Algore’s 20% Hypocrisy

Filed under: Al Gore, Global warming, Politics, Liberalism

Al Gore’s carbon purchases are simply going to firms he owns:

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a “carbon neutral” lifestyle by buying “carbon offsets,” but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as “carbon neutral,” meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by “purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.”
But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating “global warming,” reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

Generation Investment Management’s U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.

Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged “global warming” threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.

“In other words, he ‘buys’ his ‘carbon offsets’ from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself,” Hobbs writes. “To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy ‘carbon offsets’ through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks.”

One Theocracy or Another

Filed under: Secular humanism, Theocracy, Politics, Christianity

Theocracy. The intersection of faith and politics? Or a system of ruling by right wing nuts? I’ve long held that secular humanism is a religion, therefore, theocracy is inevitible. America was founded on a Christian basis and has been overrun by secular humanists into a humanist theocracy. Gary DeMar defines theocracy this way:

“Theocracy is an inescapable concept. The rejection of one theocratic government leads to the choice of another theocratic government.”

In typical secular humanist form, a “library specialist”offered the following response:

The above statement is not true. There are other forms of dictatorship or autocracy that have nothing to do with God or with being God. The Supreme Court justices did not call themselves god and thus were not acting as a theocracy. You may feel they forced their views on you but that does not make a theocracy. Unless the people you name as theocratic (Maureen Dowd, Bill Moyers etc.) are creating a government based on the rule of God (Christian, Muslim, Judaic) then it is not a theocracy. Get your terminology correct. You don’t know your political terms and are misusing the word theocracy. Of course a lot of Christians take no logic courses and will believe you at your word, but you, sir, are wrong.

DeMar responded by pointing out that she was restricting the definition of “theocracy” to its theological use:

You miss the point. The rejection of one god leads inescapably to the choice of another god. If any person, group, court, etc. establishes himself/themselves as the final arbiter of right and wrong, then he/they have assumed the attributes of a god. Thus, he/they are theocratic.

You have limited the word to a belief in a personal god. Democracy can become theocratic if absolute power is given to the people. You’ve heard the phrase: vox populi, vox dei, “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” Those who promote a particular worldview and want to see it implemented socially, educationally, politically, and judicially have elevated the majority to the status of gods. Their political advocates have theocratic tendencies. Only their choice of god has changed.

“Messianic” is used in a similar way. While the term is generally attributed to a religious figure, it is often used to describe people or institutions that have salvation in mind. For example, education (“The Messianic Character of American Education”), politics (“The Messianic State”), and science are often viewed as messianic.

Consider this: “It is science that is to be man’s savior. Science’s messianic function will bring in a utopian ‘golden age.’ Such a ‘salvation’ requires an ethical system, of course, and this will be developed on naturalistic grounds, to replace theistically oriented ethics. It also requires the modifications of existing religions to make them ‘compatible’ with science.

Conservative Christianity is duly put on notice that it is to be impeded wherever possible.” Theocracy is no different. I know my terms quite well and have made an extensive study of the nature and use of the word “theocracy” and how liberal pundits are theocratic in their views, practices, and politics. They want to give to the State the power of life, death, and control of property, domains that properly belong to God alone. It’s because we Christians take courses in logic, history, rhetoric, and civil government that we understand these things better than you suppose.

Not satisfied with my response, she offered the following in rebuttal:

One does not become a god just because they don’t believe in God or God’s rule on earth. A human cannot become god no matter how dictatorial their view is. We will continue to differ. As I see it, if the government does not worship a transcendent omniscient source (i.e. the unseeable god of the bible) then they are not theocratic. We disagree.

We will probably always disagree. It is the same problem I have when people like you claim that Secular Humanism is a religion, which it is not.

DeMar’s final dagger that exposes secular humanists and their “religion:”

In the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”

Those of us who describe Secular Humanism as a religion are only following the lead of the Supreme Court. One assumes the mantle of deity when he sets himself up as the ultimate authority. It’s the attributes of deity that makes someone god-like.

In the eighteenth century, the French revolutionaries declared “reason” to be the goddess of their new state religion. Nineteenth century France was spoken of as ‘goddess France’ by patriotic figures like Victor Hugo and Charles Maurras. Hegel, the philosophical patron saint of communism, wrote that “the State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth… We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth, and consider that, if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is harder to grasp the Essence of the State… The State is the march of God through the world.”

Marx and Engels drank deeply from Hegel’s well. Long before Hegel and communist leaders who followed his ideology, Roman emperors elevated themselves to the status of gods. Gaius (A.D. 37–41) spoke openly about being a god. “By the time of Domitian (A.D. 81–96), it had become common to address him as dominus et deus, ‘my Lord and God.’” Domitian was not referring to an unseen deity; he was referring to himself. The same is true of how the people perceived Herod: “On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’” (Acts 12:23). I’m surprised that you don’t know of these things since you are a “library specialist.”

Secular humanists cannot see their theocracy because to do so would violate their own arguments on nearly every issue including, but not limited to: evolution, church/state separation, abortion, etc. They want to apply the “theocrat label” on conservative Christians and distance themselves as far as possible from it. Then, at their convenience, they want to borrow their self-assigned labels such as “morality,” “religious,” “Founder” and other terms for their own basis or argument.

Little to secualar humanists realize that stealing arguments from their opposition does not go unnoticed. Not only that, but it exposes them as a true religion masquerading as “government” and as frauds that no one can trust or believe in.

Evidence Withheld in Border Patrol Trial

By Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative

As far as major finds in how badly the case of former US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was not only messed up, but intentionally tipped towards their conviction, legal experts say this is the biggest! The defense says that a document from the Department of Homeland Security confirms that two supervisors were on the scene the day an illegal immigrant drug smuggler claims he was shot in the butt. The defense is just finding out about this document, that US Attorney Johnny Sutton’s office had and did not reveal to them during the trial. This was all reported on CNN show Lou Dobbs Tonight last night. I’ve YouTubed the video and you can watch it below.

Why did Sutton’s office withhold exculpatory information?

Ramos and Compean said they never filed a report because supervisors were there. Sutton claimed otherwise in court. Their version of the story has now been verified and once again we see another obvious lie from the mouth of Johnny Sutton.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst says this news is potentially major, as opposed to other news he does not feel is as impacting to changing the outcome of the case. Toobin says this moves things into a “new category” that may cause a new trial. Lou Dobbs says that Johnny Sutton “lied” when he said he had no choice but to offer immunity. And World Net Daily has found more information about illegal alien drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila still running dope into our country, after being given medical treatment at US taxpayer expense. This offense was gagged by the judge and the family of Ramos and Compean still refuse to even talk about it, for fear that Johnny Sutton will come after them.

We need, and I mean NEED, a full Congressional investigation of this entire case right now. We also need to know who in our government knew what, when and what orders they gave to Johnny Sutton and/or the judge. We need to know every single detail related to President George W. Bush involving this matter. It’s time to stop reading and start writing your congresspeople. We now have more than enough information to not simply be suspicious about this case, we know these men were setup!

On Religious Freedom, Justice Is Served

Filed under: Church and State, First+Freedom, Gonzales

Relgious discrimination or violation of the establishment clause? It’s obvious that there have been far more cases favoring the latter in recent decades, but, as more Americans, especially pastors, realize the religious liberties they have and what discrimination actually is, the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales is launching a program to enforce religious liberties called The First Freedom Project.

Stating that “nothing defines us more as Americans than our religious liberties,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unveiled the Justice Department’s “First Freedom Project” to the Southern Baptist Executive Committee in Nashville Tuesday. His new Religious Freedom Task Force will step up enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion and will educate churches on how to file complaints about violations of their rights.

But Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State once again demonstrates his complete and utter ignorance on the issue by smirking:

“Expecting the Bush administration to defend religious liberty is a little like asking Col. Sanders to babysit your pet chicken,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This administration has repeatedly worked to destroy true religious freedom by merging church and state.”

Well yes, Mr Lynn, if we’re talking about your chickens.

Thank you, Attorney General Gonzales, for recognizing the ongoing threat to religious freedom and for taking firm steps to defend our “first freedom.”

Merck Pulls Plug on Vaccine Politicizing

Filed under: Merck, HPV Vaccine, Politics, Socialism

Recall my post about Merck & Co.’s heavy lobbying efforts that paid off when Texas Govenor, Rick Perry required all 11 – 12 year old girls to receive the vaccination or not be allowed to attend public school? After weeks of speculation and pressure from groups like FRC, Merck & Co. has announced that it will no longer lobby states to make its HPV vaccine Gardasil mandatory for school attendance.

Drugmaker Merck & Co. said on Tuesday it would stop lobbying state legislatures to make it mandatory for schoolgirls to be inoculated with its new cervical cancer vaccine.

The company said it made the decision after re-evaluating its lobbying program, which has generated fierce debate with some religious organizations saying it could encourage promiscuity and parents groups questioning the need for such a widespread vaccination program.

Family Resarch Council led the charge against Merck.

FRC put the spotlight on the company’s tactics–especially since Merck stood to make a substantial profit from its legislative campaign. This is no small victory for FRC, which took the lead to educate lawmakers and voters in states where mandatory immunization is still up for debate.

In the last month, our staff has ramped up its efforts on Capitol Hill, meeting with Members of Congress to discuss a national “opt-in” policy that would reinstate parental control, as opposed to the current “opt-out” provision for the vaccine in states like Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order to mandate the vaccine.

Two proposals are currently before the Texas House Committee on Public Health to help undo the damage done to parental rights. Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R) is pushing House Bill 1098, which would forbid state health officials to bar an unvaccinated child from public schools. A second proposal, House Bill 1379, introduced by Rep. Joe Deshotel (D), would require the state to create a “large-scale public information campaign” to explain the pros and cons of the vaccine before girls could be compelled to undergo the shots.

A number of medical and public health experts have said that until we have more data on the vaccine’s long-term safety and effectiveness, a mandate is premature at best.

I am constantly amazed at the tactics people will employ for money. In this case, to say Merck was “premature at best” is an understatement. Out of line is better. Immoral is best. Encouraging teen sex is simply inexusable. But I am truly disappointed in Gov. Perry for going with the “opt-out” policy instead of the “opt-in.” But I’m glad to see Merck respond quickly to the justified debate that engaged them and I appreciate their efforts to cease seeking state funding from mandatory vaccines to pull them out of their troubles.

How To Decipher a Liberal Courting the Christian Vote

Filed under: Hillary, Jimmy Carter, Politics, President

The year Jimmy Carter was first elected President, 1976, was the first year that evangelicals were credited with being a significant voting bloc. Dhimmi, however, quickly bit the hand that fed him. Once again, the religious vote is being courted by presidential wannabes. Beware of politicians and their religious rhetoric.

Consider the remarks by NBC anchor John Chancellor: “We have checked on the religious meaning of Carter’s profound experience. It is described by other Baptists as a common experience, not something out of the ordinary.” Evangelicals were genuinely excited by Carter’s campaign. Carter spoke to fifteen thousand pastors and lay persons of the Southern Baptist Convention. Bailey Smith “proclaimed that this country needs ‘a born-again man in the White House… and his initials are the same as our Lord’s.”

Carter’s candidacy eventually turned sour. His interview in Playboy magazine was the first sign that something was wrong. He stated that he had “looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” What he said was certainly in line with Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, but in Playboy? He did not believe in biblical inerrancy. His choice of theological reading material was in the neo-orthodox camp (e.g., Reinhold Niebuhr): “During his presidential campaign, Carter dropped repeated hints at liberal theological leanings with his habit of quoting snippets from neo-orthodox theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, and Paul Tillich. In his peanut warehouse office, Carter kept a small statue of Gandhi. Notably missing from his repertoire of religious references are conservative theologians or thinkers present or past, such as C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Charles Spurgeon, or Jonathan Edwards. These loud signals went unnoticed by the millions of conservative evangelical Christians who thought Carter was ‘one of us’ in the 1976 campaign.”

He supported the Equal Rights Amendment. He supported abortion rights by declaring even though he was “personally opposed to abortion,” he had to enforce the law of the land: “I can only think of one issue where I had to modify my own Christian beliefs to carry out the duties of president, and that was on the subject of abortion, and this is a highly personal thing. You ask me as a human being. It is impossible for me to imagine Jesus approving abortion, and my duties as a president required me to carry out the laws of our nation as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which authorized abortion, as you know, in the first three months of pregnancy of the woman and her doctor decide [to do so]. I disagreed with his, although I never failed to carry out my duty as a president. . . .” Would the “I’m personally opposed” line have worked on slavery or racial discrimination?: “While I’m personally opposed to slavery, I must carry out the laws of our nation as interpreted by the Supreme Court.”

Carter did not seem to have a problem using his office to push for legislation in other areas in terms of how his Christian convictions shaped his opinion. He supported homosexual rights: “Gay activists sought the end of legal and social sanctions on homosexual relationships. And the White House Conference on the Family provided a forum for all of them.” As president, Carter may have had “to carry out the laws of our nation as interpreted by the Supreme Court,” but he could have spoken to the nation on why he believed pro-abortion legislation was a moral evil. He did not have a problem using the IRS to intimidate Christian schools.

His administration did not include one evangelical. He would veto any law that allowed for voluntary prayer in public schools. He established a federal Department of Education. Evangelicals had had enough of Carter by 1979, the year Jerry Falwell started the Moral Majority.

Contrast Carter’s fishy pre-election con work with Hillary’s modern day purchasing of endorsements from southern pastors.

It certainly helps when Hillary commits huge goof’s such as calling for the Confederate flag to be removed from South Carolina Statehouse grounds because she thinks the nation should “unite under one banner while at war.”

This from a Democrat senator who votes to bleed resources from the troops on the ground in an effort to cause so much harm to come to the troops, Bush will be forced to bring them home pre-maturely, and open America up to further terrorist attacks once Iran and Syria are able to hijacks Iraq’s oil money.

Thanks, Hillary, for trying to court the Religious Right vote, but you’ve already struck out and it’s not even the election year yet. Go Osama Obama! What does it matter – a vote for one is a vote for the other.

Utah’s School Choice Could Crack "Separation" Argument

Filed under: Mark Wolf, Utah School Vouchers, Politics, Humanism, Christianity

Mark Bergin outlines Utah’s House of Representatives’ passage of a bill for universal school vouchers on Feb 1 that passed by a razor think margin of 38 – 37.

Advocates for school choice celebrated what could prove a landmark victory. The bill is expected to cruise past Utah’s Republican-controlled Senate and GOP governor Jon Huntsman Jr., establishing the country’s first statewide voucher program for all students.

Under the “Parents Choice in Education Act,” any public-school student could receive between $500 and $3,000 depending on family income to help pay for a switch to private-school tuition. Among students already enrolled in private schools, only those with low incomes would be eligible for the program. But all new kindergartners would qualify, opening the voucher system to everyone by 2020.

Numerous prior attempts to pass such legislation in the Utah House stalled as opponents decried the redirection of funding away from public schools. This bill undermines that charge by granting public schools funding for departed students up to five years after they leave. That provision will increase the public schools’ dollars per student as more families opt out, potentially reaching an equilibrium whereby public schools have the increased financial resources to deliver strong competition to their private counterparts.

In the run-up to the House vote, Rep. Steve Urquhart, the bill’s chief sponsor, argued passionately on his website, politicopia.com, that public schools would financially benefit from the voucher program. He challenged all comers to prove otherwise, which they could not.

Such productive bottom-line debates helped knife through the rhetoric of church-state separation that often bogs down discussions of school choice. Urquhart succeeded in convincing at least one fellow legislator to abandon his past anti-voucher commitments. Rep. Brad Last, a former public-school official who voted against vouchers as a member of the Education Committee, shocked the chamber with a yes vote this time around. “I believe history will demonstrate to supporters and detractors that this is a good choice,” he said. “To those of you in public education who want to kill me right now, I’m really sorry. I understand your pain. I would ask you, go read this bill, and don’t say a word to me until you read this bill.”

Studies of these various school-choice programs reveal far higher satisfaction rates among parents and measurably higher achievement levels among students. Nevertheless, teachers unions and strict church-state separatists remain fiercely committed to maintaining centralized public control of K-12 education. They contend that private schools lack accountability to maintain high academic standards and that parents choosing to spend tax dollars on religious schools amounts to a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

But such arguments may be losing traction among the American public. A Utah poll conducted last month for local news outlets found that 48 percent of state residents favor voucher or tax-credit programs while 46 percent oppose them. Those numbers represent substantial movement from last year’s poll when 54 percent opposed and 40 percent supported. Should national opinion mirror that trend, Utah may be only the beginning.

This assertion that parents choosing to spend tax dollars on religious schools amounts to a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause is absurd. The same argument could be made for the function of public schools now. They only want to indoctrinate kids with humanism and intentionally lock religion out.

The Christian worldview recognizes humanism for what it is – a religion and a worldview all on its own. Heck, we’ve even got an activist judge on the record now declaring loud and proud that public schools exist for the sole purpose of indoctrinating children with humanism:

“The schools are exposing youngsters to something that is the law of the community they life in. The parents seem to know about it and can teach the children that they believe it is wrong,” said Judge Mark Wolf, who will decide whether to dismiss the suit.”Almost all moral education is indoctrination,” Wolf said. “It’s the reason we have public schools. We’re preparing people for citizenship.”

This next part is a classic:

He pointed out that the parents had the option of enrolling their children in private schools, or of lobbying the school board to have the curriculum changed.

What hypocracy from the Left! Can you imagine the ACLU’s reaction to a judge that told its plaintiff they could just change schools if they didn’t like being offended? Ha! What an outrage.

Sinsheimer, representing the parents, said that opposition to the teaching is a minority viewpoint in their town and that they would face an uphill battle in any lobbying effort.

Why is it an uphill battle for a Christian if they are in the minority in their town? If ONE PERSON gets offended by anything religious, they have an easy chance of having religion expelled at worst, and a monetary settlement at best. But when a Christian faces the same battle, it’s perceived as uphill from the attorney and apparently the sitting judge too.

Abortion Rates Among Blacks Remains High

Filed under: Abortion, Child-murder, Pro-choice

Overall, abortions are falling, but the abortion rate in the black community remains stubbornly high. Pro-life leaders hope black pastors and a push for more crisis pregnancy centers in large cities can make a difference.

Federal statistics on the prevalence of abortion among Latino women are still spotty and incomplete. But abortion data on African-American women paints a startling picture: First, African-American women make up 13 percent of the female population but account for 36 percent of all abortions, according to data from the Census Bureau and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Second, the CDC reports that three times as many black babies are aborted as white ones—a ratio that has grown by 50 percent over the past 15 years.

The disparity comes amid a general decline in abortion numbers overall. In 1992, for every 1,000 white women who gave birth, 236 aborted their babies. In 2003, the last year for which data is available, the number of abortions among white women per 1,000 live births dropped to 165, a decrease of almost one-third.

Compare that with the numbers for black women: In 1992, 518 aborted their babies for every 1,000 who gave birth. In 2003, the ratio of abortions to live births was still 491 to 1,000, a decline of just 5.2 percent. That ratio has held steady in every CDC abortion study since 2000.

So, is it the message or the messenger that is not getting through to the black community?

Church leaders in Philadelphia, Miami, and elsewhere are doing something—opening pregnancy resource centers in urban cores. But proximity isn’t the only issue, said Rev. Herb Lusk, senior pastor of Greater Exodus Baptist Church in urban Philadelphia.

“The pro-life message isn’t getting through to the black community,” Lusk said. Eighteen months ago, he surveyed his congregation, asking parishioners if they knew where the nearest pregnancy resource center was. The prevailing answer: What’s a pregnancy resource center?

African-American church leaders battling economic struggles in their own congregations “often criticize white evangelicals for being more concerned with the unborn than with born children living in poverty,” Lusk said. “Even if that were true, which I don’t believe it is, it doesn’t justify African-American leaders not being concerned with the unborn. That’s an old and stale argument, and one that I would be embarrassed to raise.”

But it is, as yet, a powerful argument, and many urban church leaders have aligned themselves with the Democrat Party, which supports both government solutions to poverty and abortion-on-demand. Bucking those trends, Lusk is now working with Care Net to establish a pregnancy center that would operate in conjunction with People for People, his nonprofit social-services ministry.

Props to you, Mr. Lusk.

Rev. John Ensor with Heartbeat of Miami, shares that hope—and a bigger dream: that the pro-life cause will be joined—and led—by black pastors. In Ensor’s view, the disproportionate impact of abortion on African-Americans is a direct outgrowth of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s targeting of blacks, the mentally ill, and others for extermination via abortion.

He notes that Sanger’s “Negro Project” of the 1930s was aimed at reducing the numbers of the “unfit”—including blacks—and that she enlisted black clergy to aid in the effort. “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal,” she wrote in an October 1939 letter to a colleague, Clarence Gamble. “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Ensor believes that the final charge against legal abortion must be led by those Americans initially targeted for extinction. He notes the respectful response of today’s press to socially conservative black and Latino evangelicals on other hot-button issues such as gay marriage, compared with reporters’ tendency to dismiss as politically motivated similar opposition by white evangelicals such as Ensor himself.

“Black and Latino pastors not only influence their own communities,” Ensor writes on the Heartbeat of Miami website, “they influence the broader community. We must welcome this . . . pursue this, and act on this.” If and when black pastors not only join, but lead, the pro-life cause, “the status quo of legal abortion will be altered beyond recognition.”

If abortion were truly about women’s choice, there would be no opposition to pro-life groups like FRC or Care Net that offer options if a young mother is unfit to raise a child as well as the truth about the emotional suffering women endure after abortions. Nor would pro-abortion groups shield sexual predators and parents who pressure their teens into abortions. If abortion were actually about women’s health, the pro-choice mob would be the first ones concerned about post-abortion emotional trauma, uterine damage, sub-standard abortion mills, and the possible link with breast cancer.

Instead, they viciously fight any mention of the above and all pre-abortion counseling. Liberals also ignore the double standard surrounding “choice.” Why is it that, when a woman chooses to terminate the life of an unborn baby, it is considered a health and rights issue, but if the father of that same unborn child walks away, it is a moral issue?

Conservative Grapevine

Be sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you’ll find links like:

WorldNetDaily: A Muslim man, who outraged many in the UK last year by dressing as a suicide bomber during protests against the Danish publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammed, has been hired to clean trains at night.

Victory Caucus: From a MoveOn press release: “Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.”

Newsbusters: Bob Woodward admits that the Democrats voted for the war and so they bear responsibility for how it’s going.

The Nose On Your Face: The full text of house resolution disapproving of troop surge including, “Congress would like to give a “shout out” to the Iraq insurgency.”

Hit and Run: A blogger, the Liberal Avenger, altered a conservative commenters’ post on his blog to try to make it seem as if that person was admitting to incest. The blogger then publicly lied about the incident and claimed that the screenshots of it were photoshopped.

You can check out all those links and more by visiting Conservative Grapevine.

Also, don’t forget to bookmark Conservative Grapevine. It’s a site that is dedicated to highlight the best posts & vlogs from around the right side of the blogosphere as well as covering articles about blogging.

The Border Patrol Case: Who’s Pulling The Strings?

By Heidi Thiess of Euphoric Reality

Mexico.

That’s who.

Yes, you read that right. The latest information has uncovered the undue political pressure that Mexico put on our government, and how the White House easily caved. They didn’t even ask questions it seems. Here’s what happened:

After Aldrete-Davila was shot, he complained to someone who brought the “crime” to light (not his mommy, as Sutton has previously told us). That person contacted the Mexican government, which is currently in overdrive trying to portray a situation wherein the poor downtrodden people of Mexico are being brutally shot by cruel, evil Americans at the border – when all they want is a better life for their families. Wah. The Mexican government, seeing a golden opportunity to bring some pressure to bear upon the big, mean U.S. Border Patrol, immediately mobilized their diplomats to exert pressure on the American Consulate in Mexico City. The Consulate, in turn, contacted the State Department, who then informed the President. With me so far?

Bush then called in the Department of Justice and his old Texas buddy, the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Alberto Gonzales called in his hired gun, Johnny Sutton, who then crafted a prosecution virtually from thin air. Sutton’s agenda was furthered immeasurably by Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, who has previously shown no compunction about fabricating fraudulent cases, lying and suborning testimony in her cases, and manipulating the media. Kanof has played an integral part in undermining the integrity and fairness of the criminal proceedings in multiple cases, the most prominent being the Border Patrol case. And she has done so with impunity, under the direction of Johnny Sutton.

We were lied to (surprise, surprise) when we were told that the only reason this case came to light is because DHS uncovered evidence that Ramos and Compean tried to “cover up” their “crime”. That, as we now know, is a lie. What really happened is that the White House is kowtowing to political pressure from Mexico, no doubt aided by Bush’s own personal agenda to erase the border. This rotten, trumped-up case against Ramos and Compean goes all the way to highest levels of our American government. Donald Collins ventures to say that this case has all the potential of Watergateto bring down this Administration. I agree.

Why would there be pressure from Mexico to prosecute two distinguished Border Patrol agents long after they had tried to apprehend a fleeing drug dealer—whom they shot and wounded but who escaped, leaving his drug swag behind?

This story is just breaking and will doubtless be subject to amplification. But—

“In an interview with Grassfire.org’s Steve Elliott (see audio above, transcript below), Corsi explained that no action was taken for days following the incident at the border. In fact the agents’ actions were considered ‘normal’ and the reporting ‘acceptable’ until Mexico intervened. Says Corsi, ‘Then on March 4, 2005 the request came through from the Mexican Consulate to the U.S. consulate in Mexico demanding an investigation on the basis that the Mexican Consulate was bringing forth Davila and wanted the agents to be punished.’ [ Mexican Government Involved In Initiation Of Prosecution Of Agents Ramos And Compean]

Could this be another example of the Committee to Re-Elect the President? Remember how then Attorney General John Mitchell used the money raised by this committee as hush money for the burglars? The famous duo of Woodward and Bernstein then “followed the money” to bring down a Presidency!

What Corsi is saying suggests the same thing. Follow the money–the big money which big business has paid to keep our borders open–because the apparent motivation for this outrageous prosecution of these two Border Patrol agents is to intimidate all our Border Patrol agents from apprehending these illegal crossers. Obviously, Bush wants an open border, as does Mexico. [See Mexico demanded U.S. prosecute sheriff, agents Documents show role of consulate in cases of Gilmer Hernandez and Ramos-Compean, WorldNetDaily.com, By Jerome R. Corsi, February 13, 2007]

Meanwhile, the mysteriously unavailable transcripts are starting to come out. The official transcripts are LoneWacko has wisely cached them, in case they mysteriously go “missing”. Lou Dobbs’ staff, of CNN, has begun the arduous task of sifting through 3000 pages of documents, and it’s becoming very clear why the prosecution, together with a complicit court-room judge, have worked so long and hard to suppress these transcripts:

The nearly 3,000 pages of transcripts in the Ramos and Compean case show that even before the trial started, several key rulings went against the Border Patrol agents. For example, defense attorneys wanted to be able to talk about how dangerous the border region is where the agents encountered the illegal alien drug smuggler. It’s an area, of course, with a well-documented history of violent confrontations between drug cartels and law enforcement.

But prosecutors objected to that. And the judge agreed. She ordered defense attorneys to refrain from any mention of what she called the alleged dangerousness of the border between the United States and Mexico.

Another passage shows just how eager prosecutors were to grant immunity to Mexican drug smuggler Oscar Aldrete-Davila and throw the book at the Border Patrol agents. Assistant U.S. attorney Debra Kanof said to the judge, “… we basically had to beg him. He didn’t want to come and talk to us about this. And so we basically gave him blanket immunity for any drug or immigration crime that he might have been committing on that day.”

Agent Compean’s defense attorney pointed out how the government could have sought up to 40 years in prison for the drug smuggler. And an attorney for Agent Ramos said the drug smuggler “could be prosecuted for possession of some 700 pounds of marijuana, for smuggling it into the country, for illegally entering the United States. All of these actions are actions which the government apparently has chosen to forgive in order to obtain his testimony against these defendants, the agents.”

In fact, prosecutors sought to prevent defense attorneys from even disclosing that Aldrete-Davila was transporting 750 pounds of marijuana when he encountered the Border Patrol agents. The judge did allow those facts into evidence, but only on a limited basis.

Also, if case this case doesn’t make you sick enough, go read about one of Johnny Sutton’s other victims.

I asked the other day, who was paying Johnny Sutton to set-up our law enforcement officers in total crap cases? I thought maybe the drug cartels were paying him off, or maybe the Mexican government, since they’re always meddling in our national affairs. I knew this case smelled bad, but the stench of corruption goes all the way up to the White House. When I started covering this case back in August, I never dreamed the Bush administration was behind it all, driving the corruption in West Texas courts, where dirty attorneys collude with the worst criminal element in Mexico to attack American citizens! This is a betrayal of the worst kind.

---

This has
been a production of the Guard the Borders syndicate. It was started by Euphoric Reality to educate the public about the vulnerabilities of our open borders during an age of global terrorism and the resultant threat to our national security and sovereignty. If you are concerned about the lapses in our national security and the socio-economic burden of unchecked illegal immigration, join our blog syndicate. Send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.