Well, it's time to see if America has any guts left at all. If they did, America would immediately boycott the 2008 Olympics in China. Why? Because China has banned Bibles. That's right, a simple religious BOOK has been banned on the premises of the Olympics in China.

America, if it were still a world power with morals, would immediately protest the religious crack down. America would stand up and say, "We will not participate with a country that refuses to allow ANY freedom of religion." America would lead the world and tell China, "If you want to ban religious books, you have your games without us, because we will not participate and support that action."

I'm not holding my breath.

Instead, I bet a couple people will say, "Gee, China shouldn't do that." Then all the athletes and corporations and corporate sponsors will join up and go for the green -- the cash from the games. That just goes to show where morals are in the world today -- absolutely nowhere.

I wonder if any individual athletes will have the courage to tell China where they can stick their religious intolerance. I sure hope so.

Update (Thanks to HoosierArmyMom): Contact information for the US Olympic Committee:
U.S. Olympic Training Center - Colorado Springs
National Headquarters
1 Olympic Plaza
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Tel: 719.632.5551

More info here.

Please do let me know if you contact them, and if you get a response from them. I'd like to keep up with that sort of information.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

The City of Philadelphia has come out with open opposition to NOT having man-boy anal sex in public buildings. They have voted to kick out an organization that doesn't openly support man-boy anal sex from all public buildings. I guess the "City of Brotherly Love" takes it's motto seriously. They claim it's "discrimination" to openly say that man-boy anal sex is wrong.

I was once asked by someone if I discriminated. I said that I discriminated all the time -- against actions. For example, I discriminate against rapists. I discriminate against those who murder innocent people. And yes, I discriminate against any male who wants to have anal sex with a boy. But according to the City of Philadelphia, that makes me "abhorrent" and "at opposition with the city's principles." I'm glad to be on the right side of this one; but I'm amazed that the City of Philadelphia can openly support man-boy anal sex in public buildings.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:41 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

I know some people have gone absolutely bananas over the recent decision of the supreme court allowing a legislature to make it illegal to chop open the heads of little babies. I know some people honestly believe they have a right to suck the brains out of innocent babies because they want to. But I think this cartoon really says it all regarding that decision.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:04 PM | Comments (76) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed, it is good to see when people stand up for what is right. Apparently people have been reading Ogre and are now trying to stand up and be heard. Two news articles today that show all is not completely lost.

First up is California Representative Duncan Hunter. This week he has called for Senator Harry Reid (Surrender Party, France NV) to step down as majority leader of the Senate. How about these words:

Even if you sincerely believe it to be true, your pronouncement of failure will undoubtedly be used by terrorist leaders to rally their followers — inevitably leading to increased attacks on U.S. and coalition forces.

Good job, Mr. Hunter, to stand up as an elected official and tell it like it is.

Next up is St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. He resigned his position on a charity board because the charity openly supported abortion -- and that was at odds with his faith. In what was a difficult position, Mr. Burke was faced with supporting children through the charity -- and supporting abortion; or standing up for his principles against killing the unborn -- and not getting the charity money to the children. He said:

A Catholic institution featuring a performer who promotes moral evil gives the impression that the church is somehow inconsistent in its teaching

Good job, Mr. Burke. People, STAND UP for what you believe. Suffer the consequences, but do it with a clear conscience.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

So, if you live in Chander, AZ, and you're aware that a serial rapist is loose in the area, what do you do? You may sit back and call the police after he has struck your daughter and hope they use the "evidence" gathered to catch and convict him; feeling safe in the thoughts that he will be put in jail; provided with free health care for life; provided with better exercise equipment than you can afford; excellent library services; free food; and, of course, all the cable TV channels.

Or you can provide actual justice yourself. If I lived there, I'd be wondering how many shotgun slugs it actually takes to disintegrate bone.

Sure, I read the report. I realize that the rapist waits until the parents of 12-14 year old girls aren't home, then he attacks. If, for some reason, I were to leave my 12-14 year old girl home alone; I'd be sure she was well-trained in how to fire the shotgun herself. What? Arming a child? Am I insane? Once again, I draw your attention to the first paragraph of this post.

Oh, and if you choose that option, you will have to deal with the loss of innocence and the "post-traumatic stress syndrome" and all the other mental and emotional problems this monster caused -- all while he sits in jail, watching the live Diamondbacks game.

There is evil in this world. The only logical response to true evil is to destroy it.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 1 kb.

Just look around, and you can see -- we're nothing but a nation of wimps. Where are the real men like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan? Where are the men with the guts to stand up and declare right from wrong, no matter the cost? I mean, of course, besides Chuck Norris. Just look around and you can see what the feminization of men has wrought:

Joe Francis, of Girls Gone Wild fame, cried for 45 minutes before a judge. He cried as he apologized for calling the judge a name. Now there's nothing wrong with apologizing, but crying for 45 minutes? Sorry Joe, you're a complete and total wimp. Someone check his pants, because I think there's something missing there.

After the VT murder-spree, I was interested in the victims. I was tired of hearing about the evil murderer, I wanted to hear about the victims. So I checked out the MySpace pages and the like. The very first one I came to had a woman crying to a male victim: "I'm sorry you never got to cry on my shoulder." What the heck is that all about? Women, if there's men crying on your shoulder, they've got serious issues. And men, if you're thinking about crying on a woman's shoulder, you have serious, serious issues and honestly do not know how to be a man.

We've got the National Democrat party doing all they can to get the US to hand Iraq over to terrorists, despite Iraq's own leadership asking for help. We've got John Edwards, presidential candidate, getting $400 haircuts and claiming that getting those haircuts is the "American Dream."

We need more people like Chuck Norris and fewer like Dennis Kucinich. We need more who still stand up to evil like Liviu Librescu and a lot fewer like John McCain.

As Bonne Tyler said:

Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where's the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?

Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?

I need a hero.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

The North Carolina Legislature, in true liberal stupid form, recently apologized for something that none of them did; to people who had nothing done to them. Yes, it was the stupid liberal trend sweeping the nation: apologizing for slavery -- even though NONE of the current legislators owned slaves, and there's no living people in the state who ever were actually slaves. But style is always more important than substance in the liberal world.

Oh, but that's not good enough. The racist blacks (again, these are the racist bastards who continue to judge and see people ONLY by the color of their skin), like Senator Malcolm Graham, wants MORE racism. He wants to judge MORE people by the color of their skin. He wants to PUNISH people who have a certain skin color and reward some with a different skin color -- oh, and he wants the government, with their monopoly on force and utterly unlimited funds via taxation, to do it.

He and other racists like Representative Earline Parmon DEMAND piles of free cash be taken from white people and given to black people. How in the hell can anyone NOT call these bastards racists? SENATOR MALCOLM GRAHAM IS A RACIST. REPRESENTATIVE EARLINE PARMON IS A RACIST. And of course, they're both registered Democrats.

They want free cash to be taken by force from white people and given to black people at "historically black" colleges. They want the government to use their guns to take money from people with white skin and spend it on government contracts awarded by skin color instead of ability to actually do a job. They want to steal money that white people work for to build a new city for blacks where the 1898 race riots happened in Wilmington (NOTE: Those race riots were WHITE DEMOCRATS who attacked and killed BLACK REPUBLICANS).

These people are nothing more than slimy racists. And yes, I'll call them that to their face, because they're trying to destroy this once-great country by using government to punish people SOLELY based on the color of their skin. That's plain wrong, even if you are a Democrat.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Welcome again to Lawsuit Lottery. This week it's another lottery entrant who wants to make millions off someone who didn't do anything to them. Enter our first contestants, Sarah Vasquez and her mother Natalie Fornaciari.

Sarah and Natalie want Best Buy to give them some money. Why? Because Best Buy is a big, evil corporation and they have more money than Sarah and Natalie. So they want to punish Best Buy for working and earning money and they want to force Best Buy to share cash with them.

So, what did Best Buy DO to Sarah and Natalie? Absolutely nothing. That's correct, not a single, solitary thing.

However, Sarah and Natalie claim that a person, one Hao Kuo Chi, did enter their home (with permission from Sarah and Natalie) and proceed to record Sarah in the shower. Oh, and they didn't give permission for him to do that. For those who are a little slow on the uptake, Best Buy did not order Hao Kuo Chi to record Sarah in the shower.

So, do Sarah and Natalie go after the person who actually did something wrong, Hao Kou Chi? Well gee, Hao's only 26 and doesn't likely have a lot of money, so they don't want to sue him. Heck, I bet there's not a slimy, bottom-feeder lawyer who would sue Hao because they wouldn't make enough money from him. So instead Sarah and Natalie (and their slimeball servant, Gloria Allred) have decided to sue Best Buy for "compensatory and punitive damages for alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation and hiring, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

What a pile of you-know-what. If there were justice in this country, Gloria Allred would be fined tens of thousands of dollars and Sarah and Natalie would also be personally fined for wasting the court's time and my tax money.

I'm not saying Sarah and Natalie weren't victims and that there was nothing wrong here -- I'm just saying that Sarah and Natalie are nothing but greedy, money-driven bastards for attacking a company who did absolutely nothing wrong except attempt to help Sarah and Natalie. I hope companies in Pomono, CA learn from this and refuse to do business with these two again. I know I would.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been reading a lot about this issue in the news and on a number of blogs. I haven't seen my point of view, so I think it's time I weigh in.

Every single one of you, from Obama and Clinton on down to bloggers; that has said that Imus is racist because he said "nappy-headed" is a damn racist. I'm so sick of people trying to divide this country. When you say, "Gee, what Imus said is a racist thing," you're judging him by his skin color. That's racist.

I don't see anyone calling out Big V and Ron Clutch for singing, "Hey, its Nappy Roots Day!/we are on a holiday." What about Skinny Deville singing "I am gonna keep it Nappy 365 and 7 days a week?" Go ahead, condemn Wyclef for "Yo, hey nappy head." Someone demand Lauryn Hill apologize for "I got a head full of problems and a hand full of nappy roots." I could go on for a long time here.

But hey, there's Linda Jones who DARED to publish a book and a web site called "A Nappy Hair Affair!" How in the hell is that not "offensive?" And don't forget Carolivia Herron who wrote a book called "Nappy Hair!" If you think Imus was offensive to blacks, then most certainly so was Caroliva Herron! Then there's Rosario & Erica who have a salon (and are offering franchises) called "Oh! My Nappy Hair!" That's GOT to be offensive and derogatory, right?

Sorry, miserable, racists -- every single person who claims that Imus was racist and all those people listed above are not. Why? Because all those people listed above happen to have a darker color skin. Therefore, if Imus cannot say this word and all those others can, you ARE applying your judgement based solely on skin color -- and that makes you a damn racist. And yes, despite their claims to the opposite, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharton ARE racists -- they view people and their actions ONLY by the color of their skin.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be embarrassed to be associated with such blatant racists.

So, if you want to condemn Imus for saying that word, be sure you condemn EVERYONE who says that word, regardless of the color of their skin. Otherwise, you are being a racist, too.

If, on the other hand, you are condeming Imus because of the "ho" part of his statement, that's a perfectly legitimate claim which has nothing to do with skin color. I imagine those that are offended by the use of the word "ho" are offended no matter who uses it.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

I have to admit, there are many days I have tried to figure out how today's liberal think. I honestly try and figure out why it is that they do what they do. I know they're wrong. I know their ideas are wrong. I know the things they do will lead to worse people and a lesser nation. But I've never really been able to figure out exactly WHY they do what they do.

This fellow really explains it well. The YouTube video is almost 48 minutes long, but it's incredible. It's accurate. And it really explains what we're up against. It explains why it's so difficult to fight the liberals. And it really shows why they're doing what they're doing. If you want to understand liberals, find an hour and go watch this.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:04 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

The march for forced acceptance, no matter the cost, continues for the gay movement in America. They continue to use the absolute force of government to demand that you completely and totally accept and approve of their lifestyle choices. This time, they're doing it in Deerfield, IL.

The militant gays are using the power of government schools to not only force 14-year olds to listen to graphic depictions of gay sex acts, but they are using that same force of government to force children to lie to their parents. And if the children dare disobey the all-powerful government, you can be assured that they will be severely punished. There's no word from the school district as to whether they will require all students to start wearing brown shirts. It was not clear at the time of this writing whether students are being asked to turn in any parents who attempt to pry the truth out of their children.

There is a reason that Ogre supports homeschooling. No matter how much you might think that YOUR government-run school isn't this bad, it is. I bet every single parent of every child in Deerfield High School thought that THEIR school was just fine and that they wouldn't have to put up with the radical leftist agenda being forced down their throats before this.

EVERY single government school in the country is suceptible to this truth-twisting by the left. The left will continue to work and penetrate every school they can get to -- and as you can see, they have absolutely no qualms about lying to get their agenda forced down the throats of the young people. You can be that in this secret presentation, in which children were forced to LIE TO THEIR PARENTS, there was no equal time for any other side of the debate. The entire discussion appears to have been about how being gay is wonderful, including graphic descriptions of gay sex acts -- and you can be sure there was NO discussion of the risks and societal consequences of those same acts.

Government schools stink. They have absolutely NO redeeming value AT ALL. There is absolutely NO reason to send your child to ANY government run school anywhere in the country. Those that run the school only want your child because it gives them cash from your pocket. The left only want access to your child to ram their viewpoint down their throat while unopposed. YOUR CHILD WILL SUFFER if you send them to ANY "public" school in this country. You can teach your child everything that is taught in a government school in about 15 minutes a day -- seriously.

For those who are going to cry about your child not getting to "socialize" with others -- keep in mind this gay lobby assault. Your child is learning to socialize by being told to lie to you and to approve and participate in gay acts.

There is absolutely NO VALUE at all to any government school. They should all be shut down immediately.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:09 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

Always on Watch has been asking this week about lying. At the same time, Kat has been speaking with people about "absolute truth." And today has news that some people are accused of fraud. But did they do anything wrong?

A Vancouver woman admitted Monday that she coached her two children — beginning when they were 4 and 8 years old — to fake retardation so she could collect Social Security benefits on their behalf.

Isn't this country based upon the government helping those who need help? Isn't government designed, today, to take care of people? Doesn't government measure it's own success by how many people it manages to help? So why is what this woman did wrong? She needed help and she got it from government.

Perhaps it's wrong because government says it's wrong. According to the all-powerful law, she is guilty of "conspiracy to defraud the government." So apparently, the only reason what she did was wrong is because the government says that you're not allowed to fake being disabled.

Wonderful society we've built here, isn't it? And I wonder why so many people looked at me like I was crazy when a few weeks ago I asked the waitress if she mis-charged me because my drinks weren't on the check she gave me.

Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:56 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Yes, we have yet another entrant into the lawsuit lottery. Jennifer Strange's family has decided they want to see if they can profit off their mother's death and they want someone else, anyone else, to give them a pile of cash because, well, because they're greedy and want money.

In case the name doesn't ring a bell, Jennifer Strange is the person who died from drinking too much water during a radio station contest in California. As far as I'm aware, there was no one there forcing her to drink the water in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it wasn't even he evil employer that threatened to fire her if she didn't drink the water. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't someone of a different skin color that threatened her if she didn't drink the water. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure that she actually voluntarily drank the water herself.

But that doesn't matter.

Instead, her family wants cash, and lots of it. They've sued FIFTY people, hoping that one of them will give in and send them buckets of money. Apparently they have set a cash value on this woman's life, and once that dollar amount is reached, then they will no longer mourn her death, but instead will celebrate that she brought them so much money.

Oh, and that wavier of liability? You know the one -- the one that everyone has to sign before, well, doing just about anything in this damn country any more -- well, the lottery entrants claim it doesn't exist. But know what? It doesn't really matter if it doesn't exist. This is California, where legal agreements have little weight in a court of law. I'm quite sure the judge in the case will determine that the legal adult who signed the legal document (if it exists) just was "too stupid" to understand what she was signing, so that it doesn't really matter.

If there were justice in this country, all the defendants instead should sue the family for causing them stress and bad public relations. At the very least, the lawyer who filed the suit and the family should be heavily fined for wasting the court's time and filing a frivolous lawsuit. But it's California. The only remaining question is will the family profit over or under a million dollars.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 2 kb.

Dirty Texas Politics Taint Border Patrol Agents' Trial

I have to give huge kudos to Shawn Christopher Phillips, of the Wry & Coy Report, for compiling some of the least known and most misreported facts surrounding the case of the two Border Patrol Agents prosecuted for shooting a drug smuggler. Shawn has raised some very troubling questions surrounding the case - questions worth asking and investigating. He has also connected the dots in a way that the media has been unable (or unwilling) to do.

Shawn's original research material can be found at www.patgray.com here and here. I have supplemented the accounts with further information from my own research and from Pat Gray's radio show on KSEV, since he and his co-host, Edd Hendee have been investigating the anomalies surrounding this very muddled case.

I have taken the liberty of condensing Shawn's material from several posts to place it into a rough timeline of events as they occurred. As well, I wanted to include information about some of the major players in this case, from the drug smuggler himself all the way up to U.S. Congressmen and Senators.

The central perpetrator in this travesty of justice is the U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who has old boy Texas connections from the judge overseeing the case all the way up to President George W. Bush. These connections, though not openly disclosed, have greatly impacted the case, as highly placed government officials look the other way while testimonies, evidence, and statements are manipulated behind the scenes.

By Shawn Christopher Phillips

Edited and Supplemented by Heidi Thiess for syndication by the Guard the Borders Coalition.

Did US Border Patrol Agents, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos actually shoot Mexican national, career drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila?

That is what we have been told, that's what has been reported, that is what the trial was about, and that is what Compean and Ramos are in federal prison for right now.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila... drug smuggler

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila is a Mexican national, career drug smuggler. On February 17th, 2005, U.S. Border Patrol Agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos shot Aldrete-Davila once in the buttocks saying that they thought the suspect was armed. This claim has been supported by two of Aldrete-Davila's family members, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. They stated that Aldrete-Davila had been dealing drugs since age 14 and, according to one, he “wouldn't move drugs unless he had a gun on him.”

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton responded, “There's this impression that all these dopers carry guns,” but mules - smugglers such as Aldrete-Davila - "almost never carry guns," because federal law "tacks on five years to their sentence. In this one statement, US Attorney Johnny Sutton admits to knowing that Aldrete-Davila is “doper” and a “[drug] mule smuggler”.

An Office of Inspector General memorandum contradicts US Attorney Sutton's claim that Ramos and Compean reported Aldrete-Davila was unarmed.

The memorandum of activity was written April 4th, 2005, by Christopher Sanchez, the OIG investigator who questioned Compean about the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting.

Christopher Sanchez memo notes:

Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder towards Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him. Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's hand and because Aldrete-Davila continued to look back towards his direction. Compean explained that he thought the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot at him because he kept looking back at him.

Osvaldo [Aldrete-Davila] had told [Border Patrol agent] Rene Sanchez that his friends had told him they should put together a hunting party and go shoot some BP [Border Patrol] agents in revenge for them shooting Osvaldo. Osvaldo advised Rene Sanchez that he told his friends he was not interested in going after the BP agents and getting in more trouble.

According to the memo, Aldrete-Davila told investigators the agents shot him in the buttocks when he was trying to enter the country illegally from Mexico.

But according to Aldrete-Davila's later testimony and that of the agents, he was shot after trying to evade the agents upon his re-entry into Mexico.

The memo never was disclosed to the jury.

Shots rang out, changing, in Ramos’ mind, the danger level of the chase. Ramos would later testify that “... at some point during the time where I'm crossing the canal, I hear shots being fired. Later, I see Compean on the ground, but I keep running after the smuggler.” Through the thick dust Ramos saw Aldrete-Davila, who was turning to face him. Ramos testified that he saw what appeared to be a nickel-plated gun in his hand.

Believing his life was in danger, he fired. “I shot,” Ramos continued. “But I didn't think he was hit because he kept running into the brush and disappeared. Later we all watched as he jumped into a van [on the other side of the border] waiting for him. He seemed fine. It didn't look like he had been hit at all.”

Was Aldrete-Davila shot that day by a U.S. Border Patrol agent?

US-Mexico Sanchez Connections

US Border Patrol Agent, Rene Sanchez

Upon returning to Mexico, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila complained of his misfortunes to his mother, who contacted the mother-in-law of Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez in Wilcox, AZ. According to a document, Rene Sanchez stated “that Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila's mother, Marcadia Aldrete-Davila, contacted Rene Sanchez's mother-in-law, Gregoria Toquinto, and advised her about the BP agents shooting Aldrete-Davila. Toquinto told her son-in-law, Rene Sanchez, of the incident, and he spoke to Osvaldo via a telephone call.”

Why would a Mexican drug smuggler's mother call the mother-in-law of a US Border Patrol agent, Rene Sanchez, and tell her that her son was shot by the Border Patrol after dumping a million dollars worth of marijuana?

Agent Rene Sanchez repeatedly called the Fabens Border Patrol Station requesting information to see if there were any seizures or shootings. However, according to the Department of Homeland Security in a memorandum of activity document, Rene Sanchez stated that he queried the Border Patrol Tracking System (BPETS) and found that the Fabens Border Patrol Station seized a load of marijuana on February 17, 2005.

(Note: Agent Rene Sanchez also assisted with securing an attorney for Aldrete-Davila to sue Agents Compean and Ramos in a civil case.)

Office of Inspector General Agent, Christopher Sanchez

Agent Christopher Sanchez served as an ICE agent in Arizona before lateraling over to OIG.

In March 2005, Rene Sanchez calls the Office of Inspector General at DHS and speaks to Agent Christopher Sanchez who was a four-month trainee in OIG. Agent Christopher Sanchez began investigating the case, and eventually went to Mexico to bring Aldrete-Davila back to El Paso. The chain of evidence, including custody gets really murky at this point and Compean and Ramos are subsequently arrested, charged, and arraigned within days.

When Compean and Ramos were arrested, protocol would dictate that their supervisors would have called them in to the office where they would have peacefully surrendered to the FBI or U.S. Marshals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security staged a simultaneous SWAT assault on the Compean and Ramos homes. You know... the type of arrest scene one would expect to see when arresting a criminal illegal alien drug smuggler from Mexico with a million dollars worth of marijuana hidden in his house.

Was there an ulterior motive in using a SWAT team to arrest Compean and Ramos? Were they sending a message to other Border Patrol agents and their families? Will Border Patrol agents now think twice before doing their jobs on the border?

(W&C Report wonders about the damage done.)

Meanwhile, Aldrete-Davila was given full immunity to testify against US Border Patrol Agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos. How did this happen? U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office would have us believe that his office was so convinced with the integrity and credibility of Aldrete-Davila, that Sutton thought the third party allegation of an illegal alien drug smuggler who was forced to leave 743 pounds of marijuana in a deserted van on the levee was more than enough to prosecute two US Border Patrol Agents – Compean and Ramos.

Almost a month after the alleged shooting, Agent Rene SanchezÂ’ mother in-law, Gregoria Toquinto, drove Aldrete-Davila to the William Beaumont Army Medical Center, where he had a fragment of a bullet removed, at taxpayer expense.

How badly could he have been shot, if that much time passed before he required “treatment”? How could anyone even be sure he was shot on February 17^th by the Border Patrol agents? He did, after all, run and jump into a waiting get-away van! And where is that bullet fragment? Did it get lost in that murky chain of evidence? That fragment could be crucial evidence in proving whether it came from Compean or Ramos’ guns. Was it brought up in court? We don’t know because the court has failed to complete the court transcripts.

It would be important to the case to know how the drug smuggler's mother knew the mother-in-law of a Border Patrol agent, and whether or not she or her son-in-law had any personal ties to the drug runner. You would think that both the Border Patrol and the DEA would have wanted to tap their telephones to see who Aldrete-Davila and Sanchez were talking to on both sides of the border.

(Note: During the trial, the connection between Rene Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila confused the Ramos family, and "we questioned how an agent from Arizona would know or want to defend a drug smuggler from Mexico," said Monica Ramos.)

Furthermore, Aldrete-Davila was given a green card AND a car, at American taxpayer expense, so that he could drive back and forth between Mexico. Aldrete-Davila later broke his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America, while driving this tax-payer funded vehicle! U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton further extended immunity to this additional felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila’s arrest record was expunged, and a gag order was issued. The jury was not informed of the second smuggling arrest, and Sutton issued a public statement that Aldrete-Davila was “never arrested” on drug charges.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton

Recent Statements made by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton -

I would much prefer to be here discussing the prosecution of the drug dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and how we put him in prison for 20 years.

(Note: Sutton calls Aldrete-Davila a drug dealer.)

But, unfortunately, we had no case against him, because there was no evidence tying him to that van.

(Note: Sutton says there was NO EVIDENCE tying Aldrete-Davila to the van containing the marijuana.)

We would not even know about him had he not come and the investigators for Homeland Security been able to find him through his family. The way we found him is that he came forward and was in Mexico with a lawyer. So, the only way to get him to testify was to give him immunity from being prosecuted. He wasn't going to agree to come to the United States, he wasn't going to agree to talk, unless he had some kind of immunity from being prosecuted for that load.

(Note: Sutton thought this was a good deal.)

Again, we have to have evidence that we can prove in court. And we don't have any evidence.

(Note: Sutton referring to Aldrete-Davila.)

But the thing is that he refuses to talk. He wouldn't come to America. He refuses to talk. We had to persuade, like we do all the time in court, we have to persuade witnesses to come to court to testify. There are all kinds of witnesses who come forward in court all the time to testify in court because they're persuaded.

(Note: Sutton leading or coaching the witness?)

I can't tell you what's inside Aldrete-Davila's head.

(Note: Aldrete-Davila has 5-million reasons to lie.)

I mean, there are many times we persuade witnesses to come forward to testify in court. But, remember, he didn't make an admission. He refused to make an admission until his lawyer had an agreement for use immunity. He wouldn't come to the United States and we couldn't extradite him because, number one, we didn't have any evidence against him, and, number two, we didn't have a case.

It's one of those situations where we gave up very little by giving him use immunity in this case, because we couldn't prove a case against him. He did not make admissions until we agreed to give him immunity for what he was saying.

(Note: Sutton gave up very little? Only Compean and Ramos.)

Unfortunately, the case against Aldrete-Davila was not prosecutable because of these agents. There was no way to link Aldrete-Davila with that load of marijuana.

(Note: Sutton contradicts himself.)

Apr. 13, 2005, from a statement by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office:

According to the criminal complaint, on or about February 17, 2005, a Mexican National attempting to flee back into Mexico near Fabens, Texas, was shot at by the defendants.

This case is being investigated by the office of Inspector General - Department of Homeland Security.

Aug. 11, 2006, from statement US Attorney Johnny Sutton's office:

“At the initiation of their investigation, the DHS Office of Inspector General contacted Aldrete-Davila who was at the time in Mexico. Aldrete-Davila was at first reluctant to cooperate with the investigation because he feared that should he return to the United States, he could be prosecuted for the offenses committed in relation to the load of marijuana he was driving on February 17, 2005. In order to secure his cooperation and appearance at trial in the United States, this office agreed that in return for his truthful testimony he would not be prosecuted for the February 17, 2005 offenses. The agreement does not immunize any other conduct.”

Later, Sutton issues a fact sheet that makes it sound like the Aldrete-Davila couldnÂ’t possibly be tied to the van of marijuana he was driving - this despite the fact that multiple Border Patrol agents saw him driving the van. No fingerprints? Not even a hair or an eyelash? Doubtful.

On January 17th, 2007, from the misnomered "fact sheet" issued by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office:

Myth: THE GOVERNMENT LET A DRUG SMUGGLER GO FREE

Reality: My office would have much preferred to see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison for his crimes. We are in the business of putting guys like Aldrete behind bars. In fact, this office leads the nation in the number of drug smuggling cases we prosecute. Because the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against Aldrete could not be proven.

How is this a MYTH? By SuttonÂ’s own admission, Aldrete-Davila is a drug smuggler, and he is free (though two of our own law enforcement officers are now in federal prison)! It is NOT a myth, it is fact. SuttonÂ’s spin on it doesnÂ’t make it less factual!

On September 19^th, 2006, in a meeting with various Congressmen who were looking into the case, SuttonÂ’s office told the Congressmen (including Ted Poe, John Culberson, Dana Rohrbacher, and others) that Compean and Ramos had made some incriminating admissions and signed statements concerning their own guilt. The Congressmen requested to see those signed statements, and SuttonÂ’s office agreed to produce them immediately. They have failed to do so after repeated demands from the CongressmenÂ’s offices, and four months later, the Congressmen are now doubtful that such statements exist. Did SuttonÂ’s office knowingly LIE to U.S. Congressmen?

It is interesting to note that Johnny Sutton has also aggressively prosecuted a SheriffÂ’s deputy in Rock Springs, Texas, for allegedly violating the civil rights of illegal aliens he had apprehended. The 23 year old sheriffÂ’s deputy, Deputy Hernandez, had a sterling record, and the Edward County sheriff said Deputy Hernandez was doing exactly what he was told to do. How did the deputy violate the civil rights of the illegal aliens he was trying to apprehend? He shot out the tires of their vehicle when they tried to run over him. One of the bullets struck an illegal alien in the back of the vehicle (he was not killed). Johnny Sutton recommended that the deputy be held without bond. He is sitting in the Del Rio jail today, without bond, and awaiting sentencing.

US Assistant Attorney, Debra Kanof

U.S. Assistant Attorney, Debra Kanof bristled when asked about the Rene Sanchez/Aldrete-Davila connection.

“It's an unconscionable accusation that Sanchez is associated with a drug dealer,” she said. “Most BP agents who are Hispanic have family from Mexico. He was born in the U.S. and raised in Mexico and came back to do high school and later became an agent.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof claimed out that pursuing suspects is not part of the Border Patrol's job. "Agents are not allowed to pursue," she said. "In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not." Additionally, in the words of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing.”

That's right.

Assistant US Attorney Debra Kanof decreed that if an illegal immigrant, even a drug kingpin or terrorist, flees from a Border Patrol agent, regulations demand that he not further pursue or apprehend the fugitive. US Border Patrol Agents widely disregard this because their own edicts say things like “detouring illegal entries through improved enforcement” and “apprehending and detouring smugglers of humans, drugs and other contraband.”

Judge Kathleen Cardone

Judge Kathleen Cardone - a part-time fitness instructor - was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003, to a newly created seat, and was sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Judge Cardone was confirmed by the Senate on July 28, 2003, and received commission on July 29, 2003. Her prior experience had been as a family court judge.

Several of the jurors came forward, a few days before the sentencing of Compean and Ramos in October, to say they had been holdouts against a guilty verdict and only voted with the majority when other jurors told them the judge wouldn't allow a hung jury. They expressed they felt severely pressured.

Judge Cardone denied the motion for a new trial.

Agents Compean and Ramos had filed a motion with the court to remain free on bond while they appealed their case. Despite the fact that the two agents were not deemed a flight risk, Judge Cardone, U. S. District Court, Western District of Texas denied the motion, ordered them to surrender to the US Marshall, and thus, ordered the agents to begin serving their sentences.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

As governor, George W Bush brought Alberto Gonzales into his administration in 1994 as a senior adviser to the governor, chief elections officer, and the governor's lead liaison on Mexican and border issues. Gonzales later became White House Counsel in 2000, when George Bush became President, and was eventually nominated by Bush for Attorney General of the United States. On November 24, 2004, Gonzales, got the backing of the National Council of La Raza:

The NCLR promotes driver's licenses for illegal aliens, no immigration law enforcement by local and state police and amnesty programs broader than the administration's proposal.

La Raza supports legislation such as the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which would roll back policies adopted after Sept. 11 designed to protect national security. It supports the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens” thus, providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states.

The group opposes the “Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003” and the “Homeland Security Enhancement Act” would give state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

The group also supports legislation to ensure illegal immigrants' ability to obtain driver's licenses.

On March 29th, 2006, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales named U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton to serve as chair for the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys. (The Advisory Committee plays a vital role in furthering the Department's law enforcement efforts and represents the voice of the United States Attorneys in making Department policy.) Sutton has been a member of the Advisory Committee since 2002.

Johnny Sutton also serves on the Advisory Committee's Border and Immigration Law Enforcement Subcommittee.

Texas Senator John Cornyn

John Cornyn refused to sign a petition presented by Texas Congressman Ted Poe requesting that the Border Patrol agents be released on bond pending their appeal. He has also refused to look at the case further.

Pat Gray, of KSEV radio, called Senator John CornynÂ’s office in D.C. to clarify his perspective on the Border Patrol case

He's not taking a stand. He's not taking ANY stand. "As a former Supreme Court Justice, Senator Cornyn believes in the justice system...these agents had their day in court, and if errors were made, they should come out in the appeals process", said Cornyn staffer, Brian Walsh.

A staffer also told a caller that “the Senator had no power to affect anything in the case…he believes these men got what they deserved, and he will not get involved.” That is a quote verbatim from Senator Cornyn’s office.

While Johnny Sutton worked on George BushÂ’s team in Austin, during BushÂ’s governorship, John Cornyn was BushÂ’s Attorney General. As well, Cornyn appointed a John Sutton, dean of UT Law School (and of the age to be Johnny SuttonÂ’s father or uncle), to be a member of his D.C. transition team.

Texas Congressman Michael McCaul

Michael McCaul refused to sign the petition presented by Congressman Ted Poe requesting that the Border Patrol agents be released on bond pending their appeal. As well, McCaul is Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations and in that capacity he refused to subpoena documents concerning the case, and refused to hold a hearing to review the case, which was within his purview.

WhatÂ’s interesting is that Michael McCaul is a former employee of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton.

Full circleÂ…

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton gave immunity to Mexican national, career criminal, drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in order to pursue his prosecution of U.S. Border Patrol Agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos.

A criminal by definition does not follow or obey the law. Since he was given immunity from prosecution, Aldrete-Davila has violated his immunity deal at least twice.

Federal Judge Kathleen Cardone agreed with Sutton to not allow the jury to see or know about:

● The sealed indictment of Aldrete-Davila for his second arrest for drug smuggling in October 2005, after the incident when he was supposedly the victim of agents Ramos and Compean.

● Aldrete-Davila's agreeing to not withhold any information, then refusing to divulge the names of his fellow smugglers who picked him up at the border.

What does a cartel drug lord, with the audacity to put a bounty on the heads of the US Border Patrol Agents, do to a drug mule that loses his merchandise - $1 million dollars worth? Is it possible that within the weeks after Aldrete-Davila abandoned his load of drugs on the American side of the border, that he was shot by the drug cartel for whom he worked? Is it possible that he allowed himself to be “persuaded” by Johnny Sutton to be taken into protective custody in order to gain sanctuary from his employer? Alternatively, did this cartel drug lord have friends high enough in the Vicente Fox government to apply pressure on the Bush Administration?

Think about it: If Compean had shot Aldrete-Davila, a blood trail would have started at the levee.

If Ramos had shot Aldrete-Davila, a blood trail would have started closer to the border.

Based solely on Aldrete-Davila's testimony, with NO EVIDENCE or even a mention of a blood trail, both Compean and Ramos were convicted of shooting him. That's right. There was NO EVIDENCE of any blood to indicate which officer shot him.

It is just as likely that Aldrete-Davila was shot by the drug cartel boss in Mexico who would have been irate about losing over a million dollars in contraband.

● How much tax-payer money was used for this case?

● If there is no way to connect Aldrete-Davila to the van-load of marijuana, then why does Johnny Sutton keep tying him to the van-load of marijuana?

● If, as Sutton claimed in one statement, Aldrete-Davila was merely illegally entering the country, why was there a get-away van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border?

● If there was no evidence – no blood, no fingerprints – from the scene, and no way to prove he was there, then why would Sutton accept every word of Aldrete-Davila?

● With the extremely lax chain of custody that occurred, with only a partial fragment of bullet removed, who shot Aldrete-Davila?

● Where is the bullet fragment?

● Where are the court transcripts? Repeated requests by Congressmen have been met with statement from the court that they are not yet transcribed. Why have they not been completed almost half a year after the conclusion of the case?

● Why was Aldrete-Davila given immunity - TWICE - plus a green card, and a car?

(W&C Report declares that Johnny Sutton's explanations smell like 3-day old mackerel left to rot in the sun.)

Edd Hendy, of KSEV radio, spoke with the Sheriff of El Paso County, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the county, and asked if the proceedings were legitimate or should the case be objected to and reviewed. The Sheriff said, “These guys are getting screwed.”

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila is now suing the US Border Patrol for $5-million for violating his civil rights, and Compean and Ramos are each doing over 12 years hard time.

It's rumored inside the beltway that President Bush will appoint Johnny Sutton to the federal bench before he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009.

Breaking News...

No word yet on whether President Bush contacted and spoke with the families of Compean and Ramos.

Congress is considering passing its own pardon powers.

Read Rep. Michael McCaul's letter.

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Posted by: Ogre at 06:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 4469 words, total size 36 kb.

The route to political correctness and insanity continues, this time aided by the once respected Harvard University. A professor there, who resigned, then un-resigned, is complaining that the school is sexist (or the new, even more PC term: guilty of gender discrimination) because they refuse to hire based entirely on a person's sex.

Yes, you read that correctly. In order for you, in today's screwed-up version of an "Accepting" and politically correct society, which Harvard supports, to NOT be guilty of "gender discrimination," you must hire someone based completely on their gender and not due to their actual abilities.

I continue to agree the liberalism is a mental disorder. You have to have a really warped and diseased mind to actually say things like this with a straight face, AND actually believe them. In a logical, real world, this is utter and total insanity. But that's not where Harvard University exists, apparently.

At "issue" here is the landscape architecture department at Harvard. I'll wait while you stop laughing. Yes, they really have such a department. And don't jump to conclusions -- the department is not about designing landscapes, it's about advancing socialism through communist-style city planning:

The profession of landscape architecture is rich in scope, ranging from the design of urban landscapes such as New York City's Central Park, to the reclamation of brownfields, to the ecological planning of large tracts of land such as the regional watershed management of the western United States.

She's not complaining because they chose faculty based on merit, but on sex. She doesn't address how many women vs. men actually applied for any of the positions, or even if ANY women have EVER applied for the positions. The simple lack of a woman is evidence that they are racist homophobes, guilty of the hate-crime of "gender inequity." Why she hasn't called for and demanded the arrest of the head of the department is unknown.

People like this are utter and complete morons. They are incredibly selfish and enemies of freedom. They would never survive on their own in a world where hard work is rewarded. This woman wants preferences and cash simply because she was born without a penis.

Go back to London, "Professor" Schwartz, where you can enjoy the muslim takeover and be forced to ask permission from a man to walk the streets. Try producing and working for a living instead of trying to take away my personal freedoms. And Miss Schwartz? Go suck eggs.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

On Saturday, I commended Toys 'R' Us for standing up for right and good. In that case, the company had explained some rules to a contest and they stood by those rules when racist whiners started screamed that they wanted free money, even if they were admitted criminals who also broke the rules. At the time, the company was standing by it's own rules and was standing up for American laws.

Now, however, that's all changed. Now, Toys R Us has joined all the spineless wimpy bastards who cave in every time some whiny scumbag scream "racist."

A review of the FACTS:

Toys R Us had a contest in which they described in the rules that the parents of the winner were required to be legal residents of the United States. One person who claimed to be a winner freely admits that they are NOT legal residents of the United States. No immigration officials, of course, have made any attempts to arrest the admitted criminals who are in the country illegally. Racist, whiny bastards are spreading lies about Toys R Us in an attempt to get free, unearned cash for the admitted criminals.

Having worked in the "corporate world" for many years, I know why Toys R Us is doing this -- whey they have caved in to the uber-racists like John Wang (president of the New York-based Asian American Business Development Center) and Albert Wang (a lying attorney). They caved because of public relations and controversy -- both of which most companies hate.

The company believes that the liars who continue to wrongly claim that Toys R Us is being racist (while in fact it is the liars who are being racist) will have a larger effect on the company than doing the right thing. The company has absolutely zero interest in right and wrong -- only about what they can do to bring in the most cash.

Therefore, they're giving away three times the amount they had originally allotted to the contest -- giving away the money to not one baby, as expected, but three of them. While on the face, this may look like a good idea -- it makes everyone happy; in fact, it will cost everyone money. You see, in order for Toys R Us to get that extra money, they had to earn it first.

So, the cost to bribe the racists and criminals here is to not only the stockholders, who just lost a potential $50,000 in profits; but also to the consumers, who will now have to pay increased prices to make up for the new, extortionist lost.

The company was right the first time. The criminals, racists, and liars were wrong, as they usually are. But they were effective with their racist extortion and forced the company to do the wrong thing. What a sorry state of affairs in America today. Yuki Lin, her parents, John Wang, Albert Wang, and "offended" Chinese-American advocates should be ashamed of themselves. But that would require morals which they are obviously lacking.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, okay, there's hundreds of reasons I could put here, couldn't I? But this one I was railing against from the start. Federal investigators are now reporting over $2,000,000,000.00 (that's two billion) in government WASTE over Hurricane Katrina. In case you're not aware of how government works, that was two BILLION dollars of taxpayer money that was wasted. That was two BILLION dollars that could have been kept by the people who earned it.

In case you missed my various posts during that natural (not Bush-made) disaster, government should NEVER have gotten involved. Government is absolutely, completely, totally incapable of being compassionate -- it's not possible because it's not their money. The ONLY way government can give away money is for them first to take it, by force, from people who work for it.

That's wrong, plain and simple. I don't care how many people vote for it -- it's still wrong. If 51% today voted to make all black people slaves, would that be right because the majority wanted it? No. There is an absolute right and wrong, and government charity is completely wrong -- every time. And the utter incomprehensible amount of waste is only part of it.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, another lawsuit. What a shock. This time it's a man suing government because he's not allowed to sell a beer with a label that has Santa on it. Oh, and the name of the beer is "Santa's Butt." Great.

At first it sounds like a silly lawsuit. After all, if this were a free country, then anyone could choose to sell any beer they want. This man doesn't have the absolute right to force someone else to sell his beer. But then you have to understand Maine (and way too many other states): all alcohol is sold by the state, not individuals.

Now the man has a very valid point and should win his lawsuit. When government regulates the products sold (as they shouldn't), they have to adhere to the U.S. Constitution. They're not allowed to supress freedom of speech on beer labels.

Now the only reason this situation even exists is because the state has crammed itself into the business of alcohol sales. If they didn't sell beer, this wouldn't be an issue. One again, overreaching government causes MANY more problems than it solves. Stupid government.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:36 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1 sheesh but what a name..waza matta with this guy ?..lol

Posted by: Angel at December 03, 2006 05:28 AM (6jcuW)

2 That's a whole 'nuther discussion there...

Posted by: Ogre at December 03, 2006 07:44 PM (ECkKW)

3 So you're in favor of anarchy? Oh, now I finally get why you people think Iraq is going so well!

Posted by: Brad at December 04, 2006 12:58 AM (Pzwcj)

4 Yes, you've redefined words so well that you should write your own dictionary. Yes, because I believe people should be free to sell alcohol, that means I want anarchy. Thanks for stopping along!

Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2006 01:15 AM (ECkKW)

5 Agreed, the Marine Corps budget should be cut at least 50%

Posted by: Nick at December 04, 2006 03:36 AM (mjeiS)

6 Do you understand what the word "agreed" means? I'm sure you can see the connection between government regulation of alcohol sales and the budget for the Marine Corps, but I don't think anyone else can. Care to explain?

Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2006 12:17 PM (oifEm)

7 I propose a compromise: The Marine Corps should be the exclusive distributor of Santa's Butt Beer and the profits should be used to care for wounded marines.

Posted by: Weapon of Mass Disturbance at December 04, 2006 02:55 PM (j4p/t)

8 If the Marines were distributing the beer, I'm not sure the public would ever get any...

Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2006 02:57 PM (oifEm)

9 I saw this news story Friday and laughed. Although it does make me want to buy a sixer and do a review of it.

Posted by: Contagion at December 04, 2006 07:40 PM (MsT2U)

10 I'm not sure if it's a local-only brew that you can only get in New England. I don't have a problem with the beer, just the government screwing things up. I need to run by MASS sometime. I absolutely HATE going to that state, but they have really nice beer laws (thanks, Teddy), so they have tons and tons of different microbrews and the like.

Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2006 07:45 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, which do you choose? You are told by the government that you must either murder someone who cannot fight back -- and it will be easy, no violence involved -- or you will go to jail. On what charge, you ask? Assault. That's right, in the UK, if you REFUSE to kill someone, YOU could be charged with assault.

Be thankful this year, as you celebrate Thanksgiving in America, that you're not in the UK and not on the "unfavourable list" of the government -- or your doctor might be ordered to kill you. But don't worry, they won't just kill dissidents, they'll only kill the "undesirable" to "save costs."

The Hippocratic Oath used to say

I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing.

I will act in the patient's best interest when providing medical care.

Since that oath is too hard for these doctors and government to understand or apply, how about something a little simpler:

Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).

Posted by: Ogre at 05:08 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert Jensen, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, says that

Guys should evolve beyond masculinity

It's hard to be a man; hard to live up to the demands that come with the dominant conception of masculinity, of the tough guy.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:17 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1926 words, total size 12 kb.