Why Joe Arpaio must gotta go!!!!!!!!!! The True about the toughest Sheriff.





In 1996 a young man named Jeremy Flanders was beaten nearly to death by fellow inmates in Tent City. He was put on life support and during that time his head had swollen so badly that it nearly swallowed his ear on one side. Flanders, who was well behaved and a favorite of the guards, sustained permanent brain damage as a result of his injuries.

The weapon used to beat Flanders was a rebar tent stake. These rebar tent stakes which were easily removed from the ground were often used as weapons, a problem easily remedied by cementing the stakes into the ground.

In his stinging 26 page opinion Judge Jefferson L. Lankford stated that “The sheriff and his deputies had actual knowledge that prisoners used rebar tent stakes and tent poles as weapons and did nothing to prevent it.” He went on to say, “The sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence: i.e., the lack of individual security and inmate control inherent in a tent facility; the small number of guards; a mixed inmate population subject to overcrowding, extreme heat, and lack of amenities. The history of violence, the abundance of weaponry, the lack of supervision, and the absence of necessary security measures supports the jury’s finding of deliberate indifference to inmate safety.”

The appeals court awarded 635,000 dollars to Flanders. Arpaio was held personally liable for thirty-five percent of the judgment.

That same year, Scott Norberg died of positional asphyxia after being beaten and forced into a restraint chair by guards. Norberg was tased more than twenty times although he was fully subdued and posed no threat to the officers. Research by the (ABC) 20/20 investigative staff indicates that the officers involved knowingly ignored signs that they were killing Norberg.

Although many healthy men and women have exited Arpaio’s jails in a gurney, it seems that the infirm and disabled are at particularly high risk in Maricopa County’s gulags. In fact, in some cases, it seems that they are singled out for abuse.

Deborah Braillard was a diabetic inmate who was denied her insulin for over two days. When her constant moaning became too much for her cellmates to bear, the guards moved her to an empty cell where she could writhe in pain alone. She died in the hospital.

Mentally handicapped Charles Agster, who weighed only a hundred and thirty-two pounds, was arrested on loitering charges after refusing to leave a convenience store. He was taken into the prison hogtied and wrenched so tightly into a restraint chair that he died within minutes. Although Arpaio admits no wrongdoing, he refuses to let the family of Charles Agster see the surveillance footage of their son being put into the restraint chair.

Paraplegic, wheelchair-bound Richard Post was arrested for being disruptive in a bar. After some time in a cell he complained to the guards that his catheter was full. He flushed the toilet several times in order to get their attention. Instead of giving him medical care the guards strapped him into the restraint chair so tightly that they broke his neck. He is now a quadriplegic.

A blind inmate, Brian Crenshaw, who refused to show his identification card in a lunch line, was savagely beaten by guards and left in his cell for six days without medical treatment. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Arpaio insists Crenshaw suffered ruptured intestines, a broken neck, several broken toes, and extensive internal bleeding from “falling off a bunk” a little over four feet high.

And although the counterproductive barbarism of Arpaio’s reign should be the paramount issue it seems that money is the only thing that will pique the interest of Phoenician reporters. The attitude of our local press is best represented by the closing comment in an Arizona Republic article by Ed Montini -- “The Rising Cost of Indifference in Arpaio’s Jails.” When referring to the county supervisor's apathy to the horror stories leaking from the walls of Arpaio’s prisons and jails he said that their indifference “…would be fine only if all of this wasn't paid for with our money.” But now that the cost of Arpaio’s incompetence is mounting even the Arizona Republic is regularly printing anti-Arpaio articles.

Even though it seems cold to transcribe these tragedies into the language of dollars and cents it is unfortunately necessary to do so because their blood and our money are irreversibly intertwined. When inmates die or suffer permanent injury so needlessly, they or their families seek damages. The lawsuits resulting from the inhumane treatment of prisoners in Arpaio’s dungeons represent the largest portion of the mountainous debt that will be paid in the decades after Arpaio’s irresponsible reign.

The appeals court awarded 635,000 dollars to Flanders, 30% of which Arpaio had to pay personally. The Norberg family received an 8.5 million dollar settlement on their son’s behalf. Michael Manning, the attorney for the Norberg family, is suing on behalf of Braillard’s son and father for 20 million dollars. The family of Charles Agster is seeking 25 million. Maricopa County paid Post 850,000 dollars for his injuries and the Crenshaw family is suing as well.

Pink Underwear, Potato Chips, a Pension and a Penthouse Suite

Between 1995 and 1999 Arpaio’s deputies were reporting that tens of thousands of dollars in cash, raised from the sale of souvenir boxer shorts, were disappearing in the office of Arpaio’s Chief Deputy David Hendershott.

Hendershott, who was solely responsible for the management of this money, is Arpaio’s closest ally and second in command. Arpaio refuses to investigate the allegations.

But the 40,000 dollars in missing underwear money is small potatoes in comparison to the commissary budget. For most prisoners a 2000 calorie a day diet (including ketchup packets) doesn’t hit the spot. As a result Arpaio runs a commissary where inmates can purchase snacks and treats at highly inflated prices. The inmate patronage creates profits in Arpaio’s commissaries to the tune of 6 million dollars a year.

This handsome sum goes entirely unaccounted for because Arpaio refuses to release the public records detailing the use of these profits despite laws requiring him to do so. In September 2004 The Phoenix New Times filed suit against the MCSO. But Arpaio apparently has the support of the local judges because in August 2005 Superior Court Judge Michael D. Jones ruled MCSO officials had not acted in bad faith when they refused to release the records.

Perhaps Arpaio and Henderschott spent all of their commissary and underwear income on real-estate. This however, is impossible to prove, since all of Arpaio and Hendershott’s public real-estate records have also been sealed (with the exception of two properties worth approximately 690,000 which Arpaio purchased with cash).

Arpaio claims he seals his real-estate records because of all the death threats he receives, an unlikely but sufficient excuse.

In 1999, Hendershott was retired and given a 51,000 dollar a year peace-officer pension. Hendershott was then re-hired the same day for the same position, as a civilian, and was allowed to keep his retirement. This impropriety scored Arpaio a scathing front page report in the Arizona Republic but this did nothing to deter him from the obvious act of favoritism.

Add the estimated 80 plus million dollars in civil lawsuits to the 40,000 dollars from the pink underwear sales, the 6 million dollars a year from the commissary budget, the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on the purchase/maintenance of toys like a .50 caliber machine gun, an armored personnel carrier, a full sized tank, a 70,000 dollar armored Crown Victoria, and a lavish 800,000 dollar a year penthouse office atop the lofty Wells Fargo building (apparently the view from the county provided office isn’t sufficient) and you have a staggering sum; a sum that cannot be paid by further reducing the inmates’ caloric intake.

E-mail from Judson ISD trustee sparks cry of racism. he is offended by e-mails suggesting he should learn Spanish




Judson School Board trustee Richard LaFoille sent out an e-mail Tuesday suggesting the United States could prevent unauthorized immigration by digging a moat the length of the border with Mexico and filling it with alligators.

The e-mail, meant to be humorous, was a forwarded message featuring a Hallmark greeting card character known as Maxine. It also protested the singing of the national anthem in Spanish and noted, "If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then you're part of the problem!"

LaFoille sent the e-mail to a host of district administrators, trustees and others, including a San Antonio Express-News reporter.

Trustee Diane Bagley forwarded the message to Superintendent Willis Mackey, who was left off the original e-mail, and said while she respects freedom of speech, she does not want to receive e-mails from LaFoille that she considers racist.

LaFoille, responding to criticism over the e-mail, said he's not racist, but sent the message to people he frequently e-mails because, "I don't hide the facts

"I think that our borders need to be closed," said LaFoille, who noted that his father came to the United States from Quebec, but refused to speak French around his son.

"I don't care what color you are, black, white, green or purple, if you don't speak English, I don't want to talk to you."

LaFoille said he has been called racist in the past because he refused to vote for minority job candidates he felt were not qualified.

He said he gets along well with all kinds of people in Judson ISD, one of the most ethnically diverse school districts in the area. Nearly half of the students there are Hispanic and 27 percent are African American.

Children in the schools he represents "come up and hug me," LaFoille said. "They like me and I like them."

But he said he is offended by e-mails suggesting he should learn Spanish.

"I got about three of them last week," he said.

He also noted there are no Anglo Miss America pageants or Anglo college funds.

"It's ridiculous," LaFoille said. "I'm not saying there should be, but have you ever heard of one? And do you think if there was, people wouldn't be screaming that we're racist?"

LaFoille, elected in 2004, was unopposed last year for re-election to a three-year term.

Bagley said LaFoille's e-mail might have been meant in jest, but wasn't funny.

"It concerns me that an individual thinks those types of things are funny and yet represents our kids and our community," she said, noting she received a couple of similar e-mails from LaFoille about two years ago and asked then that he stop. "He needs to keep it within his circle of friends if that's what he wants to do. I am not in his circle of friends."

Judson's board has been known to spar, and trustee June Adair said LaFoille once asked her to stop sending him e-mails that weren't explicitly related to board business.

She said LaFoille's e-mail, which she also received, was "not exactly the most tactful thing to do ... but I got in trouble before for sending out e-mails that had scriptural or other messages."

Last year, Bagley sent a letter to the Texas Education Agency accusing her fellow trustees of racism for failing to support an African American employee for interim superintendent. The board later hired its first minority superintendent, Willis Mackey, in November.

LaFoille said Bagley is overly sensitive.

"She thinks there's racist undertones if you tell her, 'I met a person the other day and they were Hispanic,'" he said.

He said he didn't intend to send the e-mail her way, but Bagley thinks it was "an obvious jab."

"He did not agree in the past with my statements with there perhaps being a race issue in Judson ISD," she said. "He needs to go and find someone else to play with."

Linda Odell, a spokeswoman with Hallmark Cards, said the e-mail's use of the Maxine character was "absolutely not" authorized.

"What we do is bring people together in a positive way and certainly not to take political points of view," Odell said.

Solution to HIS PANIC on Immigration. We have a dream two; We deserve to be treated equal to others.



Fueling the Anti Immigrant sentiment, anger and hate crime on the rise. Do you believe congress are part of this conspiracy? Fueling the Anti Immigrant sentiment towards Hispanic Community with 350 bills against Undocumented Immigrants!!!!

With anti-immigrant sentiment at a steady boil across the nation, it’s not surprising that hate crimes targeting Latinos are on the rise. New FBI statistics suggest a 35 percent increase in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2006.

Nor is it surprising that hate groups are once again on the march. A new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that 888 hate groups are operating in this country, including 11 in Oregon. That is 44 more than the center counted in 2006 and 286 more than in 2000.

Anger over immigration has been a feature of American life for years. That anger has intensified since last year’s congressional meltdown over immigration reform.

Thoughtful people can disagree about, and respectfully debate, immigration policy: What’s the best way to secure this country’s borders? How many foreigners should be admitted and for what purpose? What should be done with the 13 million illegal immigrants already in this country?

But extreme sentiments, once the exclusive province of white supremacists, have begun to seep into the mainstream. They’ve become the common verbal currency of nativist immigration-reform activists, talk radio hosts, cable TV commentators and even elected officials who smear immigrants as criminal aliens, invaders, terrorists and cockroaches — human detritus whose dangerous, lawless presence must be swept from this country.

Few go so far as to actually endorse violence against immigrants. But no one should be deceived — that’s the inevitable result of dehumanizing rhetoric, as white nationalist, racist skinhead and an array of other groups are agitated by the anti-immigrant rhetoric.

The presidential primaries have done distressingly little to address this problem, and, in some instances, have fanned the flames.

With the exception of Sen. John McCain, now the presumptive nominee, Republican presidential candidates seemed determined to out-tough each other on immigration. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who once supported financial aid for illegal immigrant students, offered up a “Secure America Plan” that required the expulsion of all illegal immigrants within 120 days. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who once supported a Senate bill that provided undocumented immigrants with a path to citizenship, declared during the primaries that he despised amnesty.

Even McCain, who took heavy fire for his co-sponsorship of a bipartisan immigration bill that would have provided a means to grant legal status to illegal immigrants, distanced himself from talk of legalization, focusing instead on get-tough border enforcement.

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have done better than the Republicans, with both committing to support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But they have tiptoed around many of the difficult, complex issues that must be addressed by serious immigration reform.

Ultimately, the blame for the recent surge in anti-immigrant sentiment reflects back on Congress, which failed to pass a comprehensive reform bill that despite its flaws contained workable fixes for the border and workplace, and a coherent strategy for dealing with the illegal immigrants who are already here through a demanding path to earned citizenship.

When Congress failed to pass an immigration reform supported by President Bush last year, lawmakers understood it was their last chance to act — that the presidential race would make it impossible to address the issue until 2009 at the earliest, and perhaps later. They knew state and local governments would fill the void in federal leadership by approving their own mishmash of laws, most of them punitive and none capable of fixing a broken immigration system that’s becoming more dysfunctional by the day.

Because of Congress’ failure, this nation is increasingly divided over immigration, hate groups are proliferating, and bias crimes against Latinos are on the rise. In this year’s elections, Americans should choose candidates for both Congress and the White House who will help make true reform a reality and begin healing a nation that has been too long and too deeply torn over immigration

What's the real problem of Lou Dobbs with HIS PANIC specially with Mexicans?.




Geraldo Rivera Introduces the book of Why American fear Hispanics in U.S.


Geraldo Rivera won't shake "shameful", " hate monger ", " Hypocrite " Liar" Lou Dobbs' Hand. Well me either.

Geraldo Rivera appeared on "The View" today to promote his new book, His Panic, which prompted a discussion of how Americans fear immigrants. He explained that this fear is "a nativist reaction that started at the grassroots" and that it is "driven by the most savage talk radio campaign in history." When asked to name names, Geraldo targeted Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/geraldo-wont-shake-sham_n_89589.html

Are we waiting to change the world or change ourselves to change the world? Why segregating people of color?, Why racism? Why HATE Hispanics? What Mexicans did to deserved to be persecuted, scapegoated, diminished, demonized? Are they were part of Sept 11, 2001?

The thruth about Undocumented Immigration and crime. The myth created by Anti Immigrants, Extremists, conservaties, xenophobics, like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchannan, Tom Tancredo and many more.

Anti-immigration forces have been hammering into our heads the dangerous link between illegal immigration and increases in violent crime. Their only problem: the facts don't support their alarmist contentions.

"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens." That's the lead sentence of a policy report published by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC institute that provides intellectual ammunition to the anti-immigration forces.

Another CIS study led with a similarly impressionistic assertion about the immigrant-crime link: "In recent years, it has become difficult to avoid perceiving immigrants, legal or not, as overwhelming this country with serious crime."

CIS is not alone in relying on impressions to form opinions about just how illegal immigrants are. On the basis of fear-mongering stories rather than scientific studies, groups like the Center for Immigration Studies have succeeded in convincing the media and the U.S. public that undocumented immigrants are criminals. A National Opinion Research Center survey found in 2000 that 73% of Americans believed that immigrants were casually related to more crime.

But, as in other dimensions of the immigration debate, the facts don't support the alarm.

There have been dozens of national studies examining immigration and crime, and they all come to the same conclusion: immigrants are more law-abiding than citizens. A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are substantially less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens.

Ruben G. Rumbaut, coauthor of "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality" study, said: "The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth." According to Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California at Irvine, "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The Immigration Policy Center study found that:

At the same time that immigration—especially undocumented immigration—has reached or surpassed historic highs, crime rates have declined, notably in cities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, including border cities like El Paso and San Diego.

Incarceration rate for native-born men in the 18-39 age group was five times higher than for foreign-born men in the same age group.
Data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are least educated and least acculturated.
As the study noted, the fact that many immigrants enter the country illegally is framed by anti-immigration forces as an assault on the "rule of law," thereby reinforcing the false impression that immigration and criminality are linked.

One of the most disturbing findings of the IPC study was that immigrant children and immigrants with many years in the country are more likely to become criminals than first-generation immigrants or those with less than 15 years in the country. In other words, the more acculturated immigrants are the more likely they are to become criminals—although still at lower rates than those for non-immigrants.

Indignant anti-immigration voices dominate internet discussions with their vitriol and misinformation, and even point to false data to bolster their case. The anti-immigrant forces draw, for example, on the "2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants" with its array of alarming statistics about illegal immigrants and crime to make their case that undocumented immigrants not only break the law entering the country but also break the laws, with a proclivity to violent crimes, once they make their own homes here. Statistics from this study circulate on restrictionist websites and routinely appear in blogs and post-article comment sections across the web.

In fact, no such report exists. INS, the agency that supposedly produced the report, ceased to exist in 2003.

But facts don't get in the way of those who are intent on demonizing undocumented immigrants or "illegals" in the vocabulary of the restrictionists. How do groups like CIS explain the gap between their impressions and the real statistics about crime and immigration? CIS asks the same question in a 2001 report: Why is it that studies don't make the immigration-crime connection when "so much other evidence indicates they are responsible for a wave of individual and organized crime?"

Contrary to their prevailing argument that immigrant crime is terrorizing the U.S. general public, CIS argues that immigrant crime is unreported because it stays within the immigrant community as immigrant-on-immigrant crime. Furthermore, police departments tend to avoid enforcing laws when immigrants are involved because police are not the agency charged with enforcing immigration law. As Heather MacDonald argued in a report published by CIS, "In cities where crime from these lawbreakers ["illegal aliens"] is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status."

CIS and other restrictionist think tanks argue that given their supposed criminal natures, the best way to solve the crime problem in cities like Los Angeles is to round up the illegal immigrants. "The police should be given the option of reporting and acting on immigration violations, where doing so would contribute to public safety," wrote MacDonald, a scholar at the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Taking off from the findings of studies that immigrant children are more likely to commit crimes than their parents, CIS argues that our society should root out the problem now by deporting the parents of possible future criminals. "On the issue of crime, the biggest impact of immigration is almost certainly yet to come," warns Steve Camarota, director of research at CIS.

The great distance between fact and perception, reality and scenario was all too evident in Iowa and New Hampshire during presidential primaries, where fear of immigrants has made immigration a leading campaign issue, especially among Republicans. To hear the candidates and constituents rail against immigration, one would have thought immigrants were flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border on their way to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Stoked by anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which publishes alarmist state-by-state profiles of the purported negative impacts of immigrants, restrictionist fever has spread throughout the country. Both Iowa and New Hampshire have overwhelmingly white populations with only a small immigrant population. Even according to FAIR's high estimates, the population of undocumented immigrants or "illegals" does not exceed 55,000 in Iowa and 15,000 in New Hampshire.

Certainly, immigration is an issue that merits public discussion and should be part of the electoral debate. But facts, not irrational fear and dread, should inform the national debate about immigration policy.

H.R.1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I want to pointed out a couple of interested sections of this bill.

Official: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes. as introduced.

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
4/19/2007--Introduced.

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States). The secretary of Homeland Security to:
(1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States;

(2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and

(3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Did you believe there are some groups who's are falling under these definitions?

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.