Boycott Padres vs Diamondback Series July 16,17,18

by on July 16, 2010 · 108 comments

in Culture, Popular, San Diego

boycott diamondbacks

UPDATE from Saturday morning: There were about a dozen protesters at Petco Park on Friday. Across the street were some counter-protesters. The protest for Friday was I am told a ‘last-minute’ thing, and many more are expected today Saturday 4 to 6:30 pm.

It’s heating up on and off the baseball field these days. There is a call by a local San Diego group to boycott the upcoming series between the Padres and the Arizona Diamondbacks.  It’s all because of the new Arizona law restricting brown-skinned people.

The May 1st Coalition of San Diego is demanding first, that the Major League Baseball Commission move the 2011 All Star Game out of Arizona and second, that the Arizona Diamondbacks make a statement denouncing SB1070.

The Coalition is also calling on the Padres Baseball organization to stand with Adrian Gonzalez who stated “They’re violating human rights. In a way, it goes against what this country was built on. This is discrimination,” and also make a statement denouncing SB1070.

On July 16,17,18 the May 1st Coalition of San Diego is calling on all San Diegans to boycott the series against the Arizona Diamondbacks.

They also invite anyone to join the May 1st Coalition outside the stadium to nationalize the debate and denounce SB1070 with banners and signs. This action is to bring local attention and put pressure on Arizona lawmakers to repeal SB1070.

SB1070, is set to go into effect on July 29, allows local law enforcement the right to question people as to their immigration status and provide documentation to prove their citizenship. If proof cannot be shown it will be considered a crime and you will be detained.

Join the Coalition in making a statement to denounce this unconstitutional law. Protect human rights. Take a stand against injustice, boycott Arizona

Boycott Padres vs Diamondback Series July 16,17,18

Fri July 16 at 6:00pm (minute men counter-protest)

Sat July 17 at 4:00pm

Time: 4:00pm – 6:30pm

Location: Petco Park

Street: 100 Park Blvd.

Outside Petco Park along Park Blvd

For More Information or to endorse this action contact:

619-770-8798, 408-219-8891

{ 108 comments… read them below or add one }

Nunya July 16, 2010 at 9:32 am

Now I am going to make it a point to go to this game. I might even invest in an AZ flag and wave it in support of AZ while wearing my Padres jersey.


Harlan Price July 16, 2010 at 11:24 am

You will probably look like a Schizophrenia under such scenario, Then again , Arizona is a last place team. So you will feel right at home.


Nunya July 16, 2010 at 12:26 pm

so Im a last place person because I dont agree with putting politics in to sports? I am so tired of having people tell me how to feel, what to boycott and how to act that I am going to act the opposite way just as a point.

PS – its schizophrenic.


Abby July 16, 2010 at 12:35 pm

It’s really awful the way you are forced to read this blog and post here.


Nunya July 16, 2010 at 1:08 pm me your sarcasm. I chose to click on this and read it but when I go to a game I am not choosing to deal with immigration. I am choosing to watch a baseball game and should be free from politics.


Julia July 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm

Egads, not deal with politics you say because its baseball? Get real. KNOW what you’re talking about.
How long have Blacks been ALLOWED to play in baseball? I forget the year they were finally allowed to play the sport 1947, Jackie Robinson? Oh and baseball Majors only had started since 1848’s..mmmOnly a HUNDRED years to be allowed to play a sports game in an AMERICAN Major League? We are surrounded by politics and it’s time we all choose to be on the side of human rights! Hers and everywhere. One Nation Under God! God doesn’t play favorites, ask him. jn


Josh July 17, 2010 at 9:33 am

well, that is impossible. Nothing is free of politics, genius. So, what you seem to be saying is that you want to be free from having to “think about” politics. Because then you might have to engage in democracy, and the thought of realizing you are an ignorant fool might be too painful…


Ryan July 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

It is illegal to be in this country if your not a citizen. Illegal. They are not migrants but illegal immigrants. If I go to any country in the world I must have identification on my person at all times proving who I am. Everyone in the United states is required to have identification. How is it that people who are here illegally get more rights??? I’m all for legal immigration. But it must be done through the proper channels. When someone wants to be an American they take an oath to learn English. By the way, if you haven’t heard it’s illegal to be in Mexico without a passport and identification. Research what their government does to people in that country illegally.


The Pad Father July 16, 2010 at 11:50 am

#1 – There is no requirement in the constitution to have identification. In fact it prohibits national identification.

#2 – There is no requirement to learn the english language. the United States has NO official language.

#3 – The united States is the one that imposed having a passport to RETURN from Mexico. I have traveled in many areas of Mexico hundreds of times over the past 10 years and until that law was passed in the United States I was never ASKED for my passport, let alone had anything done to me.


CKB July 16, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Straw man argument. The Constitution does not make many laws at all, because its purpose is to limit what laws can be made. And it does not prohibit laws requiring foreigners in this country to have ID declaring they are here legally. Seriously, go back and read it, and while you’re at it, read the Federalist Papers for more info on separation of powers.


Josh July 17, 2010 at 9:35 am

thank you…this is my humble understanding as well.


Crossborder Kenn July 16, 2010 at 12:28 pm

Ryan, with all respect, it’s important to have a society that bases public arguments on facts. My firm actually does research on what “their government does to people in that country illegally”, and frankly Mexico’s immigration agency is generally very lenient to enforcing visa requirements on the largest group of “illegal” immigrants in Mexico: US citizens. It is estimated that somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million US citizens reside in Mexico (second homes, retirement, etc.) – not to mention millions of US tourists each year that cross the border via land and don’t get the “legally-required” short-term visas… So, while it’s easy to throw out a statement implying that “Mexico does it, so we should, too” — the reality is that, like many countries, Mexico applies what’s called “flexibility” in enforcing its immigration rules toward those people it considers friendly, beneficial to its society, and providing a positive economic benefit. Another thing: your statement that “It is illegal to be in this country if your not a citizen” is (in fact) untrue, and would surprise many millions of law-abiding citizens of other countries that have visas to live, work, study, and be a tourist in the US — not to mention millions of others that are going through a citizenship process (called “resident aliens”). Lastly, look up the “Oath of Allegiance” (it’s on Wikipedia for all to see) for those becoming citizens: it focuses on what’s important — loyalty, defending the Constitution against its enemies (“foreign and domestic”), and promising to serve the Country when needed — but not on language (the word “English” is not even mentioned). Let’s stop blaming and fighting each other on this issue, and work to solve the problems while not also (in the process) harming the relationship between one of our biggest allies and partner in the 21st Century (Mexico) — it degrades us, and represents almost an obsessive focus on an ethnic group that frankly makes up over 40 million people in the US (the vast majority of which are here legally). There is a big world out there that truly has enemies and forces looking to undermine the United States and our society — but it’s not Mexico.


pj July 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Crossborder Kenn, what the hell you doing using real facts. Damn boy, you are suppose to have your hate on. Don’t you know all “real” Americans are immigrant hating tea partiers!

Seriously, the big problem here is the lack of exposure most people in the US have to people and culture outside the country. Even though we have millions of Mexicans in this country, few of the people screaming the loudest even really know any Mexicans; in there world they are outsiders and always will be. Which is of course very ironic considering most Mexicans are of Native American heritage–in otherwords here FIRST–and most whites are of European heritage–in otherwords here second.


Goatskull July 20, 2010 at 5:51 pm

No actually it isn’t. It is illegal to be here illegally but by itself you do not have to be a citizen to be here. I have a hard time believing you really think that. Maybe you misspoke. There are plenty of people here legally who are not citizen, including people serving in the military.


Harlan Price July 16, 2010 at 9:57 am

The all star game needs to be taken out of Arizona. Do not Support a neo-Nazi state in the U.S.


just my 2 cents July 16, 2010 at 11:59 am

White, black and asian support the law…check the facts….


Frank Gormlie July 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Actually the country is split on the issue. Sure there are whites, there are Blacks, and there are Asians – and even some Mexican-Americans who support the law. But one can say the exact opposite:’ white, Black and Asian are against the law … check the facts.’ Natch, way more Mexican-Americans are agin it, and Asians are the most evenly split.

In a Field poll released today, California voters appear evenly divided regarding Arizona’s tough new immigration law. Less Californians support the law today than a similar poll in May.

LA Times: California voters are divided on Arizona’s crackdown in illegal immigration, according to a Field Poll released Friday.

The poll found that 49% of respondents said they support the Arizona law while 45% said they oppose it.

A Times-USC poll released in late May found a somewhat divided public sentiment. Overall, 50% of registered voters surveyed by the Times and USC said they support the law, which compels police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, while 43% said they oppose it. That level of support is lower than nationwide polls have indicated.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, requires police to investigate the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and have reason to believe are in the country illegally. It also makes it a crime in Arizona to lack immigration documents.

The Field Poll was a survey of 1,390 registered voters and was conducted June 22 through July 5. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.


Harlan Price July 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Perhaps they need to read a bit more—————————————————————————

Reputed neo-Nazi leading patrols in Ariz.
Militia surveils desert border for ‘narco-terrorists,’ illegal immigrant


updated 7/17/2010 1:03:16 PM ET
PHOENIX — Minutemen groups, a surge in Border Patrol agents and a tough new immigration law aren’t enough for a reputed neo-Nazi who’s now leading a militia in the Arizona desert.

Jason “J.T.” Ready is taking matters into his own hands, declaring war on “narco-terrorists” and keeping an eye out for illegal immigrants. So far, he says his patrols have only found a few border crossers who were given water and handed over to the Border Patrol. Once, they also found a decaying body in a wash, and alerted authorities.

But local law enforcement are nervous given that Ready’s group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish, white heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone who isn’t white should leave the country “peacefully or by force.”

“We’re not going to sit around and wait for the government anymore,” Ready said. “This is what our founding fathers did.”

An escalation of civilian border watches have taken root in Arizona in recent years, including the Minutemen movement. Various groups patrol the desert on foot, horseback and in airplanes and report suspicious activity to the Border Patrol, and generally, they have not caused problems for law enforcement.

But Ready, a 37-year-old ex-Marine, is different. He and his friends are outfitted with military fatigues, body armor and gas masks, and carry assault rifles. Ready takes offense at the term “neo-Nazi,” but admits he identifies with the National Socialist Movement.

“These are explicit Nazis,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. “These are people who wear swastikas on their sleeves.”

Ready is a reflection of the anger over illegal immigration in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial new immigration law in April, which requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

But Brewer hasn’t done enough, Ready said, and he’s not satisfied with President Barack Obama’s decision to beef up security at the border.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said there haven’t been any incidents with the group as they patrol his jurisdiction, which includes several busy immigrant smuggling corridors. But Babeu is concerned because an untrained group acting without the authority of the law could cause “extreme problems,” and put themselves and others in danger.

“I’m not inviting them. And in fact, I’d rather they not come,” Babeu said. “Especially those who espouse hatred or bigotry such as his.”Law enforcement officials said patrols like Ready’s could undercut the work of the thousands of officers on duty every day across the border, especially if they try to enforce the law themselves in carrying out vigilante justice.

Ready said his group has been patrolling in the desert about 50 miles south of Phoenix, in an area where a Pinal County Sheriff’s deputy reported he was shot by drug smugglers in April.

Bureau of Land Management rangers met Ready’s group during one patrol, and they weren’t violating any laws or looking for a confrontation, said spokesman Dennis Godfrey.

The patrols have been occurring on public land, and militia members have no real restrictions on their weaponry because of Arizona’s loose gun laws.

The militia is an outgrowth of border watch groups that have been part of the immigration debate in Arizona. Patrols in the Arizona desert by Minutemen organizations brought national attention to illegal immigration in 2004 and 2005.

Such groups continue to operate in Arizona, and law enforcement officials generally don’t take issue with them as long as they don’t take matters into their own hands.

Border Patrol spokesman Omar Candelaria said the agency appreciates the extra eyes and ears but they would prefer actual law enforcement be left to professionals.

Former Minutemen leader Al Garza recently created the Patriot’s Coalition, which uses scouts and search-and-rescue teams to alert the Border Patrol and provide first aid to illegal immigrants.

Depending on the availability of volunteers and the scouts’ evidence of border crossers, patrols can vary from several times a week to once a month, Garza said. The operation is about 500 people, and includes a neighborhood watch program, legislative advisers and a horseback patrol, he said.

Technology, rather than manpower, is the focus of Glenn Spencer’s American Border Patrol. The group is based at his ranch near the border. The five-man operation flies three small airplanes to ensure that the Border Patrol is present and visible along the international line.

Spencer also uses Internet-controlled cameras and works with a group called Border Invasion Pics, which posts photos of people they suspect are crossing illegally.

“Sitting out there with a bunch of volunteers looking for people is generally a tremendous waste of people and time,” Spencer said. “And it’s also dangerous.”

Ready said he’s planning patrols throughout the summer.

“If they don’t want my people out there, then there’s an easy way to send us home: Secure the border,” he said. “We’ll put our guns back on the shelf, and that’ll be the end of that.”

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


Nunya July 16, 2010 at 1:22 pm

ignorance runs rampant apparently. Yes, they are Nazis. Havent you seen how many of them have been rounded up in to camps and executed?

Stop using words that have NOTHING to do with this law. They are not nazis no matter how hard you try to spin it.


RB July 17, 2010 at 4:23 pm

You are so right. We should make Harlen read a book about the Holocaust or watch Shindler”s List until he understands what the Nazi’s did.


Josh July 17, 2010 at 9:41 am

I heard Dave Zirin say it similarly…Arizona is the “meth lab of democracy.”


Abby July 16, 2010 at 10:05 am

I don’t think anybody thinks we should enforce immigration laws, but what Arizona is doing is simply unconstitutional.

The law states they can demand to see your papers if they have “reasonable suspicion” that you are an illegal. What exactly constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? Speaking Spanish? Being dark skinned? Eating a taco?

What it comes down to, is that if you look Hispanic, they can harass you, and that is wrong.


Nunya July 16, 2010 at 1:12 pm

did you even read the bill? people always think this is some nazi thing where they can stop anyone for anything and demand your papers. try actually reading the law before speaking false truths.


Matt July 16, 2010 at 1:46 pm

11-1051 Article 8:

“Any lawful contact” includes:
a) Walking up to someone on the street (Be careful not to say ‘Buenos Dias’ if you left your wallet at home!)
b) When answering a report of a crime (meaning anyone with an accent will stop reporting crime, strengthening organized gangs)
c) Any traffic stop (look for more high speed chases!)


really July 16, 2010 at 1:57 pm

While I am impressed that you actually read the law (which most seem to find a little too difficult these days), you should really do some analysis or at least ask a criminal attorney for an interpretation before you make your statements.

in response to :
a) I seriously doubt saying ‘Hi’ in any language will result in ‘reasonable suspicion’ in just about ANY count.
b) I also doubt that an accent will qualify as ‘reasonable suspicion’
c) REALLY? dude, think before you write. You are suppose to have a drivers license, registration and insurance when operating an automobile. so forget ab1070, if you don’t have that, then you are already screwed.


Dave Rice July 16, 2010 at 11:14 pm

Okay, so here we have a disagreement about what one might consider ‘reasonable suspicion.’ Is there a legal precedent that would qualify in this case what does and doesn’t qualify as such?

The most familiarity I have with ‘reasonable suspicion’ is that it replaces ‘probable cause’ in certain situations involving juveniles, and is explicitly intended to have a more lenient usage than the ‘probable cause’ we’re used to hearing about. I was hit with this all the time in high school – the teacher ‘thought’ he heard a pager beeping in someone’s backpack, therefore he had ‘reasonable suspicion’ to search every backpack in the classroom. Invariably these searches netted at least one pager or cell phone, and frequently drugs or weapons as well. Therefore, the suspicion was proved to be reasonable.


Josh July 17, 2010 at 9:45 am

have you ever “actually” had an encounter with a shitty police officer? I am a white citizen, and I have been brutalized SEVERAL times by the cops throughout my lifetime (I was poor, and the poor are mistreated by police with impunity, be they white black or brown or any other)…imagine what the cops can get away with under SB1070…this law is racist, and the elites use it to divide workers up so that we hate each other instead of the elites who benefit from our misery…


annagrace July 17, 2010 at 10:30 am

Well, it may not be “some nazi thing” (and yes I did read the legislation) but the Neo-Nazis have shown their support. J.T. Ready’s militia has declared “war.” So maybe it’s a “kinda nazi thing.”

“But local law enforcement are nervous given that Ready’s group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish, white heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone who isn’t white should leave the country “peacefully or by force.”


Abby July 16, 2010 at 10:06 am

Oops, that should have been “I don’t think anybody thinks we should NOT enforce immigration laws”.


Raymond July 16, 2010 at 10:15 am

Well done, Padres!!! No racism in our community!!!


Matt Harper July 16, 2010 at 10:15 am

I have to provide I.D. when I get stopped. Is that unconstitutional as well?

When I pass a border check point I am prepared to to show “paperwork” proving I am citizen. This includes I.D. registration and proof of insurance.

It is absurd to allow civil rights to somebody who is not a citizen.


Abby July 17, 2010 at 3:16 pm

Your drivers license is not proof of citizenship. Nor is your registration or proof of insurance. Do you really think it’s acceptable to demand American citizens to carry around the sort of documents that would be all the time?

Do you always carry your birth certificate with you? SS card? Passport? Of course not. But those are the documents you would need to prove citizenship.

There has already been a case of a US citizen being detained in AZ until a family member could bring him his birth certificate. That is unacceptable to me. It should be to all Americans.

But hey, since your skin isn’t brown and your name isn’t Garcia it will never effect you, so why worry about it?


Dave Rice July 16, 2010 at 10:28 am

I don’t see how boycotting the Padres because Major League Baseball scheduled a series against Arizona helps anything…


OB Joe July 16, 2010 at 10:33 am

It appears that the local group is calling attention to the nation-wide demand that the Baseball Commission move the All-Star Game out of Arizona.


Dave Rice July 16, 2010 at 10:57 am

Okay, so they demonstrate. Even more effective, they should actually attend the games instead of boycotting them (ticket monies support San Diego, not Phoenix), and then wave banners inside the park, where the TV cameras are. It’s the boycott of the Padres that I don’t get, not the ultimate goal of the group…


OB Joe July 16, 2010 at 11:04 am

I had heard that previously the group tried that, but were stopped from bringing any signs or banners with their message into Petco park.


Dave Rice July 16, 2010 at 11:28 am

Okay, makes sense then. You’re obviously much better informed than me on this one. Regardless, good luck to them!


J July 16, 2010 at 10:31 am

WOW!! that has to be one of the least well informed & / or downright ‘completely wrong’ article about this subject that I’ve ever read… “It’s all because of the new Arizona law restricting brown-skinned people”…. WHAT??? Illegal is not a color/race. Why is it that most people (our Attorney General & H-land Sec. chief among most critics incl.) do not bother to actually read the law? It mirrors Fed Law! with even more restrictive guidelines i.e. law enforcment must have stopped them for some other crime… robbery, assault, drug running, human smuggling (the kind of crimes that have the citizens of AZ fed up.) It’s ludicrous to believe that cops will be pulling over ‘brown skinned people’ …at random …at least half of the (legal) population of AZ is Hispanic incl law enforcment! And I admire & respect Adrian Gonzales …he’s a great ballplayer & citizen.. but I think maybe he should read the law as well. I happen to be ‘Hispanic’ & an OB local, & this is the 1st time I’ve posted on the ‘Rag’ …just for the record… I don’t believe law abiding hardworking respectfull ‘Illegals’ will/should be targeted (unless they break the law) … but they need to start the process of gaining citizenship the lawfull way…it’s the violent drug running, human smugging, kidnapping scum… that we need to stop w/all legal means available. ~J


Tom July 16, 2010 at 11:11 am

So what makes this statement from an American with hispanic roots so hard to understand? I believe he has put the issue in perfect perspective. I have to produce identification at least once a day to function within our system and have no problem doing it becauce it PROTECTS my freedom, identity etc. Sounds like OB’s upset ’cause thats where their drugs come from.


Kenloc July 16, 2010 at 1:15 pm

we grow our own drugs,thank you)


Tom July 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm

I stand corrected – in retrospect, an irrelevant comment by me to begin with.


Abby July 19, 2010 at 7:54 am

My drugs are locally grown and bought at the store. Legally.


JohnyBGOOD July 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

Harlen—The Nazis are who the U.S. soldiers defeated in World War II. We are the GOOD GUYS!!! If you want to pay taxes (taxes mean money taken from your paycheck, and when you buy something) for 25,000,000 Mexicans who are in this country illegally, I suggest you move to Mexico and give all of them your ATM number. Get smart, and don’t go thru life as a bonehead.


Dave Rice July 16, 2010 at 11:15 pm

Percentage of taxes spent for the benefit of poor people (illegal or not, I’m indifferent) versus percentage of taxes spent waging wars I don’t want to pay for?


Pete July 16, 2010 at 11:06 am

While I don’t support the AZ law, I’m having a difficult time understanding the goal of this particular boycott. Empty seats at Petco Park will hurt the Padres, not the Diamondbacks. Can someone please explain what the objective is here?


Brian July 16, 2010 at 11:19 am

Yeah, we should open up the borders to all people. They can all live in that cockroach infested hole known as OB. Ha!


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 1:17 pm

The lamest post I’ve seen on here in a long time.Way to go Brian.


mg July 16, 2010 at 11:20 am

1st. Read the Bill, it merely gives the officers the right to ask for there information when they get pulled over or commit a crime.
2nd. Why bring baseball into this.. they didnt write the bill, they didnt put up money in campaigns or political ads . You libs always punish the wrong people. You cant have your cake and eat it too.


Dave Rice July 16, 2010 at 11:19 pm

…or when they’re walking down the street, or at work, or in a store, or hanging out in the front yard, or…


doug porter July 16, 2010 at 11:30 am

hey gang, it appears as though this article has been picked up by google news, according to our stat counter.
just a reminder to new visitors that comments are moderated; if you came to flame, you won’t get your fame here.


Tom July 16, 2010 at 11:43 am

moderate….progressive word for sensor


Matt July 16, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Is “sensor” the conservative word for “censor”?

Freedom of the press means you have the freedom to run your blog how you want. I don’t whine on FreeRepublic whenever they ban any user who doesn’t 100% toe the line. If they want to have their little echo chamber, that’s their right. And it’s the right of this site to “censor” whatever the hell they feel like.

Don’t like it? Start your own blog.


Frank Gormlie July 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm

Wow! thanks Matt, that was refreshing!!


Tom July 16, 2010 at 2:33 pm

OUCH! but no credit for the set up. Have a great weekend Matt.


just my 2 cents July 16, 2010 at 12:04 pm

I am going to game as a matter of fact….It is a benefit game for Meals on Wheels one of my buddies put together weeks ago…I will be looking for the protest , curious to know how the protesters know which Padre players agree with the law in Az….10 news just said Padre Players who agree with the AZ law will be targeted !!! funny stuff….


Kenloc July 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm

I don’t get it. Why boycott the Padres? They aren’t from Arizona. In fact, most of the players on the Diamondbacks aren’t from Arizona. Go to Arizona and boycott their stadium. The Padres are actually doing good this year.Go support your home team!


bodysurferbob July 16, 2010 at 1:35 pm

ya know, i don’t think anybody is calling people who like the padres or go to their games – even this series – ‘racists.’ a boycott called on some kind of issue is a traditional tactic used by many different political forces. it’s a way to raise the public awareness of some issue. these folks think this is an important issue, obviously. they’re trying to bring attention to the contradictions here and to their overall goal, the switch by the baseball commission to another locale for the all star game.

something like this will certainly stir the proverbial pot in a town like san diego. the padres always seem to do good at the beginning and middle of their seasonal stand, but they always collapse at the end. i’ve seen it many times and so have my fellow san diegans.

i wasn’t going to the game anyhow but i support these pissed off people getting their message across. they have limited access to the media – or the daily fishwrap would have broadcast their thing.

even you already have tickets, i personally wouldn’t ask you not to go to the game. only if you were sitting on the fence to go or not.

oh, and nunya, there’s politics in sports, ‘fraid to have to inform you. but you know what, i sympathize with you – as it’s nice to relax sometimes and not have to think about the broader implications of anything, just how well THE PADRES ARE HITTING!!!


Editordude July 16, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Consider this: Immigrant deaths soar in recent heat wave

Whatever your position on how illegal immigration should be dealt with, there’s no denying the human tragedy occurring on the U.S.-Mexico border. Deaths are rising among people making the illegal crossing.

From the web site of the Arizona Star (Tuscon):

Illegal border crossers are dying at record rates this month.

Since July 1, the Pima County Medical Examiner’s Office has handled the bodies of 38 illegal border crossers, said Dr. Bruce Parks, chief medical examiner. That midmonth total puts July on pace to match or break the single-month record of 68 in July 2005.

“I never thought we would see that again,” Parks said. “It’s scary. Maybe the rain will slow these down.”

Parks said his office has been picking up and examining between one and four bodies of illegal immigrants daily since the beginning of the month. Field agents were on their way to pick up four more bodies Thursday, he said. Most of the people are being found recently deceased.

Worth noting that these deaths are occurring after passage of Arizona’s strict anti-illegal immigration law. Despite the law, people from Latin America are still willing to risk their lives to pass into the U.S., a sign of just how desperate matters are for many of them.


Tim July 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm

How can these groups keep putting across the media that this is Arizona’s unconstitutional law? Do the authors think that the general public are this uninformed? The law is less restrictive than the federal laws already in place.. And the previous poster is correct, we can’t just go into other countries without documentation, so why would we let them into our country without documentation..

I have to carry a drivers license around with me at all times. Were I to get questioned by the police because I was suspected of a crime, if I had no ID, I would be detained until they could figure out who I am, regardless of my color, race or creed. How is it that I can be detained, but an illegal cant?

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, how does boycotting at a San Diego home game hurt Arizona? It seems to me that the folks most likely to be hurt by a succesful boycot would be the hard working hourly employees and vendors at the ballpark, not the people of Arizona. Imho the most likely outcome would be a few blurbs in the news showing the rest of the country how quickly some Californian’s will jump into a cause they have done very little research on.

The bottom line is that if you are illegal, have managed to make it to our country without being blackmailed, kidnapped or killed by the people you are paying to get you here and then start commiting crimes once you are here, you need to go back. Regardless of the country of origin.

Since some in the government dont want to loose the illegal votes, they aren’t enforcing the law that would send criminal illegals back to their country or jail. Arizona has simply decided to enforce it themselves.

To bad California wont follow their example..


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

You can’t discriminate against people because they appear to be from another country.I’ve been pulled over without ID.It’s a fix it ticket.Just gotta show up in court with your ID.I don’t know of anyone being detained because they didn’t have their ID.You can’t single out one person to be detained over another when the “reasonable suspicion” is their skin color or accent.It’s the same reason they search everyone at airports,not just people who look middle eastern or Muslim.I also don’t know of any law that requires you to carry your drivers license at all times.Only when your driving.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 3:34 pm

and California won’t follow that example because it’s a bad exampe. The United States government doesn’t file lawsuits against states unless they feel like they have a strong case.I’m sure this lame,racist law will be deemed unconstitutional soon.


ROG July 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm

“It is a benefit game for Meals on Wheels”

Yeah! Boycott those benefit games! Clueless much?


T. Simokat July 16, 2010 at 2:13 pm

As a direct result of the pro- illegal immigration remarks, as well as the anti- SB 1070 remarks, boycotts and protests, I sent a $$$ contribution to the State of Arizona to help defend this Socialist government’s lawsuit. If need be I will send another contribution. If you haven’t been to the Arizona / Mexican border, you can not begin to understand what the Arizona residents are needlessly going through.

If you are pro-illegal immigration, I suggest you do two things; 1., visit the order and 2., read SB1070.


doug porter July 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

You’re in good company: This morning, the white supremacist political party American Third Position (A3P) proudly announced its donation to the fund recently established by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to defend that state’s controversial new immigration law. “The American Third Position has just made a triple-digit donation to Arizona’s Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund,” the group announced in an E-mail alert. In describing its own mission, A3P says it “exists to represent the political interests of White Americans.”
Brewer claims SB 1070 will not target persons based on their skin color. But A3P begs to differ, seeing SB 1070 as a tool for the reinstatement of white political control. “We support all constructive endeavors by private citizens, businesses, local governments — or in this case a sovereign state — to stem and reverse the browning of America,” the A3P’s E-mail said. “Arizona’s enforcement statute represents the best current opportunity to reduce [brown-skinned immigration]. From its inception, A3P has been disseminating the nightmarish facts regarding the financial, social and demographic consequences of the unprecedented invasion from the south.”


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm

Don’t we have a border with Mexico in our state?How do you figure people living 20 miles from the border crossing have no idea what the poor people of the state of Arizona are going through?We have immigration problems here too.We don’t come up with lame laws that give law enforcement the authority to detain anyone they deem to look foreign who doesn’t have an ID on them. Do you know why?Because many Americans look foreign too.It’s not pro-illegal immigration when you are looking out for the rights of American citizens whose skin is darker than yours.


Greg July 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Using the May 1st Coalation’s reasoning and all those that support a boycott of Arizona, all of Major League Baseball should be boycotted; Or at least the teams in the Cactus League (about half). Spring training is held for all of the MLB teams in either Arizona or Florida ). How about no Baseball this year?
Maybe we should be boycotting the people that call for boycotts and not pay any more attention to them.
BTW if Arizona called for a boycott of California we would be in deep sh#%.
Twenty percent of the the biosolids (stuff you flush down the toilet) that are removed during the treatment of your wastewater, are shipped out of state mostly to AZ for landfill. Same thing goes for solidwaste overflow that is diverted from our landfills. I presonally appreciate our relation with AZ and the fact that they are willing to take so much sh#% from us and not complain. Can’t say that for the May 1st Coalation.
Thanks AZ ;)


Frank Gormlie July 16, 2010 at 3:12 pm

That’s pretty shitty of them.


C Hanlon July 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm

I love these ignorant, illiterate, losers that believe or print things like “It’s all because of the new Arizona law restricting brown-skinned people.” These speak first, think….well, never folks are so narcissistic that they think this law applies only to Mexican criminals and not to those from Poland or France…. Now that’s pretty racist.

You won’t find many anti-az law people in SD…we built a fence (its a start) …and we have seen the benefits.


Frank Gormlie July 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm

C Hanlon – which fence did we build?


C Hanlon July 16, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Oh…maybe the big one on the border that has successfully driven many of these criminals in AZ. Granted, its not nearly enough, but as I said, a start.

Now we have the assistance of a handful of guardsmen as well…hopefully that number gets pushed up as well and we give them the authority to enforce our boarders, just as the Mexican government does with their southern boarder.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Yes,I’m sure the law was written with the intent of deporting all of those damned Polish and French illegals living in Arizona.You and I both know it wasn’t.That does make it racist,no?


C Hanlon July 16, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Actually no it doesn’t.

The law specifically prohibits that, making it equally applicable to all…including Polish and French immigrants.

Applying the law equally is the most American this we can do. It is fair, it is just, it is right.

Which is also why Obama will never challenge this law as being racist, and had to back down from all his big talk about doing so, instead challenging it on a smaller states rights vs federal rights stance.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Keep pretending that Arizona didn’t write that law with Mexicans in mind.


C Hanlon July 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Facts are a hard thing to argues against, I agree….
stick with misrepresentations, assumptions, and falsehoods.

but I will offer some help for you and your wife…
if your wife is ever supposedly detained again….having her drivers license and ssn memorized will get you cleared in about 20 seconds. I have have been pulled over a couple times without ID and they were able to look me up just like that…no ticket…no problems.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 4:46 pm

That would get you cleared here,yes.Do you think a Mexican person in Arizona who rattles off a memorized SS# and DL# is going to get that same pass?The incident with my wife was a hypothetical situation.I know it’s hard to read in detail the posts of ignorant,illiterate losers but if your going to comment on them at least get it right.I think Obama can’t challenge the law as racist because he doesn’t want to be seen as the 1st black president running around screaming racism,so he worded it differently.He has to be very tactful in the way he approaches issues like this,as to not upset the white folks too much.


C Hanlon July 16, 2010 at 9:46 pm

oh i read you post…
which is why i said “if your wife is ever supposedly detained again”
see that supposedly….i was referring to your make believe example…or the others that have NEVER happened…

and you know those keyboard looking things in police cars, they actually are real computers…when you punch in someones information…you can actually see their picture…or at the very least get a description of the person and any other information about them that can help identify them…phone number, address…and so on. Believe it or not, we actually have the technology to prevent occurrences like the one you imagined. Or do you believe there is a secret high speed rail system back to Mexico (since you don’t think this applies to other illegal aliens) that will have them deported within minutes with no time for a follow up?

Sure, someone may screw up someday….but thats not a reason to erase a valid and just law. If it were, we would have to wipe out all laws under the same fear that someday something could go wrong.

again, your world of what if’s doesn’t really stand up when tested…

but without what if’s there would be no argument for the open boarder crowd at all.

BTW…loved the 3 people that showed up to protest tonight :)


kenloc July 17, 2010 at 9:00 pm

Never said I was for an open border,just that I,like millions of others,don’t like the tone of this law. When the United States of America wins their lawsuit against the state of Arizona you will be proven wrong.


c. hanlon July 17, 2010 at 10:41 pm

if AZ loses this battle…and that’s a big if… sanctuary cities also lose since they are also violating the federal guidelines in the exact same was as AZ supposedly is…those lawsuits are already set to go
so that will be nice as well if such a precedent is set.

20 protesters at tonight’s game…with motivating chants such as “we are the people…mighty mighty people” must have helped…only 40k+ at the game.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 3:03 pm

All of the comments I’ve read assume that only an illegal alien wouldn’t have ID on them.What if I get pulled over in Arizona(I’m white) and my wife, who is hispanic and dark skinned but very much American, forgot her ID at home. Are they going to detain her until we can prove her citizenship?Doesn’t it suck that she has to worry about that crap because her skin is dark?I doubt they will be detaining white people without ID.Doesn’t that scream unamerican to you?Perhaps that’s why the American government is suing the state of Arizona.


Klatu Berata Nicto July 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Illegals are here “illegally”. They have broken our laws, taken money from our social services and public coffers, and use fake documents and stolen identities. There is nothing to gain from supporting illegals, other than to perpetuate these crimes. They are essentially slave labor and as such, depress wages in everything from farming to construction. It costs California alone approx. $10.5 Billion dollars a year to cover the expenses of illegal immigration. We have had enough, and quite literally, we can no longer afford their presence. Any argument of “human rights” abuses is null, as these people CHOSE to come into our country illegally. They chose to break OUR laws. American citizens are not affected by 1070 at all. If somehow they are, they stand to make a considerable sum from the inevitable lawsuits. So bring it on. If I’m stopped, I’ll sue. I’m an American with nothing to hide. The only people with ANYTHING to fear in this bill are those who are here illegally. The American people overwhelmingly support 1070, and other states are following suit as a result. Not only will I support AZ in their endeavor, as a direct result of these pro-illegal protests , I might even vacation there, as I have friends in Yuma. GO Padres and Dbacks!


Frank Gormlie July 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm

Klatu – I’d like to refute each of your main points:

1) ” immigrants take money from our social services” – Some funds are spent on behalf of immigrants yes, but like many American citizens, immigrants are forced to go to the ER for our medical care because we don’t have adequate health care; yet immigrants pay all kinds of taxes- sales taxes, certainly – the most unfair tax there is; they pay property taxes if they own homes; and get this – they pay into social security – but never collect. They pay the IRS thru paycheck taxes, do you think they collect of that as well?

2) “There is nothing to gain from supporting illegals” – immigrants do a lot of jobs that ordinary Americans shun – because they’re too difficult, dangerous or monotonous; immigrants pick our salads, watch our children, clean our yards, and work for us on individual basis – how many of us have gone to Home Depot to get some cheap workers to help us in some personal project of ours? A lot. See #1, we can in uncollected tax monies and social security monies.

3) Immigrants “perpetuate crimes.” – Most immigrant communities have less crime than “ordinary” neighborhoods. Why? Because they fear being found out and deported. Which is also a detriment in the AZ law. Many immigrants will not come forward with information about crimes in their communities or if they are victimized or are witnesses to crimes.

4) They are “slave labor” – Many who cross our dangerous borders are desperate. They can make in one day here what they would have to work a month for down south. “depressed wages”? What wages are they depressing? farm worker wages maybe. It is true that immigrants have become an “underclass” in our society, subject to a lot of harassment, depressed wages, and discrimination.

5) Immigrants are humans, and suffer human rights abuses. Period. Cannot be refuted.

6) ‘Americans don’t want them and all of us support AZ’s law.’ Wrong. see the latest polls. Americans are split fairly evenly. And there is some evidence to suggest that the support for the AZ law is starting to slide down.

7) They “chose” to come here, thus screw them if they die, or become abused or taken advantage of. — Often these folks are so desperate due to the economics of their villages, that they are willing to risk our deserts and mountains to cross over. And right now in this heat, they’re dying in record numbers. Often young people in the poor villages cannot find work because of the huge tracts of farm land that are bought up by US and other foreign corporations, throwing many off of their traditional lands.

8) ‘This AZ bill doesn’t harm Americans.’ BS. Any brown-skinned American or any American with a Spanish sur-name is liable to be pulled over. This is not right, is not American.

9) “The only people to fear this bill are the immigrants” – Not true. All freedom-loving Americans fear this bill because it’s the beginning of a new level of official racism and official racial-profiling.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Word Frank)


J July 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Mr Gormlie…you’re an attorney (I’m told) … tell me if you have read both SB-1070 & the Fed statute… & if so tell me how in the world you feel SB-1070 is disciminatory… under the Federal law you do not even have to have a reason to ask for proof of citizenship…under AZ law…you have to have been stopped for a lawful reason unrelated to your citizenship in order to inquire as to your citizenship. Sure many illegals come here to find opportunity… & yes a lot of them do work many of us would not, but for every $8/hr hotel maid…there’s the brick layer/Mason that works for 1/3 what a ‘licensed & bonded’ Mason needs to charge who also has to pay workmans comp & employ a crew & who pays income tax, property tax, social sec. etc…this applies to Tile contractors, drywallers, carpenters…how about you & other like minded Americans sympathize w/these people while your feeling sorry for illegal imigrants as well… I know people from both worlds… remember my earlier post I have Mexican heritage in my family & proud of it…but I’m American 1st! This country was built on immigration & since the early 19th century it’s against the law to come here illegally. I’m for immigration…LEGAL IMMIGRATION… Go Padres!… ~J


not a redneck in east county July 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm

i know people from both worlds also. what of the ‘licensed and bonded’ contractors who hire these undocumented workers, take out a workers comp policy on one employee named juan, charge their clients the going rate and pay their workers the 30% you’re talking about? personally, i am more inclined to sympathize with the workers in these cases.


Tim July 16, 2010 at 3:46 pm


Check out Terry v Ohio and Hibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada.

These give precedence for detaining someone who officers have “reasonable suspicion” (which they would have the burden to prove in court) has commited a crime, but who does not or cannot identify themselves to police. The US Supreme Court found that this does not violate the fourth or fifth amendments.

I believe that 24 or so states have actual laws on the books which specifically authorize this, regardless Terry v Ohio gives the authority to all U.S. jurisdictions.

In your example, what would your wife have been doing that would cause the police to have “reasonable suspicion” that she had commited a crime? Even if you were pulled over for speeding (in which case you have to prove your identity with a valid drivers license) if you wife wasn’t driving, she couldn’t be forced to give id. If they found drugs in the car, or people in the trunk or she is being beligerent and disturbing the peace, then they may have reason to ask her for id. Otherwise, just the color of her skin is not a “reasonable” reason for the officer to request identification.

If this actually happened, and you took the city or county to court, and the officers couldn’t prove a reasonable suspicion, it would be an unlawful detention and I am sure you would win a large settlement and affect a change in that police departments policy.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm

I think that if this law stays as written that is the exact type of lawsuits your going to see,Tim.Perhaps after spending millions in litigation Arizona will think twice about this policy.


Jessie July 16, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Illegal immigrants prefer to be legal if they could. Jobs are hard for illegal immigrants, they get paid really low for dirty or menial jobs.

Majority of them are law abiding people who came to this country because they aspire to have a better life. They are illegal because they don’t have no documentation, much like our forefathers who immigrated from Europe.


kenloc July 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Answer this question.What would give an officer reasonable suspicion a person was unlawfully present in the United States? If not his skin color or his accent,what?The law also says “lawful contact”.People don’t have to have committed a crime for an officer to have lawful contact with you.


JPinSD July 16, 2010 at 4:30 pm

I found this going through an old email thread from 2006 or so. Immigration obviously was the topic…..

Marty: I think that Brian’s views are a combination of two schools of thought-the Ellis Island romantics and the Wall Street Journal bottom-liners. On one hand, he is thankful for the opportunities that America afforded his ancestors, a very common sentiment that just about everyone who is not an Indian would second. On the other, he believes that unfettered immigration is what made this country and it’s economy great. To support this, he says that most economists would agree with him. I agree that you probably could find a majority of economists that do think that, but I think they are wrong.

Brian: Marty, You’ve already said that you’re not an expert and you don’t have any special expertise to qualify you to talk about this subject, so why would you, an economic layman, say that these economists are wrong?

Marty: Well, most economic theories are right to some degree. Even Marx was right on a few of the basics, but economics is such a complex science, even the most brilliant group of economists, to say nothing of a single one, cannot grasp all of the complexities of something as complicated as the effect of immigration on a given nation. Even then, it’s not a “science” like physics is.

Brian: Give me a concrete example of what you’re talking about.

Marty: First, let me step back a bit. I’m more of a historian, and an amateur at that, but I’ll try. Let’s look at what arguments you and other immigration supporters have. You say for instance that economic growth in the eary part of the last century in the United States was fueled by immigration, and that today, if we didn’t have immigration, “who would cut your lawn, clean your work toilet, or make your food”. Let me respond to that by saying, who does these jobs in Japan. Japan has a minute amount of immigration, yet these things seem to get done. How is that possible?

Brian: I suppose the Japanese do them, but look at how much things cost there! With cheaper labor costs, the economy can grow. Even with our immigration, that’s one of the reasons American industries are moving overseas-cheap labor.

Marty: So what happens to Americans? What is the typical “Joe Six-Pack” going to do for a living? He can’t work in a factory as those jobs are disappearing. He can’t support his family working at McDonald’s. As “he” withers (as a group, mind you) overall economic strength diminishes. We are already a debtor nation. This is only going to get worse. Not everyone can work for the government in a “make-work” job. Not everyone can go on to work in the service sector. We are not all cut out to be lawyers and consultants.

Jimmy: My thoughts exactly…

Brian: You haven’t addressed what this has to do with immigration. The decline of industry in America has little to do with that.

Marty: You are right, it doesn’t. But it has driven down wages in some formerly high-paying jobs that an average man could take like meat packing. Wages there have stagnated since the 1970s, primarily because of the inflow of cheap foreign laborers undercutting the market. This is now starting in construction.

Brian: Those industries have a duty to their shareholders to turn a profit. This is one way to do that. Can you fault them for that?

Marty: No, but it is our government’s duty to watch out for the best interests of its citizens, not the best interests of its corporations. They have been the real villains in this. Short-term economic and political gain with little thought for the long-term. Typically American…

Jimmy: Huh…

Brian: How’s that?

Marty: Look, a CEO or a politician doesn’t have to live with what this does. He has his gated community, his private schools and his secure source of income. What happens in the long-term doesn’t affect him, and it probably won’t affect those he loves. Culture’s what matters here. This is what the sentimental part of Brian’s argument hinges on. That our current wave of immigrants want a better life and are eventually going to become productive members of society.

Brian: To some degree yes.

Marty: But in previous waves of immigration, the immigrants came from many different nations-in the 1750-1820 wave it was from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Germany. In the 1840-1870 wave it was Germany and Ireland. In the 1880-1924 wave it was Poland, Ireland, Italy, and various other east and southern European nations. No single one dominated. Today it’s almost all from Mexico. In previous waves of immigration, we had two oceans separating the immigrants from home. We had assimilationist schools. We had no mass media to keep them in touch with home. We had no easy way to travel home. Today all of that is different. Even the economic background is different. Where are the frontiers to be filled and the massive factories to be manned? I see urban sprawl with rising real estate prices and declining industries. I see schools teaching bilingually, I see assimilation, but to the lowest common denominator-with out of wedlock births and crime rampant. I see throughout history not a single successful instance of this kind of nation. That’s the kind of thing economists don’t take to heart.


Goatskull July 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm

Not doing the boycott thing. Yes I am against the law but it’s a baseball game and the Diamond Back are a baseball team.


Victim or Villain? July 17, 2010 at 7:49 am

AZ HB1070 is simply a symptom of a greater concern. If the federal government would do its job – secure the boarder, pass comprehensive immigration reform and then enforce its own laws – then Arizona wouldn’t have to. Boycotting Arizona is such a stupid move. We’re neighbors afterall. The way in which a person (or community) decides to disagree say a lot about their character. A boycott sends just the wrong message.


Frank Gormlie July 17, 2010 at 9:36 am

UPDATE from Saturday morning: There were about a dozen protesters at Petco Park on Friday. Across the street were some counter-protesters. The protest for Friday was I am told a ‘last-minute’ thing, and many more are expected today Saturday 4 to 6:30 pm.


jettyboy July 17, 2010 at 10:29 am

This is about a state that is scared the white population will lose political power. If anyone believes this is not about stopping Mexicans they can’t face reality. Sure Federal Immigration laws are not being enforced, that’s very clear when you see how many EMPLOYERS have been fined or punished. And as a side note for those who see Obama and his administration as socialist, you are just stupid. Since he took office illegal immigration has dropped significantly. Do some research before you spout off the uninformed Republican/Tea Party talking points.


Victim or Villain? July 17, 2010 at 12:18 pm

I don’t think you know what a socialist is. Obama is obviously a socialist. The evidence is rampant. Let me give you three examples:

1. While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party. The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party’s aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies. So was he a member of the New Party or just looking for the socialist endorsment? The New Party News, the party’s official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him. The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member. New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

2. Look at the gaggle of socialists Obama has appointed to various executive branch and czar positions. Let me name just a few:

Carol Browner, Climate Czar, had her named cleansed from the Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society website to hide her political affiliation with that organization.

John Holdren, White House Office of Science and Technology, who wrote, “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being” You don’t get more socialistic than wanting the governmtne to provide a decent life to every human being. Holdren has made statements in books published in the 1970s that suggested forced sterilizations and social pressure for abortions, among other things. This guy advocated sneaking contraceptives into American water supplies! But more recently, Holdren gave a speech advocating Obama’s ideals of socialism and “spreading the wealth”.

Van Jones – self-admitted communist.

3. Obama himself admitted in his book Dreams from My Father to seeking out ‘Marxist’ professors and attending ‘socialist conferences’.

I could go on and on but I have a job to do. I desire to work for my money. I don’t expect the government to take care of me. I choose to seek a “decent life” and don’t require that the establishment provide it for me.

One last thought: What is the true difference between a socialist government and a communist government? Answer: one thing, a dictator.


Molly July 17, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Hey Villain – you’re doing exactly what Joe McCarthy did in the Fifties: condemnation by association. Your claim that President Obama is a “socialist” because he associated with some socialists over 14 years ago, is a shameful example of ‘guilt by association.’ If one, your theory goes, shakes hands with a socialist, they must be a socialist.

Pretty lame, dude. Perhaps you should work a little harder, clear that sogged brain.

How do I know that the prez is NOT a socialist? None of his policies are “socialistic” — nothing he has done in a year and 2/3’s smacks of socialism.

Besides, you know what? I’m a socialist – and me and the rest of the ‘red menace’ do not consider Obama to be a ‘fellow traveler.’ I am proud to be a socialist – it’s a time-honored stance. Many famous Americans have been of the socialist persuasion, but Obama is not one of them.

His health care reform was a far cry from universal health care. And where are all the ‘socialist’ jobs?


Victim or Villain? July 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Sogged brain? Really? Ow! That hurt me deep down inside.
No, not really. I love how the left can’t debate without name-calling and insults. The way in which people disagree says a lot about their character.

I do love the debate though and respect your right to speak your mind, even if I disagree with your message. I even respect and honor your choice to belong to the socalist party. That takes a lot of guts in America. I wonder if you can truly say the same about my views and loyalties.

Shaking hands with a socialist might not make you one, but surrounding yourself with socialists, nationalizing one industry after another (auto, healthcare, finance, etc.) and signing legislation with the intent of “redistribution of wealth” certainly creates the aroma of socialism.

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Perhaps socialism is in the eye of the beholder; but honestly, can you not see how the right is connecting the dots of marxism with almost every action this president makes? And yes, I have read Marx and have studied the Manifesto extensively.

Frankly, the guy scares the living freedom-loving tar out of me and others like me on the right. Up until now I have been content letting my voice be heard at the polls only. Not anymore, the giant is waking up and I find myself energized to take action. I’m responding to blogs, something I never did. I call into radio programs and yes, believe it or not, attend tea party rallys. I’m even putting the final touches on a podcast I’ll be hosting, to be launced mid-August. (Its called Victims and Villains, watch for it.) Also, I can’t wait for November!

Final thought, I hope you are as vocal against the ‘guilt-by-association’ attacks agaist the so called “Nazi – right”.


kenloc July 17, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Heeeeeyyy! Aren’t you Roger Hedgecock?Shouldn’t you be at a “we need to take our country back” rally somewhere?


Rick Ef. July 17, 2010 at 10:49 am

Friends, Ive spoke to Chief Lansdowne. An I asked him Chief, will you enforce this law if it were here. He said absolutely not. Not a good Law, and my Officers are small in numbers and too busy. Thanks Rick


jettyboy July 18, 2010 at 8:15 am

Victim or Villain, nice try, care to document any of your tea party thoughts? Just one would be fine. By document I mean show proof not just right-wing babble and hearsay. All in all I think you are just like the rest of the right that is still not over losing the election, and on top of that to a black man! Get over it, you lost!


Victim or Villain? July 18, 2010 at 11:21 am

Thanks for the softball, you’re making this too easy. It seems to me you don’t like the ‘right-wing babble’. I believe its starting to make sense to you, which causes discomfort due to the loyalty you’ve already pledged to the left. The only way to resolve the problem is to convince yourself that we are all just a bunch of racists and sore losers (Villains). Its ok, most right-wing converts had to deal with the same emotions as they made their way from liberal to conservative. Your maturing, growing wiser and dealing with new feelings you’ve never felt before. When you are ready, we’ll be here to welcome you.

Now, let me respond to your challenge to document my tea party thoughts. Ready?

Ok, one of the main conflicts between the conservative tea party and the liberal socialistic left is the debate about the idea of individual responsibility verses collective responsibility.
Let’s talk about consequences. Choices have consequences. Good choices result in good consequences. Bad choices result in bad consequences. Let’s illustrate this with a simple example: smoking and the new socialist healthcare bill. Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer. Nobody is forced to smoke, and even if you were somehow coerced into smoking as a child, nobody is keeping you from quitting. This is an individual choice. In our society the choice is yours. Every one of us has been faced with this choice. Some choose to smoke and some choose to refrain. If an individual chooses to smoke all their life, they run a high risk of getting lung cancer and may even die.
So, who is responsible to pay for their cancer treatment? The individual who made the choice to smoke or the society that protects an individual’s freedom to make their own choices. If you hold to the idea of individual responsibility (conservative) then you feel that nobody but the individual should be held responsible. If you agree with the idea of collective responsibility (socialism) then you believe that society as a whole should pay for the poor choice of one individual.
Collective responsibility, which is a socialist enterprise in every respect, is the idea that everyone should share in everyone’s negative consequences. SOCIALISTS ENJOY THE FREEDOM TO MAKE BAD CHOICES BUT ABHOR THE IDEA OF SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES ALONE. So, what do they do, they pass a one-size fits all health plan forcing responsible individuals who have made the choice not to smoke to pay into a system that takes care of the irresponsible individuals who have made the poor choice to smoke. Any which way you slice it the system is unfair to those who choose to make responsible choices. I choose not to smoke, sleep-around, use illicit drugs, stick myself with dirty needles or exceed the speed limit when I drive. I consider myself a responsible person by being disciplined in my drinking habits, diet, sexual activities, gun ownership and use of sun block. Yet, under the new health care bill, I’m part of the collective and therefore must share in the negative consequences that result from the poor choices made by less-responsible individuals. Unfortunately, the wise choices I make don’t have an equally positive effect on the system.
The taxes I pay, which result from my income, which is a result of my labor, will now be used to treat a plethora of preventable ills, such as:
o Cancer treatment for those who choose to smoke.
o Pills and ointments for those who contract venereal diseases.
o Abortions (despite the president’s false promises) which result from the poor choices made by women (and men) who can’t practice safe sex.
o Drug rehab programs.
o Aids treatment.
o Etc.
Dare I take this a step further? Sure I do. Liberals love to espouse the virtues of freedom when everyone pays for the poor choices that freedom allows, until the system, burdened by the weight of its own corruption and inequalities, begins to implode in on itself. At that point, in pure liberal fashion, the elite leadership begins draconian measures to regulate the freedoms they previously enjoyed. Can you think of any examples? Let me help by providing just a few:
• Gun Control
• Single-pay healthcare
• Cap and Trade
• Financial Reform
• The recent movement to control America’s salt, sugar and carb intake.
As a conservative I love freedom. I believe in an individual’s right to make mistakes, and the personal growth that comes from making mistakes. Do you want to smoke? Go for it. Do you want to tempt fate by making poor choices in you sexual practices? Knock yourself out. Do you want to enjoy the short-lived euphoria of habit-forming drugs? Be my guest. But don’t come asking me to share in your despair once you are faced with the consequences of your choices. You’re on your own, my friend. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
It was either Viktor Frankl or Elie Wiesel (I can’t remember which) who argued that the Statue of Liberty should have a counterbalance on the west coast called the Statue of Responsibility – to remind the country that freedom isn’t free and that choices have consequences.


kenloc July 18, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Your example assumes that the persons medical issues are from lifestyle choices they have made.What if they are ill due to no fault of their own?What if they come down with a terrible illness and have no healthcare.What if that person was your grandmother of someone you care about?What about people from all walks of life that can’t afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in our country.Do you want to turn them away to die without treatment because of their economic status? The child born with cancer to a mom without insurance didn’t make his own bed you’d like him to lay in.You often hear te term “bleeding heart liberal”because liberals fight for things like nature,humantiy,peace,animals.Your whole comment is basically about money.Where your tax dollars go,etc.Money over all else.Mine,mine,mine!Get your own!That stance is what puts conservatives in a bad light.The poor and uninsured are at fault for the countries ills.I owe them nothing.When does it start being about people in need and stop being about your precious money?


Victim or Villain? July 18, 2010 at 6:07 pm

I appreciate your thoughts and agree with the majority of your sentiments. I hope you realize that we are more alike than we are different.

You are right; I picked all my examples to reflect lifestyle choices and did not direct any comments toward individuals who are ill due to no fault of their own. I was just picking one of many examples that illustrate individual responsibility versus collective responsibility, and also trying to show (again) why the right believes that the current establishment is way too socialistic, even Marxist.

I agree that the current healthcare system is broken and needs to be fixed. My heart sympathizes with those who contract terrible illnesses and have no healthcare. We’ve all seen the penny jars left by the cashier at local businesses asking for financial support to help a child with leukemia or heart problems. I’d be willing to bet that you donate; I do too. When a family member or close friend is in a similar situation I find the grief to be greater and find myself doing all I can to help. You do too.

I think where we differ is in how we seek to fix the problems we both agree exist. The left’s solution is to force everyone to pay into a system that allows bureaucrats to decide who gets support and who doesn’t. My solution requires less regulation, less government interference, more competition and much more accountability. The free market is much more powerful than the government, despite the assumptions politicians have that they can control it. The free market is much more equitable that the government and its solutions tend to be better and longer-lasting with much less painful side-effects.

Imagine a wealthy individual who, for whatever reason, doesn’t purchase health insurance and is now stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Do you feel sorry for him? Maybe. Do you feel the need to give him some of your money? How would you feel if the government forced you to pay his medical bills? Shouldn’t the guy take some ownership for his predicament? He was, after all, very much able to acquire and afford health insurance before he got sick. Shouldn’t he be responsible for his irresponsibility? I say he should be fully responsible. His stupidity should not oblige any action from me. If I want to help him I can, but the choice needs to be mine. I should get to spend my charitable dollars on those causes I choose, not those selected by some government magistrate.

Now, imagine someone who, through no fault of their own, is unable to acquire or afford health insurance. Shouldn’t something be done to help with the medical bills when they come? Of course. Is society improved when it takes ownership of such situations? You and I would both agree that it is. I know of nobody on the right that believes otherwise. We are more than happy, even enthusiastic to help those who are UNABLE to help themselves. But we experience quite a bit of heartburn when we are forced to help those who are UNWILLING to help themselves. There is a big difference.

I also believe that there is no man-made program, structure or law that can solve all of mankind’s problems. Life is unfair, I understand this and accept it. I cherish my freedom to make dumb mistakes do my best to own up and make good. I prefer the virtue of charitable giving rather than the vice of wasted tax resources.

I don’t look forward to a government-run healthcare system. I fear it will have all the compassion of the IRS, all the efficiency of the 9-11 memorial council (still not built), all the accountability of the Department of Agriculture (got subsidies?), and all the results of the recent bailouts (still at 9.7% unemployment). More government is just not the answer.

Finally, I won’t apologize for wanting to keep more of my money. My money is a representation of my labor and my labor is the biggest single piece of the “how do I spend my time” pie chart. My time is my life. Taking my money amounts to taking my labor, which is my time and my life and l call that ‘captivity’, which is the opposite of freedom. So in the end it is about people. I desire to put myself (a person) and my family (also people) first in my life. These are the most important people, to me. I know that you and your family are the most important people to you. I don’t begrudge you for that. You shouldn’t begrudge me my priorities either.


Frank Gormlie July 19, 2010 at 7:44 am

You know what? You develop these straw-man arguments (straw-person?) – and then call them “the left’s position” without any facts or substantiation, and then you get to tear them down. Doesn’t work that way. WOnder how you’d do in a real debate? Quit telling us on the left what our positions are, dude.


Victim or Villain? July 19, 2010 at 8:31 am

I appreciate your concern for my weak debating skills. But I’m not sure I understand your point. So you’re saying the left doesn’t support bigger government, the one-size-fits-all health bill, gun control, cap and trade, etc? I’d like to know specifically which “straw-man” positions I’ve mistakenly assigned to the left. I’d be happy to provide serious documentation, if it exists. Also, if I’m full of it, I’d like to know, really.

This can only help improve my debating skills. I always try to enter a debate prepared but with an open mind. You claim I’m just making stuff up, so tell me, what parts of my previous arguments did I fabricate?

Or maybe you’re starting to see the logic and reason behind my arguments and that makes you feel uneasy. These things happen when you open your mind to the possibility that the other side may have a point. (It actually happens to me all the time.) In the end, despite how polarized the political climate seems to be, we are all Americans and are really much more alike then we are different.


Frank Gormlie July 19, 2010 at 10:33 am

Here ya go:
Here is an example of a straw-person argument: You set up what you say/ think/ perceive is the “other side” and than you attack it.

“Collective responsibility, which is a socialist enterprise in every respect, is the idea that everyone should share in everyone’s negative consequences. SOCIALISTS ENJOY THE FREEDOM TO MAKE BAD CHOICES BUT ABHOR THE IDEA OF SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES ALONE. ”

Okay, this is not true. It’s a straw argument. I don’t have time to go thru all your assertions, but you get the general idea.


jettyboy July 19, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Gee you did an excellent job of changing the subject without ONE documented FACT to backup your previous contentions, you should run for political office. Not directed specifically at you VV, but I find the most often repeated slogan from the tea party rallies and speakers is that Obama has taken away so many of your freedoms. However each and every time they are asked to name one, they stare like a deer in the headlights. That’s one reason I like asking for facts rather than rumor or opinion, but if you like go ahead and disprove my assertion.


victim or villain July 20, 2010 at 12:24 am

Wow, so which is it, either I have poor debating skills (see Frank’s comments above) or I’m good enough to run for office. I hope you read my response to Frank, above, for some solid examples backing up my arguments.

As for loss of freedom – let me stop for a minute, this is too easy, and I can’t believe anyone would claim not to be able to see our liberties being diluted at every level of government. I suspect you mistake the deer-in-the-headlights gaze for ignorance when in reality it’s shock that anyone would have to ask such an obvious question. It reminds me of a student who once asked me, in all seriousness “How long is the three-week licensing course?” I didn’t answer her; I just stared, not sure if she was joking.
You want some examples of how our liberal leaders have taken away our freedoms? OK, where do I start, so many examples to choose from…

Example #1:
I have a close friend who, early in 2009, was bought out of a business in which he held a minor ownership position. He grossed quite a bit of money ($50k or so) in the sale. As fate would have it, he lost his job a week later. After discussing things over with his wife, the two of them decided to use their money to get into the business of flipping homes. They read some books and attended a seminar. In May of ’09 they bought their first investment home. In case you haven’t heard of this, let me describe how it works.

Step one: The investors (I prefer to call them ‘housing providers’ because that is what they do, provide clean, remodeled homes to end-user buyers at fair market prices) buy a property, usually well-used and in need of repair, quite often an eyesore compared to the rest of the neighborhood, for a price that reflects the condition. (Buy Low.)
Step two: The investors fix the place up, either by themselves or with the help of hired contractors; in doing so they add value, not only to the property itself, but to the neighborhood and the city.
Step 3: They put the property back on the market and sell it at a higher price, again at a price the market will support. (Sell high.)

Until February of this year my friend and his wife had to contend with a stiff regulation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (or HUD, which is part of the executive branch of the federal government, and answers to the prez) which would not allow borrowers of “government-related loans” to get funding for any property where the seller had owned the property for less than 90 days. This basically meant that unless the buyers we paying with their own cash, the investor had to wait the 90 days to sell, even if they found a buyer sooner than that, willing to pay a fair market price, in an arms-length transaction. If that’s not a glaring intrusion into the freedoms of a free market then I don’t know what is.

So in February, HUD, with all the fanfare of an egotistical dictator, lifted the 90-day seasoning rule, with one exception, and I quote:

“In cases in which the sales price of the property is 20 percent or more above the seller’s acquisition cost, the waiver will only apply if the lender meets specific conditions.”

So now, should an investor happen to improve the property such that their sales price exceeds their purchase price by more than 20 percent, they are punished for making too much of a perceived profit and must still wait out the 90 days. Notice that the equation does not take into account any of the money invested to remodel, update and repair the property.

I’ve read many blogs and posts where liberals berate such investors for being greedy and wicked for risking their funds in the real estate market. I wonder if you feel the same. If you do, ask yourself what our towns and cities (especially those with the hardest-hit housing markets, like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Florida, San Diego etc) would look like without these risk-taking housing providers. Have you been to Detroit lately, Cleveland, Pittsburg? How would you like trashed-out houses with boarded up windows on your street? Investors buy low and sell high. This is not a crime. Your car dealership does this as well. So do you grocer, coffee shop and pot dealer. Capitalism works, especially when the government gets out of the way.

Example #2
The new healthcare bill (via the federal government, passed by congress and signed into law by the prez) contains a provision that punishes citizens who choose not to buy insurance. Here’s all the freedom you get: You’re free to buy insurance or you’re free to pay the penalty for not buying insurance. Sounds like old fashioned American liberty to me…no, wait, I’m wrong, what it really sounds like socialism.

Example #3
If you read my reply to Frank above, then you know that I am perturbed when my tax dollars are spent on solutions aimed at problems created by irresponsible people. The more taxes I have to pay the less discretionary savings I have. The less discretionary funds I have the less I get to do the things that I like to do. For example, over a year ago my family decided to save up for a playhouse and sandbox for our backyard. Our goal is $1,500. We even have a jar in the kitchen where my children can contribute to the objective with their coins and dollars. I suspect we’ll reach our goal by the end of this year. But wait! What if someone less responsible decides that they need an abortion, or therapy for their addiction or doesn’t want to work and would rather scam unemployment benefits from an all too unaccountable government, we may need to pay more to the government and break into the kids savings so that someone can get treatment for their lifestyle-induced STD because they didn’t have the sense to practice safe sex. Do you not consider it an intrusion on my freedom when I, the taxpayer, am required to support the reckless lifestyle of someone I don’t even know? I most certainly do. The responsible family that saves together is punished so the irresponsible drug user can get free needles.

Example #4, and then I’m done.
The wonderful liberal paradise of San Francisco has been in the news a lot lately. Each story illustrates the left’s continued assault on American freedom.

San Francisco recently passed a law requiring all cell phone retailers to calibrate and then post radiation-emission data on each phone they sell. Here’s one more industry plagued with silly and way-over-reaching regulations. Yes, this is the example where regulation represents the opposite of freedom.

In addition, San Francisco has banned the presence of soda in all vending machines. The mayor thinks this will curb obesity in his city. Apparently, when it comes to what you do to your body, you don’t have the right to privacy, except when it comes to killing your unborn child, sorry, I meant to say fetus. Miss your freedom yet?

Finally, San Francisco is now considering doing away with…wait for it…I’m not making this up…pet stores, which are evil and must be stopped from selling pets to families at all costs.

“When I grow up I want to own a pet store!”
“Sorry Timmy, pet stores are illegal. Maybe you can grow up to be a census worker.”

If the leftist leaders have their way, one day Sylvester Stallone will be unthawed into a fascist Los Angeles utopia with no freedoms at all.

“I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener.”
-Edgar Friendly (Dennis Leary) in Demolition Man

I hope the examples from these two posts satisfy your request for documentation. And, should you desire to refute any of my arguments, please back them up with facts, not just opinion.


Dave Rice July 18, 2010 at 5:41 pm

I’ll probably check in and have another dozen comments on the diatribes above tomorrow. Today, my family had a great time watching the completion of a D-bag sweep at Petco – I had an eye out for protestors and would’ve given props to any I saw, but if they were present they were in disguise…anyone want to talk about that Zonie 3rd baseman that rolled over on Everth Cabrera’s kneee and then made a swipe at his crotch?


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: