Finally, another look at PWC, three years later, without editorializing by Corey Stewart. Hear an immigrant, Latino businessman Carlos Castro, and Chief Deane three years after the Immigration Resolution was first introduced.

While this video shows the Prince William County story from a perspective that doesn’t involve Corey Stewart making a name for himself, we still aren’t seeing the whole story.

What is still missing from the discussion is that the initial Immigration Resolution is NOT in affect and it is NOT the same as sb 1070. Until this fact is brought out, the conversation really goes no where and the story is only half told.

48 Thoughts to “CNN Spotlights PWC, sans Corey Stewart”

  1. Starryflights

    You guys should read this:

    Record numbers being deported
    Rise is part of Obama’s efforts to remake immigration law.

  2. Absolutely! I was just working on this story.

    So much for Obama ignoring the issue. Those numbers for 2010 are only for a half year. Thanks Starry, for posting.

  3. Starryflights

    And it’s good to see something without Corey’s spin doctoring.

  4. PWC Taxpayer

    I don’t think so.

    What ICE is touting is an increase in the number of criminal aliens being deported – and not so much an overall increase which is statistically irrelevent – although I think that is up too in absolute numbers. An increase in the number of criminal aliens suggests that the problem is getting worse. They are they who are easilly picked up at the jail house, upon their release for local crimes.

    The AP reported yesterday that Arizona is “a monument to the anger over illegal immigration that is present in so many places” and “has been simmering for years.” Illegal immigration has been a frequent topic in the state’s media and news, and “in some Phoenix-area neighborhoods, Spanish is so predominant both in spoken word and signage that residents complain they feel like they’re in a foreign country.” Stat school of Illegal immigrants costs an estimated $600 million, jailing illegal immigrants costs the state over $120 million, and hospitals have to absorb the up to $50 million cost of treating illegal border-crossers. However,

    “Opponents of the law say illegal immigrants are being scapegoated and wrongly characterized as freeloaders,” arguing that the state’s recent economic growth is due to immigrant labor. They also cite “open racism” that accompanied Arizona’s new immigration law. Sounds familiar here.

  5. Rick Bentley

    Good God! What an INCREDIBLY biased and worthless report!

    NO MENTION of increased resident satisfaction. No mention at all. just a focus on the “pain and fear” of criminals pained as victims.

    When Castro crosses them up and acknowledges the community is safer, they cut him off quickly.

    We laugh and joke about the bias that FOX News displays but CNN is just as laughable, and with worse journalistic standards.

  6. Rick Bentley

    Oh and for the record, I want that pain and fear, I voted for that pain and fear, and I joined advocacy groups hoping to make it come about. Until criminals fear penalty, crime will be rampant. An undocument illegal alien immigrant should be fearful of deportation – darned straight.

  7. starryflights

    Well, the pain and fear generated doesn’t seem to have been enough to have forced anybody to leave. The dude’s still here.

  8. starryflights

    It’s really funny. Some sort of resolution went into effect three years ago that said something along the lines of “illegal aliens shouldn’t live here” but nobody agrees exactly what it meant.

    Further, some folks like Stewart claim this resolution was a smashing success while others say it failed miserably. Go figure.

  9. starryflights

    PWC Taxpayer :I don’t think so.
    What ICE is touting is an increase in the number of criminal aliens being deported – and not so much an overall increase which is statistically irrelevent – although I think that is up too in absolute numbers. P>

    According to the article, criminal deportations are 25% higher than they were in 2007, when George W was running things. That is statistically relevent.

  10. Rick Bentley

    Yeah Obama’s really tough on illegal immigration. I can tell.

    Picking between Obama’s performance on this issue and Bush’s is, to paraphrase South Park, a choice between a douche and a turd. They both put nation second, politics first.

  11. Pat.Herve

    The Obama administration has also beefed up the audit’s of companies, and if you are found to be employing illegals, the company is encouraged to fire the illegal employee – – if the illegals loose their jobs, they will self deport, they will also tell their friends what happened. This does save us $$, in that the deportation process is long and expensive.

  12. Rick Bentley

    You present that as if it makes sense – as if the Obama Administration were making a rational decision.

    Arguably it is just going to add to overcrowding and welfare use and abuse, given that the workers are now jobless but we don’t bother to deport them.

    It’s better than nothing, sure, but why not deport them as Bush started doing (out of petulance after the 2007 Amnesty debacle)? I submit to you, only because the issue is in play politically and Obama badly wants/needs the Latino vote.

  13. PWC Taxpayer


    Huh??? Yes, the number of criminal deportations is up 25 percent. Do you think that is because ICE is doing a better job of picking up known illegal felons/criminals at the jailhouse or because there are more of them? In any case, based on just the article, the number of total deportations is not being touted as having gone up 25 percent.


    Agreed. We need agressive enforcement efforts at both levels. And yes I understand the fear. The problem is that they are still willing to risk it and their families – frankly in the hope of amnesty.

  14. Rick Bentley

    Up 25% since 2007, which was the nadir of enforcement when Bush was working hard to convince America that Amnesty was the only way forward. Not 25% since 2008.

  15. Rick Bentley

    2007 – the year of Bush refusing to enforce the law, Lindsay Graham crying like a baby at the prospect of an America with no Amnesty, and Muitch McConnell voting pro-Amnesty until he saw it wouldn’t pass, then switching his vote to be on the winning team.

  16. Rick Bentley

    2007 was, it should be remembered, the closest the Amnesty crowd ever got to sneaking their inane plan through as law – and it will never be that close again.

  17. @Rick Bentley

    Rick, is it biased when it is clearly showing various opinions of people after identifying who they are? Opinions are opinions.

    Is it worse than Corey’s opinion which isn’t even based on correct facts which we have proven on this blog time and time again?

    I would far rather deal with opinions being stated as opinions than someone presenting lies as facts.

  18. Rick Bentley

    Heck yes it’s biased. The majority of citizens are happy with the resolution, and that isn’t even mentioned. the only guy who says a positive word about it is the business owner Castro, and the CNN producers are so dumbfounded by this that they edit the clip badly.

  19. Rick, if they had not wanted that in there, it wouldn’t be. They could have easily faded out before he said it. You are being biased when you say that. Do you realize it?

    So lets talk about having a safer community. Do we have a safer community now than we did say pre July 10, 2007?

    We should be able to talk about it. What has changed since then?

  20. Morris Davis

    Edit the clip badly? Maybe CNN should hire Andrew Breitbart so they can learn some of that objective, fair and balanced right-wing editing craft tea baggers enjoy (and maybe they can get Glenn Beck to give Wolf Blitzer some lessons on how to well up tears and blubber like a baby). A day or two ago Bill Maher said he thought use of the term “douche bag” as an adjective was growing old and suggested we replace it with Breitbart. I don’t know … saying the Patriot Corey Stewart is a worthless Breitbart just doesn’t seem descriptive enough.

  21. It really doesn’t have the same ring.

    Are you suggesting, Moe, that Breitbart is going to become its own word? Like “Sam got borked and lost his appointment?”

    You have a link to the Bill Maher skit? I sure hope Jon Stewart is back from vacation.

  22. Wolverine

    And just for a change from dumping all over this guy Breitbart about “honesty” and “integrity” and such things, how about those British press reports that the Obama administration knew ahead of time about the impending release of convicted Lyban terrorist al-Megrahi and even told the First Minister of Scotland our preference as to how that release should be effected? And the President reached out so tenderly to the survivors of the Lockierbie victims, telling them just how surprised, shocked, and angry he was to hear of this release. Looks like the Brit media got ahold of a letter from the DCM in our London embassy to the First Minister in Scotland. My, my, how “honesty” and “integrity” can turn around so fast and bite you right on the ass. Exit Breitbart. Enter Obama. And Charlie Schumer’s crusade against BP on this issue will probably go up in smoke.

    1. This would be the same British press who uses telephoto camera lenses to try to capture the Queen in her PJs? Got any proof on that? I sure know what Obama said a year ago and it wasn’t sweet talking the libyans. I am not sure exactly what the Obama administration is being accused of.

      Regardless, Breitbart has a track record of presenting altered information as fact. Therefore he will be treated like the scum-bag we believe him to be. For the record, we thought he was a scumbag long before Shirley Sherrod was a household name.

  23. Wolverine

    Libyan and Lockerbie —damn spell checker was off.

  24. Morris Davis

    The reporting I saw said the administration objected to the release of al-Megrahi but if the Scots decided to release him from prison because of his alleged terminal cancer then conditional release into Scotland was a better choice than transferring him to Libya which the letter said the U.S. “strongly opposed.” I suppose Obama could have thrown some of that tried and true Bush strategery on them and sent troops to invade Niger. Bin Laden was a Saudi national who started a terrorist group in Sudan before moving it to Afghanistan and attacking America, so Bush invaded Iraq to look for the “slam dunk” WMD that didn’t exist. Using that logic, if the Brits facilitated a deal for the Scots to send al-Megrahi to Libya over America’s objection we should invade Niger to look for that yellowcake uranium the Bush administration told us Saddam was buying … it wasn’t in Iraq so it must be in Niger. Of course invading Niger would make us look like bigger brietbarts than the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so perhaps we should refudiate that notion.

    Moon – Bill Maher’s suggestion to substitute breitbart for douche bag was in a tweet.

  25. Emma

    So it is Breitbart’s fault that the president and the Dept. of Ag did not bother to do their due diligence before acting on a blog post?

    1. No, it’s their fault that they took information off of a video. It is Breitbart’s fault for being a lying scum bag once again. Everyone has to assume responsiblity for their part in the entire debacle. I was one of the first to do so, I might add. And it was my fault for commenting without noticing that the posts were from and I should have known better in both cases. Both sources have been known to distort the truth.

  26. Morris Davis

    The administration is clearly at fault.  If a Teabagger’s lips are moving it should be assumed their spewing lies or regurgitating some form of delusional nonesense and they will view integrity as being as quaint as the Geneva Conventions were to Alberto Gonzalez.  A Teabagger like Breitbart manipulates truth like Lucy manipulated Charlie Brown’s football.  Breitbart teed up what looked like facts and Obama got left flat on his back when he fell for what he should have assumed was the contrived fraud that it was.  Breitbart the noun made Obama look like a breitbart the adjective.        

  27. Wolverine

    Moon, the British press indeed had the correct lead. SecState just released the full text of the letter sent by the Charge d’Affaires to the First Minister of Scotland and,of course, claims a different interpretation than the Scots. There is also a telephone conversation involving Eric Holder which is of interest in this case. The First Minister has asked and been refused permission by the USG to release the recorded notes from that phone call. That suggests there is something in that call which the administration does not want public. You want proof? Ask the USG to authorize the Scots to release the Holder telephone notes.

    In fact, ask them to release the entire record of contacts and consultations prior to that letter and then ask them why, when they knew the fight was being lost, they failed to advise the rest of us and seek our public support. And then to claim that they were just as surprised and disappointed as the rest of us. What an act! I think that, in the end, you will find that the USG effort to intervene in the al-Megrahi release was a puny one at best. That letter from the Charge to the First Minister was as good a pre-emptive CYA effort as I’ve seen in a long time, undoubtedly crafted or at least redacted on the upper floors in Foggy Bottom.

    Morris, cut the snark. You are way over your head on this one. I had a professional dog in this fight long before that plane went down. And the loss of that plane, including people I knew, continues to hurt to this day. #25 was a crap of a post. Not too fond of the second sentence of #28 either. I expected better from you on a blog advertised as dedicated to civil discourse.

  28. I am still not sure what the president is being charged with. Yea, our government had something to say about it before it happened. He can still be shocked and disappointed and surprised. What’s the rub?

    Too much energy is being expended on hate. It solves no problems.

    I am assuming this story is what the president is being criticized for.

  29. Morris Davis

    Wolverine – I agree wholeheartedly that this is supposed to be a place for civil discourse and given the significant problems facing the country it would be in everyone’s interest if that was the practice here, across the country, and on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, the nation has become so polarized with an us and them mentality that it has become whoever can yell the loudest, be the most outrageous and the most divisive that gets the attention and drowns out the civil discourse. Rick started out with a comparison between Presidents Bush and Obama with a turd and douche analogy in #10. Then, in #22 you called the President’s honesty and integrity into question saying it bit him in the ass. I responded in #25 and 28. I believe in civil discourse, but I don’t believe civility requires me to be a pacifist. If someone tries to kick me in the groin I don’t think they ought to whine when I respond by smacking them on the nose. As someone said some months ago, “Don’t retreat – reload.” If you’re looking for me to back away and turn the other cheek when someone makes an absurd or inflammatory comment you’re going to be disappointed.

  30. Rick Bentley

    “Rick started out with a comparison between Presidents Bush and Obama with a turd and douche analogy in #10.”

    To leave humor out of it, and tell you how I really feel, they both belong in jail. They each intentionally subvert the laws of this nation for political gain. They each swear allegiance to the country and then work deliberately to undermine our laws. They each deserve a nice long prison sentence as far as I’m concerned. Also, neither one has the ability to be a real leader and they’re both hapless Presidents – not just unqualified, but lazy incapable buffoons (and in Bush’s case, reckless). They coasted through life based on charm, rose to the level of their ineptitude, and we have to suffer through the two of them consecutively.
    They don’t deserve any particular civility, at least not so long as they deliberately subvert US law.

  31. Morris Davis

    Rick — To put it charitably, I’m disappointed in both of them, too, but I think they’re just representative of a system that we’ve allowed to become totally corrupted. It has evolved into a contest to use any means necessary to either attain or retain power, and we’ve become a nation governed by an elite ruling class that is out of touch with ordinary Americans. I don’t recall if it was on here or somewhere else, but someone made a good point when they said “we have a groups of Republican Senators and a group of Democratic Senators, wouldn’t it be nice if they all acted like United States Senators for a change.”

  32. Rick Bentley

    “I think they’re just representative of a system …”

    They each swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. Leadership starts at the top. Part of why the problem – and I acknowledge that everything you said above is true – lies so nakedly exposed is because each party in turn gave its leadership position to an absolute novice with no concept of how to lead or govern, who was also lacking in personal integrity.

    America may see better days if we elect a real leader next time. No, I don’t have anyone in mind. But almost anyone would be better than the most recent two.

  33. All politics is local….Tip O’Neill. Just look at what we have right here. Why should anyone expect anything different? As long as corporate money and money from the rich pour in to a political campaign, consider your candidate bought and paid for.

    Look at the developer money being amassed right here in Prince William County. Who knows what was promised for that money.

    You get what you pay for, or in this case, you get what someone else paid for.

    Rick, the bottom line is, politics are such now that if you aren’t raking in millions on a national level you aren’t going to get elected. Between money and special interests…there is no hope. If there isn’t enough money, you aren’t going to get elected. If you don’t pander, there will be no money. Politics is for whores. You are expecting the Madonna in a whore’s game. It isn’t going to happen.

  34. Rez

    Would you say the same thing about unions, Wolfie? They are huge contributors.

  35. Rick Bentley

    It’s not that I’m looking for a hero, Moon. I’m looking for the voting public to evolve beyond the way each party markets to them based on their fears of “socialism”, “gay marriage”, “racism”, and so forth.

  36. Yes I would say the same thing about unions, Rez. I was sort of including them as a corp. even though they aren’t.

  37. How do you get to that point, Rick, when it takes so much money to get elected? In 1990, in a hotly contested delegates race, the candidate who lost had to spend 90k. That was outrageous back then. What does a delegates race cost now?

    I just don’t allow myself to get that angry over it. Just is. Our elected officials will never vote to make themselves less subject to other people’s money. I don’t plan on getting an ulcer over it.

  38. Rick Bentley

    We get to that point by people becoming smart enough not to vote for abject clowns. To stop voting for lesser of two evils and to start witholding their votes until a candidate earns it.

    1. So Rick, what do you do, just not vote? So then you get the same end result other than your right to chose has been removed.

      In a perfect world, your plan sounds good. However, we don’t live in a perfect world.

  39. Morris Davis

    Meg Whitman (who in the past usually didn’t bother to vote but now wants to be governor of California) spent $81M to win the Republican primary in June, an average of $55 for every vote she received. Michael Bloomberg spent $100M on his last election for a 3rd term as mayor of NYC, which worked out to be $180 for every vote he got. Average people don’t stand a chance in our current government scheme. Government is no longer of, by, and for the people, it’s all about the elite and their interests. It’s not that candidates earn votes, they buy them. Spend enough money and innundate the airways and you can manipulate voters to act against their own interests.

  40. Rez

    I figured you did, Wolfie. I thought I could help with the clarification to forestall other comments. 🙂

  41. Rez

    I always see campaign finance as a chicken and egg issue.

    Do people (including special interests) contribute to campaigns that they believe will put someone in that thinks like they do or do politicians change their voting to fit who gave what (bought)?

    I like to think that people contribute to campaigns that think they way they do — but I am never sure. But I guess it depends on whether you agree with the campaigner or not as to how one feels?

    Simply put, my choice votes conscience, yours was bought.

  42. Morris Davis

    Rez — I believe the big contributors try to back the horse they think is likely to win in order to buy influence with whoever is in power, but they tend to hedge their bets and back both sides just in case of an upset. I’ll give you one example involving the National Association of Realtors (not picking on them, I just found their data first when I did a quick search). They’re usually good for about $4M per election cycle. In 1996 when the Republicans took control of Congress the NAR gave 66% of their money to Republicans. In 2008 when Democrats took the White House and both houses of Congress the NAR gave 58% of their money to Democrats. It’s not a matter of conscience, it’s a matter of making sure you’re close to the goose that lays the golden eggs no matter whether the goose is liberal or conservative.

  43. Wolverine

    My, my, absent yourself for a few days from this blog and what do you find? I had no idea that, on a blog where one sees a common usage of such terms as “Kookinelli” and “Captain Soundbyte”, I would be taken to task for daring to question the honesty and integrity of the Obama administration on a particular issue and deigning to use a common colloquialism to do so. That must have been a powerful statement to be viewed as an attempt to kick another blogger in the groin, even though the statement did not address that blogger or make even the slightest allusion to him. I had not realized that this administration, unlike all others, is sacrosanct. And this from a blogger who once made the following public statement about the same administration over the military commission issue: “Hopefully at some point they will grow a pair…” Talk about groins!

    Tell you what. We can make a deal here. I’ll drop future direct references to the administration being “bitten in the ass” if the other blogger will put an end to his frequent use of the term “teabagger” and stop referring to an entire group of his fellow Americans as liars. To quote a certain someone: “There comes a time when you don’t take it anymore.” I subscribe to that sentiment as well.

  44. Wolverine

    And just in case anyone is wondering why Wolverine is more than a bit interested in the al-Megrahi release, let me say only this. There was a fellow who came to me to say goodbye when he was about to leave on a business trip. The last thing I said to him was: “Be safe.” The next time he personally crossed my path was at his memorial service. He was just trying to get home in time to spend the holidays with his family. I think the least I should expect is that the Obama administration, the Brits, the Scots, and BP will be straight with me here —- and with others who can never forget that day over a place called Lockerbie.

    1. I would have never released al-Megrahi. It wasn’t our shot to call though. The Brits were flummoxed. However, if he were here he would have fried. maybe we just shouldn’t trust a country that doesn’t have a death penalty.

Comments are closed.