R

oger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who tried to protect his ranch against a human wave of illegal immigrants and ruffled a lot of feathers in the process was almost completely exonerated by a jury hearing a $32 million lawsuit against him … but you wouldn’t know that from the AP coverage.

Barnett was cleared of all the human rights violation charges and most others, but the jury ordered him to pay $77,804 in damages – $60,000 of which were punitive – on assault and emotional distress charges.  The jurors didn’t seem to mind that the “assault” involved no, or virtually no physical contact and that the emotional distress came from being detained by an armed man until immigration authorities came to collect them.

Under those terms, the illegals could successfully bring charges against ICE.

The AP story never mentions the amount of the original claim, so there is no context against which to measure the $77,000 settlement.  For the math impaired, the illegals got two-tenths of one percent of what they asked for – so I guess you could say Barnett was two-tenths of one percent guilty.

AP calls Barnett a “controversial figure” because he is “known for patrolling his ranch property and area highways and roads, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.”  When did it become controversial for a citizen to want the laws enforced, to protect their property?

AP sums up Barnett’s claims about damages caused by illegals as:

Barnett’s lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.

They left out stealing his vehicles, breaking into his home, and defecating all over the place.

A word of advice to any illegals thinking about crossing Barnett’s property on the way to the promised land:  Don’t expect this ruling to stymie Barnett’s work.

2 Comments »

“I

‘m beyond words,” said Incredible Daughter #1, who seems to be keeping her conservative sensibilities despite being a senior in college.  Here’s what set her off, from today’s WashTimes:

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.

Let’s see here. Private property being trespassed on. Damage to personal property, more specifically, border-crossers tore up water his pumps, killed his calves, destroyed his fences and gates, stole his trucks and broke into his home – all while entering the country illegally. Seems like Barnett would be on pretty good ground. But:

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.

$32 million? How much is that in Pesos?

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.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, they were caught trespassing on private land while carrying out a federal crime. But to the MALDEF attorney for the 16 illegals, he’s just a guy with a gun, a big dog … and a record of turning 12,000 illegals to the Border Patrol in 10 years.

Instead of giving Barnett a medal, U.S. District Judge John Roll let the MALDEF lawsuit stand, and the jury trial is ongoing.

One more thing:

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil – which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their “clients” to keep them running.

I wonder if the Greenies at the Center for Biological Depravity Diversity have filed an amicus brief on behalf of Barnett. After all, they got their start in the Southwestern deserts, have filed endless lawsuits against developers and others, charging their activities will destroy the deserts supposedly fragile habitat.

Probably not.

1 Comment »

M

ilk, nominated for best picture. Sean Penn, nominated for best actor in Milk. Josh Broslin for best supporting actor in Milk. Milk – also nominated for best original screenplay, best costume design, best director, best editing, best original score.

Hollywood, land of the freaks and home of the gays, bestowed on Milk eight Oscar nominations. The movie about the murder of Harvey Milk, the first politician out of the closet, might have gotten more were it not for the fact that it wasn’t really in the running for best actress or best supporting actress.  I’m sure it’s well written and well acted, but I don’t know because I haven’t seen it yet.  I might still, like I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

But that’s neither here nor there.  I’m not arguing that Milk didn’t deserve recognition; I’m arguing about what wasn’t nominated, not what was.  I’m writing about something else, which the LA Times handily dismissed with this:

Clint Eastwood fans who had been hoping the veteran would get an Oscar nomination for lead actor for “Gran Torino,” which is shaping up to be the 78-year-old icon’s biggest box office hit, were undoubtedly disappointed.

That’s like saying fans of Sean Penn would have been disappointed if Milk had gotten skunked the way Gran Torino did.  Milk’s nominations had little to do with how well Penn acted and everything to do with the passage of Prop 8 and a groundswell of pro-gay rights, anti-straight sentiment in Hollywood.  Hollywood is still seething over the passage of 8 and the disestablishment of gay marriage in California, and is still hateful of anyone who supported it, no matter how mildly, as evidenced by the recent kerfuffle over Rick Warren’s invocation at the Obama nomination – and more significantly, the numerous hate crimes and ubiquitous hate speech that’s come from the No on 8 bunch ever since Nov. 5.

Consequently, like I knew they would, the members of the Academy fell all over themselves (saying “You look ravishing!” as they did) to vote for Milk and its story of a murdered gay San Francisco supervisor and his crazed, straight killer. Every vote for Milk carried with it an artistic appreciation of film, I’m sure, but undeniably, it also carried a political anger that needed venting.

The failure of Gran Torino to win a single nomination is no less about Eastwood than Milk’s best film best screenplay, best score, best supporting actor votes, etc., nominations are about Penn.  I’m hardly a Clint Eastwood fan, although I appreciate his many good works.  I would have been pleased with a nomination of Eastwood for best actor, but that’s not the point; the point is that his film wasn’t nominated for best screenplay.

It wasn’t nominated for that award – or any other awards – because the gay activists and gay sympathizers that are the Academy did not want to honor a character who did, in fact, stand up for the rights of others, but in a ramrod straight, gun-toting, ethnic smear-muttering, flag-waving way. Eastwood’s Walt Kowalski didn’t just stand up for rights – he sacrificially stood up for other people’s rights, people who needed someone to stand up for them.  It wasn’t about him at all, unlike Milk, who stood up as much for his own freedoms as for the freedoms of other gays. Every step Milk took forward benefited Milk. Every step Eastwood took forward alienated him from his entire past; everything but his honor, and honor was, at the core, what Kowalski was made of.

The Gran Torino screenplay deals with issues that are central in today’s America:  immigration, assimilation, multiculturalism, political correctness, bigotry, gang violence, the transformation of established neighborhoods, the aging of the Baby Boomer’s parents.  The Milk screenplay, as near as I can tell from what I’ve read, is about gay rights and bigotry. Eight to two in favor of Gran Torino.

The skunking of Gran Torino was Hollywood’s rejection of one of its own because he dared to ignore political correctness and tell a realistic story of America as it is: diverse, suspicious, dangerous, but ultimately righteous, God-fearing, honorable and self-sacrificing for the betterment of others.  Anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan will stir with pride as Kowalski puts his life on the line to confront evil head-on, ready to give his all for a principle worth fighting for.

I doubt very much if they’d be so stirred by Milk.  That’s a compelling argument for most of us, but members of the Academy won’t be influenced much by it.

3 Comments »

See Ya, Smuggler’s Gulch

I got a real kick out of seeing this picture in this morning’s LA Times. It shows the border fence on the U.S./Mexican border, apparently looking east-to-west as the fence snakes through Smuggler’s Gulch. Here’s the LAT:

Reporting from San Diego — Smuggler’s Gulch lived up to its infamous name.

For a century, the narrow canyon leading into California from Mexico provided cover for cattle thieves and opium dealers, bandits and booze runners. More recently, it has hidden thousands of illegal immigrants on their journey north, sealing its place in border lore.

Now, it’s a fading memory.

The canyon has been all but wiped off the landscape, its steep walls carved into gentle slopes, its depths filled with 35,000 truckloads of dirt as the federal government nears completion of an extensive border reinforcement project at the southwesternmost point of the United States.

Environmentalists, including California’s notorious Coastal Commission, fought the fence, citing all sorts of environmental chaos that surely would follow, saying it “will harm the Tijuana River estuary, threaten endangered species and destroy culturally sensitive Native American sites.”  As the photo shows, there’s an environmental point to be made here – but it’s a limited one.  The very dense cities of Tijuana and San Deigo create a much more impervious barrier to species migration than this puny wall.

In the end, the Bush admin. had to just override all this and push the fence forward. Now that Smuggler’s Gulch has been bulldozed into oblivion, I’m in accord with former Border Patrol agent Donald McDermott who told the LAT:

Good riddance.  Anything that makes it easier to control the border is a good thing. Continue Reading »

No Comments yet »