arizona republic: Page 1
Dennis Welch, Kos, Amanda Terkel, Steve Benen, Ben Smith, Ben Frumin smear Jan Brewer over quote - 06/02/10
Arizona governor Jan Brewer is threatening to cost powerful people money and power through actions such as signing that state's new anti-illegal immigration law. Their lower-level hacks are currently swinging into action, deliberately misinterpreting a quote Brewer made in a disreputable attempt to claim that she inflated her father's war record [UPDATE: Statement from Brewer below]. Some are listed below, and if you find others please leave a comment.
During World War 2, Brewer's father worked at a Navy munitions depot in Nevada; he died in 1955 as a result of lung disease from that job. Brewer made the quote that's being misinterpreted in an interview with the Arizona Republic (link) where she spoke about the names she's been called:
"The Nazi comments . . . they are awful... Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that . . . and then to have them call me Hitler's daughter. It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced."
If Noam Chomsky were here, he might point out that there are various ways to interpret that quote, such as "died [as a later result of] fighting the Nazi regime in Germany", or "died fighting the Nazi regime [which was located] in Germany". In order to obtain the result that illegal immigration supporters want you to obtain, you're going to need to forget about very basic math: if she meant to say he died during World War 2, the youngest she could be is 76. No one in their right mind would think she's 76. If she were trying to lie, she would have adjusted her age downward in the quote to "when I was one years old". Further, in a speech a few months ago she described the backstory (link):
The governor's father did fight the Nazis and support the war effort, but he did it here at a munitions plant in the United States, not as a soldier in the European theater.
Brewer recounted the story of her father's war service during a March breakfast speech in the East Valley, saying that “Wilford Drinkwine believed his country needed him during World War II.”
In that speech, Brewer recalled how that belief prompted Drinkwine to move his family to the Nevada desert to take a job at the country's largest Navy munitions depot. She was born a year or two later; her father succumbed to lung disease before she was a teenager.
“Years of breathing poisonous fumes around harsh chemicals finally took his life,” Brewer said in that speech. “Wilford Drinkwine was my father. I was 11 years old.”
Those smearing Brewer include the following. None of the following attempt to explain how - if one is to buy their interpretation of her comments - Brewer would be claiming to be at least 76 years old. None except the first reference the fact that she's told the accurate story in past instances:
* Dennis Welch of the Arizona Guardian
He appears to be the originator of the smear, and his article starts with: "Gov. Jan Brewer said in a recent interview that her father died fighting Nazis in Germany. In fact, the death of Wilford Drinkwine came 10 years after World War II had ended." That's then followed by:
"She wasn't embellishing the story at all," [Paul Senseman, the governor's spokesman] said Tuesday. "You're reading something into this that isn't there."
He added that the governor has been very clear in the past about how her father died. Drinkwine was on full medical disability at the time of his death, Senseman said.
In a 2008 interview with the Republic, Brewer said her family was forced to move to California shortly before his death because of his health problems.
Brewer, 65, recounts similar stories in other media interviews and recent speeches.
Dennis Welch knew about what she's said about her background in the past, but choose to deliberately misinterpret her quote instead.
* Kos of DailyKos
He refers to the "Latino ethnic cleansing law" and says, "Ah yes, claiming her father died fighting Nazis in Germany should, in no way, be construed as implying that her father died fighting Nazis in Germany." Needless to say, he's deliberately misinterpreting her quote.
* Steve Benen of Washington Monthly
His post is entitled "WHEN REPUBLICANS LIE ABOUT RELATIVES' SERVICE RECORDS" and he references and parrots Kos: "I'm confused. When Brewer said her "father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany," that wasn't intended to mean that her father was an American soldier in Germany during the Nazi regime?"
As with the others, what he claims she said is simply his misinterpretation.
While comparisons equating Brewer with Nazis are over the top and not constructive, Brewer’s anecdote doesn’t really stack up. The Arizona Guardian reports that in fact, “the death of Wilford Drinkwine came 10 years after World War II had ended. During the war, Drinkwine worked as a civilian supervisor for a naval munitions depot in Hawthorne, Nev. He died of lung disease in 1955 in California.” Brewer’s spokesman justified the governor’s statement, claiming Drinkwine “eventually died from the toxic fumes he inhaled” while working at the factory. (HT: Markos)
Of course, what doesn't "stack up" is Terkel's interpretation of Brewer's quote. The spokesman's comment isn't a "justification", it's an explanation.
* Ben Smith of the Politico
He links the AZ Republic interview and the Arizona Guardian story, but fails to do any more reporting than any of the others listed who are open about being partisans.
* Ben Frumin of TalkingPointsMemo
His post, which isn't as bad as some others, does include this:
It seems entirely possible that Brewer simply meant that her father died of an illness that was a direct cause of his employment at a wartime munitions factor.
UPDATE: Brewer has released a statement (link):
"My father, Wilford Drinkwine, moved our family before I was born from Minnesota to Nevada to work at the Hawthorne Ammunition Depot in Western Nevada at the outset of World War II. He passed away when I was 11 years old. His death came after a long and painful battle with lung disease, contracted following years of exposure to hazardous chemicals and toxic fumes while working as a civil servant at the base.
"I loved my father and was proud to hear him tell me that he was doing his part to help fight the Nazis in Germany. It's a similar story that I have heard from countless people from my parent's generation -- from women who worked in the factories to other family friends I met growing up near the depot. My father and mother instilled in me an understanding that many of those defenders of freedom who lost their lives in World War II never set foot on the battlefield.
"Even in the end, when my dad struggled for breath, he never regretted serving his country, helping free Europe from Hitler's grip. I have proudly recounted his story in many places for many years. My father's patriotism and sacrifice needs no embellishment."
The Arizona Republic asked five who are familiar with the new Arizona immigration law for their opinions on whether the law would allow police to simply stop people at will and ask their status, with two saying yes and three saying no (link):
Three panelists said the initial reason for the contact must stem from some other suspected violation, such as speeding, drinking alcohol in a city park or, for juveniles, violating curfew... Lynn Marcus, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, said nothing prevents an officer from engaging someone in a conversation about immigration status at any time. But she also said the person is not required to answer the question, based on the Fifth Amendment.
If an officer simply walked up to people and asked them for their status, wouldn't he be sued by the American Civil Liberties Union or similar groups for violating the law, which requires an initial "stop, detention, or arrest" followed by a "reasonable suspicion"? I think that's a safe bet, and it's also a safe bet that they'd win. In other words, this would only happen as Marcus fears (or tries to make others fear) in cases that run contrary to the law.
The five panelists are then asked about this scenario:
Scenario: At 9 on a weekday evening, a police officer comes across three men ages 18 or 19 playing basketball in a south Phoenix neighborhood park. The neighborhood has a large illegal-immigrant population. All three appear to be Latino. There have been no recent crimes or complaints that might be connected to these three men. The men are wearing torn T-shirts, shorts and basketball shoes. They have no identification with them.
To which Arizona state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema says:
The new law does not prohibit the officer from questioning the men about their status. Reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of circumstances and can include a person's conduct or appearance, characteristics of the area and time of day.
The new law does not give guidelines that define what police can use in deciding who to question about immigration status.
As others point out, the scenario described shouldn't raise any suspicions: they aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps Sinema would care to tell us what exactly in that scenario could give rise to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" as the law requires as a first step. If, as discussed above, an officer just walked up to them and started questioning them about their status, wouldn't the ACLU sue? Wouldn't police departments be especially careful about avoiding such suits?
"I believe also that it has become clear that you, (attorney) Bill Strauss, (Phoenix Mayor) Phil Gordon, members of the Anti Defamation League . . . have a political agenda that you are trying to push with this... Your members and others have worked in concert with the Department of Justice in producing what amounts to large amounts of enflamed media that we have learned . . . is basically the only basis that the Department of Justice sent us this letter... ...Racial profiling is a state of mind... We can only deal with facts... I believe that the Obama administration has a political agenda that involves some form of either amnesty or something that does not comport or is not convenient to the current law... The high-profile nature of the sheriff has become a concern, and therefore we are dealing with this."
While there's certainly the possibility that those listed aren't loosely coordinating their actions and it would be difficult to find proof of them doing that, those groups listed are part of a general network that supports illegal immigration in various ways.
Some Hispanic leaders not 100% happy with Sotomayor being Puerto Rican, not Mexican-American - 05/27/09
Oh what a tangled web they weave when first they start to play ethnic politics and assume that all Hispanics think alike despite country of origin. Daniel Gonzalez and Erin Kelly of the Arizona Republic offer "Hispanics laud choice, but many hoped for a Mexican-American" (link). Considering that in Arizona there are, per the article, "1.6 million Latinos of Mexican ancestry, compared with 28,524 of Puerto Rican ancestry", one wonders what (if anything) Ben Smith was thinking when he earlier wrote that "Fierce opposition from the right could push Florida and the West out of reach."
Some analysts caution that Republicans, who have already seen their support among Latinos decline sharply over the issue of immigration, risk further alienating Hispanics by opposing Sotomayor.
But even Latinos are taking a careful look at her nomination.
[Many Hispanics are elated, but] some would have preferred to see Obama nominate a Mexican-American considering that they make up 70 percent of the nation's 47 million Latinos.
"The argument could be made for (a Mexican-American nominee)," said Raul Yzaguirre, former head of the National Council of La Raza... "I want unity, so I am more inclined to overlook those things and say, 'Let's work together.'"
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's continuing and controversial crackdown on illegal immigration and the federal program that lets him identify and arrest undocumented immigrants is a financial and public-safety failure, according to a new report.And, they're so nice he had to name them twice. Now, let's take a look at the two people listed on their about page (justicestrategies.org/staff):
The program, known as 287 (g), has been touted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a public-safety measure aimed at removing criminal illegal immigrants. But the Sheriff's Office and other participating agencies have focused on easy targets such as traffic violators and day laborers who pose little threat, says the report by Justice Strategies, a non-profit nonpartisan research group based in Brooklyn, N.Y.
Justice Strategies is a New York-based nonprofit research group that focuses on humane and cost-effective approaches to criminal justice and immigration law enforcement.
Judith Greene is a criminal justice policy analyst whose essays and articles on criminal sentencing issues, police practices, and correctional policy have been published in numerous books, as well as in national and international policy journals. She has received a Soros Senior Justice Fellowship from the Open Society Institute, served as a research associate for the RAND Corporation, as a senior research fellow at the University of Minnesota Law School, and as director of the State-Centered Program for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. From 1985 to 1993 she was Director of Court Programs at the Vera Institute of Justice.
Kevin Pranis is a criminal justice policy analyst and campaign strategist. A past Soros Justice Fellow, Mr. Pranis has produced educational materials, training manuals, reports and white papers on topics that include corporate accountability, municipal bond finance, political education, prison privatization, and sentencing policy. Mr. Pranis' work has been covered in numerous publications, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Violent hate: protesters beat effigy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Isabel Garcia/Derechos Humanos) - 07/12/08
In front of the store, protesters savagely beat an effigy of Arpaio, severing it's head (video link). Then, Isabel Garcia of Derechos Humanos carried the severed head around (video link). Then, the protesters carried the body around (video link). See the writeup from Jon Justice of the radio station 104.1 FM The Truth here.
As of 2006, Derechos Humanos was collaborating with the Mexican government, and to make it even worse Garcia is on the payroll of Pima County (home of Tucson) as their Public Defender.
Needless to say, the Arizona Republic downplays the violent protest ("Arpaio's appearance at Tucson bookstore draws protesters" by Blake Morlock, link), saying only that the protesters "also pummeled a pinata meant to resemble Arpaio". Morlock also quotes far-leftie Reverend John Fife, an associate of Reverend Robin Hoover of No More Deaths, another person who is/was collaborting with the Mexican government.
And, also needless to say, the Arizona Daily Star offers a protester-friendly, race- and age-baiting report ("Fans and non-fans flock to Sheriff Joe event here" by Dan Sorenson, link). Per Sorenson, smashing the "pinata" was "mostly for their own amusement". Yes, they certainly look amused in the first video above.
Deanna Morgan of Fox 11 News doesn't mention the protest at all, but does note that they ran out of copies of Arpaio's book (link).
UPDATE: There's some more here, including letter they sent to Garcia's boss, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry.
9/17/08 UPDATE: It was all just a dream. From this:
After initiating a review, Huckleberry issued a report last week, in which he concluded Garcia was acting as a private citizen on her own time, had nothing to do with the Arpaio piñata being brought to the event, did not encourage student protesters to strike the piñata, did not advocate any actual physical threats against Arpaio and, therefore, did not violate any county policies.
Although Huckleberry’s review focused on this single incident, Pima County citizens have complained for over a decade that Garcia’s conduct is unbefitting a public employee. In his report, Huckleberry stated, "In my conversation with Isabel Garcia ... she is truly remorseful regarding this matter. I had previously instructed her to not respond to media inquiries relating to this incident. She has complied. I asked her to fully document her recollection of the incident. She has complied. I asked for her apology regarding the difficulty incurred by Pima County regarding this incident. She has complied ... My expectations regarding this matter as it may relate to future activity have been clearly conveyed to Ms. Garcia."
The details on their scheme are provided here:
...The state's largest credit union is bracing for similar fallout [to that of insignificant issue of the pesos-for-pizzas company] as it begins marketing savings accounts to undocumented immigrants.It's so good that they're concerned about our laws.
Officials at Desert Schools Credit Union say the potential reward - thousands of new customers - justifies the risk of angering a few customers. Ignoring the state's fastest-growing population could be the equivalent of corporate suicide, one business expert said...
...The credit union offers reassurances that account holders will still have access to the funds, even if they're deported, [Emma Garcia, Desert Schools director of community development] said, a fear that with the passage of legislation like Proposition 200 is becoming more prevalent within the Hispanic community.
"They're afraid that that institution will partner with the Department of Homeland Security and report to them who's in an undocumented situation or not," Garcia said. "We're not going to be required to notify an agency if we find out they're undocumented. We're not required by law to do that."
Another quote source in the article is Ruben Ramos, director of public affairs with Arvizu Advertising and Promotions and a former chairman of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He's also a former Bank One vice president who helped lead the fight against Proposition 200. His involvement with the credit union is unclear, but he's quoted as saying:
"Fundamentally, I don't see anything negative that might be associated with what the credit union is trying to do, if people have a broader context about what the alternatives are for this segment of the population."As you might expect, JJ Hensley of the Arizona Republic doesn't provide any balance to the article by suggesting the major negative involved here: Desert Schools is profiting from behavior which is illegal, and it's horrible public policy to allow companies to profit from illegal activity. When a company finds a profit center, they tend to take actions to keep making a profit. That may put DS in the position of encouraging illegal immigration in order to make even more money, such as by supporting open borders candidates like Kyrsten Sinema.
And, why stop at illegal aliens? Don't drugrunners and people traffickers have even more money? Should Desert Schools go after that market as well?
It's surprising because in a rare move for the AZ Republic it comes close to reporting the actual truth. They come close to implying that Western Union and their parent company First Data are profiting off illegal immigration, are encouraging illegal immigration, and are corrupting our political system.
...In recent years, Denver-based First Data has openly campaigned for immigration reform, which could legalize millions of undocumented workers, and has created a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" for the same purpose.In brief: First Data not only profits off illegal immigration, they encourage massive immigration. I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether what they do qualifies as encouraging illegal immigration. However, note that Proposition 200 was designed to fight illegal immigration, and First Data opposed it.
It has held seminars on migration law, published how-to guides for migrants, sponsored English classes, given money to a charity that helps Mexican women whose husbands are in the United States, and showered immigrant-sending communities with aid.
First Data has stepped up its political donations in recent years. It also "directly, actively" fought against Arizona's Proposition 200, a First Data official told the Mexican Senate in 2004.
...Those migrants send a torrent of money to their families. Mexicans in the United States alone sent home some $20 billion in 2005, up from $6.6 billion just five years ago.
The increase has been a windfall for wire-transfer companies. Western Union, which also owns the Vigo and Orlandi Valuta chains, saw its revenue nearly double from $2.3 billion in 2000 to $4.2 billion in 2005. It made $1.3 billion in profit last year.
"Their real key to success is the immigration from Third World to Second World and First World countries. That is the ultimate secret sauce," said Kartik Mehta, an analyst with FTN Midwest Securities.
...The company also sponsored the printing of 300,000 guides telling Salvadorans how to apply for the U.S. Temporary Protected Status program. The program gave legal residency to 248,000 migrants following two earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001.
In 2000 the company formed the First Data Western Union Foundation, which is funded by First Data, its employees and its agents in other countries.
The foundation has given out more than $16 million, funding everything from seminars on home buying for migrants in Broward County, Fla. to English classes at the Chicago and San Antonio campuses of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
It gives money to a legal aid groups and organizations like the Massachusetts-based Immigrant Learning Center, which along with running English classes, produces studies "promoting immigrants as assets to America," according to one of its reports.
...Furthermore, some of the foundation's programs almost seem to reward migration, say some border-control advocates.
In the Mexican state of Oaxaca, the foundation gave $250,000 "to provide assistance to women living alone because their husbands are working in the United States," according to a foundation news release...
It also has pledged $1.25 million to the Mexican government's 4x1 Program in Zacatecas state. The program provides matching funds for each peso that migrants invest in small businesses in their hometowns...
Another foundation-funded program helps Mexican migrants go to U.S. universities "because they don't have the documents necessary to go to a college and pay tuition as international students," First Data's public relations director Mario Hernandez said during a forum in the Mexican Senate on Nov. 10, 2004.
The foundation made headlines by funding a 56-page booklet for migrants called "A Survival Guide for Newcomers to Colorado."
..."They're promoting whatever is going to enhance their bottom line, and if that means encouraging mass immigration, that's what they're going to do," said Mike McGarry, acting director of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, which has opposed First Data's advocacy efforts in its home state.
...During a panel discussion organized by the company at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., First Data's then-chief executive, Charlie Fote, announced the creation of a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" to push for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, though he gave few details of how the money would be used.
...Since then, First Data has held panel discussions around the country to campaign for immigration reform. The company also said it used its money to fight Arizona's Proposition 200, a measure passed in 2004 that bars illegal immigrants from receiving some state services.
"Our company directly, actively and with financial support, supported the business, political and community groups that opposed this proposition," Hernandez, the public relations director, told lawmakers during the 2004 forum at the Mexican Senate.
First Data also has stepped up its campaign donations. The company has spent $247,000 on federal elections since 2001, compared to $145,000 in the five years before that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A political action committee, First Data Employees for Responsible Government, has donated $128,000 since it was formed in 2000. And that's not counting hefty donations by individual executives. Fote and his wife, for example, gave $46,800 to 32 federal candidates between the beginning of 2000 and Fote's retirement in November.
Most of First Data's beneficiaries are members of the Senate and House committees on banking and financial services. Much of the money also has gone directly to the Republican and Democratic parties in the form of "soft money" donations.
Left out of the largesse: Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, one of the most vocal immigration-control activists, who also happens to be First Data's hometown congressman. First Data, its PAC and many of its executives gave money to Joanna Conti, his Democratic opponent, in the 2004 election.
It is unclear if the $10 million Empowerment Fund has gone into campaign donations. First Data would not give The Republic details on how that money is being spent...
And, they then donate part of the money they've obtained from those engaging in illegal activity to politicians, including Democrats like Conti.