The Mexican government is attempting to save an illegal alien convicted of participating in the savage rape and murder two teenage girls from being executed in Texas for his crimes.

Death penalty opponents in both the US and Mexico are trying to place this nation under the control of a world court, according to critics of the Bush White House.

“[President George Bush’s position is] a bad mistake, but one of many mistakes, I’m sad to say, the administration has made recently,” Bolton told syndicated radio talk show host Laura Ingraham.

Bolton believes that President Bush is helping Mexico and the International Court block the death sentence for a Mexican rapist-murderer. He called Bush’s actions “ridiculous.”

“Bolton is a true patriot. That’s why the liberals in the Democrat Party and the phony conservatives in the GOP were so eager to remove him from his seat at the UN. Bolton believes the UN is corrupt and he’s opposed to placing the United States under the jurisdiction of any international entity,” claims conservative political consultant Michael Baker.

“When it comes to US sovereignty, Americans would be better served listening to Ambassador Bolton rather than our ‘closet Internationalist’ President,” he added.

Baker points to phony conservatives such as Ohio’s Senator George Voinovich who shed tears during Senate confirmation hearings for Bolton to serve at the United Nations. “Voinovich feared Bolton’s anti-UN positions would hamper US involvement in the New World Order,” claims Baker.

In early October, the US Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the impending execution of Jose Medellin, who confessed to police in 1993 to raping and murdering two Houston, Texas, teenagers—Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena. The girls were sodomized and strangled with their own shoe laces, according to court records and police reports.

According to Houston Police detectives’ reports, Medellin boasted that he kept one victim’s Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of his heinous crime. Medellin and four other attackers were convicted of capital murder and are awaiting execution on death row.

The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice in the Hague found Medellin—who entered the United States illegally—was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

“Bush’s support of the World Court decision jeopardizes the cases of about 50 Mexican Nationals sitting on death row,” said former NYPD Det. Sidney Francis.

“Once again, President Bush is stabbing law enforcement officers—and the people they serve—in their backs,” said Francis.

Det. Francis points to the erosion of the enormous support of law enforcement officials and organizations enjoyed by President Bush in the 2004 election.

“President Bush was endorsed by the nation’s largest police organizations including the 350,000-member Fraternal Order of Police, the Police Benevolent Association and other law enforcement and security organizations and unions,” said Michael Baker.

“Now his popularity among cops has hit bottom because of his refusal to protect the US from illegal aliens who cross our borders at will,” he said.

Ambassador Bolton told talk host Laura Ingraham that the U.S. has no obligation to the world court in this case.

“It is ridiculous,” he said. “The Vienna Convention on consular relations does not create rights personal to the individual. It’s a state-to-state agreement.”

Lawmakers in Washington, DC, who signed the treaty, did not believe they were creating a way for criminals on death row to “get around our judicial system,” Bolton explained to Ingraham. “They haven’t had enough due process? They’ve had the full panoply of constitutional protection, and now they’re trying to create something else.”

The Bush Administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when President Vicente Fox’s government sued the US over the consular issue in the UN’s world court.
The court ruled in Mexico’s favor in late 2004 and ordered the US to reconsider the Mexican inmates’ murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the decision, the US would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.

The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin’s case, dismissed it in order to allow the case to play out in Texas. Then in November 2006, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president’s order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.

The Texas court ruled that the judicial branch—not the White House—should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn’t entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.

Then Medellin’s defense attorney appealed again to the US Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear the case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, argued that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the world court’s decision.

Recently, for his achievements in both international arbitration and international human rights, Donovan was awarded the Premio Nacional de Jurisprudencia by the Mexican Bar Association, the first non-Mexican so honored.

What the U.S. government wants in the Medellin murder case is “bizarrely grotesque,” according to a statement by the chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

The warning from ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull notes that the case, being pursued by President Bush through the Department of Justice, could result in US laws being subjugated to UN resolutions and rules to the point that local police officers will have to spend more time studying international law than catching criminals.

Jim Kouri, CPP

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance ( http://thenma.org/ ).

While this is meant to be a funny story, I’m afraid there’s more truth than humor contained in it.  I am concerned that we’ve reached a point in America where there are a lot of citizens who “don’t know and don’t care”. 

In this day of advanced technology, 24-hour news, etc., it is easy to believe that we are well-informed.  We listen (with one ear) to the early morning TV news while we dress; we scan the headlines of the morning paper while we have our coffee; we listen to the radio as we drive to work and/or appointments . . . and we think we are informed.  Unfortunately, most of those sources won’t provide what is needed to be well informed.  The majority of the “mainstream” media is slanted in the liberal direction.  Consequently, that’s the “read” you’ll get.  The media will provide only what they have decided you should know . . . not what you need to know to be truly informed.  How do you overcome that ?  If you have a true desire to be “well-informed” and “in the know”, you have to invest some of that valuable commodity known as time searching out answers.  Read books pertinent to current events; vary the radio/TV stations to which you listen; read more than one newspaper; go to the library; and, yes, search the internet.  Being a good citizen demands more than passivity.

Let’s take a look at a few things that everybody should know about and, in my opinion, be deeply concerned.

The first thing I would call to your attention is that 53% of Americans believe that most members of Congress should NOT be reelected. (Latest poll-CNN/Opinion Research Org.).  Only 16% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good job (Rasmussen Poll-10/30).  In the Rasmussen poll, 47% say that Congress is doing a poor job.  Those numbers alone should tell us something.  But, the question is . . . did you know that ?  If those poll numbers reflect the true feelings of the “We the People”, do we care enough to do something about it ?

This next should really be of major concern.  The Constitution of the United States clearly states that “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”.  (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2).  Constitutional requirements for approval of treaties seem to be pretty clear.  But . . . wait . . . were you aware that, in the closing days of the 106th Congress, the U.S. Senate ratified 34 treaties—without debate, without vote, and almost without notice. ?  All but two of the group have to do with single-issue matters between the U.S.  and a single other nation.  It’s the other two that should give pause for concern since they are directly tied in with the Agenda 21 program of the United Nations.  These are, the International Plant Protection Convention and the Convention on Desertification.  Both of these treaties further entangle the U.S.  in the United Nations’ web of environmental policy.

The alarming part of this is how it was done in direct contravention and violation of the Constitution of the United States (as stated above).  Note the exchange from the Congressional Record, Page S10658, for October 18, 2000.  This is the dialogue between Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY, now deceased) and the President of the Senate:

“Mr. THOMAS:  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today’s Executive Calendar.

They will consist of Nos. 20 through 53.

I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presen-tations of the resolutions of ratification, all committee provisos, reservations, under-standings, declarations be considered and agreed to; that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate’s action, and that following the disposition of the Treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.”

And with that, these 34 treaties were approved . . . no debate, no vote.  There is no provision in the Constitution that grants the Senate any method of ratifying treaties other than the one stated in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.  But . . . how many Americans knew this had happened.  Certainly, the media didn’t tell anybody.

The reason this action is particularly scary is that at this time there is an extremely offensive treaty that has been voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (17-4) known as the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”.  The President is seeking ratification . . . the U.S. Navy wants ratification . . . environmental groups want ratification.  To say that it is a bad treaty would be a gross understatement.  Everyone should take time to do a little reading on what the treaty contains and how it would affect American business and the U.S. Navy.

If the Senate was bold enough in 2000 to take the action cited above, they just might try it again.  If this happens. . . there should be immediate action on the part of Americans to remind the Senate of their Constitutional obligation when it comes to treaties . . . and it’s not by unanimous consent.  The Law of the Sea Treaty (also known as L.O.S.T.) should be sent to Davy Jones Locker . . . quickly and without further adieu or discussion.

It appears (at least to me) that anytime a treaty that originates with the United Nations comes about, it boils down to one simple factor . . . the United States will give up some more of its sovereignty.

Take note of all that’s going on around us . . . the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada; the Trans-Texas Corridor; NAFTA; the various treaties that take away more of the sovereignty of the U.S.  Everything seems to be pointed toward a North American Union and more “globalism” and “one-world order”.  Of course, this means an increase in power and control for the United Nations.

It doesn’t really matter whether one is Democrat or Republican . . . we are Americans first.  And, as such, our main concern should be with what’s happening to our Nation. 

Caring and trying to figure out what one American can do is like trying to get your hands around a bowl of Jell-O or herding cats.  But, if we are to once again be the “shining city on the hill”, each of us is required to do what we can and that means that we have to “know” and (certainly) we have to “care”.  There’s no room for ignorance and apathy when it comes to being a responsible citizen.  There’s nothing easy about being part of “We the People”.

One of the things that we can do is to make certain that those who are seeking office in 2008 will pledge themselves to upholding the Constitution and strengthening those things that made us great.  We’ve had enough “lip-service” . . . enough “talking the talk” . . . it’s time to see who will “walk the walk”.

A few years back, one of the major greeting card companies had a slogan . . . “when you care enough to send the very best”.  We are at a point in our Nation’s history when it’s required of each of us to “send our very best” to the task of preserving this Republic.  Many who have gone before us have done so . . . why not us ?  Why not now ?

William D. Bailey