Monday, January 29, 2007

The Appropriat Application of Law

What do law schools teach? Do they in fact teach the law and its philosophical purpose of origin; or do they instead teach future lawyers of this free country how to manipulate, circumvent, stretch, twist, and misapply the law for their own personal misguided gain or agenda?

By de Andrea

Law, since its origin, has never prevented any crime. This is because it is not the purpose of law to prevent crime, but instead it is the purpose of law to establish the conviction of one who has violated the law.

The only individual or collective accomplishment of substance that law has ever prevented is that of Liberty.

I myself have never attended law school, so I cannot with any authority testify as to what is actually being taught in a school of law. I believe that I can however, by my own evaluations of the corollaries and the effects of law, as well as a plethora of research into the origins, applications, and purposes of law, say that I have developed the ability to judge what is not taught in a school of law.

Anyone with an ability to analyze facts and draw reasonable conclusions, should be able to understand that law schools do not at the very least teach the history, origins, philosophy, and the purpose of law, especially what the application of law is in a free nation and a liberated society.

One only needs to observe the results of our legislatures, and the absence of laws that support liberty and freedom. Most of our legislators are lawyers or former lawyers, and, if for example they were actually taught the origins and purpose of law they would not be pumping out laws that are irrelevant to there own expressed purpose, (the prevention of crime), this is a misapplication of law.

Let us explore the purpose of law, or more importantly, what the purpose of law is not. One might assume that the purpose of law is to [prevent], when actually the purpose of law is to [cause], strength, support, protection and conviction. Law has never prevented anything but freedom. .

One might say that law is a deterrent to crime and thereby a preventative. No; to commit a crime is a choice, if one makes a choice to commit a crime, is it the failure of the law? No, it is the failure of the person that made the choice to commit the crime. If one chooses not to commit a crime because of the law, then it is still the choice that has prevented the crime, and not the law. The existence of bad or good choices will always result in the commission or the prevention of a crime; conversely the existence of law does not and has never prevented any crime, it simply gives one the choice.

Law is neither the prevention nor the cause of crime. The written law is the teacher, the documentation of inappropriate behavior; it identifies the wrong-doing and thereby convicts the perpetrator and upholds the establishment and rights of a free people.

Look at it this way if Law actually had the ability to prevent crime, America would be experiencing little or no crime, because the totality of all local ordinances, State, and Federal laws on the books in the U.S. nearly exceeds all the written laws in the rest of the world combined and yet we still have the existence of crime.

So what is the purpose of law then? As mention earlier, law is to strengthen, support, protect, and convict. So what needs strengthening, supporting, and protecting? The first answer would be Freedom, Liberty, and the Rights of the individual citizens. A law for example that would support and strengthen any one or all of our bill of rights would represent the purpose of law, conversely a law that would permit Government to plunder or restrict or infringe upon ones 1st or second amendment rights, or any of the rest of our inalienable rights or freedoms, would be a violation and an inappropriate application of law. The second answer would be the conviction of the law breaker or the violator of the law who subsequently denied one of ones rights, freedom, and liberty.

This overlooked philosophy is at the very foundation of Law in a free Nation. An interesting exercise would be to document all laws passed by our legislators in the past 100 years that strengthened, supported, and protected our rights as opposed to laws that restricted, damaged, or infringed upon our rights in the name of prevention of crime or some other misapplication of the purpose of law. I can guarantee that one would be hard pressed to find such laws that would appropriately identify the purpose of law.

I believe that one could, just by observing the results of what our law maker’s produce, deduce that this speaks volumes about what they as lawyers have not been taught. If one would examine just a few of the laws that have been passed by either the Federal or the State in the recent past one would find either a political or a misapplied crime prevention purpose, or both. Sometimes crime prevention is just used as an excuse for the new law, when the real purpose is to carry out an agenda of dependency, restriction or to gain some other political power by infringing upon ones rights, which is of course a perversion and an abuse of the legislative responsibility to make law.

THE BOTTOM LINE: In my opinion this philosophy and purpose of law, was best described by a nineteenth century French economist Frederic Bastiat, who not only was a member of the French legislative assembly but one who wrote many books, one of which was titled simply ”The Law”. It was published in France as an essay in 1850, in the last year of his life. In it he wrote the profound words “The only purpose of Law and Government is to guarantee the protection of individual Rights and Freedom of a liberated people”, this is a philosophy obviously not taught in American schools of law today.

Moreover, and more-importantly we may have surreptitiously and incrementally lost sight of this purpose altogether in our society. How long can a free people remain free when law becomes a surrogate for the personal responsibility of choice, as well as the circumvention of the guarantee to support, strengthen, and protect the individual rights and liberty of a free people? How long???

de Andréa
de Andrea is an American Author
He has written Five books Titled:
Exposed-The truth about Islam-and Allah their god
The Second Amendment-It's the law
The Beginning of the NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Imprisoned Border Agents Wife at State of The Union

Congressman Rohrabacher invites Monica Ramos to State of union speech to point out Bush’s 'failure'

By de Andrea

Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, attended President Bush’s State of the Union speech as a guest of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who has sharply criticized the president's handling of the case.

"The congressman felt it was important for Mrs. Ramos to have the opportunity while in the nation's capital to be a part of the State of the Union, because of what her family has been going through speaks volumes about the failure of the Bush administration to secure our borders."

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences last week of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them."

The lives of two brave men, her husband Ignacio Ramos and Border Patrol agent Jose Compean, have been destroyed by a corrupt court an inexplicable policy of open borders and amnesty that this administration has toward our southern border.

If the Bush administration cared about securing our borders these two law enforcement officers would not be behind bars, and U.S. prosecuting attorneys wouldn't be prosecuting Border Patrol agents while drug smugglers go free, at most, their penalty for not filing paperwork should have been a reprimand.

This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen, it’s shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party. Bush obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up its defenders

President Bush made no reference to the Border Patrol case in a 50-minute speech that focused on domestic issues in the first half and international issues in the second half.

Monica Ramos described her first meeting with her husband in prison as "heart breaking."

Monica Ramos said that her husband is being held in solitary confinement in a 6-by-12 foot cell, without windows. Ignacio Ramos is not being allowed any exercise time, and he is shackled every time he leaves his cell.

"This may be for his protection from other inmates," Monica Ramos acknowledged, but this is abusive. But they are treating my husband like the worst hardened criminal imaginable."

She said one of her three young children they are so disturbed by the imprisonment that the family has decided to seek counseling for the child. "My children are planning to visit their father for the first time this Friday," she said, expressing concern. "This will be the first time they see their dad shackled in chains, when they are used to seeing me send him off in his uniform. The couple's youngest child is 7 years old; the others are aged 9 and 13.

"My youngest child wanted to know if we could order pizza for dad in prison," Monica Ramos said. "No, I told him. Let's wait and have pizza night when daddy gets home."

THE BOTTOM LINE: If one is interested in reading just how these two brave defenders of America were railroaded by a definitive kangaroo court with an obvious agenda, then read the article below of how the law was twisted, manipulated, and totally misapplied in order to falsely convict these two men. This clearly shows the misconduct and corruption in our so-called Justice System.

de Andréa

Wrong law used to convict Border agents.
What crime is committed when two Border Patrol agents shoot a drug smuggler in the side of the buttocks who has pointed what appears to be a gun at them and has abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana?

By de Andréa

Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean each now beginning their more than ten year jail sentence were charged under a statute that only applies to criminals in the commission of a crime and thus did not apply to the facts of their case.

Ramos and Compean were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). This statute was written to increase the penalties when a violent criminal, such as a drug trafficker or a rapist, carries or uses a weapon during the commission of the crime. Ramos and Compean were not violent criminals carrying and shooting a gun in the commission of a crime. Moreover they are law enforcement officers, and are issued weapons by the Border Patrol to carry in the normal pursuit of their duties.

Ironically, Ramos and Compean were trying to apprehend an escaping suspect who was a drug smuggler and who turned and pointed what appeared to be a gun at them. How is it that a law meant to punish armed drug smugglers is applied, to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents who attempted to apprehend an illegal alien criminal and known drug smuggler?

18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) has only been applied to law enforcement officers who they themselves commit heinous crimes, outside the scope of their official duties Ramos and Compean were within the scope of their official duties when they fired at an illegal drug smuggler known as Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who they believe to be armed and dangerous and a threat to their lives

When this question was asked by World Net Daily, “But the original intent of that law, as I understand it, was to increase the punishment for criminals who when perpetrating their crimes discharge weapons. Is that not correct?

To which John Sutton U.S. prosecutor replied, “I can't speak to what the Congressional intent was. All I can speak to is what the law says and the law says what it says, and it doesn't make any exception for law enforcement officers. It says,” “ that if you commit a crime of violence and you use a firearm during a crime of violence, it is a ten year mandatory minimum sentence stacked on top of what time you already have, no exception is made for law enforcement officers. The judge applied the law and if people want to change the law, then you can talk to their representatives.”

What crime were Ramos and Compean committing, during which they decided to fire their weapons? Surely, Sutton does not consider it a crime for Border Patrol agents to attempt to stop and seek to arrest a person they suspect of trying to shoot at them and smuggling drugs across the border.

The misapplication of Section 924(c) in this case is setting a dangerous precedent of application to law enforcement officers trying to act within the scope of their official duties. On appeal, the convictions should be dismissed because the prosecutor charged these Border Patrol agents under a law whose scope was clearly misapplied.

The real issue in this case should have been whether Ramos and Compean had justification for discharging their weapons in this situation. The applicable law would seem to first involve the INS Firearms Policy. In that policy, there appears to be the following.

Section 7(A). Discharging a firearm shall be done only with the intent of stopping a person or animal from continuing the threatening behavior which justifies the use of deadly force. When deadly force is justified, an officer may use any level of force necessary up to and including deadly force. Section 7(B). Firearms may be discharged under the following circumstances:
(1) When the officer reasonably believes that the person at whom the firearm is to be discharged possesses the means, the intent, and the opportunity of causing death or grievous bodily harm upon the officer or another person.

In explaining why agent Compean discharged 14 rounds and failed to hit the fleeing suspect, Sutton explained that agent Compean was experiencing a heightened physiological reaction that is commonly identified as a normal physical response to a perceived sense of imminent danger.

The U.S. Army doctor who removed the bullet testified at the trial that the drug smuggler was not shot from behind, but that he removed the bullet from the side, with the bullet piercing the left side of his left buttock and traveled to his right groin. The doctor stated that Aldrete-Davila was not in a running position when he was shot, it was consistent with pointing back toward the agents with his left arm and hand when the bullet hit him in the side of his buttocks. This is consistent with the testimony of the agents that they saw Aldrete-Davila pointing something back at them which they believed to be a gun.

Moreover, why would Ramos or Compean have any reason to believe Aldrete-Davila was hit by any of their shots? From the testimony at the trial, Aldrete-Davila got across the Rio Grande and disappeared into the tall, thick brush along the river. A short time later, Border Patrol agents observed Aldrete-Davila running across the dry river bed where he jumped into a waiting vehicle with two other suspects.

Yet, from the get-go, Sutton cleverly reframed the issue to bias the trial in the government's favor. This was the point of charging Ramos and Compean inappropriately under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The statute presumes those charged, namely Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, were involved in the commission of a crime when they fired their weapons. This is totally inaccurate and misleading given the facts of the case. Yet, the presumption of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) – that criminal behavior was already being conducted by the accused, appears precisely suited to the impression Sutton wanted to create. The criminals here, according to Sutton, are the law enforcement officers. Every presumption Sutton made was sympathetic to the drug dealer in this case.

If any criminal action were ever to be brought in this issue, an unbiased prosecutor would have brought charges accusing the Border Patrol defendants of discharging their weapons inappropriately under the provisions of the INS Firearms Policy, not for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The suggestion in the indictment itself was that the Border Patrol agents were somehow already criminals when they fired their weapons.

By charging the agents under an inappropriate statute, prosecutor Sutton focused the inquiry on the supposed criminal behavior of the agents, rather than on the narrow issue of whether the Border Patrol agents had reasonable cause to believe the fleeing suspect was a drug-smuggling criminal who most likely did have a concealed weapon on his person.

There is nothing in this case, except the subtle presumption framed by the indictment, to suggest that Aldrete-Davila was anything but a criminal perpetrator. How can anyone fail to notice that the U.S. Attorney's office has in this case managed to transform a drug-smuggling perpetrator into the victim, and two border patrol agent into criminals?

We should also note that one reason the prison terms of 11 and 12 years served up to Ramos and Compean respectively seem excessively harsh is because 10 years is the mandatory prison term attached to violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c),. This is the added penalty which the legislators who wrote 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) felt anyone already committing a serious crime, such as drug smuggling or rape, should have to pay as an add-on for the additional offense of carrying or discharging a firearm in the commission of the drug smuggling offense or rape. In other words, the excessive jail terms given Ramos and Compean is additional evidence that prosecutor Sutton brought the indictments under an inappropriate statute

That Sutton was drawn to the presumption that the Border Patrol agents in this case were the bad guys, and weighs heavily upon the credibility of the Bush administration to be serious about protecting U.S. citizens by securing our border. I strongly believe that with Ramos and Compean in prison, U.S. Attorney Sutton has given Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila the upper hand in suing the Border Patrol for $4 million for violating his civil rights.

If Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a drug smuggling ''dirt bag'' from Mexico, ends up being rewarded $4 million while Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean are in federal prison, I believe President George W. Bush will once and for all lose the sympathy and credibility of the American people on the issue of border security.

One could then rightly conclude that George W. Bush has always had only one intention and that is to do anything necessary to force another ''guest-worker amnesty'' down the throat of the American people. This is the bill the Bush administration supported in the 109th Congress and it is the bill we suspect the Bush administration will force once more in the 110th Congress.

Meanwhile, the clever attorneys for Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila will be preparing to sue by calling the U.S. Attorney's office forward to testify as they pursue their client's claim for damages against the falsely convicted and imprisoned Border Patrol agents.

de Andréa

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Has Our Government Gone Absolutely Crazy???

New York Times April 21, 1943
The American people have elected two Nazi Senators to the U.S. Congress and one of them may run for President of the United States. Several American Cities have elected Japanese Mayors. U.S. school children are taught Nazism and to say Hail Hitler, many are taking Tokkotia pilot training, also known as Kamikaze.

By de Andréa

This of course did not happen in 1943. Why? Because in 1943, we were at war with the German Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists, and it would have been absolutely insane to allow this to happen then. However today it seems it is a different story, it would appear that we have lost our ability to think rationally and today we have in fact, gone blindly insane.

Our enemy, the Nation of Islam, obviously cannot win a war against the U.S. in the conventional way, Might against Might. Instead they have made this a war of Brains against Braun. Moreover our enemy apparently has all the brains and is stealthily winning this war by Government and societal infiltration, as well as Politically Correct Islamic Indoctrination.

Even after a vicious attack on this country on 911 and the subsequent war against Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq; our enemy, the Nation of Islam, has intelligently and deceptively managed to infiltrate this entire nation, and by using our own rights, freedom, and laws against us, has surreptitiously convinced the American Government and the populace into accepting them as our peaceful warm fuzzy friends here at home and in Europe, while they commit murder, make war, and terrorize the rest of the world.

Islam is the only religion that is allowed to be taught in our public schools, if it is being taught correctly, then our children are being indoctrinated with the agenda in the Quran which is world subjugation to Islamic law, and the mandatory conversion of all people to the religion of Islam.

Moreover we allow the brainwashing of our U.S. Security Departments such as the Airport security, Home Land Security, U.S. Customs etc. with Islamic sensitivity indoctrination, and we use CAIR, a known Terrorist organization whose leader has vowed to bring the U.S. under the control of Islamic law, to carry out this training of our security agencies. This of course is the deceptive fox, brainwashing the chickens, with I am your moderate warm fuzzy friendly fox routine, and you can trust me.

Just as in the opening Headline we do now in fact have two Islamic Senators in our Congress; one of them is planning to run for President of these United States in 2008. No, this could not have happened in 1943, because in 1943 we still believed in Liberty, Freedom, Capitalism, and a Constitutional Republic. Moreover we loved this country enough to put Germans and Japanese in internment camps until the war was over because we were fighting for our very existence and we knew that we could not take the chance that some of these people might be our enemy, Nazi or Japanese imperialists.

The question that is burning to be asked of our administration is: Have we become so intelligent as to be able to tell whether or not any of OUR MUSLIMS are, or are not, part and parcel of the Islamic agenda to conquer and subjugate the entire world under Islamic law? Have we become so intelligent that for the first time we can totally ignore history, all rational, and the obvious, and rely on some kind of super developed sense that we can tell a so-called good and peaceful Muslim from a bad deceptive Muslim? Or is it that we have become so blindly stupid and Politically Correct and brainwashed so as to be systematically and cleverly deceived to the point of putting the very people that we are at war with, in charge of our country? Is it just possible that we have been so cleverly deceived that we have blindly played right in to the hands of this enemy who wants nothing less, but to destroy and or conquer this country and its people?

THE BOTTOM LINE: The headline at the beginning of this article that would have been considered insane in 1943 is in fact the headline of today, it is just at a different time, and with a different and even more dangers enemy.

de Andréa
A little history on the next President of the Islamic States of America, Barak Hussein Obama

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Alien Healthcare

California to pay the health care for the rest of the world
By de Andréa

Sound bazaar? Of course it’s bazaar, but it is nevertheless true. All that the rest of the people in the world need to do, is to walk right into this Country and State, (it is illegal to stop them), and then they can sign up for the Governors new Free State healthcare program.

No, you cannot, because you must pay the Healthcare for these criminal alien invaders. How much is your health care coasting you? 1000.00 per month, 500.00 per month, 300.00 per month, maybe 100.00 per month. What ever you pay, apparently it is not enough.

Governor Schwarzenegger wants you also to pay the cost of Health care for the criminals illegally invading this Country and State, as well as your own family. This, so who ever feels like waltzing in to this Country and State can not only blow you up, or burglarize your house and get away with it, but now they can have free health care as well, and at your expense. In other words they are going to rob you one way or the other.

Whatever it is, that you are now paying, you can plan on paying an increase of 30 to 150 % or more, depending on how many people in the world try to cram themselves onto the state of California. As easy as it is to walk into this country and get on the social dole, I don’t understand why there isn’t a mass exodus from Mexico and the middle east and everywhere else in the world to sign on the doted line and get free medical care, free or reduced college tuition, welfare for all the cousins, aunts and uncles and more, and more to come. None of these privileges are available to US citizens, only if one is a criminal illegal alien invader.

Also, if they get arrested for anything they simply give a phony name and just say that they are illegal, they get sent back to their point of origin only to return under their real name with all their previously acquired illegal paper work and they are scot-free.
If our government keeps this up, soon there may be a mass exodus out of this country by citizens only to return speaking either Arabic or Spanish, wearing a towel or a sombrero, sporting either a beard or a handlebar mustache, carrying a bomb or a pistola, with either a prayer rug or a blanket, all claiming to be illegal aliens themselves just to be eligible to receive all the benefits not afforded legal citizens, then one can't help but wonder who will pay for all these freebie benefits, maybe Arnold???

THE BOTTOM LINE: Better get use to it folks; it’s the wave of the future. Unless of course one would get ones potatoes up off of ones couch and contact the Governor and ones State, senator, and assembly member, and raise hell. Join a march on Sacramento, or whatever. On the outher hand, one can choose just to sit by ones pool, sip ones mint juleps, and get what one deserves, a Socialistic State, overrun by criminal foreign invaders and all paid for by yaall.

Cheers, de Andréa
P.S. Or this may be all part and parcel of the New American Union. What I always say, if the piece of the puzzle fits, and adds to the rest of the picture; use it.

Saturday, January 13, 2007


By de Andréa

Omar Ahmad the founder of CAIR says that the agenda of Islam is to eventually rule America and the world
In 1998 Omar Ahmad founder of CAIR Council on American-Islamic Relations a known Islamic terrorist extremist organization, asserted that Islam must one day dominate the U.S. and the world.

Muslim sensitivity training for U.S. Airport Security workers as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Officers will be handled by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

We have elected a Senator from the terrorist Nation of Islam, just like the so-called democratic Government of Lebanon has; next on the Islamic agenda is to elect a warm fuzzy Muslim Imam, to the U.S. Presidency.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI Counterterrorism Chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Moreover, several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges. It is just a matter of time before they all are found to be terrorists only to be replaced by more terrorists.

This is further proof that the Bush administration and the people of this country for that matter still haven’t a clue, just who the Nation of Islam really is, or their agenda. This is yet another case of the fox to guard; - no, in this case to indoctrinate the chickens that the fox is really a good guy, and only has the best interest of American citizens in mind. The following is just another step toward the Islamic agenda of the stealth invasion, infiltration, and eventual conquest of America.

The Transportation Security Administration TSA, was created after 9/11 to safeguard America's airports, and is now providing Islamic sensitivity training to 45,000 airport security officers so they'll know what to expect when Muslims fly from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia to participate in the “hajj," the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.

"We are putting out information telling everyone that hajj is coming;” TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser told the State Department's USINFO Web site Tuesday. Calling it "cultural sensitivity training," Kayser added that airport security officials need "just to be aware that they may be praying.” Ironically, in November of 2006, six Muslim Imams were ejected by federal authorities from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis because they were deemed a potential security threat. Among the various behaviors that unnerved fellow passengers was the group's prayers in the airport prior to their flight, similar to the Muslim terrorists in the New York airport just before they flew the planes into the twin towers on 911.

Advising TSA's Islamic sensitivity training is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which describes itself as "America's largest Islamic civil liberties group.” In a press release praising the program, CAIR noted that it distributes a pocket guide titled "Your Rights as a Muslim airline passenger in America," the CAIR guide states, "you are entitled to courteous, respectful, and non-stigmatizing treatment by airline and security personnel. You have the right to complain about treatment that you believe is discriminatory."

The press release also quoted the group's Communications Director, Ibrahim Hooper, as saying CAIR representatives nationwide have met with not only the TSA, but also the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection officials on "issues related to cultural sensitivity and national security.” CAIR has developed a wide-ranging advisory and teaching relationship with the U.S. Government on the subject of protecting Muslim interests. This should cause one to wonder about American interests.

Last June a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington D.C. personally guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago’s O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

During the June airport tour, CAIR was taken on a walk through the point-of-entry, Customs stations, secondary screening, and interview rooms. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents were asked to describe for CAIR representatives various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system. Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol's executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents the lie that Muslims believe jihad is an "internal struggle against sin" and not a holy-war.

Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O'Hare said that they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11. As, the Department of Homeland Security invites CAIR itself to conduct sensitivity training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and supervisors (CBP's counterparts) in Chicago. The course is taught by local CAIR officials Christina Abraham and Mariyam Hessian. More than 30 ICE staffers have gone through the CAIR awareness program so far.

CAIR – which is bankrolled by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, two countries that recognize the Taliban – also offers religious and cultural sensitivity training about Islam and Muslims to the military. In June, for example, CAIR trained more than 300 military personnel at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona. Also in June, CAIR was invited by the Pentagon to a ceremony dedicating the first Islamic center in Marine Corps history at Quantico headquarters outside of Washington.

Washington-based CAIR also has regular meetings with the FBI and Justice Department. In fact, FBI case agents complain the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board. CAIR in the past has cried racism and bigotry when the bureau has moved unilaterally with investigations and raids in the community.

CAIR has also been dogged by the statements of Omar Ahmad, as reported by a California newspaper, that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," and, "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Although the publisher and the reporter stand by the quotes, Ahmad and CAIR dispute their accuracy.

THE BOTTOM LINE: I sure feel safer now, knowing that an Islamic terrorist infiltration organization is in charge of Airport Security, Immigration, Customs and Military training, aren’t you??? Have you had your group hug with a worm fuzzy neighborhood Muslim today? If not, you still may have a little time yet to practice. You may need it because if America continues to travel in this direction they will soon be your executioners or worse yet, your masters and slave-lords.

de Andréa

Thursday, January 11, 2007


By de Andréa
The mistake Westerners often make when they think about Islam is that they superimpose their own views of religion onto something decidedly outside Western culture and Christian tradition.

Because violence done in the name of God is "extreme" from a Western/Christian point of view, one imagines that it must be also be extreme from an Islamic one.

But unlike Christianity, which recognizes a separate sphere for secular politics ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"), Islam does not distinguished between faith and power.

Islam is in fact an expansionary social and political system more akin to National Socialism and Communism than any "religion" familiar to Westerners. Islamic politics is inevitably an all-or-nothing affair in which the stakes are to convert to Islam or be killed, and the aim is to not to beat one’s opponent at the ballot box but to destroy him literally, as well as politically, and to enslave the world in conquest.

One must; if only for a moment step aside if possible, from ones Christian culture to see Islam for what it really is, rather than filter it through Christian eyes. It is natural to process reality from ones own intellectual and cultural background, however to comprehend the inconceivable agenda of Islam is to conceive of the unthinkable.

THE BOTTOM LINE: While Christianity is doctrinally concerned primarily with the salvation of souls, Islam seeks to remake the world in its image. According to orthodox Islam, Sharia law, the codified commandments of the Quran and precedents of the Prophet Muhammad, it is the only legitimate basis of government.
The West must soon become cognizant of what it took the Crusaders 300 years to comprehend about Islam. This is that Islam has a one track agenda to conquer or take control of all governments either by infiltration or by force. Moreover they will not ever abandon this quest for world domination as long as there is at least one Muslim alive.

de Andréa

Sunday, January 07, 2007

The Debilitating Philosophy of the Democrat Party

A Lesson In History

By de Andréa

If Freedom was threatened by defeat, the Democrats would run from the challenge of defence. They would much prefer "accommodations", negotiations, compromises, and apologies for their own actions.

Given a chance to defeat communism the Democrats wanted detente. They much prefer the Sandinistas in Nicaragua to political freedom. They love the dictatorship in China and hate the free nation of Taiwan. Jimmy Carter, and Michael Moore, prefer the Islamic Hezbollah Terrorists or any Muslim terrorists for that matter, over Israel.

Is it any wonder that the Democrats under Clinton tried to destroy the American military? They hate a free America, regardless of their words, look at their actions. For proof the Democrats hate Democracy, freedom, liberty and the like, just ask the enslaved people of Vietnam about the Democrats policies. Who will pay for the millions of Viet citizens that have been killed and enslaved by the vicious Hanoi government, the Democrats?

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, by betraying the Iraqis especially the Kurds who supported us, and rewarding our enemies exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese.

Liberals and G.I. Jane Fonda spent the entire Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and praying for America’s defeat, a tradition they have regurgitated for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Chinese and Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Muslim terrorist killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents and freedom fighters.” Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Muslim terrorists in Iraq, to the Minute Men of the American Revolution in our fight for freedom and independence.

After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam and President Johnson blindly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office; in 1969, Nixon a Republican became president and the world was safe again.

Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia — all actions hysterically denounced by American liberal Democrats, eager for the communists to defeat America.

Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the new brainwashed Generation of liberal flower children, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnam and the Communist Vietcong, Nixon’s Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against "peace" candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.

In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace talks, which would have ended the war with honor. But in order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon compromised with the liberals and agreed to jamming lousy terms down the South Vietnamese throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.

It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate," the corpus-delicti of which wouldn’t have merited a Columnist to fill his ink pen during the Clinton years, much less a threat of impeachment, but they hounded Nixon out of office. I wonder how Sandy Berger is weathering that painful wrist-slap, after accidentally filling his sox and his pants full of Clinton damaging classified documents and then shredding them, also by accident.

Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democrat Party. In lieu of the old Democrat Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naiveté, the new Democrat Party would lose wars on purpose. Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected; North Vietnam again attacked the South.

Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America’s word would be worth nothing, moreover, we would pay for it in the future. As Ford said, "American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.” He pleaded repeatedly with the Democrat Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam — no troops, just arms and food.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally, and trashed America’s word. Within a month of Ford’s last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell, and has now been renamed Ho Chi Minh City in honor of the Democrat hero.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever the liberal Democrats come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast, that one of their own, (Peacenik Sen. George McGovern) called for military intervention to stop a "clear case of genocide" in Cambodia.

Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaida boosts flagging the morale of its jihadist by reminding them of America’s humiliating retreat from Vietnam, moreover, we did nothing; as we did nothing about any of the following attacks by Islam on the U.S. including the first attack on the Twin Towers, Islam was now on a roll, so they simply finished the job on 911.

But Islam made a big mistake they attacked during a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President. With the support of the American people, and after licking our wounds, the Democrats looked on in terror as they reluctantly gave their support which they later squirmed out of, while President Bush readied the military. One would have thought Bush was going to Nuke the Middle East, looking back on it now, he should have. The Democrats on the other hand were hoping the U.N. would make the Arabs apologize or something, and politely ask Osama, so as to not make him angry, to not to do that again, please.

THE BOTTOM LINE: When Israel destroys Iran’s ability to build an atomic bomb, which they will; the Democrats will condemn Israel for protecting them selves from annihilation. I think the democrats would run from protecting themselves from their own annihilation, oh no, that would be too good to be true.

de andrea

Thursday, January 04, 2007


By de Andréa

On February 17, 2005 two U.S. border patrol agents in Fabens Texas followed an obviously heavily loaded Van with Mexican plates down a country road running parallel to the Mexican border until the van slid off of the road and into a canal. What ensued would not only result in the two border patrol agents being sued by a known Mexican drug smuggler with the aid of the Department of Justice but they would each be rewarded with 10 years in a federal penitentiary.

Ignacio Ramos, a highly decorated U.S. Federal Border Patrol Agent and his partner Jose Compean, left their vehicles when the suspicious Van nearly went into the canal. Compean gave chase as the suspect crossed the canal, after witnessing a brief struggle and hearing gun shots, Ramos also gave chase. Seeing his partner on the ground, and the suspect fleeing, Ramos yelled for the suspect to stop. The suspect turned and pointed a gun at Ramos, Ramos then fired his own gun at the suspect, the suspect turned and ran for the border; Ramos then went to help his partner Compean.

On January 17, 2007 Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean will enter a Federal Penitentiary to spend the next 10 years locked up and away from their wives and young children for doing the job that they were hired and trained to do.

One might think that there must be more to the story that this, In digging a little deeper I discovered that, yes there is: The drug smuggler had a bullet removed from his derriere, it went in one side of his buttock and into the other, typifying the turned position he was in while he was pointing a gun at agent Ramos. The drug smuggler even though he was already wanted for a previous crime of smuggling over 1000 lbs of marijuana into the U.S. was promised immunity if he would return to the U.S. and testify against the two agents for civil liberties violations and assault with a deadly weapon charges.

Not that it holds any significance but the van in the canal contained over 800 lbs of Marijuana as well as, since all this took place, the same drug smuggler was caught an subsequently let go, for again smuggling Marijuana from Mexico into the U.S.

If that is not enough to cause one to want to join the Citizens Militia - the Minute Men down on the border doing the Governments job for them, then read on… The U.S. Department of Justice (Injustice might be more appropriate) is aiding this poor illegal Mexican drug smuggling criminal in a suite against the U.S. Border Patrol and the department of Home Security for 500,000.00, yes that is a half a million good ole American dollars. Probably pocket change for one who smuggles illegal drugs into the U.S. on a regular bases with the blessings of the Department of Justice.

When this sort of scenario happened to a Mr. Tony Martin in merry old England a few years ago I wrote an article about it and said that it wouldn’t be long before a similar thing happened here in the U.S. I just didn’t think it would be this soon, and not against just a citizen but one who is hired to protect this country from a foreign invasion of illegal aliens and drugs.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the Justice System in America is going the way of European or possibly even a third world type of justice, something that so closely resembles tyranny it is hard to find a difference anymore.

The worst part of this is that I have the sinking feeling, that this, like Waco and Ruby Ridge will just be swept under the proverbial carpet, (it must be getting rather dirty under there) this in spite of the fact that there are over a quarter million petitions about this injustice, floating around to all kinds of departments in the Government including the Whitehouse without any response.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Some people are a-gassed at this, some don’t believe it. Some like yours truly think it just typifies the direction that this Government of ours is going. I would expect to see more of this kind of totalitarian justice in America in the near future. One should expect this when one has a Supreme Court that makes decisions based on foreign law, instead ones own Constitution.

Moreover, if one will just sit around on ones fat derriere and sip ones Mint Juleps instead of doing something about it, then one deserves a country that practices tyranny of this kind. If Justice and Liberty aren’t worth fighting for then they surely aren’t deserved. If one would want to sign one of these petitions please click here:
For more Information and some video interviews and press releases click hear:


By de Andréa

If our electorates were cognizant of the contents of this article, and more importantly cared enough about it to put it back into practice, it would turn this country around and put it back on its original vestige of the aegises of liberty. Moreover, the future of this Free Nation may just be preserved for our grandchildren, and future generations.

I am going to wax a little philosophical now, so bear with me please.

The only purpose of law in a Free Nation is to protect our God given inalienable rights. There are no gray areas. If a law does not protect a right of a free citizen, it then infringes upon it, and has no place in a free society. Not so long ago, this was the goal of the Constitutional Architects of America. However, because of the bane incremental destruction of our Constitutional rights by our own Federal, State, and Local governments, the Architects would not even recognize this Nation today as their own design.

We have a Congress with an insatiable need to pass laws, any law, especially if it restricts something, controls someone, or takes something away from someone. It has become a tool of power instead of protection. Moreover, a Supreme Court that has blatantly violated the very Constitution that it is charged with protecting, instead it is illegally legislating unconstitutional laws from the bench, as opposed to doing its definitive job of upholding Constitutional Law and protecting the rights of free citizens.

“Any law that violates Constitutional Law is no law and should not be enforced by any law enforcement officer or upheld by any court,” John Jay 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, (1789). “All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) An incredible contrast to what we have today, our Supreme Court is making rulings that are blatantly in violation of the Constitutional rights of all U.S. citizens.

The existence of a people and or property precedes the existence of law, so the function of law is only to guarantee their protection. Law requires the use of force, and consequently should be used only where force is necessary to protect the rights and property of a free people. This is justice and the purpose of law.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason, that the collective force may lawfully be used, which is only the organized combination of individual forces, and cannot legitimately be used for any other purpose. Law is solely the organization of the individual rights of self-defense, which preceded the existence of law.

The legislator does not have absolute power over persons or their property; the existence of persons or property preceded the existence of the legislator and so his function is only to protect their safety. It is not the purpose of law to regulate our thoughts, wills, beliefs, education, religion, opinions, businesses, or pleasures, or any God given right. The purpose of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to seek legal punishment of any person or organization that interferes with the exercising of these rights.

Another misconception is that the purpose of law is the prevention of crime, the truth is, that law is not meant to prevent crime at all, it only defines the wrongdoing. One might believe the concept of more laws less crime, if that were true we would not have crime in this country at all. We have more laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances, Local State and Federal on the books in The U.S. than the rest of the world combined. In fact, the opposite is true, if there were no law, there could not be any crime, because without law we would not define the action as a crime. This does not mean however, that there would be no wrongdoing.

In a free society, one should be able to do anything one would wish to do, hence the meaning of freedom, and to be liberated. If one cannot, one should question whether one truly lives in a Free State. Of course, there is always the proverbial exception. In this case, one should consult the basic law of freedom, what without all freedom would self-destruct through chaos. The law of freedom says that in a Free State one can do anything one wants to do unless, it encroaches, infringes, or denies another person their freedom to exercise their rights. If our legislators would use this basic law as a guide for all laws, we certainly would not be sailing off into an oppressive society.

One only needs to ask the question. Is our system of law and government still effectively doing its definitive job of protecting our inalienable rights? Or, are our elected legislators and appointed Judges using their power to incrementally and diametrically dismantle the original design and philosophy of what the architects worked so diligently to construct? Have we reached, or will we soon reach the point in our history where we will have to say to ourselves, America may still be a free nation by comparison, but it is no longer definitively a free nation.


The Constitutional Architects of America were not irrational extremists or a product of ancient times that are not relevant in today’s world. Quite the contrary, these Pre-American patriots were philosophical Idealists that not only had the ability to understand history but had the foresight to document the establishment of a society that would be protected from the reprise of the past, for all the rest of time.

The documentation of ones rights was to serve as a permanent reminder that this is a Free Nation, unique in everyway; moreover, it was to establish our own history of protected liberty by putting pen to paper. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be a temporary philosophical essay.

The incremental disestablishment of America’s rights not only leads to crime and chaos but will ultimately pilot this liberated Nation back into oppression and tyranny. We will have come full circle in our history, all because we have lost sight of our history, and the purpose and philosophy of law.

The irresponsibility of the Citizenry of this Country to abandon the legislators to seek their own direction in government, is leading to an ever increasing cogency of the perversion that takes place when a government is left up to its own volition.

This Country, according to the documentation of our Forefathers was, and is unlike any country on this earth, to be a government by, and for the Free People of this Nation, but it is sadly moving surreptitiously toward a Governmental power, independent of the people.

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of law is only to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens. I challenge anyone to point to a law that was passed by our electorate in the in the previous 100 years that meets that criteria. That is, any law that upholds supports and or strengthens our rights, liberty, and freedom. If one cannot be found, this means that every piece of legislation that has been signed into law in the passed 100 years has been to restrict disable or to totally defeat our God given rights of freedom and liberty. How many rights do you think we have left, before we can no longer call ourselves a Free and liberated Nation?

THE BOTTOM LINE: The most basic right we have as human beings is the right of self defence. The preservation of one own life is not only a basic human right but is a basic human instinct. The new philosophy of the liberal left is to create a dependent society, one in which the citizens will learn to depend on government for ones every need, no matter what the cost, even if it is at the expense of freedom and demise of innocent human lives.

de Andréa

Tuesday, January 02, 2007


On the Road Back to Tyranny

By de Andréa

Within the first 100 hours of the new democrat congress Nancy Pelosi plans to do away with what is left of the First Amendment.

If one can remember in 2002 HR 2356 the Mc Cain Feingold bill gutted a large part of the First Amendment. It among other things prohibited any Radio or TV reports about any candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

In reading history one will discover that the main reason for the adoption of the First Amendment was for political unrestricted free speech, it was so any citizen or group of citizens could say anything to, or about anyone in, or running for a Government office without fear of reprisal. The McCain Feingold bill upheld by our anti-Constitutional Supreme Court took a very big bite out of our political free speech.

The Pelosi bill is actually an attachment to another bill to make it easier for the rest of congress to swallow or to make it more difficult to detect, or both.

This bill begins with legislation to further curb political lobbyist, however, mixed up in the bill are sections that will prevent political watch dog groups from encouraging citizens to contact their representatives regarding political issues or pending legislation. This free contact with congress being at the very foundation of the original purpose of the First Amendment, this is the final bite out of the real purpose and intent of the First Amendment.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The erosion of our Constitution by this liberal Government will now be protected by the same liberal Government that has been incrementally and surreptitiously destroying our liberty, freedom, and God given rights. Put another way, our electorate will now be able to run the Government unabated and without the knowledge and interference from the real Government; THE PEOPLE!

de Andréa