Here's A Plan We Can Get Behind

U.N. funding an early target for House Republicans
By Bridget Johnson -

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Hill that oversight would be a key function of the panel, particularly funding to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) that is “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

“I’d like to make sure that we once and for all kill all U.S. funding for that beast,” she said last month. “Because I don’t think that it advances U.S. interests, I don’t think that that’s a pro-democracy group, it’s a rogue’s gallery, pariah states, they belong there because they don’t want to be sanctioned.”

Supporters of continued U.S. support of and participation on the HRC say that it’s essential that Washington have leverage on the panel, renowned for including countries that have their own records of human-rights violations.On Tuesday, Ros-Lehtinen will host a panel of U.N. critics and advocates that was originally scheduled for the week that the House suspended most activity in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

The 10 a.m. briefing before the full committee is titled, “The United Nations: Urgent Problems that Need Congressional Action.”

"You Lie" Is Worse Than "You're Dead"

Bozell: Who Is James Eric Fuller?

OK, so conservatives have to be accused of fostering hatred with our alleged vitriol, the kind of vitriol that fuels the flames of violence, like we witnessed in Tucson except — well, except there wasn’t and isn’t a shred of evidence that the killer was influenced by any conservatives since a) he didn’t listen to or watch conservative programming and b) isn’t a conservative.

There is the hypothetical question: What if the perpetrator of violence were liberal? How would the media react then? How many would put Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann and Co. on trial for creating the “atmosphere” of “hatred” so often ascribed to conservatives only?

In fact, it happened. One of Jared Loughner’s shooting victims was a local leftist activist, James Eric Fuller, who last week was invited to ABC’s taping of “An American Conversation.” There, in front of all the cameras, he interrupted a local tea party activist by uttering what should be considered in this atmosphere to be a blood-curdling threat: “You’re dead!” Police considered these words serious enough to have him removed and involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

The very same media outlets that had spent seven days pounding conservatives with no evidence didn’t find this threat worth more than a perfunctory mention, an asterisk. The same people who turned the words “You lie!” from Rep. Joe Wilson to Obama into a week-long scandal for conservatives now heard a man proclaim “You’re dead!” to a tea party activist at a national news taping — and they yawned.

Which is not to say that the press wasn’t interested in the pronouncements of this man. In fact, Fuller had been featured in an interview on the radical-left Pacifica Radio network the day before, and they dutifully broadcast his either dishonest or insane rant: “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled — senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls.”

So let’s look at the coverage. The first responsibility to report this was ABC’s, since they invited this crank to their special episode of “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour. ABC did a big story previewing their “healing” event on “World News Saturday.” At first, they pretended that no one made a death threat, and no one was dragged away by police. Anchor David Muir, who co-hosted the town hall meeting, declared, “Wasn’t it something to see this community together? … They want consensus.” Amanpour agreed: “Today we saw them wanting to carry on an honest dialogue … but a reasonable and rational one.”

Read more

Michelle Malkin

The Hate Speech Inquisition

There isn't a shred of evidence that deranged Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner ever listened to talk radio or cared about illegal immigration. Indeed, after 300 exhaustive interviews, the feds "remain stumped" about his motives, according to Tuesday's Washington Post. But that hasn't stopped a coalition of power-grabbing politicians, progressive activists and open-borders lobbyists from plying their quack cure for the American body politic: government-sponsored speech suppression.

++ Read More

Concerning Witch Hunts and Chaos

Tucson Aftermath: Not the Left’s First Political Witch Hunt

As he sits behind bars awaiting trial, Jared Loughner is undoubtedly relishing every moment of the ruckus that he managed to stir up with his deadly rampage in Tucson. In addition to murdering six innocent human beings and wounding more than a dozen others in an act of sheer evil, the deranged gunman has set off a media and political frenzy that refuses to abate.

By various accounts, this is precisely what Loughner was hoping for. As his close friend Bryce Tierney told Mother Jones, “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening.” Ironically enough, then, many of those now engaged in the shameless finger-pointing are inadvertently advancing the goals of the madman, by fulfilling his desire to create an environment of mayhem in society.

Deploying the most acerbic members of its verbal firing squads, the left has launched volley after volley of vitriol in recent days in an effort to score some political points and paint conservatives as extremists. But in so doing, they are merely extending the damage inflicted by Loughner into the sphere of public discourse, thereby undermining the very same foundations of civilization that the gunman himself was targeting.

Read more after the jump

"...Consent of the Governed"

Lest We Forget the Past Two Years
by Robert Allen Bonelli

Samuel Adams, writing in a letter to James Warren in February of 1779, said, “If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved.” Our nation needs to heed these words and continue to remain informed and engaged. The tragedy of the Arizona shootings by a sick human being has provided Mr. Obama and his supporters a wall shielding the past two years of abusing power and ignoring the will of the people. A call for civil discourse is no more than code for “moving on” and not challenging the bad legislation that was forced on the American people by single party rule. The people must recognize this and keep the 112th Congress focused on repealing legislation that threatens our liberty, regardless of how civil the discourse.

Obama Care is more than another expensive entitlement program that will bankrupt our nation and put future generations under heavy financial risk, it changes the fundamental view of the role of government in the lives of the American people. This legislation places the most private aspects of a citizen’s life and liberty into the hands of the government. The over reach of the law is far more that its constitutionally challenging provisions for forced purchases of insurance and potential for rationing, it legislates a dominant position for a central authority over the well- being and eventually the actual existence of the individual.

There was no civil discourse when this law was being debated. Mr. Obama himself, in referring to the outcry of the American people at town hall meetings with their elected representatives during the summer of 2009, said. “The people should just shut up!” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House during the debate, proclaimed, “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” The American people were called “Nazis” and “dangerous” and worse. All the American people were doing was simply demanding that their government follow their will. The people were ignored. Now, those who committed the atrocity want us to forget what happened and simply move on all in the name of civil discourse in honor of those slain by a criminally insane individual.

The only way to properly honor the victims of the Arizona shooting is to do what they were doing at the time of that terrible event – engage in the political process and demand that our elected representatives understand what the people want and to legislate based on that understanding.

Repealing Obama Care and replacing it with free market solutions to lowering the costs of health insurance is only one legislative correction necessary. Focusing on the run away authority of unelected agency heads and commission members, as well as the unconstitutional regulations they have been writing for the past two years is also a necessary corrective step for the 112th Congress.

More after the jump

Hello My Name is Bob and I'm a Killer

Shamelessly re-posted, with minor edits, from AmericanThinker.

On the morning of January 8, 2011, I intentionally entered a gathering held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and shot her at near-point-blank range. I injured fourteen others, killing six -- among them a beautiful, curious, doe-eyed, nine-year-old girl. I didn't actually pull the trigger, but I'm as guilty as the psychopath who did.

Here are just a few of the charges against me:

I am a conservative.

On occasion, I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News.

I've been known to pick up a book or two by conservative authors: Thomas Sowell, Andrew McCarthy, or the Founding Fathers, for example!

I believe that the federal government is too large, far too intrusive, and dangerously powerful.

I believe in personal responsibility and the amazing generosity of Americans to aid those in need rather than permanent entitlements.

I believe that the private, not the public, sector is the backbone of our economy.

I believe that our progressive tax system is punitive. We are over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-lectured.

I believe in the power of the free market to correct itself, without government (taxpayer) intervention.

I believe that the Constitution is intended to limit government and empower the individual.

I believe in holding our elected officials' feet to the fire, be they Republican or Democrat (incendiary pun intended).

I believe that our sovereignty is at risk via unsecured borders, out-of-control spending, our crippling deficit, reckless abuses of the Constitution, and the moral decay of Washington.

In short, I'm a madman. Guilty as charged, and armed with the belief in my 1st-Amendment right to peaceably question those we elect to serve.

The only person who actually pulled the trigger on that terrible, fateful day was Jared Loughner -- by every account, a deeply troubled young man. But the real guilty walk among us: senior citizens in red, white, and blue, armed with signs saying "Taxed Enough Already"; flag-wavers clinging to guns and religion; doctors; the wealthy; business owners; talk radio; and any citizen -- particularly a conservative -- who dares exercise his or her right to free speech.

We're called greedy, stupid, and racist. We're ridiculed with snide "slurpee" innuendos and called lewd and malicious names, such as "teabaggers." Ordinary citizens are maligned by their own government while the pious, liberal elite get a free pass on reason and truth, while Islamists invoke their religious cloak, while the ideologue professes his moral superiority, while the media uses the power of spin, and while leftists, including Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama, employ their bully pulpit.

We defend conservatism by our very way of life: as self-reliant, taxpaying, moral citizens, and as faithful defenders of limited government and the power of the individual. We are violent inciters only insomuch as we threaten the current leftist, agenda-driven stranglehold on government. So alarming is our threat that the real inciters wasted no time in politicizing the tragic deaths of six innocent citizens, not to mention one revered congresswoman still fighting for her life. And they will waste no time in shamelessly exploiting a "crisis" at the hand of a lone psychopath to further enact gun control and squelch freedom of speech under cries of "civility."

Does the left really believe that the "rhetoric" of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox is incendiary? Do they fail to understand that the language of conservative "talk" is the echo of ordinary citizens calling for limited government and individual freedoms? Or do they silence us because we know our current leaders don't actually believe in their own limited power? Truth be told, even Jared Loughner undermines their agenda. And they know it. They know that their "transformation" of America is failing and that people like me are not afraid to say so.

My name is [Bob], and I'm a killer. They are determined to stop me before I kill again.

From Roll Call

Loughner Family Blocks FBI Agents From Home

The family of Jared Loughner barricaded themselves inside their Tucson home Monday and refused to allow FBI agents inside to continue an investigation into a deadly Saturday shooting, the Arizona Republic reported.

Loughner, 22, was taken into custody Saturday after an attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that left the lawmaker severely injured and six others dead.

FBI agents attempted to gain access to the house at 12:25 p.m. Mountain time only to discover the family had erected a plywood barricade blocking access to the front porch. The family refused access to the agents, who banged on the barricade, yelling, “This is the FBI. Let us in,” according to the newspaper.

It is unclear why the family would try to block access to the house, which law enforcement officials searched over the weekend.

From Mother Jones via FreeRepublic

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords

Mon Jan. 10, 2011 12:01 AM PST

At 2:00 a.m. on Saturday—about eight hours before he allegedly killed six people and wounded 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), in Tucson—Jared Lee Loughner phoned an old and close friend with whom he had gone to high school and college. The friend, Bryce Tierney, was up late watching TV, but he didn't answer the call. When he later checked his voice mail, he heard a simple message from Loughner: "Hey man, it's Jared. Me and you had good times. Peace out. Later."

More after the jump

For Your Reading Enjoyment

Democrat Readies Gun Control Bill in Wake of Arizona Massacre

The Left's Cynical Exploitation of the Tucson Tragedy

Dem Planning Bill that Would Outlaw 'Threatening' Lawmakers

Media Covering Up Alleged Shooter's Liberal Politics?

Journalists Urged Caution After Ft. Hood, Now Race to Blame Palin

Were These the Red Flags?

As the days progress, we will learn more and more about the unbalanced, unstable person who committed murder in Tuscon. Like VA Tech, this shooter had documented issues. Could he have been stopped? I don't know.

Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Frightening, twisted shrine in Arizona killer Jared Lee Loughner's yard

Adjunct Prof. Ben McGahee, 28, worried about violence. "I remember going home and thinking to myself, 'Is he going to bring a weapon to class?'" he told USA Today.
Lynda Sorenson, 52, who was in McGahee's basic algebra class with Loughner, expressed similar fears in emails to friends, The Washington Post reports.

On June 14, she wrote: "We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, 'Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird.' I sit by the door with my purse handy."

In September, college officials sent campus police officers to Loughner's home, where he lives with his parents, with a letter informing him he could not return without a mental health professional's written assurance that hispresence at college would "not present a danger to himself or others."

"It was obvious to everyone that Jared wasn't a normal guy,"said neighbor Anthony Woods, 19. Loughner worked as a volunteer at the Pima Animal Care Center, where he walked dogs and cleaned cages. "He loved animals and was a good worker," said another volunteer.

Loughner had once tried to join the military but was deemed unsuitable, officials said.

Read more:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Guns found in truck parked along National Mall

WASHINGTON U.S. Park Police say an Arizona man has been arrested after guns and ammunition were found inside a truck hauling a camper parked along the National Mall.

The truck was parked along the National Mall near the National Air and Space Museum Wednesday afternoon, when an officer noticed something suspicious inside. A bomb disposal unit was called in. Sgt. David Schlosser says no explosives were found, but a handgun and more than one rifle were found inside.

Schlosser says the unidentified man would be charged with unregistered ammunition and firearms offenses.

Part of the Mall and some nearby roads were closed while police investigated. Museum visitors were evacuated shortly before the 5:30 p.m. closing time, TBD reported.

Really, folks? Unregistered ammunition? UNREGISTERED AMMUNITION!!!!!!??????

From the Patriot Post Daily Brief

Clinton-appointed District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of Arizona's immigration law this week, ruling that it would "impermissibly burden federal resources." In other words, enforcing federal law is a violation of federal law. The preliminary injunction, she said, would merely preserve the status quo and be less harmful to immigrants than allowing the law to be enforced in full. The next step for Arizona is an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bolton said that the Justice Department's suit was "likely to succeed on the merits."

Bolton blocked the primary provisions of the law -- including those requiring state law enforcement officials to check immigration status when other legitimate contact occurs, as well as the requirement that foreigners carry their papers at all times (federal law already requires this). On the other hand, 12 provisions, including some on human smuggling and transporting illegals, were left intact. All told, though, her ruling went even further than the DoJ had hoped.

The Department of Homeland Security is bound by federal law to "respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status ... for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information." Yet Bolton wrote, "An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration ... will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities." Or as National Review put it, "she accepts Justice's implicit argument that it's not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce."

National Review concludes:
The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.

For the administration, the bottom line isn't the law, but getting voters from the Hispanic bloc. With the help of their Leftmedia minions, they are succeeding.

Meanwhile, America's immigration system remains broken and in desperate need of repair -- preferably by those who value and uphold the Rule of Law.

Arizona-Lebanon In America?

Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border
By: Jim Meyers

Rep. Sue Myrick tells Newsmax it is “very frightening” that the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah has been sending agents to Mexico — and some have already entered the United States across the porous border.

The North Carolina Republican has asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to set up a special task force to investigate the reports that Hezbollah is cooperating with drug cartels along the Mexican border.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Myrick — a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the GOP’s Deputy Whip — was asked what is known about Hezbollah’s threat to America.

“Our intelligence sources have really clarified that they are in Mexico, that there is an operation that is quite large in place there, and it’s very frightening to me because this is national security,” says Myrick, who was first elected in 1994.

“Yes, immigration’s a problem too, but this particular situation [involves] people who don’t like us for various reasons.

“We know some of them have gotten across the border in the past, and now we know that there are people from Iran who are going to Venezuela. They are actually learning Spanish, and then they come up through Mexico to cross our border. So they’re working in cahoots with Venezuela as well.”

About Hezbollah’s intentions in the U.S., Myrick says: “We don’t know. It used to be that most of those groups did not really target the United States. They were targeting other countries or they were staying inside their own area of influence. Now they are starting to target the United States and that’s my concern.

“I do want a task force of both U.S. and Mexican officials. Let’s get to the bottom of this and find out what is going on.

“The response I have received was a call that they would like to give me a private intelligence briefing because I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I said that would be fine, but I would like an answer about the task force first because once I get a briefing, I can’t talk about it.”

Sen. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, has said he met privately with President Barack Obama and implored him to secure the border. Kyl claims Obama told him that if he did secure the border it would remove the incentive for comprehensive immigration reform or amnesty for illegals. Myrick says that “makes no sense whatsoever.”

She tells Newsmax: “It’s obvious that’s what he wants, amnesty. He’s said it over and over again. I don’t see it that way.

“Our responsibility at the federal government is to make sure that our borders are secure. Once the border is secure, like it is in some other places where we don’t have the problems that we do in the areas where it’s porous, then we’ll know who is in the country. We can control who comes into the country.

“It makes no sense to me whatsoever that you can’t secure the border because you can’t get amnesty.”

Myrick takes issue with Attorney General Eric Holder, who has filed suit against Arizona’s tough new law to battle illegal immigration.

“The federal government has not done its job,” she declares.
“Arizona is only trying to do what a state as the right to do, and that is to protect themselves.”

Turning to Iran, Myrick charges that the Obama administration is dragging its feet on dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

“I think we should take a tougher stance and work harder with our partners in the world to make sure they do too,” she says.

The United Nations in its attempts to deal with Iran is “just a joke,” she adds. “They aren’t doing their job.”

Asked about the possibility that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own, Myrick responds:

“I think Israel has the right to defend themselves. That option is there.

“I hope it does not come to that, but there needs to be something done to have a tougher stand with Iran.

“They aren’t going to be our friends. You can’t convince them they’re going to be our friends. They don’t operate that way. They don’t want to be friends. They want to conquer the world.”

Its Only Hate Speech When They Don't Agree

One person's information is another person's hate speech. This is ridiculous to the point of lunacy. This is why we need to let everyone say what they want, where they want, no matter how much we may dislike the message. Besides, the more they talk, the easier it is to identify the idiots, fruitcakes, nutjobs and those who would limit our ability to spread the information.

Of course, they can't/won't point to specific instances of "hate speech" because it only exists in their tiny little minds.


Liberal Groups Want FCC to Police Talk Radio, Cable News
By: Jim Meyers

A coalition of more than 30 mostly liberal organizations has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to monitor “hate speech” on talk radio and cable news networks.

The groups assert in the letter that “hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise . . . as the media has focused on Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history.”

The organizations include the Center for Media Justice, the Rainbow Push Coalition, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, and Common Cause.

“As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve,” the letter states.“In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as ‘news.’”

The coalition did not mention any specific media outlets.The groups also argue that the Internet has made it more difficult for the public to separate “the facts from bigotry masquerading as news,” The Hill newspaper reports.

The Internet “gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than ever before,” according to the coalition.

“Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.

“For these reasons, as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, it should consider the extent of hate speech in media, and its effects.”

Morning Reads from the DCExaminer

Byron York - Sestak a no-go for any job. So what was the deal?
The bottom line is Sestak, as a member of Congress, could not have served on most, if not all, of the boards the White House claims it considered for him. Did the politically savvy Obama team really not know that? Or is the White House not telling us something?

Julie Mason - Obama, Ariz. governor still at odds on immigration after meeting
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer pressed President Obama in a private meeting to step up border security efforts, saying later that "we agreed to try and work together."

Sara Carter - Mexican plan to distribute IDs to illegals in California draws fire
Mexican officials and a California congressman engaged in a verbal battle Thursday over whether it was appropriate for Mexico to set up a consular office on Catalina Island to issue ID cards to illegal immigrants.

Susan Ferrechio -Senate front-runners survive bumpy starts
Rand Paul and Richard Blumenthal are apparently facing a very forgiving electorate.
Despite recent controversial comments made by the two men, who are running for the open U.S. Senate seats in Kentucky and Connecticut, respectively, they remain significantly ahead in the polls and seem to have survived any immediate political damage.

More Stories
On Romanoff, Obama has no ideaevidence

Biden gleefully proclaims that the stimulus has created INFINITY JOBS!

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., says ‘white supremacists hate groups’ behind Ariz. immigration law
I knew it was those damn white supremacists. They're so ....supreme. Sanchez is a party line spouting idiot.

If You Never Watch Another Video..Watch This

They will kill us all, or worse.

Part 2

Somali nationals released from Mexican prison and heading north.

Hey Hey Ho Ho Napoleontano Has To Go

ICE chief won't process illegals from Arizona
Ed Lasky

In the age of Attorney General Eric Holder - who not only won't pursue the case against the New Black Panther Party, who won't investigate the allegations that Joe Sestak was illegally offered inducements by the Obama administration to drop his primary challenge against Arlen Specter, who won't investigate similar offers made by the Obama team to former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff to drop his primary challenge to Senator Michael Bennett, who won't investigate ACORN on possible racketeering charges, who has a blase approach towards terrorism and who cannot even utter the words "Islamic terrorism" - should we be surprised that John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proudly declare he won't process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona state officials?

This team is looking at the November elections and realize their refusal to enforce federal laws can reap political payoffs.

From the New York Post's Capitol Punishment blog:

The country's top federal immigration enforcement cop says his agency won't be doing its job . "John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

‘I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,' Morton said during a visit to the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

And Morton's opinion is relevant how exactly? Well, it is relevant in the sense that a senior Homeland Security official has openly declared that he won't be doing his job. Morton has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. He is not allowed to pick and choose which ones he likes and which he doesn't.

Perhaps Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano could do something right for a change and fire this guy.

For this administration, Lady Justice does not wear a blindfold and whether a law is
enforced is determined by identity politics and one's level of savings.

Things That Make You Go - HUH!?!?!?!

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and
other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape. The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal
immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

More here

An American citizen attempts to protect his personal property from foreign nationals who are trespassing illegally and he gets sued for violating THEIR civil rights?

Anyone else see anything remotely insane about this?

DCExaminer Editorial Highlights

WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL HIGHLIGHTS

Don't get cocky, GOP
Today's Examiner Editorial
"The GOP still has a severe credibility problem, with 64 percent of those saying they favor a Republican Congress saying so because they oppose Obama and Democratic candidates."

Bright economic forecasts may blind us
Irwin Stelzer, Examiner Columnist
"As always, things are too complicated to warrant either taking to the bomb shelters or uncorking the Champagne."

Big Pharma rumbles with Big Tobacco
Timothy P. Carney, Examiner Columnist
"It's a full-fledged regulatory rumble between Big Tobacco and the even bigger Big Pharma -- the sort of ugly influence game that will become the norm as government sticks its arms deeper into the economy."

An immigrant's view of Arizona's immigration law
Joana Suleiman, Examiner Design Editor
"Most illegal immigrants are not criminals and should not be deported. We need flexible visa programs to meet business and family needs. We need comprehensive immigration reform so that borders are secure. But all the hatred directed toward Arizona is misguided."

Is Holder Ignorant, Stupid, or Something Else?

Holder balks at blaming 'radical Islam' for terror attempts

Despite crediting the Pakistani Taliban with fostering the recent failed car bombing in Times Square, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was reluctant Thursday to say radical Islam was part of the cause of that and other recent attacks.

Mr. Holder, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly balked at a half-dozen questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the committee, about whether "radical Islam" was behind the attempted car bombing, last year's so-called "underpants bomber" or the killings at Fort Hood in Texas.

"There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious," Mr. Holder told the committee Thursday, though he would not go further than saying people who hold radical views may have "had an ability to have an impact" on Faisal Shahzad, the man the Justice Department says tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.

Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

Thats what a lot of us would like to know.