Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Now Fighting $32 Million Law

[Agnapostate]

Yet another failure by you...then again, you fail in general, just as when you failed to reply to my commentary regarding the corrupted Masoretic Text of the book of Samuel.

 

[catzmeow]

[There's a critical distinction between defending border crossers from interlopers and from returning after the fact to needlessly harass landowners.

Except that, in this case, the border crossers are the interlopers on private property.

The ethically suspect Mexican government is not an exemplary model on which to base border policy, which is why I've advocated the overthrow of the Mexican government by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation on numerous occasions.

You advocating it does not make it a practical reality. Our policies should model theirs. We should be prepared to give illegals the same treatment that they do.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised land concessions which were not honored.

Boo de fucking hoo. Mexico lost. America won. It happened a hundred and fifty years ago. You're crying over milk that was spilt a long time ago, and isn't going back in the jar. Get over it.

There aren't enough Minutemen to successfully defeat them.

I'm not talking about Minutemen, you fool. I'm talking about U.S. military forces enforcing U.S. immigration law and shutting down armed radicals, permanently.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Agna quote:...

Claims of "reconquista" are exaggerated lies peddled by the mass media.....

Agna....unlike many of the other posters here,i live in S.Cal. and i say you are FULL OF SHIT....for you to tell these people this tripe tells me that you are an exaggerated BULLSHITER....

 

[Agnapostate]

Except that, in this case, the border crossers are the interlopers on private property.

Defenses of private property rights generally fail, and this one more than others. As I've mentioned numerously, legalization of border crossing would encourage border crossers to use legal checkpoints, unless you think it a more logical move to sneak across the barren desert.

You don't even live in a border state, and in terms of immigrants, you've apparently only dealt with the resident Batista supporters, so it doesn't surprise me that you would know nothing about this matter.

You advocating it does not make it a practical reality. Our policies should model theirs. We should be prepared to give illegals the same treatment that they do.

I'd be interested to see you advocating the same treatment for German immigrants in 1939. Your proposed immigration policies are dismal failures, which is why they were effortlessly rebutted by me elsewhere. Spare us the rib pain that immense laughter would induce by not posting them again.

Furthermore, you seem wholly unfamiliar with the social and political climate in Central America and Mexico? Have you been to Chiapas? Have you been to Northern Guatemala?

Boo de fucking hoo. Mexico lost. America won. It happened a hundred and fifty years ago. You're crying over milk that was spilt a long time ago, and isn't going back in the jar. Get over it.

As usual, your idiocy manifests itself in the most blatant ways. The treaty stipulated certain land concessions that were never honored, so that is the purpose of mention of that when discussing legally disputed lands on the Southern border.

I'm not talking about Minutemen, you fool. I'm talking about U.S. military forces enforcing U.S. immigration law and shutting down armed radicals, permanently.

This is regressing past your typical idiocy. If the U.S. military functioned ideally on the border, their presence there would be a wasteful inefficiency and ethically dubious act, since U.S. trade liberalization has uprooted members of the Mexican working class while giving them nowhere to seek employment. Now back to reality, which you're obviously unfamiliar with. Not only would this exacerbate immigration related problems even more, (as people found more sophisticated ways to cross the border, possibly with more heavily armed coyotes, inevitably leading to more conflicts with landowners), there are portions of the U.S. military, particularly working class components, that find discrimination against immigrants as ethically suspect as others do.

Maybe you'd better go stand on the Southern border with your little peashooter and see what happens, since you're obviously so familiar with the climate there.

Agna quote:...

Claims of "reconquista" are exaggerated lies peddled by the mass media.....

Agna....unlike many of the other posters here,i live in S.Cal. and i say you are FULL OF SHIT....for you to tell these people this tripe tells me that you are an exaggerated BULLSHITER....

I live in S. Cal and am a descendant of both legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America. Better try again, slappy.

 

[indago]

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired February 12, 2009 - 19:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Also in Arizona tonight, a group of illegal aliens suing an Arizona rancher for millions of dollars, those illegal immigrants claiming the rancher violated their civil rights when he apprehended them at gun point on his property. Casey Wian has the story from Tucson, Arizona.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The federal courthouse in Tucson, Arizona, is the site of a showdown between two extremes in the debate over illegal immigration and border security. Rancher Roger Barnett is being sued by a group of illegal aliens he held at gun point on his property near the Mexican border in 2004. Barnett claims he has helped the border patrol apprehend more than 12,000 illegal border crossers during the past decade.

He says they have severely damaged his 22,000-acre property by leaving trash, cutting fences, and destroying water tanks. The civil suit claims Barnett threatened to shoot anyone who fled. They're seeking millions of dollars in damages for civil rights violations, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

KATE O'CONNOR, BORDER ACTION NETWORK: Everybody still has the same equal protection under the law. No one should be held at gun point and threatened with their dog, or also kicked for just being on their property illegally or unlawfully.

WIAN: The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund is financing the lawsuit. The Federation for American Immigration Reform is backing Barnett. Both sides have agreed in court not to discuss the case with reporters. But not this longtime border resident who is supporting Barnett.

HOYT STRIKER, BARNETT SUPPORTER: Barnett, as far as I'm concerned, has done any and everything he can to at least — he's put in a water system for them and put in spigots for them. So they do not destroy his holding tanks and things. Yet they turn around and they destroy that. What is a person to do? Do we have any rights in the United States anymore to protect our own livelihoods?

WIAN: Barnett's wife and brother and 10 of the 16 illegal aliens who sued them have been dropped from the lawsuit. Previously Barnett was ordered to pay $100,000 to a Mexican American family he confronted while they were hunting on his property.

Closing arguments in this case were presented this afternoon. And the case is now in the hands of the jury. In those closing arguments, Barnett's attorneys say he was simply trying to protect his property from people he believed could be armed, drug or alien smugglers. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say Mr. Barnett simply went overboard — Lou.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: All right. The gentleman summing it up. What rights do American citizens have to protect their property is a very serious issue. Particularly on the border with Mexico. Thank you very much, Casey. Casey, any idea when we're going to get a decision?

WIAN: We don't know when we'll get a decision. It will go to the jury tomorrow. But you mentioned the rights that property owners have. Here in Arizona, property owners are allowed to use the threat of deadly force to protect their property. So that's something that is at issue here, Lou.

DOBBS: All right. Casey, thank you very much. Casey Wian.

 

[catzmeow]

WIAN: We don't know when we'll get a decision. It will go to the jury tomorrow. But you mentioned the rights that property owners have. Here in Arizona, property owners are allowed to use the threat of deadly force to protect their property. So that's something that is at issue here, Lou. DOBBS: All right. Casey, thank you very much. Casey Wian.

As stated before, he should have shot them.

 

[William Joyce]

Who's a bigger threat to the country, illegal aliens or Jewish lawyers?

 

[catzmeow]

Defenses of private property rights generally fail, and this one more than others.

EVIDENCE? Or do you think that you talking out your ass equates to evidence?

As I've mentioned numerously, legalization of border crossing would encourage border crossers to use legal checkpoints, unless you think it a more logical move to sneak across the barren desert.

I think people will do what is most convenient for them. If Mexicans dispute the rights of Americans to live in those areas, why would they honor private property?

You don't even live in a border state, and in terms of immigrants, you've apparently only dealt with the resident Batista supporters, so it doesn't surprise me that you would know nothing about this matter.

I don't live on a border state NOW. I've spent years working with immigrants, legal and illegal. 19 now, to be exact. So, in essence, I've been working professionally with these issues longer than you've been alive.

Dismissed.

I'd be interested to see you advocating the same treatment for German immigrants in 1939

.

Hitler fallacy. You lose.

Your proposed immigration policies are dismal failures, which is why they were effortlessly rebutted by me elsewhere. Spare us the rib pain that immense laughter would induce by not posting them again.

My immigration policies haven't been implemented. Thus, you don't know whether they would work. Nor, for the matter, have YOURS. Thus, it appears that we are at an impasse, junior.

Furthermore, you seem wholly unfamiliar with the social and political climate in Central America and Mexico? Have you been to Chiapas? Have you been to Northern Guatemala?

I've dealt with immigrants from these areas in the U.S., including El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and a number of regions in Mexico. The most common area we dealt with, in terms of immigrants, was Sinaloa.

As usual, your idiocy manifests itself in the most blatant ways. The treaty stipulated certain land concessions that were never honored, so that is the purpose of mention of that when discussing legally disputed lands on the Southern border.

These lands are "legally disputed" by fringe lunatics. The Mexican government is not disputing these lands. The U.S. isn't facing a court challenge over these lands. You've misused the term "legally disputed" to imply that a wide consensus of people dispute the ownership of the property. That's bollocks. Neither government is challenging the current status of these lands.

And I don't give a shit what MeCHA says.

This is regressing past your typical idiocy. If the U.S. military functioned ideally on the border, their presence there would be a wasteful inefficiency and ethically dubious act,

In your opinion, which is fundamentally anarchist in nature and doesn't represent normal thinking on the subject.

since U.S. trade liberalization has uprooted members of the Mexican working class while giving them nowhere to seek employment.

Do I need to talk about how this isn't a strictly U.S. policy, but was heavily supported by MEXICO and other central American countries? If we overturned NAFTA tomorrow, I'd be thrilled.

Not only would this exacerbate immigration related problems even more, (as people found more sophisticated ways to cross the border, possibly with more heavily armed coyotes, inevitably leading to more conflicts with landowners), there are portions of the U.S. military, particularly working class components, that find discrimination against immigrants as ethically suspect as others do.

What percentage of the U.S. military would refuse to serve on the border and enforce our country's legal boundaries? VERY FEW.

I have no problems with having military personnel shoot illegal border crossers. That's how strongly I feel about protecting our borders.

I live in S. Cal and am a descendant of both legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America. Better try again, slappy.

YOU are a solid argument for stopping illegal immigration NOW. Illegal immigrants and their descendents aren't loyal Americans, they're foreigners with a foreign mentality who don't respect our laws.

 

[catzmeow]

Who's a bigger threat to the country, illegal aliens or Jewish lawyers?

Have any Jewish lawyers hacked anyone to death with a machete in your county recently?

 

[Againsheila]

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 — seeking $32 million in damages — 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, the Washington Times reported Monday.

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

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.


FOXNews.com - Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Now Fighting $32 Million Lawsuit - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News




Maybe we should throw his azz in prison for 30 years too. Roflmao!

What, you can't even protect your own property anymore? It's not like the government is gonna do it for you.

 

[William Joyce]

Who's a bigger threat to the country, illegal aliens or Jewish lawyers?

Have any Jewish lawyers hacked anyone to death with a machete in your county recently?

Jewish (and white liberal, and generally lefty-crazy) lawyers and activists push a system where

* machete wielders flood into the country
* they can't be deported
* are defended tooth and nail in court
* anyone who tries to stop them, is sued civilly
* anyone complains, they're a "white supremacist."
* climate of bullying means law-abiding white Americans have to just bend over and take it

The flood of illegals would not be a big deal if we were free to deal with. But we can't deal with it, because the FIRST MAN ON THE SCENE to make that impossible will be "Arnie Cohen, trial lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center."

So there you go.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Except that, in this case, the border crossers are the interlopers on private property.

Defenses of private property rights generally fail, and this one more than others. As I've mentioned numerously, legalization of border crossing would encourage border crossers to use legal checkpoints, unless you think it a more logical move to sneak across the barren desert.

You don't even live in a border state, and in terms of immigrants, you've apparently only dealt with the resident Batista supporters, so it doesn't surprise me that you would know nothing about this matter.

You advocating it does not make it a practical reality. Our policies should model theirs. We should be prepared to give illegals the same treatment that they do.

I'd be interested to see you advocating the same treatment for German immigrants in 1939. Your proposed immigration policies are dismal failures, which is why they were effortlessly rebutted by me elsewhere. Spare us the rib pain that immense laughter would induce by not posting them again.

Furthermore, you seem wholly unfamiliar with the social and political climate in Central America and Mexico? Have you been to Chiapas? Have you been to Northern Guatemala?



As usual, your idiocy manifests itself in the most blatant ways. The treaty stipulated certain land concessions that were never honored, so that is the purpose of mention of that when discussing legally disputed lands on the Southern border.

I'm not talking about Minutemen, you fool. I'm talking about U.S. military forces enforcing U.S. immigration law and shutting down armed radicals, permanently.

This is regressing past your typical idiocy. If the U.S. military functioned ideally on the border, their presence there would be a wasteful inefficiency and ethically dubious act, since U.S. trade liberalization has uprooted members of the Mexican working class while giving them nowhere to seek employment. Now back to reality, which you're obviously unfamiliar with. Not only would this exacerbate immigration related problems even more, (as people found more sophisticated ways to cross the border, possibly with more heavily armed coyotes, inevitably leading to more conflicts with landowners), there are portions of the U.S. military, particularly working class components, that find discrimination against immigrants as ethically suspect as others do.

Maybe you'd better go stand on the Southern border with your little peashooter and see what happens, since you're obviously so familiar with the climate there.

Agna quote:...

Claims of "reconquista" are exaggerated lies peddled by the mass media.....

Agna....unlike many of the other posters here,i live in S.Cal. and i say you are FULL OF SHIT....for you to tell these people this tripe tells me that you are an exaggerated BULLSHITER....

I live in S. Cal and am a descendant of both legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America. Better try again, slappy.

and how do you know im not a Mexican you moron.....that movement is NOT an EXAGERATION.....and if you think it is,then you are....
no.1...a phony Mexican or a wannabe....
no.2...one who is part of the movement,and denies it is real....to TRY to keep whitey in the dark...which is working really well.....
no.3...A FUCKING MORON!!!!.....

which is it?....

 

[Meister]

Except that, in this case, the border crossers are the interlopers on private property.

Defenses of private property rights generally fail, and this one more than others. As I've mentioned numerously, legalization of border crossing would encourage border crossers to use legal checkpoints, unless you think it a more logical move to sneak across the barren desert.

You don't even live in a border state, and in terms of immigrants, you've apparently only dealt with the resident Batista supporters, so it doesn't surprise me that you would know nothing about this matter.



I'd be interested to see you advocating the same treatment for German immigrants in 1939. Your proposed immigration policies are dismal failures, which is why they were effortlessly rebutted by me elsewhere. Spare us the rib pain that immense laughter would induce by not posting them again.

Furthermore, you seem wholly unfamiliar with the social and political climate in Central America and Mexico? Have you been to Chiapas? Have you been to Northern Guatemala?



As usual, your idiocy manifests itself in the most blatant ways. The treaty stipulated certain land concessions that were never honored, so that is the purpose of mention of that when discussing legally disputed lands on the Southern border.



This is regressing past your typical idiocy. If the U.S. military functioned ideally on the border, their presence there would be a wasteful inefficiency and ethically dubious act, since U.S. trade liberalization has uprooted members of the Mexican working class while giving them nowhere to seek employment. Now back to reality, which you're obviously unfamiliar with. Not only would this exacerbate immigration related problems even more, (as people found more sophisticated ways to cross the border, possibly with more heavily armed coyotes, inevitably leading to more conflicts with landowners), there are portions of the U.S. military, particularly working class components, that find discrimination against immigrants as ethically suspect as others do.

Maybe you'd better go stand on the Southern border with your little peashooter and see what happens, since you're obviously so familiar with the climate there.

Agna quote:...

Claims of "reconquista" are exaggerated lies peddled by the mass media.....

Agna....unlike many of the other posters here,i live in S.Cal. and i say you are FULL OF SHIT....for you to tell these people this tripe tells me that you are an exaggerated BULLSHITER....

I live in S. Cal and am a descendant of both legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America. Better try again, slappy.

and how do you know im not a Mexican you moron.....that movement is NOT an EXAGERATION.....and if you think it is,then you are....
no.1...a phony Mexican or a wannabe....
no.2...one who is part of the movement,and denies it is real....to TRY to keep whitey in the dark...which is working really well.....
no.3...A FUCKING MORON!!!!.....

which is it?....

Your right on this one, Harry. The latin crowd is really just trying to take back what they percieve is their's. Agna, must be in denial on this. Or, trying to downplay the problem. I lived there far too long to know any different. Agna....I do beleive your nose is growing

 

[catzmeow]

Who's a bigger threat to the country, illegal aliens or Jewish lawyers?

Have any Jewish lawyers hacked anyone to death with a machete in your county recently?

Jewish (and white liberal, and generally lefty-crazy) lawyers and activists push a system where

* machete wielders flood into the country
* they can't be deported
* are defended tooth and nail in court
* anyone who tries to stop them, is sued civilly
* anyone complains, they're a "white supremacist."
* climate of bullying means law-abiding white Americans have to just bend over and take it

The flood of illegals would not be a big deal if we were free to deal with. But we can't deal with it, because the FIRST MAN ON THE SCENE to make that impossible will be "Arnie Cohen, trial lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center."

So there you go.

MY GOD, I had no idea Jillian was so EVIL.

(not a huge fan of the SPLC's tactics on the immigration issue, though I like their work in other areas)

 

[GHook93]

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 — seeking $32 million in damages — 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, the Washington Times reported Monday.

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

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.

FOXNews.com - Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Now Fighting $32 Million Lawsuit - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News


Maybe we should throw his azz in prison for 30 years too. Roflmao!

He should counter-claim for bring a frivilous claims and for denying his rights to be secure in his property and for the emotional distress (hey one frivilous claim deserves another). And the cross-claim the AZ government, police and border patrol from not protecting his property. Lastly he should cross-claim the Mexican government for allowing its citizens to tramble on his rights!

 

[Agnapostate]

Who's a bigger threat to the country, illegal aliens or Jewish lawyers?

How about Don Black?

EVIDENCE? Or do you think that you talking out your ass equates to evidence?

Please, bitch, don't try and be funny.

Your ass has been pwned yet again, as when you thought you'd try and have a little "dispute" with me in another immigration thread.

I think people will do what is most convenient for them. If Mexicans dispute the rights of Americans to live in those areas, why would they honor private property?

Nobody's "disputing" the right of any landowners to live on the border...congratulations on your production of a fallacy and complete ignorance of the obvious fact that immigrants would obviously be more inclined to use established border checkpoints.

I don't live on a border state NOW. I've spent years working with immigrants, legal and illegal. 19 now, to be exact. So, in essence, I've been working professionally with these issues longer than you've been alive.

Dismissed.

Really? I thought I was 55 and running from Chris Hansen? I guess we've flipped back yet again?

Which border state did you live in? You sure do jump around a lot...from playing blackjack with the Mormons to flirtation with the Batista supporters in Miami.

Hitler fallacy. You lose.

Godwin's Law, and an accurate application of it at that. There's a similar

My immigration policies haven't been implemented. Thus, you don't know whether they would work. Nor, for the matter, have YOURS. Thus, it appears that we are at an impasse, junior.

An "impasse"? You'd like that, wouldn't you?

But the reality is that regardless of implementation, it is possible to present some degree of both theoretical and empirical evidence indicating the likely consequences of either solution, and in your previous attempts to do so, you were unsuccessful, as evidenced by your scampering away.

I've dealt with immigrants from these areas in the U.S., including El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and a number of regions in Mexico. The most common area we dealt with, in terms of immigrants, was Sinaloa.

So how many times have you been to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Sinaloa? Just curious.

These lands are "legally disputed" by fringe lunatics. The Mexican government is not disputing these lands. The U.S. isn't facing a court challenge over these lands. You've misused the term "legally disputed" to imply that a wide consensus of people dispute the ownership of the property. That's bollocks. Neither government is challenging the current status of these lands.

And I don't give a shit what MeCHA says.

I have no idea if MEChA is legally disputing those lands, nor are they geographically significant enough to dramatically affect anything. I merely bring them up in response to those who fervently crow about private property rights.

In your opinion, which is fundamentally anarchist in nature and doesn't represent normal thinking on the subject.

Primitive nonsense that enables you to escape answering arguments in a legitimate manner.

Do I need to talk about how this isn't a strictly U.S. policy, but was heavily supported by MEXICO and other central American countries? If we overturned NAFTA tomorrow, I'd be thrilled.

Supported by the Mexican government, not the working class portions of the Mexican citizenry, as most obviously indicated by the uprising of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Chiapas.

What percentage of the U.S. military would refuse to serve on the border and enforce our country's legal boundaries? VERY FEW.

Unlikely, in addition to the other issues that I brought up and that you ignored. Working class members of the military are deceived only by attempts to divide that class so as to prevent any victories in class conflict. If they were united, a significant portion of the military would stand in solidarity with immigrants. And that's not even beginning to address the political feasibility of a tactic primarily advocated by posters at Stormfront. I suspect Cletus and his posse will be the only goons around.

I have no problems with having military personnel shoot illegal border crossers. That's how strongly I feel about protecting our borders.

Yes, we've seen that idiocy before (and rebutted, and you failed to reply to that) and that's why I advocated armed defense brigades should any homegrown militia (because your military fantasies remain implausible...is this some little fetish with that Navy officer?) be foolish enough to strike first. It is quite possible to implement a number of strategies that are very assertive, and very aggressive. It's hard to harass immigrants when there's an SKS in your face.

YOU are a solid argument for stopping illegal immigration NOW. Illegal immigrants and their descendents aren't loyal Americans, they're foreigners with a foreign mentality who don't respect our laws.

Crude nationalistic remarks with little bearing on reality. (With little application to immigrants as a whole, incidentally.) My opposition to the existence of nation-states is derived from my political ideology, not my descent.

and how do you know im not a Mexican you moron.....that movement is NOT an EXAGERATION.....and if you think it is,then you are....
no.1...a phony Mexican or a wannabe....
no.2...one who is part of the movement,and denies it is real....to TRY to keep whitey in the dark...which is working really well.....
no.3...A FUCKING MORON!!!!.....

which is it?....

I didn't say you weren't a Mexican. I just have a feeling you're an idiot who spends most of his time on the Heritage Foundation's website.

 

[manifold]

This is truly disappointing. I just scrolled through 6 pages of posts eagerly looking for Ravi's knee-jerk defense of the illegals, and the accompanying good laugh, but even she's giving this one a miss.

That should tell you something.

 

[Agnapostate]

This is truly disappointing. I just scrolled through 6 pages of posts eagerly looking for Ravi's knee-jerk defense of the illegals, and the accompanying good laugh, but even she's giving this one a miss.

That should tell you something.

Why would you do all that scrolling, and not just search for her posts with the thread tools?

 

[manifold]

This is truly disappointing. I just scrolled through 6 pages of posts eagerly looking for Ravi's knee-jerk defense of the illegals, and the accompanying good laugh, but even she's giving this one a miss.

That should tell you something.

Why would you do all that scrolling, and not just search for her posts with the thread tools?

Because I was also skimming for other potentially interesting posts. Came up empty as it were.

 

[William Joyce]

(not a huge fan of the SPLC's tactics on the immigration issue, though I like their work in other areas)

Like white race destruction, character assasination, racial McCarthyism, left-wing thought policing, Christian-bashing, straight-hating, Republican-baiting, or generalized America murder?

So much to choose from!