The Pot Calling the Kettle Hateful, Part 4

Those pesky citizens with all their liberties and whatnot!

Sheriff Dupnik Faces Voter Recall

Not much more than an hour after nutter Jared Loughner shot a Congresswoman in the head and killed several others, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik starting blaming the Tea Party and the right-wing for the killing.
[...]
We expect such gutter-dwelling rhetoric from sites like the DemocraticUnderground or the DailyKos. When a law enforcement official does it moments after one of the worst attacks against a federal official in years, it speaks to the character (or lack thereof) of the person in question.

In the days following, Dupnik doubled-down on his rhetoric, naming Rush Limbaugh by name. The mainstream media piled on laying clear blame on the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and the Republican Party in general. It must be news to me, but I didn’t realize saying “cut taxes” meant “go shoot someone in the face.”
Sheriff Dupnik played a critical role in bringing an all-time low to American politics and drove a wedge deep between right and left. At a moment when we all should have come together as a country to denounce the attacks of a mentally ill individual (one whom, I might add, was known to be mentally ill by Sheriff Dupnik’s office and who was previously investigated for making threats on others by Sheriff Dupnik’s office), Dupnik stood center stage and began the national blamestorming discussion.
[...]
Calls for his resignation are completely appropriate, however, the citizens in Pima County have something else in mind: they have begun the process to recall the Sheriff.

Recall is the ability of voters to fire a public official when they cease to serve the public. Sheriff Dupnik’s behavior is an extreme example of why such a remedy is necessary.

Sarah Palin Shames Her False Accusers

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Transcript:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

Our Anti-American President

Obama's Arizona Jihad - HUMAN EVENTS

The Obama Administration’s jihad against Arizona continues to rage. Most recently, it included SB 1070 (Arizona’s new immigration law) in a report to the United Nations on human rights abuses.
[...]
I didn’t think it could get any worse than the Obama Administration suing a sovereign state for simply enforcing federal immigration law—indeed, for simply defending its citizens—but it has.
President Obama has decided to have the United Nations review the law of Arizona. You have got to be kidding! We’re now going to have countries like Cuba, Libya and Uganda sitting in judgment on Arizona’s laws? Enough is enough!
[...]
Sheriff Joe’s crack down on illegal immigration led the Mexican drug cartels to put a $1 million bounty on his head last month.

When the sheriff of America’s fourth-largest county is threatened by foreign enemies, you would think that the President would assist him. Instead, Obama is siding with the cartels. While they are sending their guns against Sheriff Joe, Obama is sending his lawyers.
[...]
Americans need to wake up! Obama’s assault on SB 1070 and Sheriff Joe has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, civil rights, or even the relationship between federal vs. state authority on immigration.

It is about Obama’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws. He won’t let the federal government enforce the law. And if a state tries to pick up their slack and protect its citizens, he sues them.

This is the Obama’s Civil Rights Division of $145 million and 399 attorneys attacking Arizona and its citizens. This is a battle of epic proportions. They have the support of highly funded left-wing open-borders legal advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Bring it on!!

Obama, Backstabber-in-Chief

'President' Barack Hussein Obama betrays his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and betrays his duty to the sovereign state of Arizona. How many impeachable offenses will he be allowed to commit?

CNSNews.com - State Dept Referring Arizona’s Immigration Law to U.N. is Rebuffed by Arizona Sheriff – ‘Regard for the U.N. as I Do the Vermin That Hides in the Rocks’

“Well, it’s just amazing to me,” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Course, I have about as much regard for the U.N. as I do the vermin that hides in the rocks around my house here and reaches out and tries to bite me every now and then.”

The Bush administration refused to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, citing lax membership criteria that allowed countries with poor human rights records to sit on the council, including countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt.

The Obama administration joined the council, citing its imperfections but made claims that U.S. efforts could change the organization for the better.

Now, the U.S. State Department is asking the council to review possible human rights violations that supposedly could occur under the Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law.

Raleigh Pro Illegal Alien Protest

They oppose border security, they called the police protecting them 'pigs' (though there were no threats), some wore t-shirts with an image of the tyrant and butcher Che Guevera, some carried communist flags, at least one threatened violence against an observer, people ineligible to vote were being registered. Some poor fool actually accused border security proponents of designating some individuals 'illegal' by virture of their existence. Their signs, flags, words, and action all reveal the kind of people who are in favor of illegal immigration. All this at a pro-illegal alien protest right here in the Tarheel State, on Wednesday.

From Katy's Conservative Corner:

Liberty, Sovereignty, and Arizona

A superb, brief summary of the principles of our government and how those principles relate to the issue of Arizona's border security law SB1070.
American Thinker: Liberty, Sovereignty, and Arizona

By Daniel H. Fernald
The American concept of sovereignty -- as expressed in our Declaration and Constitution -- is, like that of ancient Athens, directly linked to our natural liberty. Casting a vote is an act of sovereign delegation. That is, when one votes, one says, in effect, "I am unable to discharge all of the duties laid on me by my personal sovereignty. Thus, I will, along with my countrymen, choose certain individuals to represent my interests and to discharge such duties as are beyond my ability."

Each citizen votes for a mayor, who is charged with overseeing municipal services -- police, fire, and the like. We vote for state representatives and a governor in order to accomplish the same goal at the State level. Finally, we vote for federal representatives and a president in order that our laws may be enforced, and our Constitution defended, at the national level.

In each instance, we delegate -- but do not surrender -- some portion of our personal sovereignty in order to safeguard our natural rights. We do not delegate any portion of our personal sovereignty for any other purpose. We retain such sovereignty, i.e. personal liberty, as we do not delegate.

This follows from the logic of sovereignty's origin with the individual and its partial delegation for the limited purpose of safeguarding our natural rights. The State has no other legitimate function than to safeguard the natural rights of those whose collective sovereign delegation alone leads to its creation.

For example, we waive our natural right to perfect liberty by placing ourselves under the authority of police and courts, in exchange for which we rightly demand their protection. We also allow the State to function as an intermediary between us and our neighbors in property disputes. The list goes on.

The overriding point is that, without exception, every legitimate State power has been delegated to it by the People. Citizens delegate some limited part of their sovereign rights to the State in order that the state may act as a protector from outside forces, and an impartial arbiter when conflicts occur between citizens.

The State is not autonomous. It has no source of legitimate power other than the People. Whenever it acts beyond such sovereign powers as have been specifically delegated to it by the People, its action is unlawful and indeed constitutes an attack on liberty itself.

This liberty finds its most immediate, and concrete, expression in the natural, "negative" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that are pillars of the Declaration and are woven into the very fabric of the Constitution. When read without the hermeneutic pink-colored glasses favored by so much of our leftist judiciary, our Constitution clearly privileges both the individual citizen and "The People" over the federal -- not central -- government created by it.

By crafting the Constitution in this way, our Founders recognized simultaneously the necessity and the danger of joining the several sovereign States together into a larger federation, a truly "federal" government.

Two points are worthy of note here. First, the several consenting States were already sovereign prior to the creation of the federal government. They were prior existing sovereign entities. Their creation predated the federal government created by the Constitution. The People of each sovereign and consenting State had delegated some portion of their personal sovereignty in order to create a collective entity, the State (i.e., New York, Maryland, Virginia, etc.), for the express purpose of defending their natural liberties -- and for no other purpose. Thus, the exercise by the federal government of any powers not specifically granted to it by the States is a usurpation.

Second, in creating the federal government, the States merely delegate some of the powers previously delegated to them by the citizens of those States. They retained all powers not granted. That this grant was limited, well-defined, and inelastic is clearly evidenced by both the plain language of the Constitution and, more specifically, by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

With this as background, the current imbroglio, including a pending federal lawsuit, over Arizona's commonsense approach to enforcing federal laws openly flouted by the federal government emerges as far more than just a jurisdictional battle. What is at stake in Arizona is the liberty of Arizona's citizens, and by extension the liberty of every American.

The People of Arizona have delegated some part of their personal sovereignty, and hence liberty, to their elected State representatives. These same representatives have voted to incorporate federal immigration law into state law (with specific prohibitions against racial profiling -- which are, ironically enough, absent in the relevant federal statutes). That the People of Arizona overwhelmingly support this legislation passed by their servants in the legislature should be cause for celebration -- a victory for representative democracy.

Instead of valorizing the process, however, the left -- led by our own president -- demonizes a sovereign State and its People in the never-ending quest to impose its predetermined positions by any means necessary. Thus do we have the sad spectacle of so-called "liberals" who hate liberty, who despise the sovereign exercise of power by the People.

We are very far indeed from Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will to the death your right to say it." As I have written elsewhere, liberals are anti-liberty because they already "know" the truth; hence, they regard the traditional values of free inquiry -- with all of its messiness, vagaries, and inevitable culs-de-sac -- as wastes of time. They have the facts, about which no sensible person will argue. Consequently, anyone who argues with a truth-possessing liberal must not be a sensible person and is hence not worth arguing with. That such circular thinking is obviously illogical has been no bar to liberals' extensive use of it in such diverse areas as global warming, religion, and education.

The French judge, writer, and philosopher Estienne de la Boétie (1530-1563) wrote that "as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say ... that this people has not so much lost its liberty, as won its enslavement."

Despite the left's having won its own enslavement, the widespread support for Arizona's rightful exercise of its legitimate sovereignty should give us hope that the We, The People are not yet ready to follow them, lemming-like, over the cliff to be dashed on the waiting rocks of tyranny.

There is much more at stake in the pending federal lawsuit than the immigration policy of one State. Given the current balance of the Supreme Court, we may hope for a favorable outcome; even so, it is an affront to every American that We, The People should have to trust our natural liberty to the nine Solons in Washington. On such a slender thread does that which matters most so tenuously hang.

The author has written numerous academic articles and books, including Atheism Answered. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and rhetoric from Emory University and is a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. professordhf@hotmail.com

Arizona Law Already Upheld in High Courts!

National Review Online: United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? - Andy McCarthy

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

H/T Brutally Honest

Rhode Island Ahead of the Curve

Bad posture on amnesty

If he’s really upset that the same laws he has taken an oath to enforce might actually get (gulp!) enforced, why isn’t he suing Providence instead of Phoenix? They’ve been doing local immigration enforcement for years now.

As The Boston Globe-Democrat reported yesterday, “From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

Even liberal Providence, where politicians long opposed any local enforcement efforts, changed its policy in 2008 after the infamous Marco Riz case.

Riz was the illegal immigrant arrested by Providence cops twice while under a federal deportation order but released both times. He was then charged with carjacking a woman in Warwick and raping her in Providence.

Rhode Island cops now routinely contact ICE when they suspect they’ve come across an illegal immigrant. Since 2006, the number of contacts they’ve made to ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont has nearly doubled, the Globe reported. How is this significantly different than Arizona’s proposed law?

Families who fear running into the next Marco Riz might think Rhode Island is onto something. But not Team Obama.

DOJ Unable to Make a Case for Discrimination Against Arizona Security Law

While the leftist, anti-Americans howl accusations about racial profiling and discrimination against Arizona's new self-defensive law, SB1070, which enables state law enforcement officials to enforce laws regarding illegal immigration, the U.S. Department Of Justice files suit against Arizona, but pursues arcane technicalities in order to defeat Arizona's patriotic stance and to expose America to invasion because Obama's hand-picked America haters cannot make a legal case for accusations of discrimination! Not only so, but P.J. Gladnick fine article points out Obama's precise duplication of a particular offense our Declaration of Independence listed against King George III.

Priceless.

Dude, Where's My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit | NewsBusters.org

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. ---Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence.

Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn't include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit:
As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.


Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration.

The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit:
PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona's tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don't belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down.


Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit.

So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story:
Although the lawsuit cites potential "detention and harassment" of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, "we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that's something that we would take action on."


Shh! Let's not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Obama is France!

Obama surrenders wide swaths of the sovereign state of Arizona to the civilian invasion from Mexico. There can be no excuse for either his cowardice or his hatred for America. This is another impeachable offense.

Obama Extorts Citizens for Support of His Anti-American Agenda

If not before, then certainly now, Obama is worthy of impeachment at the very least.

H/T XtnYoda

Congressman McClintock (R-CA) Rips Calderon and Anti-American Democrats

H/T Frugal Cafe Blog Zone

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has a Serious Message for President Obama

A Mexican Immigrant Schools Tuscon City Council on Illegal Aliens

Can Media Bias Be More Obvious?

MRC Study: By 12 to 1, ABC, CBS, and NBC Rip Arizona's Immigration Law

From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the "growing storm" of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law's passage -- 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.
[...]
Opponents of the law didn’t even have to speak English to be quoted sympathetically. In a May 3 CBS Evening News story, Katie Couric fretted "many" illegals "no longer feel welcome." Reporter Kelly Cobiella focused on the story of non-English-speaking Manuela Quintana, who decided to move to Colorado. Cobiella cued up the mother of ten to deny she was a criminal: "‘No,’ she says, ‘a criminal is someone who kills. I just want to work.’" Over video of the kids piling into an SUV, Cobiella concluded: "The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she's lost hope in this state. She thinks she'll find it again in another."

By contrast, law enforcers were the bad guys. On Sunday morning, April 25, ABC Good Morning America host Bill Weir chided Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a well-known enforcer of immigration law, "With this new law, will you ramp it up?...Will you grab people on street corners?"
[...]
While several stories forwarded outrage from the Mexican government over the Arizona law, none of the network stories mentioned the hypocrisy: Mexico has a stricter immigration-enforcement regime on its southern border than America does.
[...]
Civility wasn't necessary. While the harshest Tea Party activists were scorned by the networks for any suggestion President Obama was a "Nazi," on 11 occasions these same networks unquestioningly forwarded smears that proponents of the Arizona law were like Nazis or Civil War-era slaveholders. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell used these slurs from liberal comedians to demonstrate how Arizona was becoming a "laughingstock."

Violence was downplayed. Only one ABC story reported violence by the protesters (in a "mostly peaceful" protest), and only one CBS story mentioned vandalism (smearing refried-bean swastikas on the state capitol building). There were only two references to the murder of rancher Robert Krentz, and four to the shooting of a deputy in Pinal County, all four in larger celebrations of May Day marches.

Viewers would assume protesters were in the majority. ABC Saturday anchor David Muir touted May Day protests on World News. "Angry backlash from coast to coast. Huge rallies across this country tonight against that new controversial immigration law."

Real poll numbers were not important. The networks were very reluctant to note that the Arizona law was popular: only five stories mentioned that the protesters were on the losing side of public opinion, where almost 90 percent of those polled by CBS consider illegal immigration a serious problem. It’s a stunning contrast, then, that 74 percent of the stories channel the view of a tiny minority.