This is a Valid Ground for Impeachment in My Book

If the Dem-Cong want to start impeachment proceedings over Presidente Bush siding with convicted Mexican child murderers, I'm all in. The disgusting groveling at the feet of the Third World toilet known as Mexico continues here and here. I don't know what Presidente Bush is thinking here, and I don't care. He's dead wrong on this, and he needs to get out of the way and let Texas justice come down on these raping murderes...needle, electricity, hanging, firing squad. Bring them on, and if Jorge Bush gets in the way, send him to somplace toasty alongside the killers he's siding with.

"Why President Bush Sided With Mexican Killers
By Cliff Kincaid
October 10, 2007

"The U.S. Supreme Court's hearing of the case, Medellin v. Texas, has reminded the American people of President Bush's terrible tendency to put the foreign interests of Mexico above those of the United States. But the case, being heard on October 10, is significant for another reason. It demonstrates the dangers of passing global treaties and getting involved with international courts and tribunals. The Senate should remember this lesson as it ponders ratification of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which creates an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and various "dispute resolution panels" that will inevitably rule and act against the U.S. The Senate could vote on this treaty shortly and the odds are that it will pass unless the American people voice their objections immediately and vociferously.

In the Medellin v. Texas case, which we addressed in a June 12 special report, the Bush Administration acted so committed to the primacy of international law and global courts that it took the President's home state of Texas to court on behalf of a group of convicted Mexican killers. The Mexicans had been sentenced to death for murdering U.S. citizens, including teenagers and young children. It is another low point in the presidency of George W. Bush but it helps explain the twisted mentality behind the administration's push for ratification of the dangerous United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Medellin v. Texas figured in Mexico v. United States, the case brought before the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled 14-1 on behalf of Mexico against the U.S., insisting that the killers were somehow denied their rights to seek outside counsel and advice from Mexican authorities. The ICJ was headed at the time by a judge from communist China, who also ruled against the U.S.

John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, cited Mexico v. United States of America in a June 6 speech trying to convince international lawyers that the administration is doing what it can to enforce international law in U.S. courts. He noted with pride that Bush had come down on the same side as the U.N.'s International Court of Justice. In the ICJ decision, Bellinger said, "the ICJ ordered the United States to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals convicted of capital crimes." And the President, he said, "acting on the advice of the Secretary of State," decided to "require each State involved to give the 51 convicts a new hearing." That's a total of 51 convicted killers that the President sided with. Assuming the role of a dictator, Bush ordered Texas and the others states to comply with this U.N. court. Texas and many other states resisted. Hence, the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bellinger's audience for his June 6 speech was gathered at The Hague, a city in the Netherlands which is home to over 100 international organizations, including the U.N.'s International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

Bellinger may have mollified the globalists but the reaction that the case is getting here in the U.S. is very different. The reaction is one of anger and outrage. Fox News and the Laura Ingraham radio show are among the media which have featured emotional interviews with the father of one of the murder victims, Jennifer Ertman. He flatly accused Bush of being a liar when he said he wanted to see justice done in the case and the killers punished for their crimes. He noted that Jose Ernesto Medellin has been on death row longer than his daughter lived. Medellin and other gang members raped and murdered Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña as the girls were going home.

James Oliphant of the Chicago Tribune provides some of the graphic details about the case: "Medellin stopped Peña. When she tried to run, he threw her to the ground. Ertman ran to help her but also was shoved to the ground. They were gang-raped and beaten. Even as the girls begged for their lives, they were dragged to nearby woods and strangled, one with her own shoelace, the other with a belt and then by a shoe pressed on her windpipe. Their bodies were found four days later." Medellin had no regrets and bragged about the crime.

Bellinger acknowledged to the international lawyers that "The first defendant to try to take advantage of the President's decision was in the state of Texas, which objected to the President's decision. In response, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the President had no power to intervene in its affairs, even to obtain compliance with an order of the ICJ. This Administration has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse this decision. We expect a ruling from that Court this time next year."

This is the case before the Supreme Court on October 10. A decision, as Bellinger indicated, is expected next year.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on this case. But the people don't have to wait before sending the President a strong message of protest. They can send that message by having the Senate defeat Bush's U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty and by drawing the line at further interference by U.N. courts in our sovereign affairs.

The American people have shown, through derailing the Senate's illegal alien amnesty bill, that they won't play dumb or go to sleep when the issue is American sovereignty. That is why the Mexican killers case is striking such a chord, leading many to wonder if President Bush has lost his mind by intervening on behalf of the corrupt U.N. and its foreign judges against his home state of Texas.

The problem, of course, goes far beyond the Medellin case or UNCLOS. Trying to appease his foreign audience at The Hague, Bellinger declared that Bush was now trying to get 35 treaties, including UNCLOS, ratified. Bellinger declared that "international law binds us in our domestic system" and that the Bush Administration had entered into 429 international agreements and treaties last year alone. He bragged that, "...I have a staff of 171 lawyers, who work every day to furnish advice on legal matters, domestic and international, and to promote the development of international law as a fundamental element of our foreign policy."

After hopefully defeating UNCLOS - and the battle is now underway - we should show Mr. Bellinger and his fancy legal team the door.

As for the President, it looks like he's trying to bring into being the New World Order his father only talked about. It's not a legacy to be proud of. But it's one that a President Hillary Clinton would like to inherit."
*********************************
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
April 13, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

"That America's two most recent presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have been guilty of egregiously flawed and fallacious decisions and activities is obvious. However, at what point do bad policies and conduct become treasonous? At what point do we conclude that our country's Chief Executive has crossed the line of mere inanity or naïveté and has actually become a threat to our national security and survival?

Those who listened to my radio talk show when Bill Clinton was in office know how I daily chronicled what I believed were acts of treason. No, I am not talking about his numerous sexual affairs. I'm talking primarily about what became known as Chinagate.

There is a plethora of evidence to support the accusation that then-President Bill Clinton deliberately facilitated the transfer of military (including rocket and satellite) technology to Communist China in exchange for large donations via highly placed Chinese operatives. That, more than the Monica Lewinsky affair, should have been the basis of impeachment. However, the Republican majority in Congress chose to do absolutely nothing about Clinton's treasonous conduct in Chinagate. Now it is President George W. Bush who is pushing the envelope.

As I have already stated in this column, I believe an independent investigation should proceed aggressively in order to determine whether or not President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney deliberately manufactured evidence to support a preemptive invasion of Iraq. If it is proven they did, they should both be impeached.

However, I believe there is another area of malfeasance committed by G.W. Bush that is equal to anything Bill Clinton did: his determination to facilitate a Mexican invasion of the United States and the decision to merge America into a trilateral North American Community.

It is no hyperbole to say that Bush's infatuation with Mexican immigration and uniting the economy of the U.S. with those of Canada and Mexico threatens the sovereignty and independence of our country, not to mention our national security.

One former military analyst is quoted as saying, "We are under attack. Twenty million have already entered the country, and more are to come. And sadly, many of our leaders are siding with the invaders. They are willing to spend billions of dollars to deport foreigners from Iraq and defend Iraq's borders, but won't lift a finger to save the USA."

William Calhoun wrote, "We know that Hispanics in the Mexican military are helping Arab terrorists sneak into the United States. We know that many Mexican gangs have already made alliances with terrorist cells in India."

Calhoun continued by saying, "In short, Hispanics plan to retake the Southwest United States. Reconquista, is what they call it, and their aim is for Aztlan to live once again. As Mexican activist Ricky Sierra said, 'We are recolonizing America . . .. It is time for us to take back what is ours.'"

Not only has President Bush turned a blind eye to the gigantic national security risks posed by unfettered illegal immigration, he has become the most outspoken expeditor of illegal immigration.

For example, just recently, President Bush gave a directive to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals demanding that a convicted Mexican rapist and murderer on death row be given another hearing. In what is obviously an attempt to grovel before and appease the Mexican government, Bush used an International Court of Justice ruling to justify this presidential intrusion into the State of Texas's judicial affairs.

The murderer's name is Jose Ernesto Medellin. He was one of six gang members convicted of brutally raping and killing two Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, who stumbled upon a violent gang initiation. But George W. Bush wants him taken off death row and given another hearing.

Thankfully, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has no intention of being bullied by this rogue president. Judge Michael Keasler wrote that Bush "exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary." Presiding Judge Sharon Keller said that Bush's "unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution." (Source: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

Remember, this is the same president that, at the behest of the Mexican government, turned the U.S. Attorney's office loose on two U.S. Border Patrol agents and a Texas Deputy Sheriff. According to Jerome Corsi, "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 told WND.

"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."

I trust that readers are also aware that in continuing to accommodate illegal immigration and placate the Mexican government that promotes it, President Bush is ignoring the fact that, according to Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa), illegal aliens murder twelve Americans each day. That equates to more Americans being killed by illegal aliens each year than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to date.

Now we hear that "the Bush administration is fully committed to beginning within weeks a pilot test that will allow Mexican trucks to operate freely across the U.S." Think of the thousands of U.S. workers that will ultimately be displaced by Bush's decision to launch Mexican trucks all across America. Not to mention the potential safety and security problems that will ensue.

I ask the question again: At what point do bad policies and conduct become treasonous? At what point do we conclude that our country's Chief Executive has crossed the line of mere inanity or naïveté and has actually become a threat to our national security and survival? I believe Bill Clinton crossed that line. I believe that George W. Bush has also crossed that line.

The problem is, hardly anyone in Washington, D.C., has the guts to do anything about it. For one thing, many of our congressmen and senators from both major parties are equally culpable in both Clinton's and Bush's chicanery.

Let's face it, folks: we are living under a government that, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats control it, is sated with corruption. It's time we admitted it. No! It's time we did something about it. I hope and pray that the American people will wake up and realize that they have the authority and power to throw off this bunch of scoundrels. It's called the ballot box, and we need to use it to thoroughly clean house. And we need to do it while we still can.

As Winston Churchill said, "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."