Archive for February 19th, 2009

Far-Left Justices a Concern

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

This is exactly why Christians need to be dilligent in their support of conservative Presidential candidates…..a liberal President will appoint liberal Justices which will result in NO justice for anyone.

Ogden, Kagan, Johnsen, & Perrelli — what sounds like a law firm is actually a group of individuals who Americans should not want taking up office space in the Department of Justice. That’s according to the Alliance Defense Fund.

ADF has written a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee about administration appointees to the Justice Department. The letter objects specifically to four nominees: David Ogden, Elena Kagan, Dawn Johnsen and Thomas Perrelli.

Spokesman and ADF attorney Gary McCaleb first points to Ogden, who represented prominent porn industry owners in court. Ogden hopes to be the next deputy attorney general at the DOJ.

“He’s sought to strike down even the slightest restrictions on abortion,” McCaleb offers, “and he’s been probably the biggest friend in America to sexually oriented businesses. If there’s a porn store near you, then there’s a good chance that Mr. Ogden’s advocacy had something to do with allowing that store to be there.”

Then there is Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan, who President Obama has nominated to be Solicitor General of the United States. McCaleb points out that just two years after the attacks on September 11, 2001, she tried to get military recruiters kicked off her campus.

“And when she did so she wound up in the Supreme Court trying to defend that [argument],” says the ADF attorney. “And the court characterized her position as one that would make the statute virtually meaningless. So we have an attorney taking what amounts to a frivolous argument to the Supreme Court, and now that very same person is being asked to step into the Department of Justice.”

ADF also objects to the nominations of Dawn Johnsen and Thomas Perrelli to the Department of Justice. McCaleb says their track record is far to the left of center. For example, Johnson is one of the most ardent supporters of abortion, says McCaleb.

Original Link

Israeli Warning to Obama: Your Talk Gives Iran Nukes

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

JERUSALEM – President Obama’s policy of direct diplomacy with Iran may buy Tehran enough time to produce nuclear weapons, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Mossad intelligence agency, warned in an exclusive WND interview today.

“I don’t believe there is a political solution which can be achieved through negotiations with Iran,” he said.

“My concern is that until Obama finishes his learning curve of the subject, the Iranians are going to have maybe the first or even more nuclear bombs.”

Shavit served as director of the Mossad from 1989 through 1996. He clarified that although diplomacy cannot be ruled out, from his experience he doesn’t believe there can be a political solution with Iran.

He said there is a military option but that at this point in time, an Israeli or U.S. strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities would not completely halt the country’s suspected illicit program.

“According to the best of my assessment, I’m afraid [using a strike to] completely disrupt the whole Iranian (nuclear) project and the whole system is not possible. But there still could be a military option. It depends what are the aims you define for [any such attack].”

Original Link.

Obama to Negotiate with Terrorist

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

In regards to the situation in Afghanistan, this quote says it all:
“I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means”.
So in a nut shell, Obama intends to negotiate with the Taliban and as an extension, Al Qaeda. The terrorist are laughing at the “strength” of your leader (I didn’t vote for him).
It’s just a matter of time before the United States gets hit by another domestic terror attack.

Afghanistan was supposed to be the “Good War.” At least that what voters were told during the presidential campaign as liberals argued resources had been drained from Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq.

But when President Obama announced his first troop deployment to Afghanistan, he did so quietly in the form of a paper statement from a press secretary after he signed the largest stimulus package in U.S. history — a contrast to President Bush’s announcing his troop surge for the war in Iraq before a prime-time audience on TV.

“We got a paper statement rather than a speech because this is not a surge,” said retired Maj. Gen. Ret. Bob Scales. “This is surge lite.”

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, had requested 30,000 troops. On Tuesday, the president authorized 17,000 troops and the Pentagon identified 12,000 to send.

McKiernan said he has what he needs to get through the summer but added even with the additional forces, “2009 is going to be a tough year.”

Obama has said that he will use diplomacy as part of a new strategy in Afghanistan.

“I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means,” he told CBC, Canada’s state-owned broadcaster, on Tuesday.

The president launched a new Afghanistan review last week to be completed in 60 days, just in time for the Marines who arrive in May to be given a clearer mission.

McKiernan echoed what Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned before: a larger foreign footprint in Afghanistan is dangerous and perhaps counterproductive without a broader regional strategy.

Original Link.

Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Ordered to Pay Illegals $77,000

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

We blogged about this gentleman a couple of weeks ago. Here is some of the background information:
Rancher Roger Barnett, is being sued by illegal immigrants when he captured them trespassing on his land and turned them over to immigration officials. He has had damage to his land, had his cattle killed and had his house broken into by illegal aliens coming across the border at his ranch, so he tends to be somewhat proactive in detaining illegals.
We were hoping the judge in this case would have thrown it out completely, but as with most judges, common sense is absent. But at least most of the charges were dismissed and the ones that were upheld can be appealed with an excellent chance of being overturned.

Sixteen illegal aliens who sued an Arizona rancher, claiming he violated their civil rights and falsely imprisoned them by holding them at gunpoint on his property along the border, have lost their case.

The federal lawsuit against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett, his wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, took place before Judge John Roll in U.S. District Court. A verdict was declared Tuesday. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, represented the five female and 11 male illegal aliens.

Barnett’s attorney, David Hardy, said the judge completely dismissed the cases against Barbara and Donald after the illegals claimed conspiracy.

“There was no evidence,” he told WND. “The most they could show about Barbara was that she showed up after the incident, and Donald wasn’t even there. He did sometimes cooperate with Roger in turning over illegals, but he wasn’t there that day. And there was no proof of conspiracy, so the judge chucked it out.”

Many of the aliens are residents of Michoacan, Mexico. Four live in Illinois, one resides in Georgia and another in Michigan. All of the plaintiffs currently living in the U.S. listed pseudonyms in the lawsuit due to “fear of adverse action based on immigration status.”

Ten of the illegal alien plaintiffs didn’t show up to the trial, but the remaining six said they were given permission to re-enter the United States and testify against Barnett.

“That was a shocker to me. All the ones who testified said that they were here legally and that their attorneys had done the paperwork,” Hardy said. “There’s nothing like your government backing you.”

According to the complaint, Barnett, who owns 22,000 acres along the border in southeastern Arizona, approached the group of illegals on an all-terrain vehicle March 7, 2004. He allegedly began yelling at them in English and broken Spanish while aiming his gun at the group. While Barnett’s dog barked at the intruders, the illegal aliens accused him of ordering the dog to attack. One of the women said the rancher kicked her because she refused to get up. The jury ruled in favor of Barnett on the battery charge as well.

MALDEF claimed the family attacked, harassed, threatened and held the illegals against their will, because they were motivated by racial and class-based discrimination. The complaint said the Barnetts allegedly caused the group “severe emotional and mental distress,” including fear, anxiety, humiliation, stress, frustration and sadness. Each illegal alien sued for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages.

The group also flew a psychologist to Arizona from Chicago to testify that the illegal aliens suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

“We don’t know where they’re getting their money, but it’s a lot,” Hardy said. “They dropped $19,000 on the psychologist for his examination and $150 an hour to show up for trial.”

The rancher was held liable for limited damages involving assault and emotional distress
. Two illegal aliens were given $1,000 plus $10,000 in punitive damages each. Two more received $7,500, plus $20,000 in punitive damages each.

“It’s interesting since most of them don’t speak English, but they claim that Roger, who has almost no command of Spanish, was able to use full sentences like, ‘If you go, my dog is hungry, and he’s hungry for your butt,'” Hardy said. “Roger couldn’t put that sentence together.”

He said the judge left out one part of instruction to the jury that should have been included, and it will be the basis of their appeal.

“The law is skeptical of infliction of emotional distress because everybody gets their feelings hurt at times,” he said. “So one of the requirements was that whatever is done must be so severe that the average person would be physically disabled by the distress – suffer a complete mental breakdown. The judge wouldn’t put that in the instruction. That’s straight Arizona law.”

Also, two of the plaintiffs received $1,400, and two were awarded $1 each for assault. The term “assault” is legally applied when a person has simply put someone in fear of a harmful contact. According to the attorney, Barnett did carry a gun, but the judge did not include their self-defense argument in the instructions to the jury – another basis for appeal.

All together, the illegals received only $77,804 of the $32 million they requested – and Hardy believes that award will be thrown out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It was 95 percent victory for us,” he said. “What they really wanted were the first two civil rights claims because if they got those, they got attorney’s fees. With nine attorneys working on the case, I’m sure their fees were $500,000 to $1 million.”

Original Link.

An immigration reform attorney doubts that four illegal aliens will be able to collect any of the money awarded them by a federal jury in a lawsuit against an American rancher who detained them on his property.

Border enforcement advocate Mike Hethmon says the case was a real victory for his client Roger Barnett. The jury in Tucson ruled that Barnett did not violate the civil rights of six illegal immigrants who claimed he detained them at gunpoint on his ranch in 2004. The eight-member panel also ruled that the rancher was not liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find Barnett liable on four claims of assault and four claims of emotional distress, and ordered him to pay $77,804 in damages, $60,000 of which were punitive.

It is very unlikely, Hethmon believes, that the plaintiffs will actually receive anything. “There are numerous legal grounds for objecting to the way that this emotional distress claim was presented to the jury,” he contends. “In any case, the Arizona constitution prohibits the award of punitive damages to illegal aliens.”

Original Link.

Peres Admits Gaza Disengagement Was a Mistake

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

It would be nice if they would figure these things out before they destroy Israel. A bunch of people tried to tell them it was mistake before they ever did it. None of them listened.

As he began consultations for the formation of Israel’s post-election cabinet Wednesday, Feb. 18, President Shimon Peres made an extraordinary statement. Addressing the Presidents Conference, he admitted for the first time that Israel’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was a mistake “which will not be repeated.” His decision regarding the future composition would therefore be dictated by its policies, he said.

Peres, who was vice premier in the government headed by Ariel Sharon which ordered the 2005 evacuation of the Gaza Strip, confessed for the first time that he was wrong to support it. Things should have been differently, he said.

(Israeli forces forcibly evicted 8,500 Israelis living in the Gaza communities – many of whom remain homeless to this day – and opened the way for Hamas’ takeover.)

Peres said: “My problem is less whom to entrust with the role of prime minister but rather the candidate’s policies. The world is undergoing new situations and the new government must adjust its policies accordingly. I do not disqualify any Israeli who was duly elected.”

Original Link.