« Pierce Finds Holy Grail... | Main | Rasmussen: McCain's Poll Numbers look Like Specter's »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Very interesting. A "fact" that is not supported. That seems to bother some people.

Russell Pearce on national television: "Half the murders in Phoenix are committed by illegal aliens."


This blog ardently defended Mr. Pearce when the issue of his wife's allegation of abuse came out during a primary campaign. Surely it isn't too much to ask for just one of Mr. Pearce's fans to do some research, or pick up the phone and call Mr. Pearce, and find some support for this "fact."


I'm still waiting.

Why don't you go wait someplace else Mr. Woodman...

You are simply trying to change the debate when Greg is spot on again. After watching the newspaper choreograph the Prop 100 election and manipulate public opinion with hysterical claims, I think they should be put "out of business" quickly too. We deserve a better newspaper.

Please go find another blog to camp on Mr. Woodman.

That entire issue of the Republic was an anti SB1070 pamphlet, from police chiefs around the nation and to this particular low point as Greg mentions. So the rationale is now that we should not pass this law as it may be detrimental to the Mormon church?
Also, everyone takes as read that any boycott will naturally be bad for AZ. Anecdotally, many folks are expressing the desire to visit or support our companies in a show of solidarity. However, the only song being sung by the media is that it will be bad for us. No-one really knows.
Finally, I find all the faux outrage at the damage coming our way, as described in The Republic quite amusing seeing as any malice directed at us is largely due to the massive mis information campaign, of which that rag was the main protagonist.

The silence is deafening.

It's legitimate for this blogger to challenge the Arizona Republic's "facts" in an article about the angry response of Hispanics to SB 1070. When I challenge Mr. Pearce's "facts" on a blog full of his supporters and ardent advocates of SB 1070, I'm somehow changing the debate?

People are entitled to their own opinions. Such as "they all hate us over there, they hate American football, NASCAR, they even hate the Simpsons." Or "Obama is unelectable no matter how many times he disowns his white grandmother." They are not, though, entitled to their own facts.

Mr. Pearce was not stating an "opinion" when he told a national television audience that half the murders in Phoenix are committed by illegal aliens. He was asserting a fact. He's made numerous other "factual" assertions of similar defamatory statistics. None of them are factual. He's making them up. He's lying. Because of racism.

The silence is deafening. Not a single response even attempting to verify or substantiate Mr. Pearce's wild and truthless smear. I can only interpret the silence in one way: his supporters are acknowledging that Pearce is making up fake statistics. Would anyone care to offer a different explanation. Mr. Pearce, perhaps?

Maybe the Govenor and the legislature should find a way of appointing a new newspaper as the 'official' AZ rag???

They'd be bankrupt about 5 minutes after that.

Good riddance to these phonies, they are nothing but a stumbling block.

I can't speak for Russell, and I don't care to call him and ask about this, but this is a total red herring, R.W. And, once again, you beg the question. Let's assume Russell fudged the facts. How does that mean he's racist? If a citizen of hispanic origin agrees with Russell's view on illegal immigration, is that person racist?

Back to the "red herring" point I started above, this has nothing to do with whether SB 1070 requires or even encourages racial profiling (it does neither, but I, along with many others, have laid that out elsewhere on this blog), and whether SB 1070 will mean the end of the LDS Church's efforts in the latino community.

I honestly have no idea where Russell is getting his numbers, whether he's reporting actual statistics he has seen, stretching official statistics, reporting information he has heard through contacts in law enforcement, or simply making it up as he goes because he feels the ends justify the means. Tracking him down to get answers to your questions is not on my priority list because it has nothing to do with the main issues. I don't support SB 1070 because I believe that half of the murders in Phoenix are committed by illegals.

To clarify that last sentence, which I could have written better, here's what I meant:

"My support for SB 1070 is not borne of a belief that half of the murders in Phoenix are committed by illegals."

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, RgP.

It's 2011 and the Democratic controlled Arizona State Legislature passes a measure revoking the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church based on its noxious political activities in California two years ago. Governor Goddard signs it into law.

There is of course an uproar over the issue. Opponents accuse Goddard and the Democratic legislature of religious bigotry and discrimination. Goddard goes on CNN and says......"We've had enough of the Mormon church in this state. Three quarters of the child molesters in Arizona are active members of the Mormon church."

There'd be no outrage on your part? On Mr. Patterson's part? No accusation of bigotry? No demand to back up this false statement? Nothing? You'd call it a red herring?

Of course not. The right wing believe in imposing its standards on everyone. Except themselves.

By the way, it's true. Most of the child molesters in this state are Mormons. Just kidding, Rg.

Whether there is outrage about a given statement is not important. Another strawman from you. Of course people would be up in arms about a statement like that. However, it would have nothing to do with the law itself. It would not mean the law is necessarily wrong or inherently anti-Mormon. So... yes, if your scenario played out, and I got on this blog and said, "See?! This law is inherently anti-Mormon because Goddard spouted off statistics without any basis for them!!!" -- I would be tossing a red herring out there for you. That would not be a valid argument against the law. Rather, I would look to the Constitution for a basis to attack the law. (Likewise, there are valid concerns with SB 1070, but they aren't what you, the mainstream media and the rest of the left have been putting out there.)

The real problem with your analogy is that your ficticious law targets a group of people protected under the constitution. Once again, there is no racism or bigotry in supporting the enforcement of our immigration laws. A law targeting Mormons, Catholics, blacks, asians and other Constitutionally protected groups would necessarily be subjected to more scrutiny. Don't equate illegal aliens with such groups.

I just shouldn't read my posts after I click the "post" button. And it's always my last sentence that is the problem. By "asians" I meant "people of Asian descent," or "Asian-Americans." I obviously wasn't suggesting that an illegal alien would be protected if he or she is Asian.

The comments to this entry are closed.