Saturday, March 31, 2007

Now Keep Your Eye On Minnesota’s Crime Rate


Bt de Andrea

Data released by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Star Tribune Friday showed that anti-gunners were wrong again in their predictions about “Wild West” shootouts and “Blood in the Streets” regarding the right to carry law that was passed in 2003, but didn’t really go into effect until May of 2006 after all the hulla ballu of the anti-gunners trying to reverse it. This is a vindication of every armed citizen in the state, Joe Waldron of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Just as Diane Feinstein Senator D. Ca said when the Federal Assault weapon’s ban was finally overturned …”now there will be blood in the streets” she said. In a way it is too bad that she is always wrong and there is not blood in the streets, we could have given Diane a real job of cleaning it up, it might have kept her busy and out of trouble with the military contracts scandal that her and her husband have benefited from, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. A little conflict if interest there Diane??? … Naw, just padding the ole checkbook with some taxpayer’s money, after all, all monies and power belong to the government anyway right Diane??? Moreover Diane is the Government … Sorry I just couldn’t help myself…

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune printing the first 6 months of Minnesota Crime Stats since the right to carry went into effect, people with gun permits have been far less likely to be involved in a crime, whether it is a physical assault, a drug crime, or even drunken driving. Authorities have confirmed that the hysterical predictions about “Gunfights at Traffic Stops” and “Danger to Children” simply have not materialized.

”Of course you will not hear an apology, or any kind of acknowledgement from the anti-gun and anti-self-defense crowd about the statistics,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “No doubt they will try to blame the law for crimes committed by people carrying guns illegally. But the newspaper did a good job of sorting out fact from fiction.

“We knew all along what Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek told the newspaper,” he continued. “The worst predictions of the anti-American, anti-Second Amendment gun control advocates who bitterly fought to keep this law off the books just haven’t come true. We’re delighted that the press, even though they did not support the law, has at least acknowledged that the public has a right to know how the law is working.

“Minnesota is just one more state where people have been given the opportunity to pass a law and then see how it really works,” Waldron observed. The state’s legally-armed citizens have proven not only that they are overwhelmingly responsible with firearms, the data shows that providing the means for citizens to go armed is not a threat to the public safety, au contraire it will eventually see the crime rate decrease and citizen safety increase.

The Minnesota Personal Protection Act has succeeded in dismantling the worn-out and recycled myth that legally-armed citizens are somehow a threat to the general public. “We knew they were wrong at the start,” Waldron said, “and now even the ignorant know it, even though most will not admit it.” Funny how the Constitutional framers knew what was good for a Free America and what was “…necessary for the security of a Free State”.

THE BOTTOM LINE: I say keep an eye on the state of Minnesota because just as anyplace the Second Amendment has been tried, their violent crime rate will drop dramatically over time, slowly at first, and then by 10, 20, even 30 %, rapes, home burglaries, convenience store and bank robberies, muggings, assaults and murders etc. As the criminal’s begin to realize, (and they will,) that anyone on the street could be exercising their right to be armed, anywhere, anytime; the criminals will then begin to go elsewhere.

My editor asks me, where will they go??? Obviously, I said, to a place like Southern California where the Kool Aid drinking liberals still believe in such things as a flat earth, or that George Soros is the center of the universe, or how the sun orbits around Brittney Spears , moreover, where global warming is caused by industry, lower class cow flatulence and middle class SUV’s. Or even more outrages myths like, wrenches break automobiles, chainsaws kill trees, hammers bend nails, glue and screws make furniture, cigarettes cause forest fires, and the crowning bogeyman of all, (I’m so sorry, I mean bogeyperson of course) “guns kill people” .

de Andréa

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox stands up for the 2nd Amendment

By de Andréa

A rare victory for those of us who love America, and respect the U.S. Constitution, was scored when a federal appeals court tossed out Washington D.C.'s police-state gun law, in a ruling that opens the door for the Supreme Court to settle once and for all, whether the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual as the Amendment says, or to the state, as the promoters of a Police State say.

And right there on the side of the Constitution is Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.
While prosecutors aren't often the best friends of the Second Amendment, Mike Cox joined the challenge to the D.C. gun ban along with a dozen of other state attorneys general for two reasons: “It's unconstitutional, and it doesn't work”. Attorney General Cox used to be pro gun-ban or anti-gun, but in spite of the fact that he is not personally fond of guns himself, he admits that laws against guns do not stop crime, they instead enable it.

The Washington D.C. gun law could just as well have been written by the Taliban or any other oppressive government, it forbids any private handguns within the city limits. No exceptions, unless one is a Federal Government official, which also sounds like a Police State Dictatorship.

Long gun owners do not fare much better. Rifles and shotguns can be kept in private homes, but only if they are disassembled or disabled. The guns cannot be made operable, even in defence of ones own life, even in ones own home, not legally anyway.

The strictest gun law in the nation is worshipped by anti-American, anti-Constitutionalists, and anti-gun activists. The District of Columbia defended the Constitutionality of the 30 year old unconstitutional anti-gun law by arguing that the Second Amendment confers the right of gun ownership to the state and not to the people or the citizens. Obviously they haven’t read the Amendment themselves, or their history book either That perverse ruling was upheld by a federal district court judge, as it was earlier in a similar ruling by the ultra-left-wing America hating 9th Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco California.

Most Constitutional Attorneys concur that if the Framers intended that purpose of just this one Amendment was to address the right of the Government rather than the right of people as the rest of the bill-of-rights do; that it would not have been included at all, since it was a given that the Government would always retain the right to keep and bear arms for the National Defence, or as in the case of State militias the defence of the State. However it was noted that it would not necessarily be understood that the separate individual right of “the people” would automatically have that same right, hence the second Amendment to insure the same right to” the people” as well, as it is so amply stated in the document.

Thomas Cooley supported self-defense of the individual and the defence of freedom which is ultimately left up to the individual collective or not. The resent D.C. appeals court ruling quoted Michigan's 19th-century legal genius Thomas Cooley, who wrote of the Second Amendment: "It might be misconstrued from the phraseology that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an ignorant interpretation of the law, not warranted by the intent. The meaning ... undoubtedly is that the individual people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, as the Amendment clearly states.” (Italics mine)

Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox concurs that the words "the people" mean just that; the people. He hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case and knock out for good, the sinister idea that only state militias have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Traditionally at the time the Constitution was written, State Militias were made up of individual private citizen volunteers. [“THE PEOPLE”]

But it's not just the twisting of the Constitution that interested Cox in this case. He has moved from a pro-gun control prosecutor to an advocate for the rights of gun owners for one reason because he has seen firsthand that more gun laws don't result in less gun crime. "In my almost 14 years as a line prosecutor, I never saw anyone charged with a gun crime that had a concealed carry permit," Cox went on to say, "most people who are law-abiding and want to possess guns for hunting or self-defense are no threat to others."

While the D.C. case parsed constitutional language, “the most compelling argument”, Cox said, “is that gun control it doesn't work. Gun violence in Washington was increased by the ban, compared to other states, after the ban Washington actually went on to become the gun crime capital of the country.”

THE BOTTOM LINE: Law-abiding gun owners should salute A.G. Mike Cox and keep their trigger fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will at last end this assault on their basic inalienable Constitutional rights, and finally rule in favor of law abiding American Citizens instead of supporting criminals by leaving innocent citizens defenseless as well as the inability to support, as the rest of the Second Amendment says the security of a free State. The gun banning agenda of the left, either characterizes the blind ignorance of these liberal Sheep, or they purposely enable violent crime, to further encourage a fearful and dependant society…

de Andréa

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The U.K. has traded gun crime for knife crime.

By de Andréa

School Kids Strap on Stab-Proof Vests as Knife Crime Soars in English Schools in the U.K.

Ashgar Jilow used to sell stab-proof vests to nightclub bouncers and security guards at his London military surplus store. Now his clients are kids as young as 10 who fear they're going to be knifed at school or on the street.

``Some of them are so little, the vests don't even fit under their school uniforms,'' said Jilow, 55, who sells about three of the 120- British pound sterling ($230.00 American dollars) vests a week. ``Parents don't know what to do, to keep their kids safe.''

Since the gun ban in the U.K., the citizens have been left helpless to defend themselves against a would-be mugger, robber, or murderer. Now that the criminals know that the British public has been stripped of their ability to defend themselves, and being caught with a gun could be a serious jail sentence the street muggers have traded in their guns for knives.

This type of dangerous bullying has spread to the schools, with children now the victims of daily attacks. School and street gangs are copy-cat[ing] their adult counterparts with the easier obtainable weapon, the knife. There isn’t a household that doesn’t have several knives that any child could help themselves. Knives are easier to conceal than a gun and they can be used quietly.

Every week in London 52 teenagers are victims of knife crime, according to the Metropolitan Police. A child is stabbed to death in Britain every two weeks and knife killings outnumber gun homicides three to one, said Norman Brennan, a police officer and director of the Victims of Crime Trust.

What I have a difficult time comprehending; is why the British Government doesn’t Ban Crime instead of guns. Maybe I haven’t got a proper grasp of the situation, but it seems to me that if there were laws against crime, instead of laws against the defence of crime, one would make more progress in solving the problem; that is if one can properly identify the problem. I may have hit on something here; it could be that the Brits simply just don’t comprehend what the problem really is. It could be that they have misidentified the gun as the problem; one would think that after the gun-ban and the fact that the criminals simply switched weapons and continued down their road to crime that maybe the weapons were not the problem. On the other hand the lack of guns in the hands of the people could be at least part of the problem since the violent crime statistics mushroomed shortly after the gun ban went into effect. Now, innocent citizens would not be armed, something that the street criminals have looked forward to for years, criminals now rule the streets of London with a weapon almost a old as man himself, the common household knife or any sharpened object.

``Knife crime is out of control and kids carry them like fashion accessories copying their heroes the adult street criminals,'' Brennan said. The youngest child to be suspended from school for brandishing a blade was just five. Last week two teenagers were knifed to death in London. Adam Regis, 15, was attacked March 17 on his way home from the movies in Newham, an east London borough that is being regenerated for the 2012 Olympics. He called his girlfriend for help as he bled to death on the street, police said.

Three days earlier, Kodjo Yenga, 16, was stabbed to death as a gang of boys and girls chanted ``Kill him, kill him'' in Hammersmith, west London, where homes sell for more than 1 million pounds, eyewitnesses said.

Gang Culture: Statistics indicate that more children are reaching for blades as gang culture spreads. Some 42 percent of boys aged between 11 and 16 in state-funded schools admit to having carried a knife, according to the Youth Justice Board, which oversees punishment of child offenders.

Natashia Jackman, then 15, was stabbed in the eye with a pair of scissors at Collingwood College in Camberley, Surrey, by a 14- year-old girl who didn't like her taste in music.
Her assailant was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in jail in December.

Some students have brought machetes, combat knives, swords and sharpened screwdrivers to school, police say. Girls have been caught with blades hidden in lipstick and mascara tubes.

Security Guards: ``I wouldn't blame any parent for giving their child a stab vest if it makes them feel a bit more secure,'' said Nancy Odunewu, a pastor whose son Emmanuel, 19, was stabbed to death in Lewisham, southeast London, in November 2006. ``If I could have done anything to save my son then I would have.’’ She said all schools should have security guards and airport- style metal detectors. George Mitchell School in Leyton, east London, became the first in the capital to use handheld metal detectors for random checks.

Juvenile knife crime first grabbed the public's attention in the U.K. when 10-year-old Damilola Taylor was fatally stabbed by other youngsters on his way home from school in Peckham, east London, in November 2000, shortly after the total gun-ban. Prime Minister Tony Blair opened a community center named after Damilola in 2001. In February 2004, a 14-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of stabbing another teenager at the facility.

In 2004, 170 pupils between the ages of 12 and 14 were convicted of possessing knives, double the 2000 figure. Last year, one teacher was injured by a pupil every school day. In the 12 months to March 2006, knife crimes rose 73 percent, according to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.

Knife Amnesty: The report said the government's strategy for tackling knife crime was ``incoherent'' and criticized the lack of data. Home Secretary John Reid announced March 19 that, beginning in April, police will record knife crimes as a separate offense for a ``more detailed understanding'' of the problem.

The government's Violent Crime Reduction Act, passed last year, increases the maximum sentence for possession of a knife in a school or public place to four years from two and raises the minimum age for buying a knife to 18 from 16. An amnesty last year brought in more than 100,000 weapons.

Kids Company, a south London charity partly funded by the government, works to turn around the lives of violent children who have been expelled from school. ``At street level, children are getting killed,'' said Camila Batmanghelidjh, a psychotherapist who runs the program. ``They are sleeping with knives under their pillows because they don't feel safe.''

There's no doubt schools are getting more violent, said Jilow, whose military supply store has received 400 enquiries every week from parents about protective products. ``The 15- and 16-year-olds have started to ask for bullet- proof vests,'' he said. ``Some want it for protection, some as a status symbol. One group wanted to buy a gun. They wouldn't believe me when I said I didn't sell them.''

THE BOTTOM LINE: it looks to me as if the U.K. may have just come full circle, from guns to knives and then from the sound of it, knives back to guns again. Maybe and hopefully before it’s to late the Court Jesters that run the British government will finally realize that guns, knives, swords, large rocks, ball bats, bows and arrows, spears, catapults, bombs, poison, or scissors can all be tools, of either the criminal or the defender. It is obvious to any commoner that the criminal is the problem and not his tool, whatever it might be…
de Andréa.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Crime Turning New Orleans Into The Big Uneasy

According to (Reuters) - New Orleans, the "Big Easy" a city famous for its good times and relaxed attitude, has become the Big Uneasy since Katrina as its murder count has soared and anger has grown at local leaders unable to stop the violence.

By de Andrea

That is Vivan Westerman holding her 38 Smith and Wessen taking care of herself

Annual Mardi Gras celebrations unfolded without incident this weekend, but fear of the rampant blood-spilling and its threat to the city's recovery from Hurricane Katrina are constant topics of conversation.

The homicide total for a still-young 2007 climbed to 27 on Saturday with the recent death of a man shot at a nightclub. He was one of nine people shot in separate incidents in a seven-hour span and the third of them to die.

Local leaders, worried that crime may scare away tourists who are the life-blood of the economy, stressed that the shootings did not take place at Mardi Gras events and assured visitors violent crime is largely restricted to "hot spots," or impoverished neighborhoods where visitors seldom go.

This is in Sharp contrast to Kennesaw Georgia, where armed citizens protect themselves with the resulting lowest crime rate in the nation. New Orleans, since Katrina has had one of the United States' highest per-capita murder rates because the Sheriff has stolen all the guns from the law abiding citizens and as a result the criminals obviously have the controlling upper hand. The current violence has added to insecurities in a city worried about its future.

Only about 200,000 of the pre-Katrina population of 480,000 are back and much of the city is still damaged and abandoned. Recent news stories have said a growing number of those who returned are leaving because they are fed up with the slow recovery and the crime. "If they don't get crime under control, if they can't convince people it's safe to be here, it doesn't matter how much money they get from the federal government, nobody's going to stay," Tulane University criminal justice instructor Ronnie Jones said.

Before Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, there was little public pressure to do something about the number of murders, which peaked in 1994 with 425 killings.
But Katrina hit hard the poor neighborhoods where the murders usually occurred, and brought the criminals closer to wealthier, often mostly white, areas, Jones said.
Several thousand people marched on city hall last month to demand that Mayor Ray Nagin and other officials do their job. The basic complaint was that too many criminals are arrested and then returned to the streets due to poor police work and lax prosecutors and judges.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune found that 3,000 arrested suspects were released in 2006 because prosecutors failed to indict them within the required 60 days. In January 2007, 580 were released for the same reason, the newspaper said.
That compared to 187 in the eight months of 2005 before Katrina brought the criminal justice system almost to a halt, the paper said.

Police blame inept prosecutors for the revolving door; prosecutors say their hands are bound by poor police work. Both say a big problem is that Katrina destroyed New Orleans' police lab, forcing them to borrow facilities to process evidence.

Even before Katrina, a local study found that in 2003-2004 only 12 percent of those arrested for murder went to prison, again an obvious ongoing problem.
The situation is so bad that federal agencies including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration are helping the local police. The U.S. Attorney's office has stepped into cases previously left to local courts and prosecuting

At the root of the problem are two factors, one is the illegal gun confiscation ordered by Mayor Ray Nagin post Katrina for which the Mayor and Superintendent of police Warren Riley are now in contempt of a Federal court order to return the confiscated guns. This illegal confiscation led to a helpless community as police were unable to protect its citizens because they were to busy going house to house illegally confiscating guns from law abiding citizens who willingly gave them up to police illegally invading their homes. Criminals on the other hand hid their illegally possessed guns leaving the law abiding at the mercy of the armed criminals.

The other factor is the obvious aforementioned problem of the lack of real law enforcement of actual crime, as well as the absence of the support of the courts to actually indict Criminals. This is truly indicative of a community government incapable of carrying out the purpose of law which is to protect, as opposed to attacking, the rights and subsequent safety of its citizens, moreover, replacing real law enforcement with nothing but flimsy childish excuses of blaming each other for their own incompetence if not outright violations of the law.

The city of New Orleans would do well by arresting the real criminals of their community Mayor Ray Nagin and Police superintendent Warren Riley for the Constitutional violation of citizen’s rights which obviously exacerbated the problem of serious crime. They are obviously a large part of the crime problem in what is left of the city of New Orleans.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Another one of the thousands of examples of the violation of the free law abiding citizens rights leading to chaos, crime, and other disastrous results that were designed to be eliminated at least in part by the Architecture of Second U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Criminals simply won’t go where citizens are armed.

de Andréa

Monday, March 26, 2007


The Embattled Dept of Justice now accused in sex scandal 'cover-up' Attorney General Gonzales is among officials who may have been involved in the cover up of statuary rape abuse of minor boys

By de Andréa
March 22, 2007

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, and Federal prosecutor William Baumann are already under siege for other matters, and are now being investigated for failing to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission after a Texas Ranger investigation documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the institution's minor boy inmates.

The same Federal Justice department that regularly prosecutes and jails Boarder Guards and Deputy Sheriffs for defending their own lives and the lives of American Citizens as well as for aggressively perusing the arrests of Drug traffickers are now involved up to their Judicial ears in the good ole boy cover-up of what seems to be the routine practice of statutory rape of children by officials in a so-called Texas youth rehabilitation institution called the Texas Youth Commission. Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep in the middle of the night for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties. I can’t help wondering if the Youth Authority considers this to be part of youth counseling and rehabilitation.

Ray Brookins, one of the officials named in the report, was a Texas prison guard before being hired at the youth commission school. As a prison guard, Brookins had a history of disciplinary and petty criminal records dating back 21 years. He retained his job despite charges of using pornography on the job, including viewing nude photos of men and women on state computers.

The Texas Youth Commission controversy traces back to a criminal investigation conducted in 2005 by Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski. The investigation revealed key employees at the West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas, were systematically abusing youth inmates in their custody.

Burzynski presented his findings to the attorney general in Texas, to the U.S. Attorney Sutton, and to the Department of Justice civil rights division. From all three, Burzynski received no interest in prosecuting the alleged sexual offenses.

"This case demonstrates that a partisan political agenda, beginning with President Bush’s Political Adviser Karl Rove, has penetrated the Justice Department and perverted the Federal Administration of the law," said Matt Angle, director of the Lone Star Project.
It's just the latest controversy for Sutton, Gonzales and the Bush administration's direction of the Justice Department. Earlier, Sutton's decisions to prosecute two Border Patrol agents and Deputy Sheriff Gil Hernandez were criticized as having been influenced by the intervention of the Mexican government. This gives one cause to wonder just how many political favors or how much monetary graft is involved in the so-called Federal Department of Justice

Gonzales is under heavy congressional pressure in the controversy over the recent forced resignations of eight U.S. attorneys. At issue is whether the Bush administration is directing the Justice Department to pursue politically motivated prosecutions at the expense of fair or even-handed law enforcement.

In the Texas Youth Commission scandal, Texas Ranger official Burzynski received a July 28, 2005, letter from Bill Baumann, assistant U.S. attorney in Sutton's office, declining prosecution on the argument that under 18 U.S.C. Section 242, the government would have to demonstrate that the boys subjected to sexual abuse sustained "bodily injury." Baumann wrote that, "As you know, our interviews of the victims revealed that none sustained 'bodily injury.'"

Baumann's letter continued, adding a definition of the phrase "bodily injury," as follows: "Federal courts have interpreted this phrase to include physical pain. None of the victims have claimed to have felt physical pain during the course of the sexual assaults which they described."

Baumann's letter further suggested that insufficient evidence existed to prove the offenders in the Texas Youth Commission case had used force in their alleged acts of pedophilia: "A felony charge under 18 U.S.C. Section 242 can also be predicated on the commission of 'aggravated sexual abuse' or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse. The offense of aggravated sexual abuse is proven with evidence that the perpetrator knowingly caused his victim to engage in a sexual act (which can include contact between the mouth and penis) by using force against the victim or by threatening or placing the victim in fear that the victim (or any other person) will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury or kidnapping. I do not believe that sufficient evidence exists to support a charge that either Brookins or Hernandez used force to cause victims to engage in a sexual act."

Baumann's letter went so far as to suggest that the victims may have willingly participated in, or even enjoyed, the acts of pedophilia involved: "As you know, consent is frequently an issue in sexual assault cases. Although none of the victims admit that they consented to the sexual contact, none resisted or voiced any objection to the conduct."

In that letter, Justice Department section chief Albert Moskowitz wrote that "evidence does not establish a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes."
Angle maintains the decision not to prosecute was purely political. "The U.S. attorney's office in Texas actually prepared indictments in this case," said Angle. "But when the word came from Washington, that's when Baumann wrote his letter declining prosecution. Sutton's office dropped the matter on the desk of the local district attorney, but nobody from Sutton's office said 'if you can’t go on this case, we'll help you out.'"

When asked to explain how politics drove the decisions not to prosecute Angle replied.
"If you read the letters from Sutton's office or from DOJ, it's really amazing what abuse they describe and then downplay as not being serious," Angle explained. "They describe systematic and widespread abuse of juveniles who were held in these facilities by the people, who were administering these facilities and supposed to be acting as guidance councilors for the youth in the process of their rehabilitation, and they acknowledge this fully, yet they determine that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant federal prosecution.” Even though this is clearly statutory rape of a minor, a child under age 18 cannot give consent so the statutory criminal responsibility for this sex orgy clearly falls into the laps of those conspirators involved that are over the age of 18.

Angle explained that he found both letters shocking. "The letters justify not pursuing these cases because, number one, there is no evidence that any of these juveniles felt physical pain while they were being assaulted, and the letters use the word 'assaulted,'" he said. "And then also, they rejected prosecution because none of these juveniles stated in the investigations that they resisted and objected. This case developed right in the middle of Governor Perry's 2006 re-election campaign. While Texas is a Republican state, and the Republicans expected to win, still at that time, Governor Perry was facing an election challenge from Carole Strayhorn, a third party candidate who was also a former Republican comptroller in Texas.” He continued: "I would speculate that the political powers in Texas and Washington in the Republican Party were not interested in this sex scandal coming to light. Sutton and Gonzales let their political responsibilities outstrip their legal responsibilities, and as a result you have children who are in danger of sexual abuse by their own government and are left in that danger." Sounds like a third world country.

On March 2, 2007, Governor Rick Perry appointed Jay Kimbrough, his former staff chief and homeland security director, to serve as "special master" to lead an investigation into the Texas Youth Commission sex abuse scandal. Shortly thereafter, the commission stopped a hiring practice that had allowed convicted felons to work as administrators in the system. The practice had involved a requirement that prior criminal records be destroyed for employees hired by the commission.

On March 17, 2007, the entire Texas Youth Commission governing board resigned.
The Texas Youth Commission is the state's juvenile corrections agency, charged "with the care, custody, rehabilitation, and reestablishment in society of Texas' most chronically delinquent or serious juvenile offenders.” Inmates are felony-level offenders between the age of 10 and 17 when they are committed. The commission can maintain jurisdiction over offenders until their 21st birthdays.
It looks like Johnny Sutton is up to his Bar Exam in the problem of actually prosecuting any bad guys. It must be because he is to busy prosecuting the good guys. The U.S. Prosecuter turned a blind eye to tourtur, beatings and sexual abuse of teens in The Texas Youth Commission.
Bill Baumann was the lead prosecutor in another controversial case. In a case eerily reminiscent of the controversial jailing of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos while the illegal-alien drug-smuggler they wounded went free, Texas Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez is imprisoned for a year for attempting to defend his own life an altercation with illegal aliens. Baumann urged that Hernandez get the maximum seven-year sentence.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If ones friends are the United States Federal Department of Justice, then one certainly must not have any enemy’s. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Federal Justice system is the enemy of the people, and offers no Justice at all. This corrupt political self-serving arm of the U.S. Government should be investigated by a bipartisan commission of the Congress and supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, those found guilty should not see the light of day for a very long, long time. One cannot help wonder if there is any part of the Federal Government left, that is not corrupt. It used to be that the ones wearing the white hats were the good guys, now even the bad guys wear white.

de Andréa

Saturday, March 24, 2007

New Orleans New Murder Capital of the World

Vivian Westerman holds her .38 S&W revolver in her New Orleans, home

By de Andréa

Sixty-four-year-old Vivian Westerman rode out Hurricane Katrina in her 19th-century home. So terrible was the experience she said, that she wanted two things before the 2006 season arrived; a generator and a gun.

In the aftermath of the Katrina storm Mayor Ray Nagin illegally ordered all the firearms in New Orleans confiscated. This action, almost immediately led to a blood bath of murder and mayhem of innocent helplessly unarmed citizens, because they took away the tools of self-defense from the law abiding and left the tools of crime in the hands of the criminals.

Even after law suites were filed and Judges ruled against the unconstitutional confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens, Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warreb Riley ignored the court order to return the illegally confiscated guns and as a result are in contempt of court. In the meantime the violent crime rate has soared to statistics exceeding that of Washington DC; making New Orleans the new Murder Capital of the World, passing up murders per capita by firearms even in the war zone of Baghdad.

This sudden jump in violent crime in New Orleans can be directly attributed to two incompetent mistakes. One is the illegal confiscation of private fire arms, leaving innocent people helpless, and the other is the lack of proper police work in the making of cases in real crimes. The prosecuting attorneys and the courts are also to blame for either light or no sentences at all of hennas violent crimes, and in some cases sending the criminals right back onto the street to commit the same crimes all over again.

The waste of police man power during the harassment and confiscation of guns from innocent law abiding citizens left no time for police to investigate real crime, some of which was created by the gun confiscation itself. No one can really say how many murders could have been avoided if innocent citizens had been armed, and police had done what police are supposed to do, enforce the law instead of violating it.

So who is to blame for this fiasco? Once all the facts are contributed to the equation, the bottom line reads the Incompetence of Mayor Nagin plus the criminal actions of police superintendent Riley plus the lack of court responsibility equals the highest murder rate committed with a gun per capita in the world.

THE BOTTOM LINE: is fairly obvious; again when the Constitution is ignored, and the rights of the people are infringed, the criminals will rule. It is, as if the Constitutional architects knew what they were doing when they wrote the highest law of the land. Every time Constitutional law is ignored or violated, the result is chaos, oppression, fear, and yes even death. Classic cases of this philosophy can be found in third world countries as well as right here in the U.S, right down through history and including modern times. When ever guns are confiscated, crime, oppression, even genocide, abound, the innocent have no way of protecting themselves from a criminal attack or an oppressive government.

The only reason to ban guns from the general public is to administer the militant power of the government, it never stops crime it only enhances and promotes it, whether it is committed by criminals or by the government itself…

de Andréa

Friday, March 23, 2007

Legitimizing the U.A.E

Our Leaders Are Legitimizing the Anti-Semitic, Anti-American
Muslim Terrorists Supporting U.A.E

By de Andréa

The past few years have demonstrated a concerted international PR campaign to promote Dubai of the United Arab Emirates as a tolerant new Mecca of Middle Eastern moderation and it is working.

The Corporate giant Halliburton is moving its headquarters there; the famed Louvre is opening a branch in the emirate. Tourists are flocking to Dubai's luxury hotels. But don't be fooled, Dubai, which is one of the seven royal kingdoms of the United Arab Emirates, the (U.A.E.), is anything but tolerant and progressive. To put it bluntly: They don't like Jews or Americans.

In fact, Dubai, like the rest of the U.A.E., is blatantly anti-Semitic. It bars all Israeli citizens from ever setting foot in the country. People from other nations whose passport have stamps indicating they have even visited Israel must notify Dubai immigration authorities of the stamp before entering.

Dubai is also actively involved in the Arab boycott of Israel: It bans all products made in Israel and even ones with parts made in Israel. But the emir of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, understands the value of using prominent Americans to legitimize his country and gold plate its image in the American media.

That's why former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and even George W bush have been the objects of Dubai graft or payola. Their Dubai friends have given millions to each of their presidential libraries, and campaigns. And Bill Clinton has raked in more than $1 million for speeches he's given in Dubai and the U.A.E. Dubai's PR machine went into high gear after 9/11 to distract attention from the extensive support the emirate gave to the terrorists. More than half of the hijackers traveled to the United States via Dubai. The 9/11 Commission noted that $234,500 of the $300,000 wired to the hijackers and plot leaders in America came from Dubai banks.

Several months after 9/11, Dubai's newest best friend began his public association with the country. In January 2002, Bill Clinton gave his first Dubai speech (for $300,000). He's been legitimizing the country ever since.

Clinton was the rainmaker who introduced the emir to his friend and employer, Ron Berkle, the owner of Yucaipa companies and a major fund-raiser for Bill and now Hillary Clinton's presidential campains.

Last year, Yucaipa and the emir formed a new company, DIGL, for their joint ventures. So Bill Clinton is now an adviser and member of the board of directors of a company that is in partnership with our enemy the anti-Israeli anti-American government of Dubai.
The Clintons won't reveal how much the former president pocketed for setting up this deal.

According to San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkery, Clinton makes $10 million a year from Yucaipa. Bill isn't alone in legitimizing Dubai. Other Clinton pals including disgraced former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, ex-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and Al and Al Gore are all on the Dubai dole, so have some Republicans, including former Bush Sr. Chief of Staff John Sununu, presidential brother Neal Bush and Rudy Guiliani been recipients of the Dubai money tree.

Republican ex-Sen. Bob Dole and Democratic ex-Rep. Tom Downey lobby for Dubai; so does The Glover Park Group, home of Hillary Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson and former President Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart.

No one mentions the anti-Semitic anti- American problem.

Bill Clinton even created a Dubai Scholars Program at the American University in Dubai under the sponsorship of the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation. Laura Tyson, Clinton's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, created a similar Dubai study program at the University of London. But not everyone is blind. Last month, the University of Connecticut correctly abandoned plans to open up a campus in Dubai after serious complaints about Dubai's state-imposed discrimination of people based on their national origin and religion and its documented violations of human rights. (For example, Human Rights Watch has said Dubai abuses tens of thousands of migrant workers from India and Pakistan.)

THE BOTTOM LINE: Our leaders are up to their proverbial eyebrows, drowning in the money of our enemy. Islam has vowed to destroy us anyway they can, this avenue of legitimacy looks as if they have found that the greed of some Americans will help to expedite that goal, stealthily, surreptitiously and incrementally. My suggestion is that Americans should begin brushing up on their Arabic, purchase a prayer rug and a Quran, and oh yes, learn to ride a camel...

de Andréa

State police take children from parents.

Some times my brain itches, and I just can’t seem to relieve this discomfort by scratching it.

By de Andréa

No! Unlike 911 this particular attack on the family didn’t happen in America, but we seem to be just sitting around our swimming pools drinking Kool-Aid until it does. The crime of the children? They were being home schooled by their parents.
A group of 15 fully armed police officers walked into the homes of German Families, grabbed their children, and left without telling them where they were taking them. Not only that, they soon found out that their children were being arrested because they were being home schooled, and they would not be allowed to come home until they were properly unrolled in a government indoctrination institution otherwise known as a public school!
Melissa Busekros of Erlangen, Bavaria, was taken from her parents, Hubert and Gudrun Busekros, and using the same law, police recently took five "well-educated" children from their parents for the same reason. Police took into legal custody Rosine, Jotham, Kurt-Simon, Lovis and Ernst Brause, the children of Bert and Kathrin Brause. The State will not allow Bert and Kathrin to regain custody of their children unless they agree to place them in a public institution for State indoctrination.
Why worry about this if it isn't in America? Because America has been adopting European Law and is becoming like Europe more and more every day, if that’s not enough to scare the Bee Gees out if you, then try this, Europe is becoming an Islamic state and is adoption Islamic Law.
These families have no hope that the government will listen to them. I risk saying this because it seems so extreme, but if we continue on the same path we are on, this will be happening in America, unless we work to stop it now.
The judge concluded that the children were well-educated but accused the parents of failing to provide their children with an education in a public school. The judge noted that one of the daughters expressed the same opinions as her father instead that of the State, stating that they have not had the chance to be exposed to State Indoctrination.

One of the first acts by Adolph Hitler when he gained power in Germany was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all children education and school-related issues. In 1937, Hitler said: "This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its (the state's) own indoctrination and its own upbringing." A classic case of history repeating itself, this can only happen because of the ignorance and the subsequent inactiveness of people.

In case one is so ignorant of reality as to reject the fact that Islamic Law already trumps German law, try this on for size… A German judge this week ruled in a wife beating case that the beating was appropriate because it was acceptable under Islamic Law, even though it violates German Law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently made several rulings based on European Law even though they violate U.S. Constitutional Law.

Lest one has forgotten, the U.S. also has, (in violation of its own Constitution) a Federal Department of Education (indoctrination), moreover it is already teaching the Quran and Islamic Philosophy which is a hundred times more violent an evil than the philosophy of the Nazis ever hoped to be, and all at the demise of the Christian principles that this Country was founded on.

No significant change in a government philosophy ever happens over night, it always surreptitiously sneaks up on its citizens, like bait for a fish we get hooked on the do-gooder philosophy of multiculturalism and political correctness and by the time we, like the Germans, recognize that we have lost our own life, in order to accommodate the culture of another, it is to late to stop, we will belong to Islam.

We apparently have forgotten what it means to be an American. One thing that comes to mind is “always vigilant”. It is always true that if one has something good, someone will want to take it away. If someone is free, someone will want to control them. We have forgotten our history when the Pilgrims were forced into socialism by the British aristocrats that accompanied them and because of it they nearly starved to death that first year. It took only one man to in-act the policy of free enterprise that saved the little colony that eventually led to the bounty that we still celebrate today called Thanksgiving.

As a result of government indoctrination, we now attack the very golden goose that feeds us the bounty that we and at least some of the rest of the world enjoy, free enterprise, independent business, and independence itself. We unknowingly trade it for government programs that lure us like fish bait into a false sense of security that instead stealthily lead us to incrementally becoming dependent on these social programs and then our freedom, liberty, and independence slips away. Moreover, like a fish out of water we die as a free people and become robots and slaves to an oppressive government. This is what has already taken place in Europe, and America is blindly close on its heels. If you would like to e-mail the German Government and voice your protest, please click on the URL below, thank you...

de Andréa

Wednesday, March 21, 2007


The Feds sought 7 years in jail for yet another Texas cop for just doing his job. A Texas Deputy Sheriff has been convicted for violating the civil rights of illegal aliens that were attempting to murder him, he has been sentenced to a one year jail term
By de Andrea

It has become quite evident that our Federal Justice System has become so corrupt by Globalist Politics that there may now be absolutely no Justice for Americans. An American apparently does not have the right to defend himself against a murder attempt by a criminal illegal alien. Especially if one is an officer of the law. One must obviously either accept death by murder or seven to twelve years in prison. The civil rights of criminal’s now trump the rights of Americans to defend their own lives. Does this now, subject Americans to the mercy of any criminal alien or is it only when the corrupt Mexican Government dictates it. The corruption of other governments must somehow be rubbing off on our own.

When a US Federal prosecutor takes direction from a foreign government, and is willing to lie and withhold the truth in order to appease a foreign entity by achieving a false conviction of American Law enforcement officers and protectors of our leaky borders, then we as free American Citizens have lost our country and our freedom. It is as if our Fed Justice system does not have enough criminals to indict, so they are now preying on the law abiding like Martha Stewart, Mr. Scooter Libby Mr. Ramos, Mr. Compean, and now Mr. Hernandez. If they just plain don’t have enough to do, maybe we should just lay them off, before they do any more damage by destroying more innocent people’s lives

The federal government has recommended a seven-year prison term for Gilmer Hernandez, a Texas deputy sheriff who drew grass-roots support after he was convicted for violating the so-called civil rights of an illegal alien bent on running the officer down with his van. So now we make sure that we have civil rights for criminals while law informant officers have no rights at all, not even the most basic right of defending their own lives.

A similar case also prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in El Paso, was the high-profile prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, Hernandez was charged after stopping a van full of illegals for running a stop sign April 14, 2005, in Rocksprings, Texas.

The driver of the van attempted to run over Hernandez, prompting the officer to fire his weapon at the rear tires. A bullet fragment hit a Mexican illegal alien, Marciela Rodriguez Garcia, in the mouth, cutting her lip and breaking two teeth. Hernandez's boss, Deputy Don Lettsinger, said he considers the sentencing guidelines severe, especially since he believes "Deputy Hernandez should never have been indicted for this incident in the first place." Hernandez's sentencing hearing has been scheduled for March 19 in the court of Robert T. Dawson from the U.S. District Court, Western Arkansas, in Port Smith; Ark. Dawson is a 1998 Clinton appointee.

"I am hopeful that Judge Dawson will deviate from the government's guidelines, which he has the authority to do," Lettsinger said. "I am hoping the judge saw the truth in the courtroom."
Jimmy Parks, Hernandez's attorney, said his client is "in shock at hearing this news. He's terrified.” Parks said Hernandez "knows that in a short time, if the judge sends him to prison, he will spend every day of the next several years trying to protect himself from the very people he dedicated his life to protect us from."

"Gilmer worked diligently and assiduously to put criminals away, to assure that they are placed behind bars to protect us," Parks explained. "And now all of a sudden Gilmer is facing a time where he will be locked up in a cage with these same criminals, and he knows they are ready and prepared to retaliate and seek their vengeance.” Parks said Hernandez knows his life may come to an end in prison.

"All he can think about is his little baby Electra, who will be home with his wife," Parks said, "and him being in his position where he is going to have to pray to survive every single day."
Ramos and Compean now are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences for their part in the shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler who was given immunity to testify against them. Ramos, after his supporters expressed similar fears, was beaten by fellow inmates following the airing of an "America's Most Wanted" television program in which his case was featured.

As in the Ramos Compean case the federal prosecution of Hernandez began only after the Mexican Consulate in Eagle Pass, Texas, wrote a series of letters demanding that the Bush Administration prosecute him for injuring a Mexican national. So again our President and the US Federal Courts are taking direction from the Mexican government regarding the treatment of our law enforcement officers.

Lettsinger believes Hernandez did nothing wrong, and that the Texas Rangers were not going to recommend prosecution as a result of their investigation. Hernandez is in federal prison, under the custody of U.S. Marshals in the Del Rio, Texas, Val Verde County detention facility.

Parks said Hernandez's wife is devastated by news of the sentencing guidelines. "Her husband wanted to be in law enforcement. He took his oath very seriously," Parks said.” She never would have believed that Gilmer would be facing sentencing for a felony conviction."

Parks expressed hope that Judge Dawson would consider the guidelines as only advisory.” The guidelines have never taken into account the extreme and extraordinary duress law enforcement officers face on the border after 9/11," Parks said. "The guidelines have never been adjusted to reflect the pressure law enforcement on the border feels when they get directives from the Department of Homeland Security that puts an extraordinary onus upon them."

Border Patrol officers are told they are the first line of defense from terrorist activity that comes across the border from the Middle East or Central America, including the notorious MS-13 gang, Parks argued. "The MS-13 gang had a directive that they were to kill any police officer who pulled them over," said Parks. "MS-13 had a special holiday called 'Kill a Cop' day in which they were each supposed to make an effort to kill a police officer."

Parks said he will immediately begin preparing a response to the sentencing guidelines because of this duress and extreme heightened sensitivity to the danger law enforcement on the border faces.

"The people in Rocksprings and Del Rio County feel an obligation and a responsibility to jump in on Gilmer's behalf because of what he has done for them," he said. "This has never happened to me before as a criminal defense lawyer."

Investigators had no plans to bring charges against Texas Sheriff's Deputy Gilmer Hernandez until the Mexican government intervened and demanded it, the officer's supervisor reviled.
Sheriff Don Letsinger of Rocksprings, Texas, said the Texas Rangers were not going to recommend prosecution, but federal law enforcement took over the case in response to the Mexican government's intervention.

Also, in the high-profile case of border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, the Department of Homeland Security investigation was opened March 4, 2005, the same date the Mexican Consulate demanded prosecution for the shooting of drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to numerous agency investigative reports authored by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez.

No documentation can be found of any Border Patrol investigation launched against Ramos or Compean prior to that date.

In both trials, it has been uncovered, that the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, withheld key, possibly exculpatory, information from the defense and the juries.

"Deputy Hernandez had a right to stop that vehicle," Letsinger said. "Can you look at what happened and say that Deputy Hernandez intentionally wanted to injure someone in that vehicle? No you cannot. Deputy Hernandez did not want to injure anyone that day. That is why he fired at the tires to stop the vehicle and he was justified in doing so."

In early 2006, Letsinger suspected the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation against Hernandez in Edwards County when he was notified by the Little Miracle Child's Care in Rocksprings that two FBI agents and a Texas Ranger had come to the child care center and interviewed Ashley, Hernandez's wife, for several hours without any advance warning. "Ashley became very upset by the FBI visit," Letsinger said, "and so did the director of the child care center."

Up to that point, Hernandez had continued to perform his normal law enforcement duties under the direction of Letsinger.

On April 14, 2005 – the shooting incident involving the van of speeding illegal immigrants in Rocksprings, Texas.

April 18, 2005 – as previously reported, the Mexican Consulate in Eagle Pass, Texas, writes Letsinger demanding the incident not go unpunished.

April 20, 2005 – the Mexican consulate in Eagle Pass writes Norman Townsend of the FBI in Laredo, Texas, a similar letter demanding punishment in the incident.
April 29, 2005 – Letsinger advises Texas Ranger agent Robert Smith that state and local law enforcement have been removed from the Hernandez investigation and the FBI and the federal government were taking over.

Early 2006 – FBI interviews Ashley Hernandez at the Little Miracle Child's Care.
June 7, 2006 – Gilmer Hernandez is indicted under 18 U.S.C. sections 242 for violating the civil rights of illegal alien Maricela Rodriguez Garcia and prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton begins.

Letsinger insisted nothing would have happened without Mexico's intervention. "Without a letter from the Mexican consulate," he said, "I do not believe federal authorities would have gotten involved in the case.” He was equally firm, after reading the investigative report that the Texas Ranger probe against Hernandez would not have resulted in a grand jury indictment. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, said it appears the Mexican government was "the driving force in the Hernandez case. “ The Mexican government wanted a Texas deputy sheriff prosecuted and they got their way," Poe expressed confidence in the report by Texas Ranger Bobby Smith not recommending prosecution. "In my 30 years experience in law enforcement, the Texas Rangers have as good a reputation as Scotland Yard, precisely because the Texas Rangers don't play favorites with anybody," he said. "Whatever the Texas Rangers recommends is, in my experience, always the way justice truly prevails in the case.” Poe was adamant that the Hernandez prosecution was unwarranted.

"In this case, it comes across that the Mexican government arrogantly demanded prosecution and our Presidential administration, because of certain political aspirations, succumbed to the pressure and hung these agents and this deputy out to be sacrificial lambs," he said. "Unfortunately, the rest is history."

"The statements by the prosecution that Gilmer Hernandez had chased the illegals across a pasture, cursing them and shooting at them were completely false," he said. "The Texas Ranger and a federal ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) agent and an ATF dog were taken to that location. That dog searched that location thoroughly and could find no shell casings. When the dog failed to find the shell casings, the officers used a metal detector to search the field thoroughly and failed to find any alleged shell casings."

Letsinger added he has no way of knowing for sure what the federal grand jury was told or was not told. He suspects "the grand jury was told about the shell casings, but most probably not about the law enforcement search that failed to find the shell casings."

In the Ramos-Compean case, March 4, 2005 as the date the Mexican consulate intervened with Sutton's office, according to notes from a staff member of the Texas Republican congressional delegation that attended a Sept. 26, 2006, briefing with three DHS investigators from the Inspector General's office.

According to the staffer's notes: Several weeks later (following the February 17, 2005 incident involving Aldrete-Davila at the border), the Mexican Consulate contacted the U.S. Consulate in Mexico saying that they have a person who claims to have been shot by a Border Patrol agent. On March 4 2005, the U.S. Consulate contacted the U.S. Attorney.

At trial, Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez testified (trial transcript Volume VI, page 239) he wrote a memo to his supervisor, dated March 3, 2005, documenting a phone call he had Feb. 28, 2005, with his mother-in-law, who disclosed to him the identity of the drug smuggler Aldrete-Davila. Rene Sanchez grew up in Mexico a friend of Aldrete-Davila's brother.

DHS Agent Christopher Sanchez testified (trial transcript Volume VI, page 266) Rene Sanchez's March 3, 2005 memo was handed to him, along with an accompanying memo written by Rene Sanchez's supervisor, at the start of his DHS investigation on or about March 4, 2005.
From Feb. 17, 2005, until they were arrested March 18, 2005, Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean continued their normal duties. There is no record in the documents or the trial transcript that Rene Sanchez's March 3, 2005, memo had initiated any formal Border Patrol investigation of Ramos or Compean. The congressional staff notes from the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting indicates the Mexican Consulate knew Aldrete-Davila's identity when its March 4, 2005, contact was made to the U.S. government, independently of Rene Sanchez's investigation.

A potentially exculpatory DHS investigative report was withheld from the defense, in likely violation of both the Jencks Act and the Brady standard. Information concerning a second drug offense Aldrete-Davila committed while under immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean was withheld from the jury and sealed by Judge Kathleen Cardone at the trial.

Hernandez is under the custody of U.S. Marshals in at the Val Verde County detention facility in Del Rio. Hernandez is scheduled to be sentenced on March 12, the day President Bush is scheduled to be in Mexico meeting with Mexican President Calderon.

The proverbial buck that stops here, is begging to be pointed out in the cases of these prosecuted heroes for doing nothing more than protecting our border. This action by the Bush administration to sacrifice the lives of our Law Enforcement officer’s to promote and advance President Bush’s personal cause of Globalism in the creation of a European like Union, into a single country known as the North American Union is not only blatantly evident but it is inexcusable.

Johnny Sutton certainly should be investigated for withholding evidence, conspiracy to commit fraud, lying to a grand jury by knowingly presenting false evidence, lying to Congress, and a number of other charges. The real criminals in these cases are obviously those who are involved in railroading these fine defenders of this country for political purposes. Moreover, if in fact the President is the WHIP behind this atrocity then he should be impeached for Abuse of Office and brought up on charges.

Being a history buff, I cannot help paralleling this kind of political corruption of Justice with the prosecution of innocent people in countries such as Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba just for the political purposes of the dictator. Why there isn’t a revolt in the streets of this Nation by its Patriotic Citizens is a mystery to me. If this can so easily happen to the people that protect this Nation from an overwhelming evasion, unchallenged and without any repercussions, then it will happen again and again and to anyone who dares to interfere with whatever agenda our government may trying to carryout behind the backs of the free people of this Nation.

THE BOTTOM LINE: When a people fear prosecution by a corrupt Justice system then we the people have lost control of our government and oppression has begun. The question begging to be asked is how much to you value your rights and freedom, enough to contact your Federal representatives, and demand Justice by prosecuting the Illegal alien drug smugglers instead of politically railroading our Law Enforcement Officers?

de Andréa

Tuesday, March 20, 2007


Jesus is God, God is the creator of all things, Jesus gave his life for us, and rose again so we might have life with him forever

By de Andréa

A lot of people have a very difficult time believing some or all of the previous statements. Some say, well, where is your proof? Or some may even believe in a supreme being who may have created the earth, but not in all this Jesus stuff, especially this stuff about Jesus dying to pay for the sin of all people of the entire world, and a new life forever, after this one, show me the proof.

If one is standing in the doorway of an airplane flying at 10,000 feet, ready to jump, would one say I don’t believe that particular parachute will save me, so I will foolishly choose not to trust it, I will leave it behind and jump without it… Splat

I, personally, have decided to stop trying to convince people that are looking for proof that something will or will not save them, because it is really irrelevant and a waste of time and effort. Besides it doesn’t convince anyone of anything.

This is why I think, Jesus said, don’t cast your perils before swine, a peril has no more value to a pig, than if one needs proof that a parachute will save them after jumping out of an airplane.
So how does one deal with this dilemma? Well let’s go back into the airplane, what if one would just jump without the chute? One would certainly go splat on the ground 10,000 feet below.
Moreover, if after jumping and on the way down one had a change of heart or mind, and then decides, maybe I should have tried the parachute anyway. Sorry! Too late, splat…

If one had actually tried the chute instead of leaving it behind, and it didn’t work, would one be anymore or less dead? NO!

But the really important question is; what if it did work???

You see whether there is proof or not of salvation through believing that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ will make the difference between one spending eternity living forever in Paradise with the Creator, or wasting in the fires of hell, is irrelevant.
What is important, is, just what if it is true? But if because one requires proof rather than faith, one foolishly jumps without the parachute, even if you thought that all that might happen is that one would just bounce a couple of times… uh uh Splat!

It is not even a question of whether or not we are going to jump, every one of us will eventually take the leap, because it is inevitable, none of us will physically live forever.

Thankfully God has created all of us, with at least enough intelligence to make a reasonable choice. So if I am wasting my time trying to prove salvation then at least let me appeal to ones natural God given intellectual ability to make a reasonable choice, you lose nothing by strapping on the parachute, so then why not strap it on???.

You see my friend; in this case, believing by faith not proof, is simply the intelligent choice. Even if there is no other reason to believe it, than the chance that; what if it is true?

So strap on the whole armor of God now, before you make that final leap into the unknown, you have nothing to lose if you do, but you could lose everything if you don’t. Because guess what, Jesus, who or whatever else you believe that He might be, He is your parachute, moreover, what if it’s true, that He and only He can save your eternal life.

de Andréa .

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Christianity Not Allowed At America's Birthplace

Even though there was no other religion represented on the Mayflower in 1620,
Jamestown and Plymouth guides ordered to say 'religious' instead of 'Christian. This is obviously yet another way if erasing Christian history from America

By de Andréa

Tour guides at the American birthplace of Jamestown, Va., and Plymouth Mass. are being prevented from telling the truth about history by generalizing instead of being specific in explaining the Christian history in America. They are under orders from the Parks Historical Service to refer to these items such as the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer only as "religious" in nature.

That according to California pastor and researcher Todd DuBord who says he was stunned on a recent tour of the historic town when "our guide responded to our inquiry by saying that she was “unable to speak truthfully about the plaques. We are only allowed to say they are religious plaques, we cannot say that they are Christian.”

Jamestown is celebrating its 400th anniversary this year.

When the issue arose, DuBord's group was in the heart of the community which had been established in 1607 – 13 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, Mass. – to make money for the Virginia Company and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ on orders from the newly crowned King James I.

"While the tour guides at the Jamestown Settlement and Museum were cordial and informative on many points, we were all caught off guard by their unwillingness (yes, unwillingness) to discuss Jamestown's religious roots as Christian. As one of the tour guides was leading us through the very heart of the replica of the community, the Anglican Church, we asked if she could speak about the significance of the three religious plaques on the wall in the front of the church: the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed (the same are in the Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg)," said DuBord, of the Lake Almanor Community Church in California, But his group was told the guides were only allowed to give a generic description as "religious."

So DuBord, who earlier documented similar efforts to edit Christianity from the historic references at the U.S. Supreme Court and Jefferson's Monticello estate, is now asking Jamestown officials to change its procedures, because at this point visitors get "absolutely no historical truth about the fact that the Pilgrims were Christians. Instead the Jamestown guides are propagating the lie that these early Americans were just Religious people involved in this historical event, which definitively means nothing, religious about what???

"Without our own well-educated, informative guides from Christian Legacy Tours (Sacramento), we would have left Jamestown with the impression that these settlers were nothing more than predecessors pressed from the so-called capitalist-greed molds of the 21st century," he said.

His concerns are being raised just as the area is marking the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the settlers. The same removal of Christianity from history is taking place with many of those events, also, where officials have even banned the use of the word "celebration" because contemporary leaders of Native American tribes consider the settlement an "invasion."
Because of the removal of Christianity from the history of Jamestown, Vision Forum has launched plans for a full series of events to celebrate the arrival of the settlers. The Jamestown Quadricentennial: A Celebration of America's Providential History will be centered on events planned for June 11-16.

Those events are including the settlers' Christian heritage; because Vision Forum President Doug Phillips said the war over the accuracy of the historical presentations "is one of the most significant battles of our day."

"It is the battle for our history," he said.

"Jamestown's Christian legacy of law and liberty is significant," Phillips says. "The vision for settlement at Jamestown was first communicated by a British cartographer and preacher named Richard Hakluyt who hoped the Virginia settlement would be a beacon for religious liberty. The Virginia Charter for 1606, both empowering and governing the Jamestown settlement, was expressly rooted in the Great Commission of Christian Holy Scripture."
He said the law system on which the colony was governed incorporated a millennia-long, Christian common law tradition.

"The Jamestown settlers brought with them the 1599 Geneva version of the Holy Scriptures and were the first to establish its enduring legacy of its presence in North America. Jamestown gave us our first Protestant house of worship, our first Christian conversions and baptisms and our first 'interracial' marriages based on the Christian faith. Jamestown also gave us a vision of republican representative government which was understood to find its origins in the Old Testament of Holy Scripture," Phillips said.

DuBord's research through archives in the Library of Congress and from various historians shows the Jamestown settlers were commissioned through their Virginia Company not only to advance the company's economic interests, but to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ on orders from King James I, who called for the "propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God."

"Historian Sydney Ahlstrom notes that, 'from 1607-1619 the colony's religious affairs were guided by the Virginia Company, which framed its laws and sent out ministers in the capacity of chaplains,'' DuBord wrote. “ Early governmental figures 'met in the choir loft of the Jamestown church as America's first elective assembly.’ According to Ahlstrom, their enactments included morality, in which:

"Immoderate dress was prohibited; and ministers were to reprove the intemperate, publicly if need be. There were fines for swearing, and excommunication and arrest for persistent sinning. Morning and afternoon services were required on Sunday, and neglectful persons were subject to censure. The governor set apart 'glebes,' or lands to support the church and ministers in each of the four parishes into which the colony had been divided. To promote evangelism among the Indians, each town was to educate 'a certain number' of natives and prepare them for college. There was even talk of founding a missionary 'university' at Henrico ...”

DuBord wrote in his research that his tour took him to Jamestown Settlement, run by the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation for the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is adjacent to the Historic Jamestown, run by the APVA Preservation Virginia and the National Park Service.
The guide's inability to respond was a surprise.

"We were noticeably shocked by her comments and challenged her that these were very important in the lives of the colonists, and not educating others about them is a deliberate avoidance and minimizing of Christian and true American history. We were all appalled, and said so to her, especially understanding that this was an educational tour, on which students from across the country were being taught every week," he said.

He said later another guide repeated on several occasions that the settlers came to America "just to make money."

"In fact, he expected and prodded our group to replicate his three-word answer like a mantra, as he frequently asked us, 'And why did these settlers come to America?'"

"The nine and twentieth day we set up a cross at Chesupioc Bay, and named the place Cape Henry," according to colonist George Percy's writings. And history records a prayer meeting was conducted by their minister, Rev. Robert Hunt.

DuBord noted that a new letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior in Yorktown, Va., reconfirmed the Christian goals of the settlers, including an original charter notation that instructed, "Lastly and chiefly, the way to prosper and obtain good success is to make yourselves all of one main for the good of your country and your own, and to serve and fear God the giver of all goodness. For every plantation which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out."

In fact, Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the original records of the Virginia Company, a document later installed in the Library of Congress that describes the Christian goals of the settlers.

"The document illustrates the Virginia Company's concern for the health of the church. It orders the settlers to offer generous financial assistance 'to the intent that godly learned & painful Ministers may be placed there for the service of Almighty God & for the spiritual benefit and comfort of the people,'" according to the Library of Congress description.

A letter from Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine noted the tour guides have "no restrictions in regards to commenting on religious items or history," however they may not "be as familiar with questions outside of the routine tour ...."
But Dubord said that wasn't the case at all.

"The guide said, 'I am unable to speak about the plaques. We are only allowed to say they are religious plaques.'"

"Fifty people (witnesses) were with us from the church in Sacramento, and there is no one who misunderstood the restrictive emphasis the guide was making," he said. And if those guides are unfamiliar with such issues, "I must question who is doing the training and with what are they being educated?"

He noted Charles Galloway observed more than a century ago with words, now in his "Christianity and the American Commonwealth," that historians have been reducing the references of Christianity to Religious, from the formative forces of the United States. "Books on the making of our nation have been written, and are the texts in our colleges, in which the Christian religion, as a social and civil factor, has only scant or apologetic mention. This is either a fatal oversight or a deliberate purpose, and both alike are to be deplored and condemned. A nation ashamed of its ancestry will be despised by its posterity," he wrote.

If one chooses to remain silent, then because of oppressive tyranny, one will be silenced”

de Andréa

Thursday, March 15, 2007

The 9th Circuit Court Censors Christians

"The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court's ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment”.

If we choose to become silent, then we shall become silenced”

By de Andréa
A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because it is hate speech.
The ruling came in a case being handled by the Pro-Family Law Center, which promised an appeal of this attack on our First Amendment. "We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who argued the case along with Scott Lively. "We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," he said. "If we fail to get U.S. Supreme Court review, however, it will be up to each individual Christian in the United States to stand up for their rights to be heard on the issues of the day. If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be," he said.
The decision from the court came as a result of a dispute over the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle within the city offices of Oakland, Calif. It found that municipalities have a right to dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues.
"Public employees are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion by judges B. Fletcher, Clifton, and Ikuta, who noted that the writings are "not appropriate for publication.” In other words free speech is what the court says free speech is. We are in the cusp of losing our First Amendment rights, especially freedom of religious expression or any expression that doesn’t conform to the Godless Anti-American politically correct folks.
As the Pro-Family Law Center noted, the court "completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech."
The case had developed when two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests posted a notice on a city bulletin board – after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.
The notice said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day, with respect for the Natural Family, Marriage, and Family values. If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford or Robin Christy
But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."
That decision was made even though homosexuals already had been using the city's e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views. In fact, one city official even used the e-mail system to declare the Bible "needs updating," but no actions were taken against those individuals.
According to Robert Bobb and Joyce Hicks, "The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court's ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment”.
Ackerman said I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values of Constitutional Law and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders,”
THE BOTTOM LINE: One may have become accustom to hearing about governments all over the world outlawing Christianity as well as people being persecuted for it, but now unless we do something about it, it will prevail and become common place right here in America. “If we choose to become silent, then silenced we shall become”
de Andréa

Saturday, March 03, 2007

The Big Lie

The Big Lie, That the Temple Mount Historically belongs to Islam
Waqf officials say the site will never be returned to Israeli sovereignty

By de Andréa

The placement of the replica of the historic podium on the original site in the Al Aqsa Mosque that will be transported with the coordination of Israeli security forces is "proof that the Temple Mount belongs only to Muslims and will never be returned to Jewish sovereignty this according to the leader of the Waqf". (The Muslim custodians of the Jewish Temple Mount)

This historic occasion will prove that the Israeli extremist will never achieve their goals of taking over the Temple Mount. It shows that we are much closer to liberating the Al Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem from the occupation of Israel," said Waqf chief Adnan Husseini.

In a ceremony At the Al Aqsa Mosque, the podium is set to be unveiled and installed at the "exact spot" Waqf officials state that the prophet Muhammad went up to heaven to receive revelations from Allah. The podium will be used by Al Aqsa Imams to deliver sermons.

The new stand replaces a 1,000-year-old podium that was destroyed in 1969, when an Australian tourist set fire to the Al Aqsa Mosque; it was believed to have been shipped to Jerusalem by the Islamic conqueror Saladin. .

Four years under construction, the replacement stand, a replica of the original, was funded by the Jordanian and Saudi governments the podium's partially assembled parts will be shipped to Waqf offices on the Temple Mount sometime in January 2007, and will be installed at the center of the Al Aqsa Mosque near the first of February.

According to Biblical history the First Jewish Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity, and destroyed again by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four to five hundred years.
The Jewish Temple was the center of religious Jewish worship. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God's "presence" dwelt. The Al Aqsa Mosque now resides on this site.

The Temple Mount compound has remained a focal point for Jewish services over the millennia. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed. Jews worldwide pray facing toward the Western Wall, a portion of an outer courtyard of the last Temple left intact. This wall the Muslims claim was for Mohammad to tie his horse.

The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed around 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic Caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven.

It is Interesting that Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Quran, and yet Islam claims that it is an Islamic historical site. Islamic tradition holds that Mohammed took a journey in a single night from "a sacred mosque” believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia, to "the farthest mosque" and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque later became to be associated with Jerusalem.

Most Waqf officials deny the Jewish temples ever existed in spite of the overwhelming archaeological evidence, including the discovery of Temple-era artifacts linked to worship, tunnels that snake under the Temple Mount and over 100 ritual immersion pools believed to have been used by the Jewish priests to cleanse themselves before services. The cleansing process is detailed in the Torah.

According to the website of the Palestinian Authority's Office for Religious Affairs, the Temple Mount is Muslim property. The site claims the Western Wall, is a wall that is referred to as the Al-Boraq Wall, previously a docking station for horses. It states Mohammed tied his horse, named Boraq, to the wall before ascending into heaven.

Islam’s Al Aqsa Mosque was built before the first Jewish Temple???
According to Hatib of Waqf “When the First Temple was built by Solomon; the Islamic Mosque Al Aqsa was already built. We don't believe that a prophet like Solomon would have built the Temple at a place where a mosque existed". Now this is an interesting lie, because the prophet Mohammad was not even born when Solomon built the first temple in approximately the year 1000 BC, Mohammad, being born in 570 AD. Moreover the Al Aqsa temple wasn’t built until 740 AD; this is 1740 years after the first Jewish temple was built by Solomon. Moreover, as a matter of historical fact, two temples were built by the Jews and were destroyed 640 years before Mohammad was born and 680 years before Mohammad became Islam’s self-proclaimed prophet. All historical, mathematical, and archaeological facts deny any relation between the location of Al Aqsa Mosque and the Temple Mount prior to the Jewish Temples.

An Al Aqsa official admits: Jewish Temples existed
In June of 2006, a former senior leader of the Waqf contradicted his colleagues, saying that he has come to believe the first and second Jewish Temples existed and stood at the current location of the Al Aqsa Mosque, Now this is a Muslim that at least knows his basic math.
The leader, who was dismissed from his Waqf position after he quietly made his beliefs known, said Al Aqsa custodians passed down stories for centuries from generation to generation indicating that the mosque was built at the site of the former Jewish temples.
He said the Muslim world's widespread denial of the existence of the Jewish temples is political in nature and is not rooted in facts, would you believe it, an honest Muslim.
He goes on to say "The Prophet Solomon built his famous Temple at the same place that later the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. It cannot be a coincidence that these different holy sites were built at the same place. The Jewish Temple Mount existed; it is true that Islamic tradition falsely relates that the Jewish temples once stood at the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque.”

The existence of the Jewish Temple at the site is obvious according to studies, researches, and archaeological discoveries. But especially according to the history that passed from one generation to another, “we believe Al Aqsa was built on the same place were the Temple of the Jews the first monotheistic religion existed." said the former senior Waqf leader.

He continues: "We were taught that the Christians, especially those who believed that Jesus was crucified by the Jews, used to throw their garbage at the Temple Mount site. They used to throw the pieces of cotton and other material Christian women used in cleaning the blood of their monthly cycle. In doing so, they believed that they were humiliating, insulting, and harming the Jews at their holiest site. This way they are hurting them like the Jews hurt the Christians when crucifying Jesus”.
"It is known also that most of the first guards of Al Aqsa when it was built were Jews. The Muslims knew at that time that they could not find any more loyal and faithful people than the Jews to guard the mosque and its compound. They knew that the Jews have a special relation with this place."
Temple Mount: a no-prayer zone
Currently, even though the Jewish state controls Jerusalem, the Waqf serve as the custodians of the Temple Mount under a deal made with the Israeli government that restricts non-Muslim prayer at the site.
The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.
The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003, and is still open, but only Sundays through Thursdays, and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf.

During "open" days, Jews and Christians are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they are not to pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

Israel to take control of the Temple Mount
All of these claims; in spite of the fact that the Palestinians have no historical claim to this area between Egypt and Lebanon at all, in other words in all of ancient history there was never a country called Palestine, or even a people called Palestinians. The people of today known as Palestinians are actually a people that were exiled from Jordan for being terrorists.

Egypt, until the rule of the Pharaoh Ramses in Approximately the year 1250 BC, held captive the Nation of Israel, when he reluctantly let the Jewish slaves go free. After wandering in the area of the Sinai Peninsula for nearly 40 years the Israelis arrived in an area known as Canaan, a land that stretched from just south of the Dead Sea and north to and including parts of southern Syria and Lebanon between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. This more than 1800 years before Islam even existed.

As advanced as the Middle Eastern Arabs and Persians were at that time in Mathematics, it seems that today they cannot even add well enough to keep their timeline straight. Of course when one lies about the time line of history one will eventually get caught, because the math will not add up.

It is a curious thing that the Israelis even put up with these Islamic invaders of their land and especially the Temple Mount which the Muslims have obviously stolen from Israel. Moreover, even in the face of all documented history, They lie about their historical claim as well, this is the most sacred place on earth in Jewish History.

According to Biblical Prophecy, Israel will rebuild their temple once again, and right on the very spot that Solomon built the first one. This of course would require that the Al Aqsa Mosque be removed. This will be an Interesting event, just to see how this will all play out on the world Stage and to see yet another Biblical Prophecy come to fruition.

de Andréa