Beating The Dead Horse Of Right-Wing Racism

I’m sure by this point that most people who are political types have already formed an opinion of the matter of tea party racism and to the larger issue: if the Republican political strategy includes pandering to racist Americans.

I repeat again and again, too little avail, that not all tea party members are de facto racists.

I found it very unfortunate that so many on progressive side of politics were so quick to call Rand Paul a “racist” for expressing a standard libertarian point of view in regards to the Civil Rights Bill and the ADA. (Private enterprise craps rainbows is the short version of this pure libertarianism ideology.) Those perspectives are not racism, though they do tend to excite the racists out there. This alone, it is vital to point out, is not enough to place a person on the wrong side of the core issue of racial sensitivity or a lack thereof.

It is very easy to throw out a label, like “socialist” or “commie pinko,” but it’s harder to back it up. That was frustrating to see the left-wing doing the same unintelligent labeling based on ignorance that the right-wing has honed to a daily art.

I hear the sentiment more and more that people want to do away with labeling, but I only want to do away with all the negative labeling. I don’t see how we can escape the principal of using labels on groups of people as we so often do in politics. Something must have a name to become a movement, without a name to describe whatever ideological bent we are talking about it would be impossible to even discern accurately between them all.

The labels we choose to recognize ourselves by, and attribute to ourselves, are obviously the labels by which we wish to use and have function for us. I feel that we ever get beyond labels it will because all people stopped using them, and not before.

Then we come to issue of the dreaded label: racist. I’ve never been one to take away any fine glory from calling another person racist, but I also cannot simply remain silent as I witness specific cases over and over again.

There are many fine conservatives and even honest tea party-types out there, but they are the most hushed and pushed into the corner minority of the right-wing I’ve ever seen. Wherever these people be, I hear very little from them or of them.

***

My first experiences with the tea party were seeing a small protest with one sign reading:

It‘s the White House, not the Black House

No n-words, no overt racist slurs, no neo-Nazi symbols … just this kind of rhetoric. I found it to be racist in nature, in my personal opinion at the time.

Now Janeane Garofalo was downright mean on Keith Olbermann’s show, but I won’t link that video or repeat any of that here. But did she speak intelligently about the tea party with Rosie O’Donnell so I find it likely she was playing to the YouTube crowd with that one.

My complaints are more to the inclusion of fringe groups known for racism like the John Birch Society in CPAC as to the conservative side and the acceptance of “Birthers” (for lack of a better term) into the tea party side. These actions, and the glorifying of characters like Beck and Limbaugh who incite racial hatred for profit, amount to a very “toxic stew” to borrow a bit of their language.

I never said everyone right-wing was a racist, what a wild claim that would be! I’ve said people who did specific things, like write a sign about the “Black House” or suddenly find a love for the term “commie-socialist” (which makes zero sense by the way), are looking like they are motivated by white racism.

Am I supposed to say “in my opinion” like every other sentence or something?

We just has this opinion about comparing Obama to Hitler passed around and discussed like it was rational by Sara Palin and other far right extremists. Helen Thomas expressed an opinion in a manner I found distasteful and crass, but everyone seemed to forget she is was an opinion journalist.

Though how we state our opinions is important, I realize this well.

So I avoid the term ’teabaggers’ as much as possible (recently) and make a strong effort to declare what I present in the manner of an opinion be understood as an opinion.

But without getting too twisted into a pretzel here:

We all have to remember that you don’t get to control what other person’s opinion of your opinion is.

I personally believe the problems here are tied exactly to that, like the days of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Making statements in a vacuum, from any side of politics, is just getting really annoying.

I’ll back it up, we can have a Constitution quote-off over SB1070 or a Wiki-battle over Southern Strategy Republican racism. I do it all the time, it’s not a new thing it just happens in lightning speed transactions these days instead of “let me go home and grab a few books and we’ll pick this up later.”

I find myself desiring an Edward R. Murrow like figure to appear in our times … we desperately lack that kind of brutal and much needed honesty today. Perhaps more than ever.

***

And here is a chart for all those tea party deficit hawks:
(No horses were harmed in the course of this posting.)

They’re Not Cleaning It Up, They’re Covering It Up

Kindra Arnesen is not the only one appalled at this sham of a clean-up effort and the corporate whitewash media-blackout over the level of sheer disaster currently ravaging America at the hands of BP and Transocean.

Arnesen does not even touch on the toxic and hazardous dispersant (Corexit) that does nothing but add a poison that makes the oil harder to clean-up (and videotape / photograph) into the mix of all the other health hazards and environmental hazards already in play.

ProPublica.org:

The two types of dispersants BP is spraying in the Gulf of Mexico are banned for use on oil spills in the U.K.

As EPA-approved products, BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used in the history of U.S. oil spills.

Reuters.com:

Oil-dispersing chemicals used to clean up the vast BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico carry their own environmental risks, making a toxic soup that could endanger marine creatures even as it keeps the slick from reaching the vulnerable coast, wildlife watchdogs say.

The use of dispersants could be a trade-off between potential short-term harm to offshore wildlife and possible long-term damage to coastal wildlife habitat if the oil slick were to reach land.

“Write About What You Know”

Write about what you know.

I’m sure we have all heard this saying.

Well one thing I know is that multi-tabbed browsing has forever turned my accessing of the Internet to constant self-inflicted information-overload.

You have your Facebook, you know:

Boycott BP

You have your solutions from science, you know:

6 ways mushrooms can save the world

And you have Jeanette DeMain and the best damn collection of hard facts on the Deepwater oil disaster, you know:

‘The Environmentalists’ and Deepwater Drilling

Now we all know.

***

I have a love-hate relationship with this quote. It is vital to focus yourself in your writing, this is true. But a speculation, if properly declared as such, has value. People should be allowed to openly question and openly pursue that which they are uncertain about. Though it is important to state that single ancedotal accounts don’t amount to facts, and there is never any lack of those who wish to write (or speak) out of ignorance and not out of a desire to inform and educate themselves.

HuffPo: ‘Cavuto Called An A**hole’

This classic Conservative-Republican bullshit:

1) Insult the speaker.

2) Ignore the issue.

3) Play the ‘moral high ground’ if anyone defends themselves from your insults.

Video @ HuffingtonPost.

I think Cavuto is an asshole. Most of these conservatives on the media & on the blogs are exactly the same as well. Just angry, bitter, losers who want everyone to cry for them when someone fights back at their stupid and personal attacks on anyone that disagrees.

People talk about civil debate being dead in the U.S. If you ever wonder why that is just look at your local conservative and your local Republican mouthpiece. They are the murderers of free and open debate. No one else.

Shep Smith Cuts Loose On The BP Fanclub At Fox

Judge Andrew Napolitano joined hands with Rep. Joe Barton in a heartfelt defense of the oil industry. Specifically BP by trying to place all blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster on the government.

HuffingtonPost.com:

Appearing on Smith’s “Studio B,” Napolitano argued that because BP relied on inaccurate government models to draw up its contingency plans, the government is at fault, and not the oil company.

“The oil companies have no choice, Shep, but to rely on what the government tells them,” Napolitano — a libertarian who recently launched a tea party show on Fox Business Network — said.

“So on the basis of this erroneous information, the government says: ‘Don’t dig at 500 feet, where Gov. Jindal says you can dig, where you want to dig, where we know you can easily control a spill, dig at 5,000 feet where our environmentalist folks think you should dig.”

“I’m getting kinda grossed out, Judge,” Smith shot back. “You’re blaming the government for this?’

“I’m blaming the government for this,” Napolitano affirmed.

I think this was kiddy-gloves language from Shep for such a vile misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the greatest environmental disaster in American History. But then again he is workin’ at The Fix… Kudos to Shep, I say! Good man!

Newsweek: ‘Are Tea Partiers Racist?’

The University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality just completed a new survey regarding the ‘tea party.’

Newsweek.com:

Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon gathered steam last spring, it has been plagued by charges of racism. Placards at rallies have depicted President Barack Obama as a witch doctor, denounced his supposed plans for “white slavery,” and likened Congress to a slave owner and the taxpayer to a “n—-r.” Opponents have seized on these examples as proof that Tea Partiers are angry white folks who can’t abide having a black president. Supporters, on the other hand, claim that the hateful signs are the work of a small fringe and that they unfairly malign a movement that simply seeks to rein in big government. In the absence of empirical evidence to support either characterization, the debate has essentially deadlocked. Until now, that is.

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. “The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability”—25 percent, to be exact—”of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters,” says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. “The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race.”

If Tea Party supporters are doing relatively fine, what are they so riled up about? These studies suggest that, at least in part, it’s race.

The country that the Tea Partiers grew up in is irrevocably changing. Last month, new demographic data showed that minority births are on the verge of outpacing white births. By 2050, Hispanics are expected to account for more than a quarter of the American population. The Tea Partiers “feel a loss … like their status has been diminished,” says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. “If you listen to [their] language, it’s always about ‘taking our country back.’ But it’s really not taking the country back as is. It’s taking the country back”—as in time.

Bositis finds the movement’s arguments about reckless federal spending unpersuasive. Why, he asks, weren’t they up in arms when President George W. Bush launched two costly wars and created a new unfunded mandate with his Medicare prescription-drug plan? Why didn’t they take to the streets when he converted a surplus into a massive deficit? “I don’t like to be in a position where I’m characterizing people as being racially biased,” says Bositis. “But when the shoe fits, what do you do?” Given modern societal norms, “they know they can’t use any overtly racist language,” he contends. “So they use coded language”—questioning the patriotism of the president or complaining about “socialist” schemes to redistribute wealth.”

It really makes me mad,” says Tom Fitzhugh, a Tea party activist in Tampa. “They have tried to portray us as a bunch of radical extremists.” He considers Obama an abomination—possibly “the most radical-voting senator that ever was” and someone likely to “take us down the path of destruction.” He believes the administration is intent on taking away his guns, trampling on states’ rights, and opening the borders with Canada and Mexico. He has serious doubts that Obama was born in the U.S. and suspects that the president is a closet Muslim. (There’s no evidence to support any of these accusations.) But his anger has nothing to do with race, he says. The real issue is that Obama is “taking down the Constitution and the way it’s governed us for [hundreds of] years.” All he wants, in other words, is to take his country back.

This case presented of Tom Fitzhugh is what I would draw your attention to here.

This is exactly the mentality not just the ‘tea party’ but the entire conservative movement has come to treat as anything but fringe extremism. This John Birch Society and “Birther” brands of racism being disguised as anything but the right-wing thuggery it is is why this taint of racism follows them wherever they go.

It should make them angry, and they should also be called out in the first place for doing this Southern Strategy-style racism in 2010.

How to argue like a white racist (via Abagond)

I see every single one of these tactics used by conservatives daily while online.

How to argue like a white racist Here in one place is the list of the most common arguments that white racists use on this blog, listed roughly from the most common to the least: Anything but race – Racism is over. There must be some Logical Explanation that has nothing to do with race. Blame-shifting – Blacks like to use the race card, crying racism and blaming whitey, but blacks are to blame for their own mess. Racism is so 1968. ad hominem – question a commenter's intelligenc … Read More

via Abagond

Facebook Agrees On The Desire To “Dislike”

This week Facebook introduced a new feature that allows users to “Like” the comments of other users.

My sarcastic comment that someone “Liked” was:

Now I will finally get the recognition I deserve!

But you can’t retool Facebook without running into this mass sentiment expressed through the corridors of comments:

Facebook should have a ‘dislike‘ button.

A thousand times yes!

Between the moronic “Nanny State Liberation Front” and the group wishing death under biblical terms to President Barack Obama (thus are not removed by Facebook) there remain many fan groups that I would very much enjoy the ability to “Dislike.”

Like their obviously inept Facebook ad-bots send me pro-Glenn Beck imagery, and this notion of if I “Like this ad?” is just raising some bile to back of my mouth.

Where is the box for: “Burn this ad in a vat of boiling acid?

Same with some of the individual comments of certain users that engage in what is called “being a troll,” “flaming,” or “cyber-harassment.”

My looking at this rabid ad hominem babble and the new option to “Like” this vile digital puke is just repugnant on every level.

Where is the box for: “Send this user to the trash bin?

I recognize that Facebook is trying to stay positive, but they should look around and see that when AOL announced dropping Bebo their stock went up.

The users on the social network are the driving force behind it.

And we demand to right to boo at each other!

Facebook has around 450 million users. The population of the United States is 309 million people. That means if you made everyone in the U.S. forcibly get on Facebook all at once you still would not have enough people Facebooking in that moment to account for the entire user community they have amassed. The sheer weight of Facebook on the Internet has forced almost every site to add this “Connect with Facebook” option. But I raise the issue of Bebo to point out that social networks live and die not by keeping shareholders happy but by keeping their users happy.

ElPasoTimes: ’15-Year-Old Shot And Killed By Border Patrol’

While we hear about everything from a teen sailor lost on a boat for a few hours to a cop in Seattle punching a teenager in the face on camera there was a story only a rare bunch of news outlets have picked up.

An innocent child was gunned down by a U.S. Border Patrol agent for reportedly throwing rocks from the Mexican side while two agents rode by on bikes on the U.S. side.

I support the immediate extradition of this Border Patrol agent to the Mexican authorities. Let them handle this likely child killer as they see fit.

El Paso Times:

EL PASO – The 15-year-old boy shot dead by a Border Patrol agent near the Paso del Norte bridge was part of a group that entered the United States illegally, agency administrators said today.

Chihuahua state officials said today that the boy shot dead was Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a Mexican national. They asked for a full investigation of the shooting. The agent who shot Huereca had a .40-caliber pistol on him. He may have had additional weapons, too, Cordero said.

“Every agent is issued a .40-caliber pistol and available to us is a series of long arms and that includes shotguns and machine guns, and on top of that pepper spray and tasers,” he said.

Agents only have access to weapons that they have been trained to use and they go through training quarterly, Cordero said. The Border Patrol did not identify the agent who fired. He has been placed on paid leave, Cordero said.

The Mexican Secretary of State today condemned the death. Mexican officials said they want the U.S. to conduct a full investigation into the events that prompted the shooting. The use of firearms in response to a rock attack is a “disproportionate use of force,” officials said.

The number of Mexican nationals who have been killed or injured by border agents has increased in the last few years from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009. There have been 17 Mexican nationals killed or injured during the first six months of 2010, officials said.

Hardball: ‘Rise of the New Right’

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Matthews of MSNBC has aired his political documentary covering the trend of radical right-wing extremism taking hold in the U.S.

I think it worth the watch.

“Political novice” is the description Matthews uses for most tea party activists, and I would have to agree. It is rather clear to me, within the confines of my experiences with the tea party, that these people are not lacking in passion but they are extremely lacking in logical framework.

Being a person who has taken an interest in studying political theory I find that I could make a better and more sourced argument in favor of the ultra-libertarian sentiments they promote, I’d just much rather not give them any free talking points. But the strongest trend I have noticed is this complete inability or unwillingness to clarify facts from opinions.

It’s just within my very nature to try to put myself in the others shoes, and because of this I can see were many of them have perfectly valid concerns. But it is the nature of how they go about expressing their concerns. With everything from “Take my country back!” to “Get your government hands off my Medicare!” to “Show me the birth certificate!” to (did you see this nonsense?) “He has a Connecticut Social Security card!” to draw from in terms of not just red hot punditry rhetoric but actual completely insane / stupid positions from actual people. Whom appear to be actually serious with us when they are talking…

The Label of ‘Teabagger’:

I won’t mince words and sit behind my battle lines: the term ‘teabaggers’ when used to discuss the ‘tea party’ is a political slur. It’s a negative label used in a negative way. It is true the ‘tea party’ has used the ‘tea bag’ reference in their rallies and at least one of them online talks about “teabaggin’ since ’09!” But I won’t dodge. Everytime I say ‘baggers or teabaggers I mean it. Just like they mean it when they call progressives “socialists” and “Marxists.” I see the label of ‘teabbager’ as being born out of exactly the kind of McCarhyist language we could hear all day on conservative media. Calling something or someone something it’s not is much like telling clever lies: it just inspires some people to try to lie to beat down the lies and others to just throw up hands in disgust.

Logical Disconnect:

Woman interviewed in Matthews video: “[Republicans] need to put up candidates that actually represent conservatism.”

No, the ‘tea party’ need to define what they think ‘conservatism’ actually means to them.

I have long viewed the tea party as misguided grassroots efforts being proped up by an overly attentive news media in their rallies, and in the organizers it is a mixture of astro-turfing and nationalist militant paranoid fervor based primarily on racism against the first black president.

Barney Frank addressed this issue of the “tea party deficit hawks” in his health care town hall that got  a good deal of media attention for the frivolous exchange about “Nazi policies” and “dinning room table[s].”

If one is claiming to understand the problematic trends of rising deficit against rising inflation in the U.S. then you were opposed to Iraqi and Afghan occupations for exactly this reason. Not to mention the lack of any ‘tea party’ protests over TARP bailout spending. Not one ‘tea party’ protest on Washington, not as long as Bush was in office.

Another argument they often make about the “size of government” being the source of their frustration, is also lacking a logical framework of any sort. Not that they would make the argument, but that that again if you are talking about expansion of government power that again was the Republican Bush II. And just like the deficit issue, almost all of them admit they only ever came to politics / political activism after January 2009.

A final hurdle that all these ‘tea party’ promoters and activists still fail to explain: Why if they are such strict Constitutional scholars do they not see the multiple layers of constitutional infringements in the recent AZ SB 1070 bill? If their worry be “tyranny” then surely “show me your papers” should have them tossing their ‘tea parties’ on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s lawn by now?

Why are tumble weeds blowing by the ‘tea party HQ’ on this one? I mean I can see where maybe some get all confused on the W. unconstitutionality issues, just because you have masters of deceptions and lies like Karl Rove on the case to do combat with to get the facts. But these jokers writing this SB 1070 and some of the after-thoughts of discrimination at FAIR have no such war-hounds working their case. They can be picked off with a pocket constitution and about fifteen minutes worth of reading.

Bottom Line:

From the very beginning I saw the ‘tea party’ movement as just the anti-Obama movement and while it has grown I believe it has only grown to be come the anti-Progressive / anti-Democratic movement. When both their so-called ideological leaders like Bachmann, Palin, Beck, King, etc. and their just everyday inspired folks of their movement cannot come to these simple logical failings in what they spout forth to us a clear level of a lack of intellectual curiosity is boldly revealed on their part. I’ll never believe the Founders intended people to abuse the First Amendment by promoting ignorance over knowledge. And that, is precisely the message outlets like Fox News and the ‘tea party’ are sending out every day.

SB1070 For Dummies & Hayward Hung By The Toes

This YouTube video from 4409 “Wake Up America” Productions is what people really need to understand about ‘that law’ that everyone is talking about when not picturing BP exec Tony Hayward in some contraption from one of the Saw movies.
==================================================
“Please don’t kill me, America! I promise another ad campaign and more toxic dispersant!”
==================================================
This is not about immigration. This is about encroaching on civil liberties first with racial profiling and then moving forward from there to effect all groups.
At least five lawsuits have been filed thus far to fight against the Arizona law coming on behalf of the ACLU and others.
AZCentral.com:

A group of 14 civil and immigrant-rights organizations and 10 individuals on Monday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new immigration law. It is the fifth legal challenge of the law, which goes into effect July 29 and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

All the lawsuits seek to prevent the law from going into effect. However, this latest case names Arizona’s county officials as defendants, while previous suits were filed against state officials.

Participants in this case include the American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Immigration Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

Since I put “for dummies” in my headline I’ll move forward slowly about the why on this show-me-your-papers law signed by Jan Brewer is unconstitutional. Instead slamming a bunch of legalese at you it’s much better to simply look closely at the Section B paragraph of AZ SB 1070:
“For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official …”
This just means anything at all that might be contact with the police. If they flag you down on the street when you are walking, that is a “lawful stop.” It has very little to do with vehicles and everything to do with the security of your person from harassment from the police. Even when a police officer who has mistaken your identity, let’s say, it is still a committing a “lawful stop” to detain you and discover your true identity. In short, this opening clause of the law is both sweeping and overreaching in terms of the authority it grants. In this language alone that law has isolated undocumented workers from seeking police services should they be attacked or threatened in their safety for even requesting police services: a 911 call is nothing more an invitation to legal harassment and then deportation.
“… where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made … to determine immigration status of the person”
Many advocates for this draconian law claim it mirrors the existing federal immigration law, but this is completely false. No standing U.S. law fails to define what exactly “reasonable suspicion” is to be recognized as in regards to infraction in question. You may have heard the phrase: “What does an illegal look like?” This is what these people are referring to. There is no standard set within any part of this law as to what exactly is the definition of “reasonable suspicion” of being here under undocumented (“alien”) status. This failure to define what the terms of “reasonable suspicion” entail creates a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” which requires “probable cause” be clearly established prior to such “reasonable attempt”s of the Arizona law to toss you in a cell or search your person in any manner. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment also protects any person, be they citizen or not, from incriminating themselves so this very act of having state authorities asking a person to identify their status with the federal immigration bureau is a “reasonable attempt” to force the affected party to admit to a minor misdemeanor. Which still ultimately amounts to a form of self incrimination. Another way to understand this is know that if a undocumented worker knew their rights at the time of a “lawful stop” taking place they would be within their rights to claim the Fifth Amendment protections while being asked by a state official their federal immigration status.
“… may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of the subsection …”
This clause was added after the initial drafting of the law and fails to clarify just exactly how an officer is to determine immigration status without the use of “race, color and national origin” as the primary factor is raising the question. Had the misguided authors of this law inserted their media commentary that “clothing” was a factor to be decided upon it would have held more weight than this rather self defeating clause. As I stated above, without the method of attaining “reasonable suspicion” of being here under undocumented status outlined in the this law it remains the only standard in which to enforce such a law would be racial profiling. This clause turned a simply unconstitutional law into a literally unenforceable law.
The greatest layer of the unconstitutionality of AZ SB 1070 is the very top layer:
It is not the business of state authority to tread upon the direct charge of federal agencies. Even when they have a false charge of “inaction” on behalf of the federal government, the state laws never supersede federal authority on existing issues. Before any of the other elements of unconstitutionality would be considered this first brazen disregard for the Constitution will get this anti-civil liberties and pro-racial profiling law thrown out of court.
My point from the beginning is it is disgusting and un-American of all involved with this law to even have to drag this veiled racism mixed with an unconstitutional power-grab into our courts in the first place. Striking down this law effectively and immediately is the only course of action that will save both money and freedom in one swift movement.
==================================================
Colbert knows what to do with those Tony Hayward types…
What I myself find especially funny lately is this strange group of people out there, I guess we’ll call them the “Blame No One Party” because that seems to be their game here. They are trying to convince us that blaming someone for the catastrophe that they oversaw and helped create is some act of mad lunacy. That we all should be looking forward. To what exactly I’m not too clear. The next environmental disaster that Big Oil will bless us with? I’ll be over here with my burning Tony Hayward effigy and “Boycott BP” signs, thank you very much.
Don’t forget this is the “worst oil spill in U.S. history” and has turned the Gulf of Mexico “into a dead zone.”
I’m for cutting all our government contracts with BP, and cutting their jet fuel arrangement with the Pentagon as well. A company like BP has no place working under federal auspices of any sort. They have effectively destroyed America. Were this deliberate and not rampant greed and arrogance it could easily be classified as some form of terrorist or economic attack on all of America.
It seems when extremists blow people up: it’s a crime and everybody is mobilized to catch the criminals. But when careless suits at BP blow people up: it’s something to be ignored and just accepted as part of modern life.
UPDATE:
IPC has backed my statements here in their Q&A Guide.

Arizona Protest Images & Immigration Cartoons

Protests were held in Tucson, and Phoenix, Arizona against the racial profiling law (known as “AZ SB 1070” which is the acronym of Arizona Senate Bill 1070) that was vomited up thanks to the incompetent Governor Jan Brewer and the group knows as “FAIR” that maintains multiple ties to racist elements.

(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

***

These are  some political cartoons on the topic of immigration, all of these images coming mainly from a 1.5 million member Facebook group that formed as “1 MILLION Strong Against AZ SB 1070” and now has outgrown its title.