Pima County Sheriff's Department Finally Puts Muzzle on Mudslinging Sheriff Dupnik

It looks like someone finally put a muzzle on the verbose, left-leaning, mudslinging Sheriff Dupnik (emphasis mine):

The Pima County Sheriff's Department has suddenly turned off the flow of information in the January 8th mass shootings in Tucson. Shortly after noon Tuesday Sheriff's PIO Jason Ogan released this terse, one-line statement:

"Until further notice, due to a controversy between the Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney's office, no further information reference the January 8, 2011 shooting will be released."…

As KGUN9 News has reported, some critics have suggested that some statements from the Sheriff's Department -- particularly those from Sheriff Clarence Dupnik -- could serve to work against prosecutors. A legal expert that 9 On Your Side consulted did not share the concern. Whether LaWall has views on the subject, and if so, whether those views played into Wednesday's Sheriff's Department statement, is unknown.

Sheriff Dupnik has been taking full advantage of his 15 minutes of fame over the past week and a half and accusing everyone for the shooting including: Sarah Palin, the right, TEA Party, etc. Many in the conservative media have criticized him for this because the Loughner’s defense attorney’s could turn around and use what he said against the prosecution in his case.

He is the sheriff that is supposed to be investigating what really happened and why. He had no business guessing what Loughner’s motive was in the media before any evidence had been found, in the first place. This gag order on him is long overdue. He should have spent the time that he used pontificating investigating the shooting. That IS what he was elected to do. There will be hell to pay for Dupnik, if his politicization of the shooting costs the prosecution the case.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

Number of Bodies Found Along Tucson, Arizona/Mexico Border Rise to Highest Ever

This past year has seen more people being found dead along the US/Mexico near Tucson, Arizona than ever before:

The discovery of record numbers of bodies along the Tucson sector of the US-Mexico border suggests that border crossings for illegal immigrants are becoming deadlier as heightened security forces migrants into remoter and more forbidding areas.

In fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, authorities reported fewer border crossings overall. But the 252 bodies recovered surpassed the previous record of 237 in fiscal 2007.

“People go through areas that are harsher, where a lot of people are getting hurt and dying,” says Raquel Rubio-Goldsmith, coordinator of the University of Arizona’s Binational Migration Institute.

A record-breaking heat wave last summer could also have played a role. Moreover, there are more border patrol agents on the ground, and some of these agents patrol more isolated spots, increasing the likelihood of finding bodies, Ms. Rubio-Goldsmith says.

Because the border is fortified with manpower and high-tech surveillance, smugglers do whatever it takes to get their human cargo into the country and collect profits – including going into far-flung regions. There, they sometimes abandon sick or weary border-crossers who can’t keep up with a group, says Colleen Agle, a border patrol agent in the Tucson sector, which covers most of the Arizona international line.

Why is this happening? It probably is a combination of factors. There was a huge heat wave this year in Arizona. People are going to more dangerous parts of the border, in order to get around the patrols. Patrols are going into these more dangerous areas more often than before and are finding bodies that may have been there a while but were in too remote of an area to have been found previously. Plus, coyotes are being more aggressive in their tactics in getting these people across the border as fast as they can, in order to make as much money as possible.

Many amnesty activists will use this as an example of how “cruel” our immigration laws are. However, what they don’t understand is that making them more lax would only make things worse, in the long run. With the drug war intensifying just across the Mexican border, we need to keep things tight on the border, so that the cartels won’t bring the war onto this side of the border.

We still need to protect our borders, though, to keep people that do intend to inflict harm on our citizens out, like terrorists and violent criminals. We must know who is coming into our country, in order to be able to protect all Americans.

What is needed is an easier way for people to come into this country legally. There needs to be less red tape and less waiting time needed before people can come into the US without jeopardizing our immigration officials’ ability to vet and run checks on these potential immigrants. If a legal path to immigration is made easier, then, people will feel less of a need to cross the border illegally, and less people will have to risk their lives to come to America to live the American dream.

Tennessee Seeking to Join Arizona, Florida: Considering Stricter Illegal Immigration Laws

Tennesse seems to be following Arizona and Florida's lead on the illegal immigration debate:

Tennessee’s legislators plan to consider a bill next year styled after Arizona’s SB 1070, even though the state already has strict laws targeting illegal immigrants.

State Sen. Bill Ketron and Rep. Joe Carr, both Republicans, are preparing a bill that criminalizes illegal immigrants and authorizes local law enforcement authorities to detain “any person” suspected of being in the country unlawfully.

“You can’t deny how [illegal immigration] is affecting us, from education to healthcare to the judicial system to incarceration, and more importantly the number of jobs it’s taken away,” Ketron said.

Like Tennessee, other nearby states, including North Carolina and South Carolina, have expressed an interest in starting out the new legislative session in 2011 reviewing measures similar to the law in Arizona, the first in the nation to criminalize being in the country unlawfully.

This is definitely gaining steam in most states, especially in the south and border states, where illegal immigration is causing huge problems. Also, public opinion is on the side of the new stricter immigration laws. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder seems to be fighting a a losing battle on this issue.

State of Arizona Gains Traction Over Immigration Bill Debate After Court Ruling Friday

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona get some of its mojo back, after receiving a favorable ruling,yesterday, in US District Court:

After suffering a major legal setback in the summer, Arizona regained its footing in court Friday when a federal judge dismissed parts of the U.S. Justice Department's challenge to the state's new immigration law and rejected several claims made by Hispanic activists and Phoenix police officers.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on Friday struck down the federal government's challenge to the portion of the law that prohibits the transport of illegal immigrants.

It also rejected a challenge from Phoenix police officers and an advocacy group called Chicanos Por La Causa who argued that the cops could be sued for racial profiling if they enforced the law or lose their jobs if they didn't.
Bolton agreed with Arizona that they had no valid claim of immediate harm.

Bolton also dismissed a lawsuit from the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders who were seeking an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law because the group argued federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders.

"I am pleased with today's decision," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said in a statement Friday. "I strongly believe that the citizens of Arizona will ultimately prevail in all of these legal challenges. My defense of the rule of law will continue as vigorously as ever.”

This is an important development in the impending court case that was brought by the US Justice Department, earlier this year. It will allow local authorities to be able to move prisoners and greatly lowers the chance of officers and police departments being sued for racial profiling, if the question and hold suspects for illegal immigration violations. The judge, also, backed the notion brought up by the Arizona governor that states have every right to protect their borders just as the federal government does.

However, the judge refused to reject the case entirely. Some of the more controversial aspects to the law are still able to be challenged in court sometime next year.

AZ Governor Blasts Obama Regarding Lack of Border Security in Latest Campaign Ad

In her latest campaign ad, the Arizona Governor blasted the president for not protecting our border especially in her state. Illegal immigration and the Mexican drug cartels have turned Southern Arizona into a “enter at your own risk” zone for Americans and, basically, ceded part of the state to the Mexican drug cartels. This spot is definitely a point-on criticism of the failure of Obama’s White House to protect its own citizens.

One might wonder why she’d spend her campaign funds on an ad that is going after the President and not her actual opponent in November, Terry Goddard (D). She must show that she is standing up to the federal government with this security issue. The violence at the border and throughout the state resulting from the drug cartels is very ranked high in among the most important issues that Arizonians are worried about this November. With this ad, she did a very good job here demonstrating her leadership in this issue.

Oh My: AZ Gov Brewer Argues Most Illegal Immigrants Are Drug Mules

Governor Brewer responded to questions on the illegal immigration bill saying that most illegals are drug smugglers:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Friday most illegal immigrants entering Arizona are being used to transport drugs across the border. Brewer said the motivation of "a lot" of the illegal immigrants is to enter the United States to look for work, but that drug rings press them into duty as drug "mules."

"I believe today, under the circumstances that we're facing, that the majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in," Brewer said.

"There's strong information to us that they come as illegal people wanting to come to work. Then they are accosted and they become subjects of the drug cartel," she said.

While I agree with the law overall, this is a misguided attempt at explaining why we need border security. There is no doubt that there are some that are smuggling drugs into the country, and drug cartels are becoming an ever-increasing danger to American border agents, agents, and citizens around the border for some time. However, to use the blanket accusation that "most" are in danger is a bit too much. Most are looking for a better life than Mexico or other poverty-stricken country could ever provide them. The governor would be well-served to avoid overgeneralizations and demagoguery in the future.

Unfortunately, though, one bad apple ruins the whole bunch. We must know who's coming into our country because it only takes one suitcase nuke that terrorists could smuggle in to kill millions of innocent people. The border must be protected for the protection of us all. Both of the Bush and Obama administrations have let politics get in the way of our safety, and if the federal government keeps abdicating their responsibilities of guarding our borders, it must be up to the states and local governments to pick up the slack.

Texas, Arizona No Sanctuary Bills: Law Enforcement Will Actually Enforce Laws

Texas and Arizona are considering bills to ban cities from enacting "sanctuary policies" that discourage them from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Witnesses testified Wednesday before a Texas Senate committee for a bill aimed at "sanctuary cities" like Austin and Houston that tell police officers to avoid determining the immigration status of those they deal with, the Houston Chronicle reported.

That's a radical idea by those "extremists" in Texas and Arizona. The FBI needs to start an investigation on them. This is exactly the type of extremism that Napilitano was talking about. Imagine, law enforcement actually enforcing laws. That's unheard of in the Age of Obama. Stop them!

Oops! Sorry, Nancy Pelosi just invaded my body for a moment.

These bills would be a great step in curbing violence by criminals from south of the border. The Mexican drug cartels have brought the violence to our cites and neighborhoods. Maybe the Governator and Richardson will push for similar bills in California and New Mexico where illegal immigrant and drug cartel is, also, leaking through into the US as much as it is in Texas and Arizona.

Probably not. They're too beholden to the left to push for that.

I'm not against immigrants just the ones that break laws and endanger our lives. Both hearings had weighed in horrific crimes committed by illegals that the "sanctuary cities" wouldn't turn over to ICE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/texas-arizona-lawmakers-considering-ban-sanctuary-cities/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6374846.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/topstories/articles/0414sanctuary0414-ON.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona High School Students Don't Even Buy What Obama and the Democrats Are Selling

Dobson students question Obama's plan

Hayley Ringle, Tribune
February 18, 2009 - 2:59PM

Students inside Jeff Sherrer's advanced placement government class view President Barack Obama's address via closed circuit television on the campus of Dobson High School in Mesa.

Tim Hacker, Tribune

A Dobson High School Advanced Placement government class with strong opinions about Barack Obama watched the president's speech Wednesday on a small, grainy TV in the corner of their classroom.

Some of the students attentively watched the speech, giving questioning looks and comments, shaking their heads and laughing at some of Obama's words. Other students listened, occasionally glancing up to watch, while texting on their cell phones, reading a book or finishing school work.

The gymnasium's events were shown simultaneously in rooms throughout the Mesa school, and teachers were given discretion on whether to show the speech, the students said.

The students in the class were hopeful things will work out but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech.

Senior Syna Daudfar took some notes during the speech and was among the most vocally opposed to Obama's words.

At one point, when he talked about the costs of his stimulus plan, senior Maaike Albach and Daudfar looked at each other and said, "uh-oh."

"Overall I think it's a good idea, but he's not addressing the issues of the economic crisis," said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. "The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."

Daudfar thinks Obama's plan is backward and deals with the "less important stuff" first. "Bailing out businesses" and "providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses" should have been first, he said.

"If businesses can't afford to hire people, then people won't be able to work and pay off their mortgages," he said. "It's kind of like putting money into a funnel."

Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good but questioned how Obama can want to rely on "people's responsibility" when that is "what got us in this economic crisis in the first place."

"This puts us more into debt," said Albach, 18. "It's a horrible situation we're in."

Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, "Hitler gave great speeches, too" above a picture of Obama.

Miller said he had been an Obama supporter "because of his speeches," but after debating the issues in this class and looking more into Obama's policies, his vote was swayed toward McCain.

He showed a video on his camera he had just taken of the president's minutelong motorcade and talked about what a "great experience" it was to watch it. Miller had also spent a couple of hours in front of the school, hanging out and watching the protesters.

"Even though I don't support him, I think it's cool he's here," said Miller, 18. "I just don't believe all the things he's telling us. His goal is just too big and broad."

Miller wanted to hear more about the costs and guidelines the stimulus bill entails. Senior Katelyn Meyer, who also leans more toward being a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good, "but it's easier said than done."

"I like the refinancing part, and I like the part about mortgages, but I'm afraid we're going to put the money in but won't see any effect," said Meyer, 18, who still thought it was "cool" to say the president was at her school, even though she didn't get to see him live.

The students also questioned why Obama chose their school for his speech since he wasn't talking about education and wondered how much money the district spent on beautifying the campus while district positions and services are being cut.

District officials noted this week that the landscaping project completed over the weekend at Dobson was already in the works and was just expedited by the president's visit. Funding came from voter-approved bonds.

New sod was laid in front of the school Tuesday, and Daudfar said, "The joke at the school is they're going to take it away when he (Obama) leaves."

AP government teacher Jeff Sherrer said his students "feel very strongly about the issues, maybe more than the general population." He thought at least one of his students was outside protesting, and he had planned to take his students outside as a class project to show them what was going on but didn't get the chance.

"These kinds of kids really get into it," Sherrer said. "During the election we had lots of debates on the issues."

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135656
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Be careful kids! After what we saw in OKC, I would watch out for the cops and the secret service. In the days of "The One", dissent is no longer tolerated or American.

Update: Individual's Property Rights Upheld

Jury: Rancher didn't violate migrants' rights By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press Feb. 17, 2009, 6:07PM

TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

"They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking," Hardy said.

All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated."

David Urias, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs."

For years, Arizona has been the busiest point along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States.

For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.

The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

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.

Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, another 10 people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings.

Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9-mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona."

The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.

His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.

In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexican border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6267329.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is a good news, bad news ending. On one hand, most of the lawsuit was deemed frivilous as it should have been. On the other hand, they still did make him liable for too much.
It still could give people pause whenever they are in a situation where they must defend themselves, family, or property.

Overall, it is a good day for all Americans. If the verdict would of went the other way, it would have been endangered the everyones ability defend their own property and family.

He was found liable for assault and going overboard on the threats he shouted at the plantiffs. If he did kick the woman as MALDEF claims, it was the right decision. There wouldn't have been any excuse for assaulting them.

On the other hand, no real harm came to them because of the threats. That should have been a non-issue. After all, Mr. Barnett was a victim of a crime that was committed by the plantiffs as well.

There could be some appeals made by either party. I'll keep following this story as it develops.