that comes with trade ceritifications.

          These are real costs, in lost time, wasted materials, additional labor redo, and safety.

  13. Ghost of Friedman says

    Again, you’re trying to divert our attention from the real issue–Sheriff Joe and his bid for reelection. I’ll grant that Fast and Furious is absolutely despicable, and I think that if we were to have a prolonged conversation about it, we’d largely agree on just about everything. But when we discuss Arpaio and his reelection bid, other agencies’ conduct–however disgusting–does’nt have a bearing on what we should focus on in deciding whether to reelect Joe–namely, his conduct. The fact that others are out to get him doesn’t–by itself–justify his reelection, especially when evidence of his corruption is so prevalent. But I fear we’re simply bound to disagree on this. As such, I’ll see you (so to speak) on another thread.

    • Conservative American says

      Again, you’re trying to divert our attention from the real issue. The real issue is that you are a radical, left wing liberal Pinko who thinks he is ever so slick at playing the tired old game of trying to pass himself off as a Conservative Republican, LOL!

      BTW, do you REALLY think that we don’t know who you are? You can post under a different user name but you can’t change youre tell tale style! 😉

      • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

        Arpaio endorsed Janet Napolitano over Matt Salmon. He wastes money, and often exceeds the limits of his office. True conservatives don’t trust government, and don’t approve of totalitarians like Arpaio who have used the power of their office to persecute their political enemies. That is the very definition of abusive, overreaching government. And true conservatives aren’t so easily distracted by the simplistic propaganda that Arpaio peddles.

        You can’t just say, “Look, lefties hate Arpaio! He must be my guy!” That’s not smart. Think independently, people.

        • Conservative American says

          What a bunch of liberal crap, LOL! Let’s look at who wants Arpaio out.

          First we have everyone’s favorite MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, MARY ROSE WILCOX.

          Next we have U. S. “progressive” Democrat Congressman, RAUL GRIJALVA who was a member of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) while attending the University of Arizona and who called for a boycott of his own state over SB1070.

          Then we have RANDY PARRAZ who was so popular with his fellow Democrats that he came in in last place in the Democrat senatorial primary garnering a mere 14.6% of the vote. He can’t even get support from liberal Democrats, LOL!

          Next we have the one and only CHAD SNOW, the ambulance chaser attorney who will give a free initial consultation to “undocumented workers” with workers’ compensation issues but who nowhere on his website states how much his services will cost those undocumented workers.

          It’s very simple. Do you want to back MARY ROSE WILCOX, RANDY PARRAZ, RAUL GRIJALVA and CHAD SNOW or not? They want Arpaio out. Do YOU want what THEY want?

  14. Ghost of Friedman says:

    January 6, 2012 at 8:20 am

    But refusal to see reason just because the source is a left-wing radical borders on unhealthy tribalism, as made evident by your disturbing desire to see Arpaio immortalized in stone. I wonder at what point Arpaio could actually do wrong in your book
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    I want who immortalized in stone? Where do I say that and where do I say ANYWHERE the preposterous claim that I have EVER argued Arpaio can’t do any wrong?

    I don’t rely on left-wing radical sources for PRECISELY this sort of blatant inability to keep facts straight and making up completely false arguments.

  15. Ghost of Friedman says:

    January 6, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Again, you’re trying to divert our attention from the real issue–Sheriff Joe and his bid for reelection. I’ll grant that Fast and Furious is absolutely despicable, and I think that if we were to have a prolonged conversation about it, we’d largely agree on just about everything. But when we discuss Arpaio and his reelection bid, other agencies’ conduct–however disgusting–does’nt have a bearing on what we should focus on in deciding whether to reelect Joe–namely, his conduct
    ::::::::::::::::::::

    Before we rush to judgment on Sheriff Joe, we have to determine FIRST the reliability of the sources of the accusations of any conduct plus or minus on Arpaio’s part and the current, blood-soaked Justice Department is the LAST source we can trust on this matter, isn’t that correct?

  16. Ghost of Friedman says

    I apologize Wanumba. It was zoo that said he wanted to see a statue of Arpaio, not you. My mistake. As for my argument that you think Joe can do no wrong, it was implicit in my argument that, even with the abundance of evidence indicting him, you’re still not willing to consider that he may not be the best conservative for the job. Just because you don’t say something overtly doesn’t mean it’s not implied by the rest of your argument.

    • Ghost of Friedman says:

      January 6, 2012 at 10:45 am
      Plus, your and Wanumba’s continuous attempts to label me as some venomous, left-wing, Democratic liberal are just sad, and patently untrue
      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      I haven’t labeled you anything. I’ve never seen your nic before today. But if you recognize yourself.. that’s not my fault.

      Have you resolved to rise about partisan politics and stand for what’s good and right and petition for Eric Holder to resign for the 200+ murders? It’ be more likely to happen if the Democrats renounce this and reach acorss the aisle and unite to stop atrocities. It goes far beyond politics.

      • Ghost of Friedman says

        I’m not a Democrat. I’m a registered Republican. And you guys need to learn about implications and insinuations. Just because you don’t outwardly and specifically label me something doesn’t mean you haven’t done it through context, implication, and insinuation.

        And yes, I want Holder gone. The guy needs to go.

        • Conservative American says

          “We guys” don’t “have to” learn about anything, GF. And I won’t beat around the bush, GF. You are a radical, left wing, progressive liberal Pinko. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, LOL!

    • Ghost of Friedman says:

      January 6, 2012 at 11:11 am

      I apologize Wanumba. It was zoo that said he wanted to see a statue of Arpaio, not you. My mistake. As for my argument that you think Joe can do no wrong, it was implicit in my argument that, even with the abundance of evidence indicting him,
      :::::::::::::::::::::::

      I wasn’t aware that Arpaio had evidence indicting him in any actual court, just accusations from his self-interested political opponents who’ve apparently enlisted a very sleazy and dubious ally in the blood-soaked Holder Justice Department. Given what seems to be at stake here… international cross-border gun-running by a sitting government that lethally undermines law enforcement in TWO countries… then taking Arpaio’s word over the gun-runners, wouldn’t that be the only reasonable course?

      On what rational grounds do we accept the word of anyone wanting to remove Arpaio who wasn’t part of it? From the testimony of the ATF and FBI, and Justice Department document dumps, sounds like Arpaio was the ONLY one not IN on the sordid action.

  17. Ghost of Friedman says

    No, this is not Chad Snow. I do not know Chad. As for labor and wages, if their presence drives down wages, that’s called economic competition, a basic tenet of capitalism. Someone is starting to sound like a union defender. I’m for true capitalism–the ability of people to travel and sell their labor without undue restraint. Your preferred economic system is one of centralized control over the flow of labor–not capitalism. So watch who you call a leftist. Someone needs to look in the mirror.

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says

      I did not call you a leftist. I do think that you are ignorant of economics. You cannot open your borders and allow unfettered labor to poor across. You cannot subsidize goods or services without skewing the market.
      Anyway, I cannot teach you anything, seems you have been too educated by the Government indoctinators. You promised not to talk to me again, stick to that promise!

      • Ghost of Friedman says

        I’ll have it break it one last time 🙂

        You may want to refrain from calling me ignorant on economics when you apparently can’t tell the difference between the free flow of labor and subsidization. Subsidization is an attempt by the government to control and manipulate the economy, as you rightly noted. The free flow of labor is not the same thing, it’s actually quite the opposite. It removes governmental control and allows the marketplace to allocate the need for labor. You’re right in that it would bring labor costs down, and I’m sorry if that hurts your pocketbook, but it’s called competition. It’s called capitalism. Again, you favor central control. I favor the ability of the market to allocate goods and labor.

        • Conservative American says

          You need to get things straight, GF. I’m calling you a leftist. How do you feel about that, Einstein?

    • Ghost of Friedman says:

      January 6, 2012 at 11:19 am

      I’m for true capitalism–the ability of people to travel and sell their labor without undue restraint
      :::::::::::::::::::::

      No you aren’t.
      That isn’t “true capitalism” which depends on high trust and high lawful discipline to function. There is no undo restraint for foreigners to abide by another country’s laws. I am in another country respecting their laws on labor and immigration, working in THEIR official language, not insisting they learn mine.
      Since when does my country have no right to expect the same? Where did this EXCEPTION to ALL international protocols, treaties, diplomacy and international LAW come from? I and millions of Americans like me are practicing what we preach, while you are arguing chaos and anarchy and pretending it’s “true capitalism.”

      • Ghost of Friedman says

        I’m having a hard time understanding your counter-argument Wanumba. I agree that foreigners should abide by another country’s laws–I just think that our immigration policy is, well, bad law. I favor letting every non-criminal, non-terrorist in that wants to come–cheaply and quickly. As such, they’d be abiding by our laws. As for language, requiring an official language has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Nothing. I agree that they should learn our language, not the other way around, but that has nothing to do with economics. I’m not arguing for chaos and anarchy. I’m arguing for an immigration system that lets anybody in that wants to come–terrorists and criminals excluded. I’m for letting the marketplace determine how many immigrants come to this nation–not bureaucrats in DC. Each year, hundreds of thousands of lower, middle, and upper income people desperately desire to come to America to take part in the American Dream. Yet, our immigration policy makes it near-impossible for them to gain entrance. The number of visas is artificially (and astoundingly) low, and it takes years and money to get one. We’re losing talented individuals to other developing nations because our immigration policy is so backwards and restrictive. Yet, individuals like you sum it all up with “illegal is illegal”–and don’t even pull this “I never said those words” non-sense. It’s dripping by implication in all of your posts. Fact is, when some say that illegals should just “get in line and do it right” they fail to recognize the fact that there is NO LINE. US immigration policy has made it so difficult to come here legally that there is no line. I favor a system that allows all to come here legally. That’s not chaos. That’s not anarchy. That’s a departure from bureaucratic, centralized control, the likes of which capitalists such as myself (Friedman), Hayek, and (gasp) even the conservative savior Reagan strongly favor over attempts to artificially control the flow of labor. The GOP’s focus on keeping immigrants out is misplaced–it should focus on inviting them in, thereby ensuring an economic and political victory.

        • Consevative American says

          Hey, Pinko, what’s happening? Time to take you to school, Junior.

          Pinko worte: ” The GOP’s focus on keeping immigrants out is misplaced…”

          ROFL! There we have it, Folks! The classic progressive liberal “big lie technique”, LOL!

          First of all, Pinko, your characterization of Republicans as trying to “keep immigrants out” is typical liberal disingenuous bull.

          Tell us, Pinko, where Republicans have tried to keep all immigrants from coming to the U. S.. What’s that? You can’t? It’s a bunch of bull which you fabricated? Next!

          Secondly, the issue isn’t “immigrants”, it’s illegal aliens. There have been and continue to be plenty of people who enter the U. S. legally and who are not illegal aliens. So don’t try to pass off this crap that Republicans want to keep all immigrants out of the U. S..

          Pinko wrote: “-it should focus on inviting them in, thereby ensuring an economic and political victory.”

          ROFL! Oh! This is classic Pinko bull at it’s finest, LOL!

          Hey, Einstein, how many people are currently in the U. S. under H-1B Visas? You don’t know. How do I know that you don’t know?

          “Homeland Security Dept. Cannot ‘Precisely’ Track the Number of Foreigners Working in U.S. on H-1B Visas”

          “By Susan Jones
          January 19, 2011”

          “(CNSNews.com) – No one knows how many foreign workers with H-1B visas are in the United States at any given time because of “limitations in agency data,” a new report says.”

          “By law, the number of foreign workers holding H-1B visas is capped, currently at 65,000.”

          “But according to the Government Accountability Office, “The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time — and information about the length of their stay — is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time–particularly if and when their visa status changes.”

          http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homeland-security-dept-cannot-precisely-track-number-foreigners-working-us-h-1b-visas

          Now I know what you little liberal pea brain is thinking. You’re thinking, “those are H-1B Visas and not immigrants”. Really?

          “While the H-1B is not considered a permanent visa, H-1B workers can apply for extensions and pursue permanent residence in the United States.”

          So where do Republicans and Obama stand in this issue?

          “Another key Republican calls for H-1B cap hike”

          “Meanwhile, President Obama holds meeting on immigration reform”

          “By Patrick Thibodeau
          April 20, 2011 07:12 AM ET”

          “At a special hearing by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in San Jose Monday on high-tech growth policies, its chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), called for a liberalization of the H-1B cap.”

          “Issa said that “there seems little doubt that federal policies and regulations have played a large role in hampering growth.” Among other things, he cited the H-1B visa cap in his prepared remarks.”

          “Late last month, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also called for an H-1B cap increase.”

          http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215970/Another_key_Republican_calls_for_H_1B_cap_hike

          So what is progressive Democrat B. Hussein Obama doing about this?

          “But neither Issa, Smith nor any member of Congress was at a meeting that President Barack Obama held on Tuesday to discuss immigration reform. Among the approximately 30 people who attended were New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California.”

          “The only person from a high-tech firm at the gathering was Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer.”

          “Obama has not outlined specifics of how an immigration reform plan would affect the high-tech industry, other than to cite a general need for retaining graduates of U.S. colleges and universities.”

          So while Republicans are calling for increasing the cap on H-1B Visas, a legal form of entering and working in the U. S., B. Hussein Obama is holding meetings about “immigration reform” while ignoring a bipartisan call for increasing the annual cap on H-1B Visas for the high-tech industry.

          This concludes our first lesson in debunking Pinko lies, distortions and misrepresentations. Stay tuned. Lesson two to follow.

          Have a nice day, Pinko! 🙂

  18. Ghost,
    How’s that “tribalism” (la raza, aztlan, reconquistador) working to save this country?

    • Chick, one wonders how do the Apaches, Navajos and Hopi feel about a bunch of Hispanics with tribal ties all the way back to Spain, claiming their tribal ancestral lands?

      As far as anthropology and archeaology can tell, the Apaches and Navajos were attractive sources of captives for Aztec human sacrifices.

  19. Ghost of Friedman says:

    January 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    I’m having a hard time understanding your counter-argument Wanumba. I agree that foreigners should abide by another country’s laws–I just think that our immigration policy is, well, bad law
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    It’s not bad law, because we process in thousands upon thousands of legal citizens on a regular cycle, yet you are advocating breaking it or ignoring because you don’t agree with it, which is straight line to chaos and anarchy.

    I have a hard time understanding that you have a hard time understanding that what you disingenuously label as my “counter argument” is internationally recognized as normal protocols that ALL countries abide by in order to maintain good working and diplomatic relations between nations.

    If you went to Mexico and explained your arbitrary concoction to argue Mexico should allow in poor Africans to work jobs Mexicans won’t do, because according to the World Bank rankings, Mexico is a MUCH richer country than say, any nation in West Africa, Mexico would tell you to go to hell.
    We could test it … why take my word for it?

  20. Ghost of Friedman says:
    January 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Fact is, when some say that illegals should just “get in line and do it right” they fail to recognize the fact that there is NO LINE.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    That’s a very odd “fact.”
    I’ve sat in that LINE you claim doesn’t exist. At the American Embassy with Africans, helping them process LEGALLY entering the USA. Pretty damn efficient. That ONE Embassy processed over four hundred people that day, five days a week, and we have lot of Embassies, and we’re not counting stateside processing. And no one got beat up, unlike what I witnessed at another country’s embassy while waiting IN LINE helping someone ELSE get a VALID visa for that country. I know a lot of LEGAL immigrants who are legal citizens. A LOT. Can’t NOT know a lot in our circuit.

    Are you lying purposely conveying to the public untruths or are you ignorant of the world out there, parroting things you haven’t verified? You seem to expect that your audience shoudn’t know anything about this stuff, hmm?

    Given what I’ve seen of people’s ignorance about the world outside thanks to our trainwreck of a schooling system, it’s probably a safe bet, but not today.

  21. Ghost of Friedman says

    First, I spoke of a metaphorical “line.” Not a literal one. Of course there are actual lines. They just don’t represent reality. Millions of people would come here every year if they could, but our immigration system keeps the number allowed artificially low, to our economic detriment. I’d cite more articles (there are plenty), but you seem to be against backing up arguments with data and in favor of a much weaker source: your own personal experience. Can’t you see how ineffective it is to take your own limited personal experience and extrapolate to a national scale?

    But fine, let’s go there. I too have sat in lines in a foreign county in Latin America (where most of our immigrants come from). I too helped them navigate the difficult, expensive, burdensome process of getting a visa (and getting citizenship, which takes much, much longer FYI). If what you say is true about your embassy (which I doubt, given what I’ve heard and seen at others), yours is the exception. I would see the same individuals in the same long line each and every week. Some would just give up.

    So you may know a LOT (I love your affinity for constant capitalization) of legal immigrants. So what? How do you know that they’re a fair representation of the number that want to come here? Who are we to say to a worthy potential citizen that he/she either (a) doesn’t qualify this year, try again, or (b) sure, you can be a citizen–years from now, and after you pay us thousands of dollars. I believe the American Dream should be open to all, excluding criminals. You forget that for many years we had open immigration, and it was those very same immigrants that built this nation. But so much for that idea. Let’s act as gatekeepers to the American Dream, deciding (rather arbitrarily) who can and who can’t come and enjoy our freedoms and contribute to our prosperity.

    • Conservative American says

      ROFL! Oh, oh, oh! This is TOO funny, LOL! Let’s dismantle and entirely shred this classic but antiquated Pinko tactic, shall we?

      What GF has done here is to ASSUME the false premise of his argument as valid and as a “given” and then build his false case upon his false premise. So what we need to do is to examine his initial false premise and debunk it.

      GF wrote: “…to our economic detriment.” So one of his premises is that it is detrimental to our economy if we don’t buy into his immigration propaganda. What’s wrong with that premise?

      What is wrong with it is that it is unifocal, pointing us exclusively to economics while ignoring other immigration related issues. What we need to consider is why we developed immigration laws in the first place. The most basic reason why we developed immigration laws was to protect The United States and her citizens. To focus exclusively on how GF’s immigration policies would benefit the U. S. economically, which is, by the way, entirely false, is to ignore all of the ways in which immigration laws serve to protect us, when they are enforced.

      For example, one purpose of immigration laws is to protect the public health. Contrary to GF’s assertion, the “immigrants who built this nation” did not enjoy “open immigration” but were instead subject to close scrutiny before being permitted to enter the U. S., especially by physicians. They were most concerned about the spread of communicable diseases. Let’s look at the 2009 status of one communicable disease in Arizona; tuberculosis.

      “Risk fators for Arizona TB cases:”

      “Foreign-born status accounted for 66% of the reported TB cases. Mexico was the country of origin for 45% of the foreign-born cases.”

      http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/tuberculosis/pdf/2009_TuberculosisSurveillanceReport.pdf

      So “foreign-born status” accounted for two thirds of the TB cases in Arizona!

      GF wrote, however, “I favor letting every non-criminal, non-terrorist in that wants to come–cheaply and quickly.” Those are his only stated criteria. He mentions nothing at all about communicable disease screening. Unlike GF, with his theoretical concepts and liberal ideology, Congress has not forgotten it’s duty to protect the public health when crafting immigration laws.

      “When passing immigration laws, Congress wants to ensure that immigrants with significant health conditions do not endanger the health of the United States public. It put laws in place (section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) to guard against certain significant health conditions being spread or introduced to the US.”

      “Therefore, every immigrant, including an adjustment of status applicant, has to be screened for health-related grounds of inadmissibility, such as communicable diseases of public health significance.”

      http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-News/?a=1361&z=21

      Needless to say, illegal immigrants undergo no such screening for communicable diseases. So when Jerry Lewis says, “While the federal government fulfills its responsibility to secure the border, I support a rational and fair solution for dealing with immigrants who have committed no crime other than being here without proper documentation”, he has, like GF, conveniently chosen to ignore issues like the introduction of active cases of tuberculosis into Arizona and into The United States by illegal aliens. The treatment of TB is free to all, including illegal aliens, but it does cost taxpayers.

      This is but one area where GF’s liberal ideology, regarding immigration, quite simply falls apart in the real world, with U. S. citizens being put at serious risk due to his ignorance of practical considerations and of the underlying purpose of immigration law.

      Pinkos always seek to avoid real world scenarios, what is actually happening on the ground, and try to sway those foolish enough to lend them an ear with pie in the sky fairy tales of a socialist utopia which has never existed and which never will exist. That’s why it’s called “propaganda”.

      “As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda is often biased, with facts selectively presented (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, or other type of agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.”

      • Ghost of Friedman says:
        January 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm

        First, I spoke of a metaphorical “line.” Not a literal one. Of course there are actual lines. They just don’t represent reality.

        ::::::::::::::::::::::::

        Sorry-O. The fact that there exist processing lines that process millions of people a day worldwide for legal visas entry for tourism, study, work, residence and immigration is physical proof that we have a working SYSTEM that is functioning and that MOST people are using it…so the people who do NOT use it do stick out as being out of the norm. None of those people going thru the usual requirements would want to see a cheat skip the line.

        You are lying or you don’t know what you are talking about. Which is it? Ignorance can be fixed with some sensible study and experience. Lying is a more pervasive character fail.

  22. Wait…I though he announced he was running in 2010?

    Isn’t that why he said he was running the ads against Romley during the 2010 elections?

    You know, the ads and mailers that were found to be in violation of election law and ended up costing him around $150,000 in fines?

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/article_a81436ba-b237-11df-b5b8-001cc4c002e0.html

    The ads and mailers that he said were for his 2012 re-election campaign?

    Nah, not Joe…he’s too honest, after all he didn’t know anything about SCA…or probably doesn’t recall.

    • Joe has no use for the rule of law..he is the “toughest shurf in the country.”

      (more like a corrupt drooling old racist)

      He has to run, if he is out of power, people will talk about the skeletons in his closets. But his shoes will always be clean, because there are a few bootlickers here that will do whatever he says.

      Stauffer, a normal person, for Sheriff.

      • Conservative American says

        So which is it, Lampoon? Are you a man in a woman’s body or a woman in a man’s body? Either way, it must be a very stressful situation for you. You know, maybe you could do a “pants by day, skirts by night” sort of thing and have the best of both worlds.

        • Your gay obsession is sad. You need to go back to your minimum wage job as a prison guard, back where you got all the sex you needed.

          • Hey. Glad you brought that up.

            It’s good to remind casual readers that Conservative American actually WORKED in corrections and is a primary source and ha achieved a certain level of “expert resource” in it unlike you, so his input is more valuable and reliable than yours in these matters.

            Unlike the self-flattering lazy idiocy pushed by the deconstructionist Left, some opinions are in fact measurably better and better informed than others.

            • Hey, glad you brought that up…. Anyone that would actually want to be a prison guard has issues, wannabe cops that need a minimum wage job that hires those with GED’s that need have authority.

              • Conservative American says

                Now I understand that it must be difficult for you, Miss Lampoon, being sort of… well… a freak. I mean it really is kind of freaky being in a body of one sex and thinking that you are really the opposite sex. I’ve heard that they are doing some really wonderful things with therapy these days for folks like you. Maybe you should give it a whirl. Failing that, you might see about going on disability or something. Hey, maybe Chad Snow can help you process a disability claim! Best of luck, old boy… or old girl. Your choice, I guess.

          • Conservative American says

            I can understand your sensitivity on the subject of your sexual identity, Miss Lampoon. It can create a lot of awkward situations in a society in which the majority of people identify with the body which God has provided for them. I mean if you do just about anything, from applying for a mortgage to enrolling in health insurance, you’ll be asked to indicate whether you are a man or a woman. And when you check the box which reads, “Female”, you know that you have just manifested the ultimate hypocrisy.

    • Conservative American says

      Rob! You wrote this to me the day after Christmas:

      “Why bother with silly, wimpy football guys when I have you to fantasize about?”

      “muah…xoxoxoxo”

      Do you still fantasize about me, Rob? Do you have more “muah” and “xoxo” for me? You haven’t dumped me to fantasize about another guy or to send your “muah” and “xoxo” to someone else, have you?

    • You sound devastated that Rick Romley was trounced; is he under “R” in your local hero scrapbook, right after Salvador Reza? It’s a real shame that gimpy couldn’t have slipped like a cockroach through the crack under the door – he could have been turning hundreds of illegal aliens loose as fast as MCSO caught them; damn it all! But don’t cry, I hear he is doing quite well as a crutch repairman in one of the back rooms at Snow & Carpio.

  23. A “worthy” potential citizen will come here legally, not illegally and commit Felony Fraud along the way.

    • Ghost of Friedman says:

      January 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm
      . I believe the American Dream should be open to all, excluding criminals. You forget that for many years we had open immigration, and it was those very same immigrants that built this nation. But so much for that idea. Let’s act as gatekeepers to the American Dream, deciding (rather arbitrarily) who can and who can’t come and enjoy our freedoms and contribute to our prosperity
      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      Come and enjoy our prosepirty?

      WHO made that prosperity? You are talking leeches off other people’s hrd work and investments, not the real AMerican Dream of creating something new to make wealth. Immigrants come here not to TAKE other wealth but to BUILD a dream they never had a chance to.

      You may be a “registered Republican” but you are an active proponent of hard core socialistic world view, economics, class and race divisions. Do you register Repub to screw up the primaries then vote in the general as Democrat?

      • Ghost of Friedman says:

        January 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm
        . I believe the American Dream should be open to all, excluding criminals
        ::::::::::::::::::::::

        Yah? How?
        Without the American Dream being able to credibly PRESCREEN immigrants, how do we know they aren’t criminals? That means: applications, security background checks .. takes a lttle bit of time, but it is EVERYONE’s interest to keep criminals and terrorists OUT.

        Every single country has that national right. The United States is actually easier to immigrate to than a lot of other countries, so to single it out and make the argument it’s “so hard” is FALSE, to tell people it’s unfair is FALSE.

        To argue that one neighboring country deserves to have the rules relaxed at the expense of every other country on the planet is grossly biased and unfair to everyone else who would like a shot at the “American Dream,” a harder task for them because they have to come from further away at greater distance, effort and expense.

        I have no idea why you would be a “registered Republican” when your positions are so in harmony with Democrats. open borders. If I argued the way you do, I’d be a proud registered and up front Democrat, no furtive stuff.

        • Ghost of Friedman says

          Again, you back your arguments up with…nothing. And you completely mischaracterize my arguments. I never argued against prescreening. In fact, I implicitly argued for it by stating that we should keep out criminals and terrorists. But to say the only thing that keeps people from coming here lawfully is prescreening shows a sad ignorance of our immigration laws. Citizenship in all its forms (visas, etc…) is limited severely each year when compared to all those that want to come here, and not for prescreening reasons. Citizenship is limited because the federal government thinks that it can more effectively gauge how many immigrants we need. I disagree with that. It’s a form of centralized control. I prefer a system that conducts quick, inexpensive screening checks, and lets everybody that passes them come in. At no time did I advocate for completely open borders. But saying that I did allows you to create a straw man (which looks nothing like me) so that you can set flames to your false version of my arguments, calling me a leftist, socialist, liar along the way. So much for civil debate.

          Finally, I love how immigration has become the holy grail for many posters on this thread. Even if I did lean more Democrat in my approach to immigration (which I don’t–union-backed Democrats can be every bit as restrictive as misguided Republicans), you act as though that sole issue, standing alone, determines party membership. What about foreign policy? What about economic policy? What about social policy? Judicial philosophy? It’s sad that immigration has become the be-all-end-all for you.

          I’m trying to remember some famous Republican with whom my immigration policies align…I vaguely remember some actor-turned-President. What was his name again?

          • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

            AMEN!!!

            The nuts have one single criteria for whether one is “conservative” or not, and that’s immigration. Agree with Russell Pearce 100% on immigration, or you’re not a conservative. Both weird and ignorant.

          • Conservative American says

            ROFL! More leftist propaganda, LOL! Let’s whittle these Pinkos down to size, shall we?

            First we caught Ghost of Friedman quoting liberal sources as follows:

            You cite the Cato Institute as a source.

            “Liberalism”

            “Cato’s scholars also advocate positions that are appealing to many on the left side of the American political spectrum, including support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies, and equal rights for gays and lesbians.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Conservatism

            Well ain’t that something! A Pinko citing a liberal source! But that’s not all, Folks! Here’s a bit more about the positions of the Cato Institute:

            “ACLU collaboration”

            “Cato has also collaborated on occasion with the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, Nadine Strossen.”

            “Libertarian on gay marriage and sexual privacy”

            “The Cato Institute’s libertarian roots have been apparent in their research in other areas, as well. A 2006 study on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have outlawed gay marriage, was titled “Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic.” A Cato amicus brief was cited by the Supreme Court when it struck down sodomy laws in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.”

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

            Hey, your sources are almost as liberal as the sources habitually cited by TC!

            And for your second source, you cite none other than that bastion of Conservatism, Jana Bommersbach who has been staunchly defended by Tom Fitzpatrick at the Phoenix, New Times:

            “The Stupidity of Silencing Jana”

            “To soothe the Visigoths and various other know-nothings, Channel 8 has silenced Jana Bommersbach, the single honest spokesman in its stable.”

            “By Tom Fitzpatrick Wednesday, Mar 7 1990″

            “Writing about Jana Bommersbach’s suspension from her job as commentator on Channel 8 is a tricky piece of business. It is one of those events about which it’s difficult to speak and impossible to maintain silence.”

            http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1990-03-07/news/the-stupidity-of-silencing-jana/

            And what does Tom Fitzpatrick think about Republicans?

            “WITH JON KYL, DULL DOESN’T MEAN HARMLESS”

            “Comments By Tom Fitzpatrick Thursday, Oct 20 1994″

            “Here are some things you ought to know about Congressman Jon Kyl, that passionless and aloof candidate of the Republican ultraright, before you vote to send him to the United States Senate.”

            “Kyl represents everything that is detestable about the current political state of affairs in Washington, D.C. Like his fellow congressman and pal Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh, the portly political commentator, Kyl is a sanctimonious hypocrite.”

            http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-10-20/news/with-jon-kyl-dull-doesn-t-mean-harmless/

            Amazing! You cite Bommersbach, defended by Tom Fitzpatrick in the liberal Phoenix New Times. The same Tom Fitzpatrick who refers to Senator Kyl as an “aloof candidate of the Republican ultraright” and a “sanctimonious hypocrite”.

            Hey, GF, why didn’t you just find some quotes from the Democratic National Committee or from “progressive” Democrat U. S. Congressman, Raul Grijalva?

          • Conservative American says

            Next, we caught Ghost of Friedman lying about Republicans wanting to keep immigrants out of the country:

            Pinko worte: ” The GOP’s focus on keeping immigrants out is misplaced…”

            ROFL! There we have it, Folks! The classic progressive liberal “big lie technique”, LOL!

            First of all, Pinko, your characterization of Republicans as trying to “keep immigrants out” is typical liberal disingenuous bull.

            Tell us, Pinko, where Republicans have tried to keep all immigrants from coming to the U. S.. What’s that? You can’t? It’s a bunch of bull which you fabricated? Next!

            Secondly, the issue isn’t “immigrants”, it’s illegal aliens. There have been and continue to be plenty of people who enter the U. S. legally and who are not illegal aliens. So don’t try to pass off this crap that Republicans want to keep all immigrants out of the U. S..

            Pinko wrote: “-it should focus on inviting them in, thereby ensuring an economic and political victory.”

            ROFL! Oh! This is classic Pinko bull at it’s finest, LOL!

            Hey, Einstein, how many people are currently in the U. S. under H-1B Visas? You don’t know. How do I know that you don’t know?

            “Homeland Security Dept. Cannot ‘Precisely’ Track the Number of Foreigners Working in U.S. on H-1B Visas”

            “By Susan Jones
            January 19, 2011″

            “(CNSNews.com) – No one knows how many foreign workers with H-1B visas are in the United States at any given time because of “limitations in agency data,” a new report says.”

            “By law, the number of foreign workers holding H-1B visas is capped, currently at 65,000.”

            “But according to the Government Accountability Office, “The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time — and information about the length of their stay — is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time–particularly if and when their visa status changes.”

            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homeland-security-dept-cannot-precisely-track-number-foreigners-working-us-h-1b-visas

            Now I know what you little liberal pea brain is thinking. You’re thinking, “those are H-1B Visas and not immigrants”. Really?

            “While the H-1B is not considered a permanent visa, H-1B workers can apply for extensions and pursue permanent residence in the United States.”

            So where do Republicans and Obama stand in this issue?

            “Another key Republican calls for H-1B cap hike”

            “Meanwhile, President Obama holds meeting on immigration reform”

            “By Patrick Thibodeau
            April 20, 2011 07:12 AM ET”

            “At a special hearing by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in San Jose Monday on high-tech growth policies, its chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), called for a liberalization of the H-1B cap.”

            “Issa said that “there seems little doubt that federal policies and regulations have played a large role in hampering growth.” Among other things, he cited the H-1B visa cap in his prepared remarks.”

            “Late last month, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also called for an H-1B cap increase.”

            http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215970/Another_key_Republican_calls_for_H_1B_cap_hike

            So what is progressive Democrat B. Hussein Obama doing about this?

            “But neither Issa, Smith nor any member of Congress was at a meeting that President Barack Obama held on Tuesday to discuss immigration reform. Among the approximately 30 people who attended were New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California.”

            “The only person from a high-tech firm at the gathering was Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer.”

            “Obama has not outlined specifics of how an immigration reform plan would affect the high-tech industry, other than to cite a general need for retaining graduates of U.S. colleges and universities.”

            So while Republicans are calling for increasing the cap on H-1B Visas, a legal form of entering and working in the U. S., B. Hussein Obama is holding meetings about “immigration reform” while ignoring a bipartisan call for increasing the annual cap on H-1B Visas for the high-tech industry.

          • Conservative American says

            Next, we caught Ghost of Friedman pitching a classic socialist pie in the sky fairy tale which ignores practical public health considerations and the underlying purpose of immigration laws:

            What GF has done here is to ASSUME the false premise of his argument as valid and as a “given” and then build his false case upon his false premise. So what we need to do is to examine his initial false premise and debunk it.

            GF wrote: “…to our economic detriment.” So one of his premises is that it is detrimental to our economy if we don’t buy into his immigration propaganda. What’s wrong with that premise?

            What is wrong with it is that it is unifocal, pointing us exclusively to economics while ignoring other immigration related issues. What we need to consider is why we developed immigration laws in the first place. The most basic reason why we developed immigration laws was to protect The United States and her citizens. To focus exclusively on how GF’s immigration policies would benefit the U. S. economically, which is, by the way, entirely false, is to ignore all of the ways in which immigration laws serve to protect us, when they are enforced.

            For example, one purpose of immigration laws is to protect the public health. Contrary to GF’s assertion, the “immigrants who built this nation” did not enjoy “open immigration” but were instead subject to close scrutiny before being permitted to enter the U. S., especially by physicians. They were most concerned about the spread of communicable diseases. Let’s look at the 2009 status of one communicable disease in Arizona; tuberculosis.

            “Risk fators for Arizona TB cases:”

            “Foreign-born status accounted for 66% of the reported TB cases. Mexico was the country of origin for 45% of the foreign-born cases.”

            http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/tuberculosis/pdf/2009_TuberculosisSurveillanceReport.pdf

            So “foreign-born status” accounted for two thirds of the TB cases in Arizona!

            GF wrote, however, “I favor letting every non-criminal, non-terrorist in that wants to come–cheaply and quickly.” Those are his only stated criteria. He mentions nothing at all about communicable disease screening. Unlike GF, with his theoretical concepts and liberal ideology, Congress has not forgotten it’s duty to protect the public health when crafting immigration laws.

            “When passing immigration laws, Congress wants to ensure that immigrants with significant health conditions do not endanger the health of the United States public. It put laws in place (section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) to guard against certain significant health conditions being spread or introduced to the US.”

            “Therefore, every immigrant, including an adjustment of status applicant, has to be screened for health-related grounds of inadmissibility, such as communicable diseases of public health significance.”

            http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-News/?a=1361&z=21

            Needless to say, illegal immigrants undergo no such screening for communicable diseases. So when Jerry Lewis says, “While the federal government fulfills its responsibility to secure the border, I support a rational and fair solution for dealing with immigrants who have committed no crime other than being here without proper documentation”, he has, like GF, conveniently chosen to ignore issues like the introduction of active cases of tuberculosis into Arizona and into The United States by illegal aliens. The treatment of TB is free to all, including illegal aliens, but it does cost taxpayers.

            This is but one area where GF’s liberal ideology, regarding immigration, quite simply falls apart in the real world, with U. S. citizens being put at serious risk due to his ignorance of practical considerations and of the underlying purpose of immigration law.

            Pinkos always seek to avoid real world scenarios, what is actually happening on the ground, and try to sway those foolish enough to lend them an ear with pie in the sky fairy tales of a socialist utopia which has never existed and which never will exist. That’s why it’s called “propaganda”.

          • Conservative American says

            So Ghost of Friedman, backed up by her prancing sidekick, Mesa Constitutional Conservative, has cited liberal sources, lied abut the immigration position of Republicans and completely failed to address protecting the public health as one of the mandatory criteria for entry to the U. S..

            Hey, girls, your wolf tails are sticking out from under your sheep disguises, LOL! Now run along back to Daily Kos where you can hang out with like minded “progressive” Democrats.

            Have a nice day! 🙂

Leave a Reply