DOWNLOADS: (1437)

PLAYS: (1206)

Embed

Ah, there's nothing like watching Bill O'Reilly bloviate on Fox News to get daily lessons in journalistic ethics -- lessons, that is, in how to rather nakedly discard ethics altogether.

On Wednesday, O'Reilly featured a segment on the Justice Department's threat to sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio over his refusal to cooperate with its investigation of his racial-profiling practices. (Naturally, the feds have so far punked out.)

To do this, he brought on a guest named Rachel Alexander, identified as a "former deputy attorney for Maricopa County, AZ" -- and that was it. Alexander then proceeded to assure O'Reilly that the DOJ's threats, as well as its investigation, were purely "political" -- though all she could point to was some coincidental timing around the SB1070 matter, which in fact only arose well after the DOJ began investigating Arpaio.

But what is unmentioned is that Alexander, when she worked for Maricopa County, was a well-known operative and shill for the DA, Andrew Thomas -- one of Arpaio's most prominent allies. (When Thomas stepped down to run for Arizona Attorney General, he left Arpaio exposed to potential investigation, but Alexander departed with him shortly. Nowadays she identifies herself as the "Director of Social Media" for the J.D. Hayworth campaign.)1

What is also unmentioned is that Alexander is under investigation, along with Thomas, for ethical violations while working for Maricopa County:

In March, Berch ordered an inquiry into Thomas' behavior after a Superior Court judge ruled that Thomas acted unethically in his prosecution of Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. The inquiry was prompted in part by the State Bar of Arizona, the semi-governmental agency that licenses and polices lawyers in the state.

The Bar asked that an outside investigator be appointed, and the court appointed Colorado attorney John Gleason.

The Arizona Supreme Court also appointed former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones as the "probable cause panelist," a judge of sorts.

Since then, several other complaints have been lodged against Thomas with the state Bar, including one by an association of defense attorneys.

Two of Thomas' former top prosecutors, Rachel Alexander and Lisa Aubuchon, also are under investigation. Alexander has since left the office, and Aubuchon is suspended with pay pending an internal investigation at the County Attorney's Office.

Thomas, Alexander and Aubuchon asked Jones to dismiss the complaints. Jones refused. On July 1, they filed their petitions for special action.

Some of this may have to do with Alexander's penchant for political cheerleading on the taxpayers' dime:

Rachel Alexander, the deputy county attorney now handling the Maricopa County Attorney's racketeering lawsuit against a host of county officials, was working out of Thomas' executive office as recently as mid-December, county records show.

Indeed, Alexander -- a conservative blogger and longtime Thomas supporter -- wasn't transferred to the MCAO's Major Crimes Unit until December 14. That's just one week before she became the attorney of record on the extremely complicated racketeering suit, in which Thomas accuses the county supervisors, some judges, and other elected officials, of being part of an elaborate criminal conspiracy.

The timing on that transfer is interesting because it confirms our theory -- posited on this blog yesterday -- that Alexander is an odd choice to be handling the RICO litigation. Thomas has basically staked his reputation on the idea that the county officials who oppose him are engaged in a massive (and bizarre) coverup so they can build their pet project. (According to the suit, the elected officials allegedly conspired to build a new county courthouse and thwart the county attorney from investigating it.)

But the lawsuit itself is a bizarre melange of unsubstantiated allegations and details that don't quite add up to anything. A veteran prosecutor would have a hell of a time advancing this case; a prosecutor with one week's experience in major crime is likely doomed.

Continue reading »

TIME magazine has a piece up about Russell Pearce's new brainchild, trying to outlaw children born in America.

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?) But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

Back on May 25th, David N. posted on this when Pearce went on Bill O'Reilly and admitted this is what he had in store as his next volley as he continues his attacks on the non-whites of America.

O'Reilly, of course, is not much help: He counters Pearce by observing that this is "federal law" -- though that is hardly the half of it, since this particular principle, of birthright citizenship, is embedded in the Constitution and is indeed a proud part of America's heritage as a nation of immigrants.

Pearce wants to claim that this only refers to people with "legal domicile" in the U.S. -- even though the words appear nowhere in the Constitution.

He complains that the concept of "illegal immigration" hadn't been conceived when the 14th Amendment was written -- which is true enough, but irrelevant to whether it remains in force. Indeed, a much stronger argument can be made that the nakedly racist/eugenicist/Nativist Immigration Act of 1924 -- which first created "illegal immigration" -- was grossly unconstitutional because it clearly violated the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, it's irrelevant because the law has always been interpreted to mean that, when a newborn is accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, its status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father. This was true both before and after 1924...read on

I think Pearce knows that this will be struck down in the Supreme Court even with the right wing fringe running the place because it's firmly embedded in our Constitution and Scalia and his clones are supposed to be Originalists, right? You must understand something about movement conservatives. They pick fights not because they know they can win it in the end, losing is just as acceptable when it comes to immigration and the culture wars because *"backlash politics" is all about playing the victim. They get to stir the pot, create some outrage, make tons of cash and get themselves elected over issues that they never can win at. Remember creationism vs evolution? They knew that it would never pass with the scientific community, but as Thomas Frank puts it, they don't care. They can hold their noses high and attack the "elites" over and over again making the case that those snobby, latte sipping Frenchmen think they know better than all of the red blooded-red state Americans because they believe they are smarter than us.

Backlash Politics:

The backlash narrative is more powerful than mere facts, and according to this central mythology conservatives are always hardworking patriots who love their country and are persecuted for it, while liberals, who are either high-born weaklings or eggheads hypnotized by some fancy idea, are always ready to sell their nation out at a moment’s notice.7

Ever since Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, the conservative movement has been having seismic convulsions over it. The bile, rage and disgusting behavior have exponentially increased and is still ongoing as the media captures it for the nation to see.

Dan Riehl's latest post about Harry's Reid's family tragedy is yet another example of that lunacy, but just another version of the same song. This one is particularly nauseating.

As you may know, Senator Harry Reid's 69 year old wife and 48 year old daughter were involved in a bad car accident Friday. Normal, decent Americans would ignore what political party they were in and hope that their suffering is as short lived as possible. To Dan Riehl, that expression takes on a sick new meaning:

Isn't It Time To Euthanize Reid's Wife?

I'm not sure I quite understand this, given that cost is so important as a burden to taxpayers when it comes to health care. If Democrats want so badly to abort babies because of it, why are we bothering with someone who has a broken neck and back at 69? It sounds to me like she's pretty well used up and has probably been living off the taxpayers for plenty of years to begin with. Aren't we at least going to get a vote on it?

Sen. Reid's daughter Lana Reid Barringer, 48, who was driving the mini-van, and his wife, Landra G. Reid, 69, a passenger, were both injured. Landra suffered a broken back and a broken neck in the crash; Barringer suffered minor injuries, Sen. Reid's office said Thursday.

I realize her crook of a husband and his pals in Congress have excluded themselves from the mess they're going to compel everyone else to join, but we're still paying the bills, are we not? I don't see that she's worth it at this point, frankly. I can't recall her ever doing anything for me. Come on, Harry - do your civic duty. The nation's broke and counting on you guy. Pull the plug and get back to work. And don't bill us for a full day today, either. This is no time to be sloughing off. Air freight her home, you can bury her during recess on your own time and dime. Or are you going to bill us for that, too?

Reid has stayed at his wife’s bedside throughout the day Friday and returned to the Capitol in the late afternoon.

I guess it doesn't matter to Riehl that Reid is a Mormon and is strictly pro-life. But let's forget about Harry's religious beliefs. Riehl demonstrates the insanity that epitomizes the conservative movement.

And these are the people that the media demands the White House should try and reach out to and work with in a more bipartisan fashion. I guess Dan Riehl supports some form of those Palin death panels after all.

How can you work with crazy people?

DOWNLOADS: (1863)

PLAYS: (3110)

Embed

It didn't take Lou Dobbs long to appear on Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly was the joyful host. He initially tried to get Dobbs to slime over his departure, but Dobbs said that in all his years he was never told what to do or say and was never "talked to" about how he ran his show. As the interview wound down, Bill needed something a little juicy, so instead of asking Dobbs how he felt about Obama's policies so far, he phrased it as if President Obama will eat your babies, corrupt your spirit and lure you to sell your soul.

O'Reilly: Barack Obama, is he the devil?

Dobbs: He's not the devil, but he is certainly the man who is not making it easy to understand why he is making the public policy choices that he is. There has to be a better understanding from and can only from his expression to the American people, what is taking so long for his decision on Afghanistan. Why is it so necessary to turn 1/6th of the economy into the United States government, which has not showered itself with glory.

O'Reilly: So you don't think he's Satan, but you think he's mismanaging the country at this point.

Dobbs: I think, absolutely.

O'Reilly: OK, sorry I put words in your mouth.

Dobbs: No, I was excited. It was a pretty good choice.

Yeah, Bill. You only asked him if Obama was the Devil. What a jackass. And Dobbs just loved Obama being compared to Satan. Well, Dobbs should try and be the teabagger King. He'll fit right in. Maybe Tancredo can help on his campaign. he mimics every anti-Obama slur there is.

I think BillO is watching the CW's show "Supernatural". What a despicable way to ask Dobbs about Obama. Hey Lou, is President Bush the savior? Well, he sure is. If only those evil liberal devil worshipers would go away and let him blow up the entire Middle East, I believe the country would be better off, Bill.

Remember during the stimulus debate, when the Republicans told us birth control funds didn't have a damned thing to do with the economy - and the Democrats, as usual, knuckled under to them?

The Guttmacher Institute has just released a report on the impact of the recession on family planning, and the results are predictable - at least, if you're a normal (i.e. non-wingnut) person. Via Salon:

This summer, researchers surveyed 947 women between the ages of 18 and 34 with household incomes of less than $75,000. They found that women are preoccupied by worry about money, medical costs and childcare. Most of the women hope to get pregnant later on or have decided against having kids because of these tough times -- and that's even more common among women who are less well-off than they were a year ago. A total of 64 percent agreed with the statement, "With the economy the way it is, I can’t afford to have a baby right now."

These findings are all rather intuitive, but what this actually means for pregnancy prevention is less straightforward. A total of 29 percent say they are "more careful" than before about using contraception every time they have sex. There is a flip-side to that, though: Eight percent of women are using birth control less regularly as a means of saving money and, among women in financial decline, that number rises to 12 percent. Things are even sketchier among women on the pill: 18% are popping hormones irregularly to save some cash -- either by missing pills, filling their prescription late, taking at least one month off or picking up fewer packs at a time. That number balloons to 25 percent when it comes to the category of worse-off women.

Overall, 23 percent are having a tougher time than a year ago covering the cost of birth control and -- again, say it with me now -- that number is higher among women whose finances have dwindled. The upshot: Those who are least capable of affording the cost of a child are putting themselves at the greatest risk for an unplanned pregnancy. Women also report avoiding appointments with their gynecologists in the last year -- especially those who have recently lost their health insurance.

I think the ratings game (CNN won Super Tuesday) is making them a little excitable these days. Smith jumps down Wolf's throat after she was trying to explain how exciting the Democratic primary has been and made a remark about not holding her nose to vote because both our candidates are so good. Smith cut her off and demanded that she explain herself. Naomi was obviously making a larger point, "we've got a historic candidacy,,," but he had his own agenda. She got frustrated from the interuption and said: Wolf: This is why I love Fox News."

Smith went ballistic.

Smith: No, no, no. That is unfair. You said it, I didn't say it! You said you were holding your nose when you went in the booth, and I asked you when. That's fair. And anybody who doesn't ask you that is not being fair. I'd like an answer please. You did it. Don't you 'Fox' on me. Ever.

She told him that she had a long history with FOX, but that didn't placate ole Shep. He didn't let it go and still went off at the end of the segment.

Smith: "I do know your long relationship with Fox, but I don't think it's fair to just take shots at us because we ask questions. And I think to say that we didn't want to get our babies out of Iraq, last time I checked everyone over there is at least 18...

Hey, Shep....why can't 18 year olds drink in a bar, but die in Iraq?

hi kids, skippy the bush kangaroo here, with today's round up:

continuing with the economic questions of the week: how's the dollar doing? how's your health care plan? how are your stocks? how are your bonds?

here's more - everything, in fact - on the minneapolis bridge collapse. here's the number of contractor deaths in iraq. here's the scenic route thru san diego. here's how saddam hussein is like barry bonds. and here's actual journalism!

from the blog round up department of domesticity: is our babies learning? what are they learning from their heterosexual parents? plus, of course a son can serve his country by getting his dad elected president! and, i now pronounce you yao and wife.

then there's always the la county registrar who is more concerned with diebold's profits than voting integrity. and is that marmoset in your hat or are you just happy to see me?

in case you were wondering what tunes he grooved out to, they found hitler's record collection. and since it's instapundit's blogiversary, let's all have some ice cream!

that's it for today, kids! send your tips to skippybkroo at aol dot com in blogtopia, and yes, i coined that phrase!

(Update below) Here comes Matt "The Eggman" Drudge to (Mr. Predatorgate) Mark Foley's defense. He uses that age old "attack the messenger" conservative technique-only in a creepier way. He says the congressional pages are just as responsible because of Youtube and pop culture and how dare they egg him on like that. They are just 16 and 17 year old beasts after all and not innocent little babies who are engaged in a conspiracy against poor, old Foley. What kind of beast does that make the 52 year old Foley?

Download | play -MP3 They are 16 and 17 year old beasts... (31 seconds)

Download | play -MP3-It was two ways ladies and gentleman ( oh Matt, that's why we have Predator laws. To protect them from the Foley's. I just thought you should know) (40 seconds)

Download | play -MP3--He'd feel better if they were 8 or something....

Download | play -MP3- They will regulate the Internet now...That's really all this is.

(h/t Robert)

Update:

Jane's got the transcipts done of the audio:

I swear I am not making this up. Listen to it. Drudge is so f*&^king sick it's really, really disturbing, but to know he's doing it on behalf of the official Bush-Hastert-Boehner-Reynolds GOP coverup is the truly demented part. No limits to how low they will go. Absolutely no limits...read on

Is this Arafat's legacy?

I took a taxi cab ride in Philadelphia around 1999. I asked the driver to take me to get a cheese steak sandwich (of course) and he joined me saying he was hungry also. After a few minutes of small talk, he told me that he was Palestinian. I asked him, "Do you ever think there will be peace between Israel and Palestine?" He stopped eating and and said one word: Never! I asked him how come? " They kill babies in the streets! They threw my family out of their homes. How would you like it if someone came to the house that you lived in all of your life and kicked you into the streets?" After a few minutes I said, "Wouldn’t it be better for your people to finally make peace as long as it’s fair so that your families can heal and your society would begin to grow? He threw his sandwich to the ground and said, "There will never be peace! Never! "As long as we still breathe, we would all rather die!"

He was so angered that he took me back to the hotel and radioed in to his boss and told him that he couldn’t work the rest of the night.

At the time I was naive to the whole conflict and I thought I was asking an innocent question. I've heard that resentments are the number one offender in twelve step programs, and as this one goes, well… I’ve never felt hatred like I did talking to that man.

Will a new leadership help to create peace? With that type of resentment embeded in their hearts, I don't see it anytime soon.

Focus on the Family: "Dallas-area Pastor Ronald Key, told CitizenLink that he believes Miers will make an excellent Supreme Court justice. He said she's not only highly accomplished, intelligent and conservative, but she also has a deep faith in Jesus."

I'm sold. That's all I needed to hear. This is just a fools plea. They should also be reminded of Judas.

"If I have made a mistake here," Dobson said, "I will never forget the blood of those babies that will die that will be on my hands to some degree. That's why I don't take this lightly."

To me this says that Dobson has been told in his secret meetings with Rove that Miers will do everything she can to overturn Roe v. Wade. Armando makes a great point when he says Dobson should be subpoenaed. In the Washington Post, conservative activists aren't buying Bush's " just trust me" slogan either.