A better tale of two protests

[spike]

Yesterday on her Fox News show, Megyn Kelly thought it would be revealing in some fashion or another to run footage of protests from angry Latinos in Arizona, and run them side by side with footage from the Tea Party protests in Washington, D.C. in March.

Talk about selective footage: What they showed of the Arizona protests -- which indeed were largely peaceful -- were the moments when the rowdiness got out of hand and people were arrested. And of course, the footage they showed of the Tea Partiers was of moments when their protest was entirely peaceful -- not the ugliness that erupted when Democrats tried to walk through the crowd.

But it left me wondering: Why didn't Kelly and Co. do the same thing back in March when there were in fact immigration marchers in D.C. at the same time as the Tea Party protests on health-care reform?



As I noted then:

Indeed, this crowd was significantly larger than the much-promoted "9/12 March on Washington" last September, even though that event was endlessly promoted for over a month by Fox News (I know, I know; they like to claim they had 1.2 million people there, but the reality was that it was actually about 70,000).

Yet, strangely enough, there was only ONE Fox News crew on hand to cover the immigration march today. I spoke with the reporter for this crew, and he told me Fox News had several other crews on hand today -- but they were all up covering the Tea Partiers and the health-care vote.

And in case you're wondering, there were exactly ZERO stories on Fox News reporting on this march in advance. ZERO. I couldn't find any at CNN or MSNBC either.

There was exactly ONE report on Fox News covering this rally -- because Fox was so busy covering the Tea Party protesters.

On its website, Fox carried only an AP report (now scrubbed) and a slide show. That was it.

The final estimate for this crowd was 200,000 people -- which dwarfed the Tea Party protests. And it was considerably more peaceful and civilized than the ugliness up at the Capitol.

Wonder why they didn't do a comparison/contrast back then, don't you?

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/megyn-kelly-wants-compare-tea-parter

Conservative biased lamestream media double standard!

 

[Gonz]

not the ugliness that erupted when Democrats tried to walk through the crowd

Please, elucidate. Fisticufs? Bottles thrown? Hammers & sickles? Rotten tomatoes? Pissing match? Mean & nasty words?

 

[spike]

I'd say if you are curious about that part you should look it up.

 

[Gonz]

I know there was no problem.

 

[spike]

No problem with what?

 

[Cerise]

Pathetic.

 

[spike]

Pathetic.

You're tale of two protests was pathetic. This tale actually shows something interesting.

But here, I'll reply to yours.

0bama and the dems are clearly defining the people of AZ as the enemy.

Incorrect.

They are encouraging violence by using Nazi comparisons, calling for boycotts, and accusing Arizona of racism and discrimination. It is disgusting and divisive behavior that promotes violence against American citizens.

Actually comparing "show me your papers" was something the Nazis said. The comparison does not encourage violence. Boycotts also not violent. Pointing out racism is also not violent. So you were completely wrong there.

--California Senate leader Darrell Steinberg has asked Ahnold to tear up any contracts they have with AZ.

--A call by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. asks for Americans to boycott his state until it overturns the new law.

--St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman (D) ordered a boycott of publicly funded travel to Arizona in protest of the new immigration legislation.

--A resolution before the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco calls on the city to cancel contracts with companies based in Arizona and halt business ties between city government and the state.

Great! I'll join in to and boycott AZ companies.

--"The determination of who should or shouldn't be in this country is not one for the states to make," the Liar-in-Chief said. "This is a federal prerogative. Even if the states think we aren't doing our job, they have no right to step in."

That's true by law.

On one hand we have illegal aliens who ignore our immigration laws, smuggle drugs, engage in kidnapping and human trafficking between the U.S. and Mexico.....

....and on the other hand there are the law abiding American citizens of Arizona that picked up where the government has left off and enforced the law to stop this practice.

Which does 0bama and the 'Rats side with and support?

Obama and the 'Rats side with the citizens of AZ. They should not have to give up their freedom to a fascist police state. The real question is who you and the 'Pubes side with freedom or fascism?

 

[Gonz]

Don't go there. Don't do business with anyone who lives there. Don't even look at AZ.

It's none of your business what 70% of Arizonans want.

 

[spike]

Don't go there. Don't do business with anyone who lives there. Don't even look at AZ.

I'm down with the boycott

It's none of your business what 70% of Arizonans want.

A poll makes it ok? Then since most Americans like the student loan reform I guess we're all good on that one right?

It is my business. I have family there that are going to have to deal with this crap. Plus this is a discussion board right? So we can discuss shit like this.

 

[Gonz]

Sure, when you're willing to discuss, let's have at it.

 

[Cerise]

 

[2minkey]

Don't go there. Don't do business with anyone who lives there. Don't even look at AZ.

It's none of your business what 70% of Arizonans want.

sounds good. arizona has always given me the creeps and i will always make a point of avoiding it to the extent i can.

if 70% of the folks in arizona want to live in a place where the cops can demand papers proving citizenship or a visa whenever they feel like it, great for the 70%.

but maybe it would just be easier to simply tattoo an ID number on everybody's arm?

 

[Cerise]

I do believe the way it is written makes it a "secondary offense" if you know what I mean.

 

[spike]

I do believe the way it is written makes it a "secondary offense" if you know what I mean.

Wrong, there does not need to be any offense committed for you to have to show your papers.

 

[spike]

Yeah, Bush really dropped the ball on that one huh?

 

[2minkey]

bush had the right idea on immigration. it was folks in the english-speaking only white christian identity movement that didn't like it...

 

[spike]

Bush was unable to get reform passed or even to get most republicans to vote for it. So Cerise trying to blame Obama is ridiculous.

 

[Gonz]

Wrong, there does not need to be any offense committed for you to have to show your papers.

Wrong. Show me where, in this new law, that it allows them to pull anyone over for probably being an illegal.

 

[Cerise]

Wrong, there does not need to be any offense committed for you to have to show your papers.

Please indicate the language in SB1070 you can use to back up your statement. Also, be aware that a link to said bill follows below the speech of Gov. Brewer.

Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration and against racial profiling.

This legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement.

Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.

I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona.

Because I feel so strongly on this subject, I worked for weeks with legislators to amend SB 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protections.

That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from "solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section…"

The bill already required that it "shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."

While the general protection was already included, I believe the issue is so important, we needed to make it CRYSTAL clear.

Today I am issuing an executive order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board – AZPOST -- to develop training to appropriately implement SB 1070.

Importantly, this training will include what does – and does not – constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is not legally present in the United States.

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.

THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(C). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

 

[spike]

Wrong. Show me where, in this new law, that it allows them to pull anyone over for probably being an illegal.

That's not what I said is it? I said "there does not need to be any offense committed" which is correct. Any "lawful contact" which means you could be walking in an area where a crime was reported, you could be a victim, you could be a witness, they could be canvassing looking for witnesses, you could ask directions, you could "fit the description" etc.

You don't have to actually commit any infraction. Some 12 year old asks for directions and doesn't have their birth certificate on them and they could be going downtown.