I Can't Keep My Mouth Shut

Why Can't Boys be Boys?

2009-09-03T17:15:00.003-07:00

For my daughter's third Christmas, she received a trunk of Disney princess dress up clothes. She has really enjoyed this present. Interestingly enough, her nearly two-year-old brother enjoys dressing up in the princess outfits as well. We decided, after one too many times spent fastening him into the Snow White outfit, he needed his own, more masculine dress up clothes.

So, I started to look around. While the Disney princess trunk was only about $20, I have been hard pressed to find him a single boy's outfit for less than that. Granted, y daughter's dress up clothes are not the highest quality, but what does it matter? These little outfits get strew all over the room, trampled on and eventually stuffed back into the cardboard trunk. I'm not looking for miniaturized regulation firemen and police uniforms. I'm looking for cheap, fun costumes for my son to play with.

I think the problem here is simple. Our society has spent so much time in the past 40 years making sure girls are secure in their identities and fostering their need for pretend play that we've forgotten all about our little boys. They are getting lost in the shuffle of making sure girls know they are important.

Because the pricing on dress up clothes for boys is so outrageous (I found a boys dress up trunk for $75. The girls trunk of similar items was only $50. Explain that to me.) a lot of parent aren't able to provide more than one costume for their sons. I think the lack of encouragement for male imagination explains the high level of their involvement with video/computer games. And let's be honest, you don't have to actually have an imagination to be good at a video game.

So, your little girl wants to dress up as a princess? No problem. But if your little boy wants to be a soldier, a pirate, a prince...shell out the big bucks. Boys just aren't important enough...and that's pretty sad.

No Lobotomy for My Daughter

2009-09-02T11:48:00.005-07:00

On September 8, 2009, BHO will make an address to our nation's students. This address is likely to be shown in every classroom, in every school, in every city, in every state. So far, the reports about the contents of the actual message are sketchy. He may be encouraging the children to do well in school. Or, he may be encouraging children to be good citizens. And that's where I have a problem.

BHO's idea of being a good citizen is in direct opposition to every thing I teach my kids. I teach my kids to work hard for themselves and their families. I teach them to be accountable for their own actions and to understand that an apology will not get you out of serving a punishment. I teach my kids to be respectful of adults and to consider the future implications of their actions today.

BHO says we should pledge to help others and not ourselves (probably because if we don't help ourselves we can always expect someone else to do it). We should not be held accountable for our past actions. Indeed, we can be friends with or students of people with the most vile beliefs, beliefs that are poisonous to the United States of America and that's just fine. BHO says it is not fair if you work hard for yourself and your family if you do not provide for those who are too lazy to educate themselves or provide for their families through gainful employment. He is disrespectful of any person who deigns to disagree with him and he refuses to consider the pending disaster of his "reforms."

When I heard about the impending address to the students, I wondered about the content. It is incumbent that I teach my children to respect the office of the presidency. But I do not have to teach my children to respect the person holding that office. When I heard about the Department of Education's classroom activities for before, during, and after the address, I knew it was extremely important to protect my kindergartner from this type of indoctrination.

She will already be subject to indoctrination on topics like the environment, historical rewriting, and religion. And that will just be in the course of a normal school day. But I absolutely will not tolerate this special sort of brainwashing.

The following was taken from the Department of Education's website:

PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education

September 8, 2009

Before the Speech:

· Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:

Who is the President of the United States?

What do you think it takes to be President?

To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?

Why do you think he wants to speak to you?

What do you think he will say to you?

· Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.

· Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

During the Speech:

· As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

What is the President trying to tell me?

What is the President asking me to do?

What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

· Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

· Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

After the Speech:

· Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.

· Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

What do you think the President wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything?

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

What would you like to tell the President?

Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students

· Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.

· Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

· Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.

· Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community.

· Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.

· Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays.

· Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

· Graph student progress toward goals.

I considered making comments throughout this list in red, but it just wouldn't show up through the red I'm seeing. Probably my number one biggest problem is requiring students to write down how they can support the president and to make them accountable to these things later. If an older student said, "I promise to work hard to educate myself so I can have a good job and support my family in the future so the president will stay out of my business," would that fly? Probably not with many teachers. And that's a problem.

I don't know much about my daughter's teacher. I don't know how she would react to my daughter pointing at the television screen and saying, "I don't like that man," when BHO pops up, the same way she does at home when I'm watching the news. But if her teacher is planning to show the address and use the Department of Education's guidelines, well, there will be at least one student missing from her class that day. And her note, excusing her absence, will say that her parents refuse to allow her to undergo this sort of underhanded politicizing in kindergarten. When she is able to stand up for herself and the values we are instilling in her, we will be proud to have her participate in something like this. And even take a zero when the teacher doesn't approve of her reaction.

So, to BHO and the lousy Department of Education I say, "Get your fingers out of my kids' brains."

Cooking Too Fast

2009-09-01T18:08:00.005-07:00

Tonight, I was cooking my grandmother’s special meatballs with gravy and noticed I was doing something wrong. While I was shaping the meatballs and dropping them into the hot pan, a wonderful smell was wafting up. And I could hear a fantastic sizzling noise. Ahh. After all the meatballs were formed and in the pan, I started flipping the ones that had been in the butter (and a little olive oil to keep it from smoking) the longest. Dang it. I had the heat up too high and some of the meatballs are a little too brown. The good news is, the gravy will mask the problem. Wait. This sounds really familiar.

Oh, yeah. The health care plan. I think the heat is up a little too high on this thing. Someone is trying to get it done really fast. And that makes me pretty suspicious. After all, the first thing I do when something seems to cook too fast is cut it open and check out the inside.

Here’s what’s in there: (taken from Health Care Bill Summary From Peter Fleckenstein’s Twitter Account: http://twitter.com/fleckman July 24, 2009 | Peter Fleckenstein)

PG 22 MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

PG 24 Line 116 Government effectively sets prices for ALL private health plans.

PG 30 Line 123 THERE WILL BE A Government COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

PG 37 Line 132 The Government will be reviewing grievances about themselves and will decide on appeals for rejected claims.

PG 29 Line 4-16 YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!! Additionally you can reference PG 15 Line 19-25.

PG 42 The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HealthCare Benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 50 Line 152 HealthCare will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

PG 58 Government will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a National ID HealthCare Card will be issued!

PG 59 Line 21-24 Government will have direct access to your banks accounts for electronic funds transfer!

PG 61 Line 22-24 Congress has no clue what Electronic Medical Records will cost. Asks for estimate.

PG 62 Protection of Data, Government shows they will have database of your personal & financial info.

PG64 L 21-25, pg65 L 1-5 which refers to processing payment transactions by financial institutions

PG 65 Line 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).

PG 72 Line 8-14 Government is creating an HealthCare Exchange to bring private HealthCare plans under Government control.

PG 84 Line 203 Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private. HealthCare plans in the Exchange.

PG 85 Line 7 Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your HealthCare! #AARP members your Health care Will be rationed.

PG 89 Line 6-10 The FAR is not applicable. Government can write contracts any way they want.

PG 95 Line 8-18 The Gov. will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government HealthCare plan.

PG 98 Line 8 Americans - You will be paying for others HealthCare while paying for your own.

PG 100 Line 15-19 The Government Will be using ACORN and other community groups to promote & enroll.

PG 102 Line 12-18 Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

PG 109 Line 207 Health Trust Fund. The Government will raise taxes on EVERYONE to fund HealthCare as they see fit.

PG 110 Line 7-12 Employment taxes on ALL employers NOT offering Government HealthCare. No choice.

PG 110 Line 13-18 An excise tax on ALL goods from companies not offering Government HealthCare. ALL Americans pay.

PG 110 Line 19-24 the Treasury can take $$ from Soc Line to pay HealthCare.

PG 111 Line 208 The Federal Government will usurp all State powers in State Based HealthCare Exchange. Violation of 10th Amendment.

PG 119 Line 1-3 establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for public option Can you say ACORN census? PG 121 Line 223 PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES. Can you say Government price fixing & monopoly?

PG 124 Line 24-25 No company can sue Government on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Government Monopoly.

PG 126 Line 10-15 The Government can make up prices for anything at anytime for any reason.

PG 126 Line 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HealthCare for part time employees AND their families.

PG 127 Line 1-16 Doctors: The Government will tell YOU what you can make.

G 129 The public option will be subsidized. Credits = your tax dollars. Redistribution of wealth.

PG 130 Line 10-23 Federal Government will subsidize State Medicaid = Even Higher State & Federal taxes for ALL.

PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

PG 149 Line 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

PG 150 Line 9-13 Biz with payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

PG 151 Line 1-3 Aggregate Rules-tax on employers payroll not on public option include payroll of other biz.

PG 167 Line 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HealthCare according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of inc.

G 170 Line 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

PG 195 officers & employees of HealthCare Administration (Government) will have access to ALL Americans financial/personal records.

PG 198 Line 1-3 1.5% ADDITIONAL TAX on peeps who have

income of 500k to 1mil. Redistribution of Wealth.

PG 198 Line 4-6 5.4% ADDITIONAL TAX on peeps who have income of 1mil+. Redistribution of Wealth

PG 199 Line 1-4 Surtax rates on raised AGAIN on Americans in 2012.

they see fit to show savings. (Cooking the books)

PG 203 Line 14-15 “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.

PG 202-215 is a Government rewrite of the tax code ensuring more taxes for EVERYONE, Everywhere.

PG 239 Line 14-24 Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

PG 241 Line 6-8 Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

PG236 L22-25, 237 L1-3 National rate of uninsured defined by Census. Can you say ACORN corruption?

PG 239 Line 10-12 Medicare DSH payments will be increased. Can you say even higher taxes for all?

G 238-249 Line 1121 Doctors-Government mandates your growth, costs, value, services, & income. Welcome to rationing

PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans. We’re next.

PG 260 Line 1125 Fed Government will adjust Medicare Payment Localities for California based on Census. ACORN?

PG 265 Line 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HealthCare industries.

PG 268 Line 1141 Fed Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

PG 270 Line 1144 Government Mandates that all private ambulatory surgical centers submit cost data & other data

PG 272 Line 1145 TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

PG 276 Line 3-20 Oxygen Equipment & Supply Companies - Government MANDATES you will provide supplies NO MATTER where individual is.

PG 287 Line 14-25 PROOF that Government will ration HealthCare by mandating waiting periods for readmission. PG 298 Line 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission - Government will penalize you.

PG 303 Line 12-25 Post Acute Care Services Data – Government will collect data including personal information as they see fit.

PG 304 Line 17-19 BIG ONE HERE: Expedited Data Collection –

PG 304 Line 17-19 Government does NOT have to protect your private information, share with anyone, & is not resp Expedited Data Collection - Chapter 35 of Title 44 of USC SHALL NOT APPLY. Folks this gives the govt the right to access ur data any way the see fit. Here is link to the chapter: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00003501---- 000-.html Look at number 8 THE GOVT IS SAYING THAT THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THIS!!! (8) ensure that the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition of information by or for the Federal Government is consistent with applicable laws, including laws relating to— (A) privacy and confidentiality, including section 552a of title 5; (B) security of information, including section 11332 of title 40 [1] ; and (C) access to information, including section 552 of title 5;

PG 306 Line 3-6 The Government can expand the scope & size of Post Acute Program Services anytime & as they see fit.

PG 313 Line 9-14 Government MANDATES Health Services providers will state ownership, invest, & compensation arrangements.

PG 317 Line 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

PG 317-318 L 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand. PG 318-319 Government is mandating how hospitals & physicians conduct business & investments. We’re next! PG 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

PG 328 Line 1157 Government study disguised. Its a HealthCare workforce study mandated by law for unionization.

Pg335 L16-25,PG 336-339 Government mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HealthCare the way they want. Rationing.

PG 341 Line 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing into Government plan.

PG 354 Line 1177 Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

G 355-369 Line 1181 Government disguises tax on Drug Companies as rebate to Government to subsidize Drugs. We pay in the end.

PG 379 Line 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HealthCare by phone?

PG 399 If your a subsidy eligible individual under Medicare part D and you don’t enroll, the Government will auto enroll you.

PG 401 Section 1221 Americans will fund Medicare Language & Translation Services Program. Can you say MORE taxes?

PG 404 Lines 12-16 Government exempts itself again from - Chap 35 of title 44, USC including privacy of Americans. PG 404 Lines 17-19 Government doesn’t know the cost of Language services but states that money is there. PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life. PG 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

PG425 L22-25, 426 L1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.

PG 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.

PG 429 Lines 13-25 The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order. Logan’s Run anyone?

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

PG 432 Lines 18-21 The Government will publish “quality measures” for individual’s end of life in Federal Register.

PG 434 Section 1234 Military Active, Reservists, Families - If you’re not enrolled in Tricare it is mandated.

PG 434 Section 1234 Military Active, Reservists, Families - Once HealthCare bill is passed your premiums will go up.

PG 438 Section 1236 The Government will develop a patient decision making aid program that you & Dr. WILL use.

PG 443 Lines 7-24 Government at taxpayers expense test out an “Accountable Care Org” program (Government doesn’t have plan.)

PG 444 Lines 1-6 Government’s Accountable Care Program will mandate services & infrastructure thru reward/penalty system.

PG 448 Lines 4-17 Government will set performance targets for ALL Accountable Care Organizations including private.

PG 455 Lines 3-4 Government exempts itself from Chapter 35, Title 44 Paperwork Reduction & Citizens Privacy Protection Act

PG 460 Section 1302 Knock Knock - It’s the Government and I’m here with the Medical Home Program - YOUR home.

PG 460 Section 1302 The Government WILL provide medical services in your home. Paging Nurse Pelosi!!

PG 464 Lines 17-22 Independent Patient Center Home Medical Services - Drs. don’t have to be at your home just some directed by D

PG 469 Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED Organization - 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization Like ACORN?

PG 476 19-20 Chapter 35/ title 44, (Privacy of personal records) shall not apply Home Medical Services. ACORN ACCESS

PG 489 Section 1308 Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.

PG 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

PG 502 Section 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. - Hello Big Brother - Literally.

PG 502 Line 5-18 Government builds the “Center” to conduct, support, & synthesize research to define our HealthCare Services.

PG 503 Line 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.

PG 503 Line 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US including your data.

PG 504 Line 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)

PG 506 Line 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data

PG 518 Line 21-25 The Commission will have input from HealthCare consumer reps - Can you say unions & ACORN?

PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.

PG 525-620 deals with the Government basically taking over nursing homes, PGs 525-620 deals with the Govt basically taking over nursing homes,long-term care facilities (think assisted living) through regulations of the facilities, the owners of sd facilities, the employees of sd facilities and even the land owners of that sd facilities reside on. Additionally as you read these 90+ pages you can come to the conclusion that any Health related svcs will be determined and rationed by the Govt for our senior citizens and others in nursing homes. This one post should do enough to raise awareness of the control the Govt is exerting over the older population of American citizens.

PG 620 Line 1-9 The Government will define, prioritize, and nationalize your Health Care Services. PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what Quality means in HealthCare. Since when does Government know about quality?

PG 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the quality Standards Government will transfer $$ from to other Government Trust Funds. More Taxes.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.

G 628 Section 1443 Government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.

PG 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups including Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HealthCare quality.

PG 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of HealthCare Services as they see fit.

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.

PG 635 - 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision - Government wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Government.

PG 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections - Looks okay.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency - Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.

PG 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.

PG 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean the Government with an $18 mil website?

PGs 701-704 Section 1619 If your part of HealthCare plan that isn’t in Government HealthCare Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.

PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on HealthCare provider or supplier, Government can do background check.

G 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HealthCare providers/suppliers admittance into HealthCare Exchange.

Pg 719-720 Section 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.

PG 722 Section 1639 Government Mandates Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.

PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HealthCare service.

PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Government certifications will apply to medicaid & CHIP (your kids) Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement purposes, the Secretary of Health & Human Services will give Attorney General access to ALL data.

PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That’s your tax dollars peeps) Pg 757-762 Fed Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)

Page 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)

Pg 768 Section 1713 Government - Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks)

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Government Abortions anyone?

Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include-economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness.

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Government ABORTIONS anyone?

Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Say abortion & State Sovereign.

Pg 789-797 Government will set & mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs will brought to market. Bye innovation

Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for grad medical education. The government will now control Drs education. PG 801 Sec 1751 The Government will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. required to register. Government takes over private payment system.

Page 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal finances.

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.

PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

Pg 838-840 Government will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids.

PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes Government coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!

Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes thats Billion.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HealthCare for 2 years for part loan repayment.

PG 876-892 The Government takes over the education of our Medical students and Drs.

PG 898 The Government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. to ensure supply of public health professionals.

PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.

PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.

PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.

PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HealthCare Draft?

PG 910 The Government will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.

PG 913-914 Government starts a HealthCare affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HealthCare professionals.

Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative & Wellness Trust fund - intial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.

PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control You!!

PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?

PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Services, Minority Health, Women’s Health

PG 950- 980 BIG Government core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems; health information systems, etc

PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids wont have a chance.

PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say Government Brainwash!

PG 1001 The Government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

PG 1003 9-11 National Medical Dev Reg ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities” you WILL be tracked.

PG 1018 States give up some of their State Sovereignty.

Did you read it? The whole thing? Many of our representatives didn’t. So, let’s make sure our senators “cut it open” and take a look inside.

My thoughts on health care reform:

Fix Medicare.
Keep your hands off my medical records.
Private insurance IS a business. Accept it.
Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform.

One Big Family

2009-01-28T08:07:00.003-07:00

A few weeks ago, I received an email from a friend of a friend who wanted information about the Border Patrol. She was concerned with her boyfriend's sudden decision to change careers and leave a successful job as a salesman.

Some of her questions clued me in as to her main concern. $$$. She asked multiple questions, with a tone of disbelief, about the pay and how fast he could promote. I was pleased that the information he had given her was pretty accurate because it was clear that she did not believe him.

But then, she asked some unforgivable questions. She said that she had heard about a lot of bad agents in the patrol and a lack of loyalty. I could feel the adrenaline rushing as I considered her questions. As far as bad apple go, I explained, that of course, any time a corrupt agent was discovered it made the MSM. This is expected, after all, we're talking about federal law enforcement that should be above reproach. However, let's consider the size of the Border Patrol. The rate of corruption is pretty low for a "corporation" of this size. And, do we hear about every corrupt banker, teacher, grocery store clerk? Nope. They aren't held to the high standard of law enforcement officers. So, yeah, you're gonna read about some bad agents.

But a lack of loyalty is not a problem. I'm not even sure where she came up with this question. Last night on Homeland Security, USA, customs agents held a retirement dinner and benefit for a fellow agent who had been diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). Whether you're talking about Border Patrol, Customs, or ICE, this is how it is. We band together because we're a big family. That will never change.

If something happens to an agent (and I'm not just talking about agents who share a station) the hat is passed. When an agent was poisoned last year at a fast food restaurant, causing neurological damage, agents all over the US passed the hat and sent money to his family to help with his medical costs. When an agent's home was burglarized a few days before Christmas and all the presents stolen, the hat was passed, allowing that agent to replace all of the items taken and more. And when Nicholas Corbett was charged with murder for doing his job and defending his own life, agents filled the courtroom until no more could be admitted, backing up their brother in green.

This is a family. And that someone would question the loyalty in this agency just makes me see red.

The last thing I told the woman in my return email was more important that anything else. I told her that the Border Patrol is a tough job and the agents work hard. If she couldn't be 100% supportive of his job, then he should not go into the Patrol or they shouldn't continue the relationship. Agents work 10 hour + days. Do they really need to come home to a shrew? No. They need a loving wife (or husband) who understands that this job is a commitment, a lifestyle.

I hope that I gave this woman a lot of things to consider. And I hope that she shared my email with her boyfriend. Because if he really wants the job, he may have to reconsider who he shares his life with.

Good, Decent People?

2009-01-28T07:37:00.005-07:00

Last night, as I watched Homeland Security, USA, I was pleased to see agents from our station featured as the horse patrol apprehended a group of illegal aliens. Dove Haber, the female agent in this segment, is a close friend and one of my husband's colleagues. She talked about a female illegal alien who crossed with her three-year-old daughter. This is an all too common occurrence. In this case, it was lucky that the mother decided to remain with her child rather than leave her behind in an attempt to allude the agents. This brought to mind two things:

If a US citizen placed a child in such danger, or neglected to care for a child's safety or well-being, they would be charged with neglect or endangerment. However, an illegal alien will just be returned to Mexico (or wherever else they came from).

If a US citizen abandoned their child in the wilderness without care or concern for the child's well-being, he or she would certainly be arrested, the public would be outraged, and the child would likely not be returned to their parent.

Illegal aliens apparently have more rights than US citizens. They have the right to endanger their children, abandon them to pursue "the American dream" and neglect their well-being to the point of death from exposure to the elements. And the American public does not seem to be outraged at this.

If, perhaps, the MSM reported these types of situations, the public would protest this despicable behavior. But that isn't going to happen. Why? Because illegal aliens are good, normal people who are only trying to come here for work, to support their families, to change their lives.

But I don't think this kind of behavior is good, normal or acceptable. And I don't want more of the kind of people who would abandon their children in the hopes of continuing their pursuit of "the American Dream."*

Not surprisingly, the same people who are trying to convince us that illegal aliens are decent, hard-working people, are the same individuals that support abortion. So obviously, these are not people who care about the welfare of children in any case. These same people will defend a parent who kills their child by leaving the helpless being in a hot car for hours. There will never be a defense for that kind of neglect in my mind.

I'm not saying that all illegal aliens would abandon their children, obviously the show last night pointed out that they don't. But even then, consider that they are abusing their children. How many of you would drag your three-year-old out in the cold (I believe the segment was taped in February 2008), at night, for a 10 mile or more hike, wearing only jeans and a sweatshirt?

So why can't the federal government or local law enforcement charge these child abusers? It's the whole convoluted system. If they are charged, then CPS will likely get involved. And if CPS gets involved then the child will stay in the US. If the child stays in the US, it is possible that the parent (illegal alien) might eventually be allowed to come back legally. And I don't want that. Remember? These are not the kind of people I want coming to the US. We have enough child abusers here. We don't need to import them.

So, what's the answer? Don't ask me. I just wanted to rant.

*I am not talking about Safe Haven situations. I am a strong supporter of the Safe Haven movement and I don't care if you decide to give up a day old baby or a 13-year-old child. If you decide you can't, or don't want to care for your kids anymore, please, use a Safe Haven drop-off spot.

Econ 101

2009-01-24T21:55:00.002-07:00

I got this in my email and it was too good not to share:

Subject: Fw: Econ 101

From a teacher in the Nashville area

We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream."

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium.

Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and sixty percent of the people react like nine-year-olds. They want ice cream.

The other forty percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.

He Said What?!

2009-01-24T12:16:00.003-07:00

This past week, during a meeting with GOP leaders at the White House, BHO said, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Oh really? I get plenty of things done while listening to Rush.

And is it really any of BHO's business? Nope. Not yet at least. This may be the beginning of the end of freedom of speech, free expression of opposing opinions and the unification of conservative values.

The ironic thing here is that until it is no longer legally possible to tune into Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other conservative voices, proclamations like this from BHO will only strengthen the conservative movement. We will not be ordered to turn our backs on our values, on the wonderful things that the United States has stood for since its conception.

Brian Maloney, at Radio Equalizer said, "Beyond the absurdity of a Democrat barking orders at his political opposition, he's especially foolish to air his fear of Limbaugh and talk radio in a public setting. Now, what was long suspected by conservatives has been verified by the man himself.

The timing was no coincidence: after a rocky first week in office, the Obamists are also faced with a resurgent Fox News Channel, where ratings have been climbing since the moment he took office."

So, BHO is scared of Rush. Scared of conservatives. Scared the weak-minded people that voted for him may learn the truth and regret their decision. And if that happens, those same people may strengthen their minds by learning about the ideals and beliefs of conservatives. An if that happens, it would be much for difficult for BHO to complete his dream: dictator of the US with no term limits, no voice of opposition, no freedom, government-run EVERYTHING.

I know, I've got a few liberal friends who may be reading this and may be really ticked off, but I've gotta tell you. I just don't care anymore. Joining other conservatives and keeping our mouths shut, settling for mediocre, has landed us this president. A president that I won't get behind. I refuse. The last eight years, liberals have berated and disrespected the office of president. Why are conservatives not allowed the simple freedom to voice our opposition, to stand up for our beliefs, our ideal, the REAL America? You liberals have tried to shut us up and put us in our places for the last time. BHO is a mistake. You have no idea what a big can of worms you have opened up here. And maybe you'll never admit it. To that, I shrug. I DON'T CARE. I'm done being nice. I will not stand silent and allow him to destroy our country.

So, this morning, I decided it was time to look into podcast subscriptions for my favorite talk show hosts. Here's the breakdown:

Rush 24/7: $6.95/month He also offers yearly fees that include t-shirts, etc.
Laura 365: $5.95/month She also offers an annual membership.
HannityInsider: $5.95/month

Signing up for things like this is difficult for me. I don't like having my name on any lists because I am truly worried that someday, BHO and his special police will request this information. And my family will be in danger. I considered joining the NRA this year and decided not to. I don't want any more attention pulled towards my family's gun-ownership than necessary. But let me assure you. No one is taking my guns. No one. Is that a threat? No, consider it a dare.

Okay, I'm done. For now.

Freedom Finally: 03/20/09

2009-01-19T19:23:00.004-07:00

On his last full day in office President Bush commuted the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They are expected to leave prison on March 20, 2009. I think the following video says it all:

I would also like to say that Patty and Monica are so right. The fight is not over. Jose and Ignacio could still be pardoned. And I believe that both of these women would stand by their husbands if they chose to return to the Border Patrol. I am so proud of these strong women.

Congratulations! We will stand behind you all the way.

On the Lighter Side of Liberal Behavior

2009-01-01T10:12:00.003-07:00

Happy New Year! We are being treated to a "Speeders" marathon on TruTV today and I'm really enjoying the idiocy of these people.

Now, I'm not saying that I never speed. I speed every time I get on the highway. In town, I generally don't exceed the posted speed limit. The more people on the road around me, the safer I drive. But that isn't an excuse for my law-breaking out on the open road. And I can accept responsibility for my actions when I get caught. And I have been caught.

So, in watching these people argue with the police officers and denying they were either speeding or knew they were speeding, I am struck by something. The excuse-makers sound just like a typical liberal.

Here's an excerpt (in my own words because I didn't happen to make a transcript of the show):

Officer: Do you have a legal reason for going 57 in a 45?
Speeder: Oh, was I going that fast? Well, (motions to the Ferrari he's driving) this car just doesn't drive slow very well.
Officer: I can see how that might be a problem.

While the officer thinks about whether to give the driver a ticket, the speeder tells the camera that he's driving his boss's car while running errands. He says that his boss is going to be really mad. He doesn't care if his employees speed, but he doesn't like it when they get caught.

Officer: I wrote the ticket for 12 miles an hour over the posted speed. It's a safety issue.
Speeder: Okay. I'll try to slow down.

You don't try to slow down. You just do it. But as a typical liberal, this kid doesn't think it is his responsibility to obey the law. He only has to try the obey it. Hmmm. And when he gets caught, it isn't his fault. It's the car's fault. Once again, blaming things on inanimate objects like cars or guns, typical liberal behavior. Will they ever admit that the operator of these things is the responsible party?

Another example:

Officer: I pulled you over for speeding today, sir.
Speeder: What do you mean?
Officer: I got you on the radar going 53 in a 35.
Speeder: The speed limit is 55.
Officer: No, the speed limit is 35.
Speeder: It's 55.
Officer: No it isn't.
Speeder: Well, then, there aren't any signs.
Officer: Yes, there are. I check them every day before I write any tickets.
Speeder: I didn't see them.
Officer: License, registration and insurance, please.

While the officer writes the ticket, the speeder rants to the camera about how he is from out of town and doesn't think it is fair for him to get a ticket. I love that he tried to alter reality by insisting to the local cop that the speed limit was higher than posted. Some kind of liberal mind-trick. Didn't work.

Why try and make an excuse to a cop anyway? They hear excuses all the time. It's probably a breath of fresh air to pull someone over who is apologetic immediately. Will remorse get you out of a ticket? Maybe not. But at least you'll be honest and accept responsibility for your behavior.

So be honest. Accept responsibility. And have some grace. Don't act like a liberal in the new year!

Sanity Prevails ... Well, Kind Of.

2008-12-12T08:06:00.004-07:00

Yesterday, December 11, 2008, the Cochise County Attorney advised the media that Agent Nicholas Corbett would not be tried a third time. Here's the article from the Sierra Vista Herald, with my commentary.

Prosecutors won’t retry Corbett
But possibility of refiling charges in future remains
By Jonathon ShacatHerald/ReviewPublished/Last Modified on Friday, Dec 12, 2008 - 05:12:15 am MST

BISBEE — The Cochise County Attorney’s Office does not plan to continue to prosecute U.S. Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett for killing an illegal immigrant from Mexico in the desert near Naco last year. I still think this should be "persecute" rather than "prosecute."

During a trial in U.S. District Court in October and November, Judge David Bury declared a mistrial because jurors were unable to reach a verdict. Another trial resulted in the same outcome in February and March.

The prosecution is asking the court to dismiss the charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide in the death of Francisco Dominguez-Rivera. County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer could not be reached for comment on the matter because he is out of the country on vacation. That's really interesting, because I happened to be at the County Attorney's office yesterday at 3:30 and I swear I saw Rheinheimer with a whole gaggle of deputy county attorney's heading over to the courthouse for a verdict.

On Thursday, Doyle Johnstun, chief deputy county attorney, said the decision to dismiss the case was made based on the unlikelihood of getting a conviction due to the fact the two trials resulted in hung juries. I have always liked Doyle.

He pointed out the prosecution is seeking dismissal of the charges “without prejudice,” which basically leaves the case open. But not anymore. Although, it could be that was tasked with giving this bad news ... guess Rheinheimer was tired of the spotlight.

“It could be re-filed in the future if it ever looks like we have a better chance,” he said. “There is no statute of limitations for murder. I don’t know if in the future some new evidence might come to light or what might change.” I hope that if any "new" evidence does surface, that the community is very suspicious. What irritates me here is that new evidence did surface when the defense's private investigator found the gloves in the desert. But, since that didn't support their case, Woods and Rheinheimer decided it wasn't important. Much like the detectives decided that nothing Nick had to say was important, because it didn't fit what they "hoped" occurred.

Lead special prosecutor Grant Woods said he is interested in whether technology will soon allow for enhancement of video footage of the incident to the point that it will clearly show exactly what happened. Seriously. Get over yourself, Woods. The only way the video will show what you want is if (when) you have someone alter it.

“The Sheriff’s Office and the county attorney were very diligent here and charged a very difficult case because it was the right thing to do. The people of Cochise County should be proud of them,” he said. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... (snorting and wiping eyes) ... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... (taking a deep breath) ... No way I will ever be proud of the sheriff's office or the county attorney. And the next time Woods feels the need to tell me how I should feel ... I'm gonna tell him about a hot little place he can go to, where he will likely feel very comfortable.

Sean Chapman, the lead defense attorney in the case, said he and assistant defense attorney Jim Calle were “delighted” to hear the news of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the case.

“We have always believed that Corbett was innocent. We are happy that this burden has been removed and that he can get on with his life,” Chapman said. But what kind of life will he have? He isn't sure yet. If it was me, I'd be terribly angry that the county attorney has decided to hold this weak case over my head, ready to refile at any time. I wonder if that is grounds for a civil suit of "negligent infliction of emotional distress"?

However, Corbett now faces a personal lawsuit that was filed Wednesday by attorneys representing the parents. Raise your hand if you're surprised. (Put it down, retard.)

Chapman said he was hired to represent Corbett in the criminal case, but he will not handle the civil lawsuit.

“In all likelihood, for that kind of lawsuit, he will be provided with a defense from the Department of Justice,” he said.“Traditionally, when there is a lawsuit like this, the civil division of the U.S. attorney ends up defending him.” I have a question here because I really don't know the answer to this. If the US Attorney ends up defending him against this hunt for cash, would that preclude them from filing civil rights violation charges against him? I would think so, because wouldn't it be a huge conflict to defend him while prosecuting him? Thank goodness this isn't Johnny Sutton's jurisdiction. Nick would already be hogtied and on his way down to Mexico to face injustice.

Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which represented the victim’s family on the criminal case, said he is “disappointed” there won’t be a third prosecution, but he understands the considerations that went into making that choice. Oh, poor Peter. You're such a loser.

“We respect the decision of the prosecutor and believe that he did his best to secure a conviction in this case,” he said.

“We have learned that the (second) jury did not believe Mr. Corbett and believed witnesses, but felt there was sufficient ambiguity that made it difficult to arrive at a consensus on the criminal liability." Hmm. That's funny. Because I actually remember jurors saying only that they did not believe the county's case, not that they did not believe Nick. In fact, I think one of the jurors said that they found his version of the offense more believable because of all the lies told by the so-called witnesses for the prosecution. For instance, the witnesses said that they were down on their knees, surrendering, when Nick shot the illegal. But the video clearly shows them standing, shouting at Nick in an aggressive manner. Hmm. Is this the same video that Woods is hoping can be enhanced to support the prosecution's claims? It sure is! "We believe Mr. Corbett will be found guilty in the civil case because the burden of proof is far less and his violent history will more likely be admissible.” Unfortunately, this is about the only true thing that Peter has to say. Unless ... unless, there are lots of people like me on the jury.

Corbett has received support from the Local 2544 National Border Patrol Council in Tucson.

Bud Tuffly, president of the union, could not be reached for comment.

Prosecutors alleged Corbett killed Dominguez-Rivera without justification as he was surrendering on Jan. 12, 2007.

The defense maintained Corbett shot the victim to defend himself from a rock during hand-to-hand combat.

The following is a brief timeline of the case:

• Jan. 12, 2007 — Nicholas Corbett fatally shoots Francisco Dominguez-Rivera near Naco. The same day that the CCSO allowed witnesses that were in the backseat of Nick's truck to be returned to Mexico. Their stories supported Nick. On this same date, CCSO and Darcy Olmos, the incompetent Patrol Agent in Charge at the Naco Station, allowed the Mexican consulate to speak to the family members of the illegal prior to being interviewed by CCSO detectives. Also, CCSO failed to ensure that these so-called witnesses were separated until after they could be questioned. Is anyone suprised that they all have the exact same story?

• Jan. 17, 2007 — Guery Flores, Cochise County’s medical examiner, performs an autopsy on Dominguez-Rivera.

• Feb. 27, 2007 — Cochise County Sheriff’s Office completes its investigation and forwards a report to the County Attorney’s Office. They might have actually needed to spend some more time investigating this case. Just a thought.

• April 23, 2007 — Cochise County Attorney’s Office charges Corbett with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide. Travesty, travesty, travesty.

• Aug. 6, 2007 — The first-degree murder charge is dismissed during a preliminary hearing in Justice Court in Cochise County. The only good thing that Justice of the Peace Morales has done in a while. But, duh. Seriously.

• Sept. 24, 2007 — Corbett’s case gets moved to federal court in Tucson.

• Nov. 6, 2007 — Cochise County Attorney’s Office hires former state attorney general Grant Woods and Tyrone Mitchell as special prosecutors. Welcome to the Woods Circus!

• Dec. 17, 2007 — Judge David Bury agrees to allow Jim Calle to replace Daniel Santander as one of the defense attorneys. Sean Chapman remains in his position.

• Jan. 17, 2008 — Corbett’s defense team goes to scene and finds gloves belonging to the victim that detectives had failed to collect as evidence. Oops! And when the defense called the sheriff's department to see if they wanted to send someone out to collect the gloves, they declined. Yet one more error.

• Feb. 26 to March 7, 2008 — Corbett’s first trial takes place in federal court in Tucson. Bury declares a mistrial after jury is unable to make a decision.

• June 22, 2008 — The defense files a motion seeking to change the venue of the second trial to Phoenix due to ongoing publicity.

• July 31, 2008 — Bury denies the change of venue motion.

• Sept. 30, 2008 — Bury refuses to let prosecutors present evidence of Corbett’s alleged aggressive acts and racist remarks.

• Oct. 21 to Nov. 4, 2008 — The second trial is held in federal court in Tucson. Bury declares a mistrial due to a hung jury. Other information I have received suggests that 11 members of the 12 person jury requested that the lonely hold out should be removed from the jury and replaced with an alternate. The majority of the members of the jury wrote a letter to the judge describing the sole dissenter's behavior as rude, inconsiderate and otherwise inappropriate. The judge refused. 11 of the 12 jurors wanted to completely acquit Nick. The other person voted not guilty on second degree murder and manslaughter, but refused to budge on negligent homicide, the lowest charge. Obviously this juror just felt the need to give the prosecution and the illegal's family something. These are the kind of people we don't want on the civil jury.

• Dec. 10, 2008 — The victim’s parents file a lawsuit against Corbett in federal court in Tucson. Filed by the same guy that represented Rodney King. And we know how that ended. In riots. So, get ready Tucson. The awesome thing is that if there is a riot, the Border Patrol will be called in to assist local law enforcement. I don't think they'll mind.

• Dec. 11, 2008 — Prosecutors file motion to dismiss the criminal case. I do not think it is a coincidence that the prosecution decided to dismiss after the civil suit was filed. I believe that they are in cahoots and the decision to file civilly now, was based on the knowledge that the prosecution decided not to go forward once again.

Congratulations, Nick! We're still with you and we're not going anywhere!

Letter to President Bush

2008-11-22T09:31:00.002-07:00

November 22, 2008

Dear President Bush,

I am the wife of a Border Patrol agent in Arizona and the thought of what Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean's families are going through is frightening. According to all reports I have read, Ramos and Compean DID report the shooting to their immediate supervisor, who advised them to clean up the scene to save time. They did not lie or try to hide their involvement from other agents.

Also, it is unconscionable that they can be sentenced to such lengthy terms in federal prison for weapons violations. They were law enforcement officers who were required to carry their firearms on duty. They should not be punished for this aspect of following procedure and doing their jobs.

This case is even more devastating for me, as a friend and colleague of my husband, Nicholas Corbett, is being persecuted by the Cochise County Attorney's office for doing his job. After two mistrials, Edward Rheinheimer refuses to drop murder charges, which stemmed from Nick's instinct to protect himself when threatened by an illegal alien. My husband has told me of many, many instances where he has had to draw his firearm to protect himself against so-called innocent illegal aliens who just want to work. These are desperate people who will do anything to enter the country illegally. In Nick's case, the sheriff's investigation was shoddy and one-sided and jurors from the most recent mistrial have indicated that there was too much reasonable doubt to convince them that Nick was guilty of murdering an illegal alien in cold blood. And, yet, regardless of Cochise County's record of dismissing all charges with prejudice after other mistrials, they are holding a grudge against Nick and the US Border Patrol.

So when I see all these cases: Ramos and Compean, and Nicholas Corbett, I get scared. My husband is just doing his job. But in the course of doing his job, he could be arrested, tried and sentenced to an unreasonable time in prison for nothing more than making sure he returns home to his family after every shift.

I understand your need to support the US Attorneys that you hired during your terms in office, but it is time to admit your mistake in these cases. I have so much respect for your position and feel terrible about the way you have been treated over the years. You have responded to all of your detractors with grace and I beg you to turn that same compassion on the fates of Agents Ramos and Compean.

Please, President Bush. These men were just trying to protect our borders. They were trying to protect our children, my children, from being exposed to the drugs flooding into this fine country from Mexico.

I am praying every day that you will show mercy to Ramos and Compean as one of your final, compassionate, graceful acts as the strong, dignified president you have been. Pardon Agents Ramos and Compean, or at the very least, commute those ridiculously long sentences and let them return to their families.

Please, President Bush. Please do the right thing.

Thank you for your time.

Email addresses for the President: president@whitehouse.gov and comments@whitehouse.gov
if you wish to send your own letter.

Jury Results

2008-11-04T14:59:00.003-07:00

HUNG JURY!

JURY WAS 11-1 IN FAVOR OF ACQUITTAL. NICK IS ECSTATIC. NOT GUILTY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, BUT ONLY MARGINALLY.

PROSECUTION IS UNSURE ABOUT ANOTHER RETRIAL. UNLIKELY BECAUSE OF THE JURY DIVISION.

AWESOME!

To Anonymous Commenters

2008-11-04T14:53:00.003-07:00

You say that I have no guts. Interesting. At least I'm not writing anonymously. And, do I want to be a writer? No. I already am a writer. Thanks.

Why don't people use McCain's middle name? Because it isn't as interesting as Obama's middle name. But for your information, all US Presidents are referred to by their first, middle and last names. I am just following historical protocol.

I would never vote against a candidate because of their race. You have obviously not read any of my other blogs, because you would see that I have laid out Obama's stands on every important issue. And I have never said that his race is important to me.

It saddens me that people who are voting for Obama refuse to acknowledge the lies he is telling. They refuse to listen to anything McCain has said. At least I'm not a moron.

About six months after the inauguration, if it comes down to Obama being our new president, I will post a blog titled: I Told You So. And you will not listen to that either. But I'm okay with that.

I have placed the outcome of this election in God's hands. I have faith that God is in control and will protect the faithful. Too bad you aren't one of them.

Voting Shenanigans

2008-11-04T08:06:00.001-07:00

So, Barack Hussein Obama's dead grandmother's ballot counts. And it should. She cast the mail-in ballot or absentee ballot within the time limits and before she died. Here's my questions:
Was the ballot filled out while Obama was visiting her?

And the media reports that she was gravely ill. So, did she have the mental capacity to cast a vote?

Now, thinking about that, let's talk about other problems with mail-in or absentee ballots. How many people in the U have dementia, Altzheimer's, are semi-comatose, or have reduced mental capacity? Probably hundred's of thousands, right? Enough to affect the outcome of an election? I don't know.

What I want to know is, are these people mailing in their ballots? Probably, helped out by their families. That is voter fraud, plain and simple.

I think that if you want to cast a mail-in or absentee ballot, you should have to sign a declaration stating that you have the mental capacity to cast a vote, with two witnesses other than immediate family. And acknowledge that if it is discovered that you have misrepresented your ability to make a decision because of an altered sense of reality (oh, wait, that's all liberals) or insufficient mental capacity, the person who helped you vote may be sentenced to prison time.

Not fair, you say? But my grandma always voted a straight Democrat ticket, you say? Well, I say, people change. You can't assume a lifelong Republican will still be a Republican when they are 90. And they are welcome to vote however they please, as long as they are mentally capable.

As I write this, my husband has called to tell me that he is hearing reports of busloads of people with reduced mental capabilities (read: retarded) arriving at polling places with their handlers helping them cast their vote. If you lack the mental capacity to dress yourself, cook a meal or walk across the street alone, you should not be allowed to vote. How can you make an important decision if you can't make a simple one?

And on a different note, Democrats on the East Coast are not allowing Republican poll watchers access to the polling places. So I say, none of the votes from those precincts should count.

The liberal media will try to convince you today that Barack Hussein Obama has already won and there is no reason to get out and vote for John McCain, that your vote is insignificant and won't make a bit of a difference. Ignore them. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

And let me end with my catchy little slogan:

It's never too late to do the right thing. Vote McCain-Palin and let freedom ring!

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

2008-11-03T14:04:00.002-07:00

At least the Canadians are friendly. Maybe Chris's experience down here will allow him to become a Mountie!

Jury Update

2008-11-01T08:30:00.003-07:00

The jury worked through lunch yesterday and went home around 4 pm. They'll be back again on Monday.

The weekend breaks scare me the most. They had a weekend break during the last trial too. I wonder how many of the jurors are actually keeping their mouths shut and not discussing the case and deliberations with their families and friends.

Now, maybe this doesn't seem like such a bad thing to you, but beside the fact that it is against the law to discuss the case before its conclusion, you can be sure that knowing which case their loved ones are sitting on, their family members have been doing some research and picking sides. And we all know there is a lot more bad press for Nick than good.

So, yeah, weekend breaks are scary. I hope the jurors that want to exonerate Nick stay strong. Keep praying!

To the Anonymous Poster on my last blog:

And you don't know me. But I do know Nick. And, to be completely honest with you, I would stand up for ANY Border Patrol Agent or other Law Enforcement Officer who has been accused of murder while defending their lives and the laws of this country. It is clear, at the very least, that the investigation into this death was insufficient and one-sided.

I will not post any comments that are Anonymous. Be a man (or a woman) and own your words. I do.

Jury Deliberating! Pray!

2008-10-31T09:22:00.001-07:00

I should be flogged. I have not written about Nick's second trial. The fact that I have been swamped with work and writing (fiction) is no excuse. This is important.

So, here's a summary of what's been happening in Judge Bury's courtroom in the Federal court in Tucson:

Monday, October 20:

Judge Bury denied the defense's second request to move the trial because of adverse publicity. He did agree to watch the prospective jurors for signs of prejudice (which is what he's supposed to do anyway.)

Judge Bury admonished Grant Woods (the infamous prosecutor) against being overly dramatic during the trial. He told Woods that he should have stopped his opening statement during the previous trial and would not allow Woods to try to invoke sympathy for the defendant again. He stated that criminal trials are presentations of facts, not emotion. When Woods tried to tell the judge he was only honoring Arizona's Victim's Rights Amendment, Judge Bury responded: “You do not have to lecture me on the rights of victims. I am instructing you to conduct yourself as a prosecutor ...a prosecutor in a federal criminal case does not attempt to evoke sympathy for the family of the victim.” The judge also said that he has the responsibility to protect the defendant's rights as well. Me thinks the judge is trying to rectify some of the bad decisions he made during the first trial. Maybe he has taken the months in between to rethink his position.

The judge denied the defense's request to tell the jury that the deceased was a gang member, based on the three dot tattoo on his hand. The judge did say the defense could present direct witness testimony that the deceased was in a gang. Oddly enough, Woods said that the three dot tattoo (which means: Mi Vida Loca, and is a popular tattoo amongst less than innocent people) was popularized by the Ricky Martin song, "Livin' La Vida Loca," which proves how out of touch Woods is. I guess all those defendants that I have interviewed with that tattoo just really like the metrosexual stylings of a former Menudo member. Not! If those defendants even thought that Ricky Martin had anything to do with that tattoo, they would have it removed in any means possible.

The judge also declined to limit the free speech of the protestors (illegal alien lovers) outside the courthouse.

Tuesday, October 21:

The jury of 12 (with two alternates) includes a woman from Sierra Vista who is retired from federal civil service, a man employed by a pharmacy in Tombstone, people from the construction and nursing fields, people employed by large companies like Qwest, Johnson & Johnson, IBM and FreeportMcMoRan. One juror is a student and some are retired. The judge offered to compile all media coverage during the trial and present it to the jurors at the end, after admonishing them not to read, listen to or view any news reports about the trial.

Wednesday, October 22:

Opening statements. Woods said that the evidence is contrary to Nick's version of what happened. He said that the eyewitnesses (the deceased's family members) had a different story. Huh. Really. Well, that's a surprise. They were all breaking the law together and the "witnesses" have been provided room and board and the opportunity to work (although it is unknown whether they are employed) in the US during the trial. Gee. I can't think of a solid reason why these "witnesses" would lie. I wonder.

Chapman (the defense) called the "witnesses" liars. Yay! And he said the Cochise County Sheriff's Office is "rotten to the core." Hear hear!

The witnesses:

Patrick Smith, who is assigned to the video forensic unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, played video footage of the incident, which is grainy and nearly impossible to determine what exactly happened.

A field operations supervisor (FOS) from the Naco station testified that Nick said the deceased had a rock in his hand.

Another FOS from Naco who interviewed Nick testified that Nick told him that he came around the back of his vehicle and the deceased was "right on him," holding a rock, so he shot him.

The deceased's brother testified that his brother was kneeling when Nick shot him. He was not cross-examined until the following day.

Thursday, October 23:

Testimony:

The deceased's brother denied knowing about the tattoo that signifies "My Crazy Life (Mi Vida Loca) and "the gang, the jail and the morgue." The tat was on the deceased's hand, between his thumb and index finger. How do you not notice that on your brother's hand? Liar. He denied any knowledge of drug use, arrests or other criminal behavior by his brother.

The other brother testified to the deceased's peaceful nature. He admitted the deceased had a bad temper, but did not get angry easily. Huh? That doesn't make sense. This brother was aware of the tattoo because he has one too. Very, very interesting. He said that the tattoo means "Unity" or "Family." So, I guess everyone who I've ever interviewed that has that tattoo was lying. Could be, after all, they were all criminals. But that's a lot of criminals to get together and decide to lie and say the three dot tat means "Mi Vida Loca" (my crazy life). But it could happen, right? NO. (Just for anyone who doesn't get sarcasm.) The brother said they never showed their tattoos to the other brother. But if it means "Family" why wouldn't they have shown them to their whole family? Hmmm.

The mother denied that the deceased has a bad temper. Which directly contradicted one of her other sons. The father said he didn't think his son was a bad person. Oh, that's surprising testimony. A parent denying that their kid was a bad guy. I'm shocked.

The witnesses (family members) testified that the deceased was kneeling when Nick shot him without provocation. And he did not have a rock. Recently, a friend asked me, "If that's true and Nick just wanted to kill someone, why wouldn't he have just killed all of them? Leaving no witnesses?" Good point. And we know why. Because Nick was protecting himself. And the lies told by the criminals on the stand are obvious to all except the prosecution.

Another FOS from Naco testified that Nick said the deceased had a rock and his hand was up in the air. He said that Nick did not say how high the deceased was holding the rock. He also testified that Nick said that the deceased "shadowed" him on the other side of his patrol vehicle before they came together at the rear. But he stated that Nick did not use the word "shadow," that was this FOS's own description.

An alternate juror was dismissed for personal reasons.

Friday, October 24:

Testimony:

Phillip Keen, a physician testifying in place of the county medical examiner (who was mysteriously absent from this trial) stated that the eyewitness testimony matched the evidence recovered by the autopsy (or "artopsy" as pronounced by a friend's mother) matched the eyewitness statements. He testified that the prosecution is paying him $350/hour for his participation in the trial. I wish I was an expert at something so I could testify in a trial. Under cross examination, Keen admitted that the results are partially consistent with Nick's story (otherwise known as the truth.)

Ursula Ritchie, the (idiot) detective with CCSO, testified that she collected evidence at the scene (but not all of it) except for the gloves found where the shooting occurred several months later. She admitted that it would have been prudent to make sure the eyewitnesses were separated prior to their interviews, rather than allowing them to be together in a little room (getting their stories straight).

An agent from Naco testified that it was his impression that Nick shot Dominguez when he started to throw a large rock at Nick.

Tuesday, October 28:

There was no trial on Monday.

Richard Mason, a forensic pathologist from Santa Cruz, CA, testified for the defense. He stated that the autopsy results match Nick's description of the shooting. He said that he was even more sure about his conclusions now than he was during the first trial.

John Maciulla, a criminalist for DPS, said that the burnt fibers on Dominguez's shirt indicated the shot was fired from 3-12". He did admit that depending on how the gun was held, the casing could eject to the area it was found. Also, he admitted that the casing could have been inadvertantly kicked away from its originally landing place. I failed to mention that Ritchie "looked and looked" for the casing, finally discovering it in a location she thought contradicted Nick's statement. Now, you would think, out in the desert, with lots of people milling about, a casing could be kicked accidentally. And it seems silly that the defense had to make sure that someone testified to something that seems like common knowledge, but you know, some people just don't think about stuff like this. They need to be told. Sad.

Elmer Pellegrino, the director of a police academy in CA, testified that the stressful nature of a shooting incident can cause officers to experience “tunnel vision,” in which they don’t know what is happening around them, or “framing,” in which time seems to move in slow motion.

Kelly Flatley, the founder of Bear Naked, the granola company that illegally employed Dominguez in Connecticut, testified that he was "gentle" and "kind." She was granted immunity from prosecution for employing an illegal alien. So, she doesn't have any reason to lie, right? Does anyone else think it is odd that the founder of a company personally knew one of their employees? Because I'm pretty sure Dominguez wasn't very high up in the company. Hmm.

Wednesday, October 29:

Testimony.

Richard Watkins, a criminalist retired from the city of Phoenix, tested the wool gloves worn by Dominguez. He testified that fibers from the gloves would have been transferred to a rock and dirt and debris from a rock would have transferred to the gloves. But since the gloves were not collected until months later, they could not be specifically tested. And despite being told about Dominguez having a rock, no rocks were collected from the scene. Way to go, detectives.

A private investigator for the defense testified that he found the gloves when he went to photograph the shooting location several months after the shooting. He called the sheriff's department, but they declined to send someone out to collect the evidence. The prosecution agreed that the gloves at the scene were worn by Dominguez and removed during life-saving attempts.

Wendy Abney, another detective from CCSO, testified that they should have collected all the evidence.

An agent familiar with the Border Patrol's use of force policy testified that Nick was justified in shooting Dominguez since he was threatened with a rock.

Robert Gilbert, the chief patrol agent for the Tucson Sector, testified that he attended Nick's preliminary hearing in Bisbee and observed Oscar de la Torre, the Mexican consul in Douglas, make face and hand gestures in order to coach the three eyewitnesses on their testimony. But the Justice of the Peace, David Morales, couldn't recall seeing any signalling. Oh, that's a surprise.

Thursday, October 30:

Closing arguments.

Woods said that Dominguez was killed while surrendering. Because that makes sense.

The defense said Nick acted in self-defense.

Jurors deliberated for 2 1/2 hours Thursday.

Friday, October 31:

Deliberations continue. Pray!

Why I Love Governor Palin

2008-09-12T08:36:00.004-07:00

Negativity At the Olympics ... Again

2008-08-11T16:41:00.001-07:00

I don't know if any of you remember the negative tones of the broadcasters during the Olympics in Athens, but if you need a reminder, just watch Women's Gymnastics this year.

One of the male broadcasters (I am trying to find out who he is as I type) is so negative it makes me want to reach inside the TV and strangle him. Or at the very least duct tape his mouth closed.

The women had a very difficult preliminary meet and he pointed out EVERY last mistake or error that they made. And the comments were made without a tone of sympathy. Seriously, I could detect a little glee in his voice as he would say, "That was a big mistake!" The female broadcaster sounded completely sympathetic to their plight and offered praise where it was due. I don't think I heard the male say one nice thing the whole meet.

In fact, while Shawn Johnson was on the balance beam (doing a spectacular job) he dared her to wobble because he hadn't seen her do it yet. Instead of saying something complementary, he was totally sarcastic about her beautiful, graceful completion of a difficult event. I would like to see him out there on a four inch leather beam without wobbling. Honestly, what I would really like to see him do is fall. And end up with the beam between his legs. I think that would shut him up. Right?

And then, if his obnoxious, negative comments weren't enough, NBC decided to add a little more drama that was completely unnecessary. One of the girls, Nastia Liukin, stumbled and fell backwards when she dismounted from the uneven bars. Instead of just allowing Nastia to be distraught over her error, or even making sure she was not injured, NBC decided to show the reactions of her teammates who were watching from the sidelines, ensuring that when Nastia watches the playback later she will be further embarrassed and maybe even hurt by her teammates' reactions. And did it stop there? No! NBC also showed the reaction of Nastia's father who, as a coach, was allowed to be alongside his daughter while she was on the bars. Was he upset? Of course, but the footage makes it impossible to know whether he was upset with his daughter for making a mistake or if he was simply hurting for her and the situation. So now, Nastia will have to make the decision for herself. As if she doesn't already feel terrible enough. Right?

So, the male announcer is a nasty one, right? But only towards the Americans, it seems. For as I watched the footage of the Chinese women's team on the floor exercise, you heard not a peep except for how graceful, petite and powerful those women(?) were. The only negative item about the Chinese team was the speculation that some of the girls are not at or near the age of 16 as they must be in order to compete in the Olympics. And sure enough, there were a couple that looked 12. But that rumor was wiped off the slate by the male announcer who stated that the Chinese had produced passports that ensured that each girl was at or near 16. Oh, so we can just believe any paperwork that the Chinese government produces. Right. I forgot how trustworthy that government is. (FYI: in order to compete in the Olympics, the youngest gymnasts must be or turn 16 in that calendar year. I don't know about any of the other sports.)

And on the topic of the Chinese, did NBC have to sign an agreement to show more of the Chinese athletes than normal in order to film the Olympics? The reason I ask is because I don't understand why we are being subjected to US vs China in waterpolo or beach volleyball. I didn't know they excelled at those sports. Hmmm. THEY DON'T! Now gymnastics, yes. They are phenomenal gymnasts. Not so much in the beach sports. Or weightlifting, for that matter. LOL

Okay, I feel better now. :)

Rescue Heroes and Villians

2008-06-27T15:07:00.002-07:00

So, recently I did a blog about Bill Cloud, Republican candidate for Cochise County Sheriff. Here's a little story that further explains why I would like to be able to say, "There's a new sheriff in town."

On Wednesday night the Border Patrol was advised of an illegal alien who called 911 for assistance because a family member fell ill and died in the desert. After searching for the surviving illegal for nearly two hours, they finally made contact with him after he found another agent. Thus began another hour of searching for the body. When they finally located the body, the agents contacted the sheriff's office for assistance. Although it may be apparent that an illegal died of natural causes resulting from a dangerous trip aross the desert, the location of a body is still considered a crime scene and the body is turned over to the county. The agents were advised that two deputies were en route. The agents told the dispatcher that they would need more than two deputies in order to carry the body more than 600 yards to the area accessible by vehicle.

And yet, only two deputies arrived, saying that Search and Rescue was not far behind. Along with the deputies was a civilian female dressed in capri pants, a flimsy t-shirt and flip flops. The wife of one of the deputies struggled through the brush, carrying the body bag. Okay, this is a big problem. First, the civilian was wearing inappropriate clothing while participating in a ride-a-long. Second, she should never have been allowed to exit the vehicle and walk to the crime scene. Third, I don't know a lot of people who want the image of a rapidly rotting corpse in their head, so perhaps her husband should have thought about that. CCSO needs to either revise or enforce ride-a-long rules to prevent civilians from compromising a possible crime scene or from becoming involved in a posssibly dangerous situation. There are many things that could have happened during that trek to the body. And, last, there should maybe be an intelligence test that ride-a-longs have to pass so that scantily clad civilians don't stand on ant hills during a body recovery.

Upon arriving at the body (a trip made much easier through the convenient use of GPS than the agents' earlier trek) the deputies convinced the agents to carry the body out to the vehicles. The reluctance on the part of the agents was purely due to the fact that handling dead bodies is not part of their job description. Once the corpse was loaded into the body bag, the deputies grabbed the feet end of the bag, forcing the agents to grapple with the much heavier upper torso. Rude, rude, rude. If someone is going to be helping you out, deputies, then you should take the harder task and put less pressure on those helping you. Maybe Bill Cloud can teach these guys some manners.

Due to the length of time the agents had searched the desert for the body, they were exhausted. Out of water, they had to stop every hundred yards or so to rest during the trip back to the vehicle. Belittled by the deputies, the agents repeatedly asked about the Search and Rescue team, whose job it is to recover bodies from the desert. The deputies stated that the team was at the vehicles, but they weren't needed as they only had to go a little further. I'm pretty sure that IT IS the job of the Search and Rescue team and the deputies should have notified them that assistance was needed to bring the body out of the desert.

Sure enough, when the agents pushed through the last mess of brush, they saw several members of the Search and Rescue team, laughing and talking near the vehicles. The agents promptly released the body to the "team". A member of the Search and Rescue team whined that they had another litter that needed to be taken out to their vehicles, parked further away. The agents told the team that they were done and the team could surely handle the body recovery from there. The agents headed for their vehicle, arriving after one of the deputies and his wife jumped in, expecting a ride back to the road. In fact, so many people piled into and onto the Humvee that the agents had to wait for a ride from another agent. So many things wrong here. First, I am sure that it was lovely for the agents to discover that the Search and Rescue team was just standing around chit-chatting while they were lugging a body through dense brush. Second, to then request more help from the exhausted agents? Give me a break. Third, if I had been one of the agents, I would have ordered the deputy and his female ride-a-long out of the Humvee. If she couldn't handle the walk back to the deputy's ride, then she should never have left it.

So, please, everyone. Vote for Bill Cloud in September and then again in November. And Bill, if you're reading ... can you please teach those deputies some manners, the Search and Rescue team some efficiency and revamp those ride-a-long rules. Thanks!

Calling All Cochise County Residents

2008-06-19T09:45:00.002-07:00

For too many years, the people of Cochise County have been held captive by the petulant will of Sheriff Larry Dever. Under his leadership, the Cochise County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) has fallen into a stagnant routine, allowing incompetent detectives to "conduct" incomplete investigations, encouraging deputies to respond to citizen complaints via telephone rather than making personal contact, and (until very recently) harboring illegal aliens by refusing to enforce immigration law.

But finally, we have the chance to elect someone who can (and will) convince the people of Cochise County that the problems created by Sheriff Dever can be repaired.

Who is Bill Cloud?

A veteran of the US Army and the Arizona National Guard, Cloud was employed by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for more than 15 years, first as a Highway Patrolman and later as a detective. In that capacity, and as head of the Risk Assessment Team, Cloud conducted investigations dealing with drugs, corruption and threats against other law enforcement officers. He resigned his position to mount a spirited campaign against Sheriff Dever.

Married for 18 years, Cloud and his wife have three children and have resided in Cochise County for more than 15 years.

Bill Cloud Promises To:

Secure the border
Assist federal agencies by arresting/deporting illegal aliens, drug dealers and smugglers
Assist the County Attorney and the AZ Attorney General in the prosecution of illegal immigrants, drug dealers and smugglers
Protect Fort Huachuca from closure by reducing the crime rate
Protect private property rights
Reduce overall crime rate
Utilize Ranger Deputies to alleviate strain on full-time personnel
Introduce "Tent City Jails" and chain gangs

What He Won't Do:

Hold a wholesale clean-out of CCSO personnel
Allow individuals who have proven sluggish in their current assignments to continue in that capacity
Be the King of Cochise County
Disband the SWAT team
Support costly projects that will raise our taxes

Fresh Ideas:

Partner with other regional/federal law enforcement agencies to conduct training and refresher seminars
Establish a regional multi-agency firearms training facility
Re-invigorate Neighborhood Watch
Up recruiting efforts
Engage in personnel exchange programs to allow officers to gain experience working different environments

What does it all mean? Bill Cloud is an officer's officer. He remembers what it is like to be a member of the rank and file. Cloud's ideas will clean the cobwebs out of CCSO and give Cochise County residents a law enforcement agency we can be proud of, we can depend on, and we can trust.

Why should we settle for less? We've already done that … again … and again … and again. It's time that we moved on from something that clearly isn't working.

Vote for Bill Cloud in the Primary Election on September 2nd and then again on November 4th.

Ray Playing

2008-06-05T11:16:00.001-07:00

Just a random video. Ray discovered the cold air coming out of the vent.

Learning to Crawl

2008-06-03T10:05:00.006-07:00

Here is a new video, mostly starring Ray, who has developed a half-crawl that gets him around. Fast. Hayley is playing with a doll in the background.

Swinging Video

2008-04-16T07:41:00.002-07:00

Wanna Talk, Mr. Woods?

2008-04-04T07:07:00.004-07:00

So, the ego-maniacal, pro-illegal immigration, hater of the defenders of our US borders, wealthiest prosecutor in America speaks.

Grant Woods (described above) claimed to the Sierra Vista Herald that an anonymous source advised him that the jury deadlocked in Nick's trial at 10 jurors for conviction and two against. How convenient. At a time when citizens are calling for the heads of Edward Rheinheimer, the Cochise County Attorney, and Grant Woods, an overpaid mouthpiece for illegal alien criminals everywhere, surprising information that seems to support the continued persecution of Nicholas Corbett has surfaced.

However, there is no way to check this information out to confirm its accuracy. In truth, the only way to be sure of the actual breakdown of the jury's deadlock vote was to poll the jury at the time that the mistrial was declared. At this point, any person could call Woods or Rheinheimer or the media and claim to know the jury breakdown. In fact, if you are interested, you may call Woods at the following number and just make something up. For if he chooses to believe only what seems to support his case for spending more taxpayer money (and yes, it is taxpayer money) there is nothing we can do but put doubt in his mind. So here you go:

(602) 258-5749.

Have at it. Just remember to make your phone number private prior to calling by entering "*67" immediately prior to dialing the number. Seriously. Why not?

I am sure that people from Border Action Network (BAN) are calling. Because, really, Woods can pick and choose who he believes. His real problem is that I DON'T BELIEVE HIM. EVER.

And here's why:

Grant Woods was cited and fined $1,400 in 1993 on two charges relating to knowingly employing someone not in this country legally as a nanny for his children... [he was AZ's attorney general at the time...] ... [Woods] did not deny continuing to employ Alison Basher after finding out she was in violation of immigration laws...

Woods was a leading opponent of Proposition 200 in 2004. Prop 200 was designed to deny many state taxpayer funded services to illegal aliens. The Proposition was passed by the voters, and Woods, as is typical among the pro-illegal alien activists, immediately started talking about lawsuits to stifle the will of the voters.

In 1997, after an operation in Chandler, Arizona involving the Border Patrol and the Chandler Police Department, Woods called the actions of the agents and officers involved with the operation “outrageous”. Woods was falling in line with pro-illegal alien groups who were filing lawsuits against the BP/INS and the City of Chandler over what they termed “round-ups” of illegal aliens. In reality, nobody did anything wrong. The anti-BP groups settled with the City of Chandler because the City of Chandler thought it would be cheaper to settle than to fight in court. The INS refused to settle and not one single “charge” by the anti-enforcement groups was substantiated, despite exhaustive investigations into the conduct of the officers conducting the operation.

And lastly, in a speech given shortly before the start of the trial, Woods laughed over the upcoming trial. He described the shooting as a planned execution of a hapless immigrant by a big bad Border Patrol agent. He laughed at the notion that Nick was defending himself and stated that Nick forced the illegal alien down to his knees and then purposely drew his weapon, pointed it directly at the illegal and fired, intentionally executing him in front of witnesses. That does not make sense. The pompous Woods also stated that the trial would be cut and dry and he did not forsee a problem getting a conviction. Well, think again, Woods.

Despite claims from Ed Rheinheimer that tax-payer money is not being used to fund the persecution of an upstanding Border Patrol agent, it most certainly is. While the enormous amount of money being used to pay Woods for his bullying come from Criminal Justice Enhancement funds, which are collected from fines and assessments paid by criminals, tax-payer money is being used, indirectly, to fund a substantial amount of work done for this persecution. For example, how do you think Rheinheimer and all of his legal assistants who have contributed to the case are being paid? And who is paying the people who prosecute the criminals who have contributed to the CJE fund? Or the people who collect for the CJE fund? Or the people who manage the CJE fund? Or the Cochise County Supervisors who determine if the CJE fund can be used to prosecute someone? Hmmm. It does add up, doesn't it?

Also, Rheinheimer recently made the statement that there was approximately $400,000 available in CJE funds for this persecution. He stated that he could also use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) funds to complete persecution, if need be. That's really interesting because that money is to be used for exactly what it sounds like: prosecuting corrupt organizations for racketeeting as a tool against organized crime. So, did Rheinheimer just inadvertantly admit that he believes the US Border Patrol is a corrupt organization that is participating in illegal activity? I think so.

The Sierra Vista Herald also made sure to point out that Nick's defense paid their expert witnesses to testify. They failed to advise the public that this is common practice and that experts are, more often than not, paid to give their expert, legal opinions. And why shouldn't they be paid? They have educated themselves to the point that they have become experts. They have excelled in their fields until their colleagues respect their opinions and hold them in high regard. So why shouldn't they be paid for their labor?

The prosecution claims that they did not pay any of their witnesses. Well, that's interesting. I guess the Cochise County detectives who testified did so on their own time, without drawing their salary for that day. And I suppose that the three illegal alien witnesses who have been provided with housing, food and jobs by the Mexican Consulate, could not be considered paid witnesses. That's interesting too because it sounds like they were paid to testify. And, the "use-of-force" expert supplied by the Arizona Department of Public Safety surely took the day off from his job to testify, right? I don't think so. And so on, and so forth.

So, do me a favor, call Woods. Tell him that the jury was split 10-2 in favor of acquittal. He won't believe you anyway and he'll never tell a soul. But it will hurt his feelings. Ha ha ha.

The Real Changes Promised by Obama

2008-03-25T07:33:00.006-07:00

The following is an excerpt from a recent email from Focus on the Family Action, dated 03/24/08:

"What does it take to be the most liberal member of the United States Senate – farther left than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or even Hillary Clinton? For the answer, take a look at a man who could be the next president of the United States: Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama was recently named the most liberal U.S. Senator, based on the annual voting analysis by the non-partisan and highly respected National Journal. If he emerges as the Democratic nominee, one of the critical jobs of Focus Action will be to uncover the real Barack Obama—not the feel-good orator who speaks of “change” and “hope,” but the man who would be the most left-wing president in our nation’s history."

"Obama: As extreme as they come on family issues.

"On abortion, Obama’s 100 percent lifetime voting record from Planned Parenthood and NARAL only begins to tell the story. "While in the Illinois State Senate six years ago, Obama was the only senator to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects babies who are born alive after a failed abortion. In other words, it prevents flat-out infanticide. A year later— while the U.S. Senate was passing Born Alive 98-0 – state Sen. Obama quietly killed an identical bill in the state committee he chaired!

"Not surprisingly, then, he also opposes the ban on partial-birth abortion and supports allowing minor girls to be transported across state lines for abortions without parental notice or consent. Perhaps most chilling is his avowed support for the Freedom of Choice Act, which, if signed into law, would threaten every pro-life law passed at the state and federal levels over the past 30 years.

"In addition, while the next president could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade with the right Supreme Court appointments, Obama is proudly committed to appointing judges who will uphold legal abortion. In fact, his judicial philosophy is typical of the radical left. He believes that judges can change the meaning of the Constitution at their discretion. Not surprisingly, he voted against the nominations of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

"How about marriage and the homosexual agenda?

"First, he opposes the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If given the chance by the liberal Congress, Obama will overturn DOMA, potentially forcing every state to recognize homosexual “marriages” and guaranteeing that you and I pay federal benefits to support homosexual couples. Please note: Technically, he says he is “opposed” to same-sex “marriage,” but by standing against DOMA, he is standing against the only thing that prevents same-sex marriages from spreading state to state.

"Second, he has pledged to homosexual leaders that he will sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (forcing businesses to defend themselves against discrimination lawsuits should they not hire a particular candidate who then announces he or she is homosexual or transsexual). He also supports hate-crimes expansion (potentially putting churches at risk if they preach the truth about homosexuality).

"Then there’s his support for teaching schoolchildren (in 2nd grade, no less) about homosexual relationships. He also wants to require women to register for the draft. And, as a state senator, he even refused to support a measure to stop sex businesses from opening near schools or places of worship!

"The price of 'change':

"Hold on to your wallet!Sen. Obama talks constantly about the need for 'change.' But what he doesn’t tell you is the price tag, so allow me: It will be very expensive change. "He supports raising taxes to pay for universal health care, his free college program and a host of other government expansions. Among his pet projects is a bill he sponsored called the Global Poverty Act, which would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid. Over 13 years, that will amount to a whopping $845 billion increase over current foreign-aid spending! Get your checkbooks ready!

"National security?

"One area where Sen. Obama seems to have an aversion to spending is the War on Terror. But it’s not just the admittedly controversial war in Iraq where Obama has shown himself to be soft on terror:

"He has repeatedly voted against funding our troops in Iraq—unless the funding included a date certain by which our soldiers must withdraw from their fight against al Qaeda. Even with the troop surge producing superb results, Obama has called both the surge and the war a failure. In fact, he and Hillary seem to be in a rhetorical contest to see who can abandon the battlefield first. He, along with Hillary, voted to give captured terrorists and illegal immigrants constitutional rights that are reserved for American citizens. Can you believe that Sen. Obama actually favors granting citizenship to illegal immigrants convicted of crimes against children, aggravated felonies and other serious crimes? It's true.

"Perhaps, then, it should come as no surprise that Obama also voted against a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration. One has to ask: Did he learn anything from 9/11?

"Ditto for Hillary?

"On most of the issues I’ve mentioned, Hillary isn’t far behind Obama’s extremism. In fact, she ranked as the 16th most liberal senator in National Journal’s scoring. But the reality is that most people know about Hillary. They remember her push for government-run health care. They know of her radical pro-abortion stance. They may even recall her support for allowing young children to sue their parents.

"Obama, though, is the new kid on the block. In fact, a little more than three years ago, he was still an Illinois state senator. Now, the media is fawning over him … and isn’t about to delve into his leftist record."

I don't really think there is anything left to say. Just remember, you will absolutely be voting for change if you vote for Barack Hussein Obama. But is this the kind of change you were thinking about? I'll leave you with some cartoons about the infamous relationship between Barack Hussein Obama and Reverend Wright. Enjoy!

The kids on Easter

2008-03-23T13:56:00.004-07:00

After a rousing round of "Look at the camera!" "Smile!" "No, look here!" "Hey, baby!" the kids collapsed in rebellion. This video was too large to send over email. Enjoy!

On a Break

2008-03-10T08:53:00.001-07:00

I will be taking a short break from blogging everyday as I work on my personal writing.

Expect a couple blogs from me soon giving background info on Grant Woods (the special prosecutor in Nick's trial), Edward Rheinheimer (the Cochise County Attorney), Judge David Bury, and a few others involved in the persecution of Nicholas Corbett.

The newspapers have reported that the persecutors have already decided (before the jury statistics have been released to the public) to retry Nick.

Border Action Network (BAN) has been working hard to skew a poll on azstarnet.com concerning whether Nick should be retried. I don't know if the poll is still active, but please go to:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/228779

and vote "No" on whether Nick should be retried. Thanks a bunch. If BAN is going to play dirty, then I will too. The ranks have been enlisted. LOL

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2008-03-07T15:53:00.003-07:00

MISTRIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay tuned for more information after the jury has been polled. That will be one of the deciding factors for whether the county attorney will pursue the case.
The judge set a new trial date, but that is standard procedure.

YEAH!! Justice has been served!!!

Jury Deadlocked*

2008-03-07T07:46:00.000-07:00

The jury has been deliberating since late Wednesday afternoon. Yesterday, they notified the judge that they were at an impasse. He asked the attorneys what they should do. Persecutor Woods stated that they had not been deliberating long enough. Chapman, Nick's defense attorney, requested an immediate mistrial. The judge decided to give the jurors until 4pm to make a decision.

Then after 4 pm yesterday, the judge suddenly thought it would be a good idea to send the jury a note, asking them if they were getting anywhere in their deliberations. Persecutor Woods thought this was a great idea, and used some time up in the courtroom opining about how this case is about illegal immigration and the jurors have not had time to decide such a tough issue.

This case is not about illegal immigration!!!

Apparently, the defense responded to this that the case was not about illegal immigration, but that part was left out of the newspaper. This case is about a law enforcement officer, doing a difficult job, who needed to protect his own life by taking another. The defense argued that the judge might be putting undue stress on the jury, making them think they HAD to come to an unanimous decision. Chapman argued that this case is simple and the jurors had enough time to come to a decision. It seemed obvious that a unanimous decision would not be had.
Of course, however, the judge decided to side with the persecutors. Again. (and again and again.)

I feel for the jurors. I have served on a jury for a very emotional, difficult case and we quite nearly hung. I understand what the jurors are going through because I was one of three jurors who dug my heels in for what I knew was right. It is a very difficult thing, being a juror who will not cave to the demands of the other people in the room. And that's why I have been praying for them. They need strength and support.

I will hazard a guess that those jurors who want to convict are looking at a charge of negligent homicide. They probably feel that because this is a big case with high emotion on each side, they better find Nick guilty of something to appease the public. The problem is that probably 90% of the (legal) public would not have charged Nick to begin with.

And let's think about what Nick has before him, regardless of the verdict. Nick took a human life. He will have that to relive for the remainder of his days on the earth. Was he wrong to do it? No. But I believe, whether it was right or wrong, it will never fade from memory. (This is my opinion, not what Nick has said.) In some ways, this will imprison Nick for life. He will never be the same person he was before. But he will always be supported and he will always be loved.
Of that I am sure.

Back to the courtroom:

I just wanted to clear up a couple of things. First of all, I loved how the persecution had no problem pointing out what the defense's expert witnesses were being paid and, even though this is a very common practice and not a bombshell, the newspapers rushed to put the figures in their articles. But no one is asking what Persecutor Woods is making for his part in this debacle. Let's see, he was hired in November and will make, a reported, $250,000 for his work on this case. Not bad for just over four months of work. Did you know Cochise County has it's own lottery? No? Well, apparently it does and Woods hit the jackpot.

Second, I would like to denounce the Sierra Vista Herald for refusing to print my comments yesterday. Their comment policy clearly says that they will not print comments that are offensive or off-the-topic. Interesting. I, being college educated, can understand such rules and make it a point not to post a comment that could be deemed offensive, and I am pretty sure I know how to stick to the topic. I think you could review my blog and see my point. So much for newspapers being a protected of the First Amendment. They only care about their right to print one side of the story. They don't want anyone rebutting them with the rest of the story.

And finally, check this site out. It has a great peek inside the courtroom and does not rely on my second hand sources:
http://www.local2544.us/

I will keep you updated!!

*Originally posted on 03/07/08

Trial Update*

2008-03-07T07:45:00.000-07:00

Shortly after 11 this morning, the jury advised the judge that they are deadlocked. The judge ordered the jury to continue deliberations. He stated that if the jury did not have a verdict by 4pm, he would declare a mistrial. Nick's attorney's requested an immediately mistrial, to prevent any jurors being unduly pressured. The judge declined their request.

Cochise County Attorney Rheinheimer stated that he would consider a retrial if a mistrial is declared. He said he would have to consider several things.

Here is what Rheinheimer would have to take into consideration:

The strength of the case? Weak.

How many jurors would have voted for an acquittal? Unknown at this time

Cost to the County? More than they can afford. Again.

What do the voters want? Corbett exonerated.

So, it looks good for Nick as far as being retried. I know an acquittal would be awesome, but with a heated and emotional trial like this, a hung jury is a good thing.

*Originally posted on 03/06/08

Straight from the Courtroom*

2008-03-07T07:44:00.000-07:00

The jury has been deliberating since about 4:30 pm on Tuesday. Is this good? It could be. In my opinion, it means someone is fighting. They are either fighting to convict, or fighting to acquit. Either way, it isn't an easy decision for them.

I do know that the prosecution's case raised reasonable doubt without the defense's help. Any normal person could figure that out. But there are people out there who will NEVER believe law enforcement, and there are people out there who will ALWAYS believe law enforcement. I have a feeling there is some serious fighting going on inside that jury room. I only hope that the jury instruction were clear because the law is difficult to understand.

Here are a few tidbits from inside the courtroom (things the media isn't reporting on):

1. Remember the documentation the prosecution wanted to introduce as evidence concerning Nick's propensity towards violence? I found out what that evidence was. The judge disallowed the evidence because it was introduced too late. This is how it was reported in the media:
"Woods also told the judge that on Friday he intends to present evidence of prior bad acts that were committed by Corbett that shows violence or a propensity toward violence. Chapman inquired why this evidence was not disclosed prior to the trial. Woods said he was just made aware of these incidents."

Oh really? Hmm. Well, I have discovered the truth. The prosecution very likely had this information prior to the start of the trial. And this information against Nick was provided by a former co-worker (not Border Patrol) of Nick's. He claimed that Nick had made racist statements about blacks and Hispanics. Well, it served the prosecution to not bring this information forward until very late as it would be detrimental to the witness if the defense had time to investigate him. Because . . . this witness has been in and out of jail and is a drunk. He was probably looking for his 15 minutes of fame. He failed.

2. The prosecution has repeatedly flogged the defense over the differences in the stories given by the Border Patrol agents Nick spoke to after the shooting. What you haven't read in the media reports is that during Nick's testimony he revealed that he spoke to two of the agents AT THE SAME TIME and they STILL wrote different reports on the shooting. Hmmm. Could it be that their life experiences and ways of processing information had a hand in how they took what Nick told them? It is more likely for two people who experience the same thing to have different stories than to have the same story. Trust me. I majored in Sociology. :) If people consistently tell the same story over and over again, it is likely that they are lying and have memorized a story after discussing it with each other. This is the case in the testimony of the three illegal witnesses. They SHOULD all remember some different things, but they don't.

3. During the closing arguments, the prosecutor tried to demonstrate how Nick could have held a gun in order to strike someone on the head and not leave a mark. Unfortunately for the prosecution, it came off as silly because it looked strange and unnatural. No one, not even a kid playing cowboys and Indians, would believe that Nick, who is trained on how to hold a firearm, would ever hold a gun in that unnatural way. Why can't the prosecution concede that the lack of injuries to the deceased proves that Nick didn't hit him? Because it would prove that the illegal witnesses WERE lying. At least about something.

4. And here's the kicker. During closing arguments, the prosecutor addressed the problems in the investigation. The mistakes, the gaffs, the omissions. He said, (and I'm not making it up) "We'll try to do better next time." Huh? Next time? You mean, the next time they are investigating a murder, they will TRY and do better? What the. . .WHAT?! If I was on that jury, I would say, "Here's your sign." That is absolutely, positively the most ridiculous, arrogant thing that blowhard could ever say. I am in disbelief. What a casual way to treat this. My friend's life is on the line. And that's what this moron has to say? "We'll try to do better next time." Huh.

Well, deliberations should resume any minute now. Pray for Nick. Pray for the jurors.

*Originally posted on 03/06/08

Ever Heard of Small Man Syndrome?*

2008-03-07T07:43:00.000-07:00

So, the reporters from the AZ Daily Star and the Sierra Vista Herald have decided that Nick is a big bully because of the difference in size between him and the deceased. Okay, so the deceased was a pipsqueak. But, does it really matter when someone is trying to kill you? And have you ever been around a guy with Small Man Syndrome or Napoleon Complex? Small men are notoriously violent and aggressive when confronted. Plus, when someone is wielding a softball size rock, that isn't soft, and attempting to smash your skull with it, it doesn't make a difference how big you are.

The prosecution can't stop talking about the discrepancies in Nick's stories. They are "amazed" that his perception of the incident does not match (identically) the stories given by other agents. Well, everyone perceives things differently. I will always believe stories that are mostly similar, with slight differences, before I will believe three people with IDENTICAL stories. No three people perceive things exactly the same way, but that is what the prosecution wants you to believe. Three people with identical stories are lying. There is no doubt in my mind.
The affect Nick's testimony will have on the jury depends on whether they found him to be a sympathetic person. I believe they will see through the prosecution's attempts to make Nick out to be a bully and a liar and they will remember the regret in Nick's eyes and voice during his testimony. Even though he acted in self-defense, it (I am sure) has not been easy dealing with the fact that he took a human life. I guarantee you that if Nick could go back in time, he would change everything. But it might not have made a difference because in the life of a Border Patrol Agent, what happened to Nick could happen to any agent who is doing their job, any day, any time.

As for the jury, it will only take one person to hang the trial in either direction. Of course I am praying for an acquittal, but I am also praying hard for the poor jurors who believe in Nick's innocence and will take a stand during deliberations. It only takes one. That's my mantra today.
One more thing about the jury. This case all comes down to reasonable doubt and I believe the prosecution itself provided the reasonable doubt. Usually, the defense has to work really hard to find even a smidgen of reasonable doubt to sway the jury, but in this case. . .the Cochise County Detectives did it all themselves. They handed the defense a case of reasonable doubt when they failed to investigate all angles of this incident. Ursula Ritchie went to the scene with a preconceived notion that Nick was guilty and she NEVER investigated this in any other way. CCSO should be ashamed that they have not censured this Einstein.

Keep an eye on this page as I may have breaking news for you later in the day!

Pray!!

*Originally posted on 03/05/08

This isn’t Baseball, People!*

2008-03-07T07:42:00.000-07:00

So. . .very interesting news.

Dove Haber, Border Patrol Public Relations Officer, and spectacular woman in general, testified on Monday.

"In her testimony, Border Patrol spokeswoman Dove Haber said she attended a hearing for the case in August held in Cochise County Superior Court. While sitting in the small courtroom, she said she saw Oscar de la Torre Amezcua, Mexican consular general in Douglas, guide the testimony of the three witnesses.
'The signaling went on for all three witnesses that were called,' Haber said.
And the signaling included de la Torre nodding his head 'yes' or 'no,' raising his hands and moving his hand back and forth to signal 'stop.'
'It was blatant,' Haber said."

The prosecution managed to get Agent Haber to admit that the consulate official could not, however, put words in their mouths. Maybe so. But he had already had plenty of time to do that. After all, the preliminary hearing took place in August. The shooting took place in January. I would say that nearly seven months, with the witnesses living in Mexican Consulate paid for quarters, would be long enough to get their stories together. Not to mention the time the Mexican consulate official spent with the witnesses prior to being interviewed by the county detective at the Border Patrol station.

The detectives can deny that all they want. It would, of course, make them look like bad detectives. But wait. . . didn't they already do that by failing to:

Collect the deceased's gloves

Have the medical examiner check his hands for debris or injury

Have the medical examiner check for injury to his head

And by lying on the probable cause statement by using a lack of debris (which was never checked for) on the deceased's hands as proof that he could not have been holding a rock. . .

forgetting to find out if the deceased had been wearing gloves.

Interesting that they are trying to say the gloves don't matter now. How do you use something for evidence when it is good for your case, and don't use it when it is bad for your case? Sounds like someone had a bone to pick with the Border Patrol.

The AZ Star reporter commented that no one else at the preliminary hearing saw the consulate official gesturing to the witnesses. But. . .wouldn't most people's attention be on the person testifying? Agent Haber noticed, and kept an eye on it. She told her supervisors, who notified the judge. But Agent Haber said that the signals continued after the judge admonished the court room against signalling the witnesses. The prosecution (who was not there) said the judge did not notice the signals and it was unusual because of the small courtroom. Okay, but everyone was jam packed in there and it would be easy to be in the sight line of a witness, while concealing your movements from the judge behind someone in front of you. I have been in this court room and I can see the possibilities.

A forensic expert also testified Monday that forensic evidence, ie bullet wounds, are not always cut and dry. He demonstrated how Nick's experience could have happened, regardless of the testimony of the Cochise County medical examiner. And a use of force expert for the Border Patrol testified that Nick had the right to use deadly force when confronted by a person with a rock. This would knock down those leaning towards negligent homicide.

Good luck, Nick! We're praying!

*Originally posted on 03/04/08

Just a Reminder*

2008-03-07T07:41:00.000-07:00

Today, Nick's defense begins their case. Please continue your prayers for Nick. And it is also important to pray for the jurors. This will be a difficult case to decide. It is easy for me because I know Nick and I am more than aware of the dangers a Border Patrol Agent faces everyday. In the next few days, the case will go to the jurors. I pray that they can see the truth in Nick's eyes and they do the right thing.

*Originally posted on 03/03/08

More Evidence of Lying*

2008-03-07T07:40:00.000-07:00

We all know that the criminal witnesses in Nick's trial are being given a free ride here in the US while they wait to testify. For once, Mexico is actually paying for something. However, the witnesses were given work visas so they would be able to work while they are here. They have just chosen not to use them. Ha ha. Not surprising. What was surprising was their claim that they could not find work. I thought there was tons of work for immigrants. I am so surprised to find out that it isn't true. Or maybe these illegals are just lazy. Not like all the other illegals who just want to come here to work. And they work hard, right? No. These three illegals who are the prosecution's star witnesses just exemplify the typical illegal alien. They have been given a free ride so they are going to take it. And the only HARD work a lot of illegals do in the United States is try and figure out how to live off the government and the good will of the American people. They pop out baby after baby, qualifying for more and more public assistance. And they kill hospitals with their unpaid medical bills.

I also find it interesting that the prosecution has said, over and over, that Nick is lying and that his story has changed many times. However, according to the testimony of three agents who responded to the scene of the shooting, his story was basically the same for all three of them. The basics: Nick ran around the rear of the vehicle, the illegal had a rock, Nick shot him. Despite earlier claims, the prosecution was unable to prove that there were discrepancies in Nick's story concerning the distance at which the shooting took place. Interestingly enough, the agents who testified all stated that Nick DID NOT specify a distance between him and the deceased.
And the minor differences in Nick's story is the proof in the pudding. People who tell the truth often change their story in very minor ways every time they tell it. This could be dependant on who they are talking to or how much time has passed since something happened.

However, liars usually say the same, exact thing over and over. Like the "witnesses" in this case. What is also interesting is that the three illegal "witnesses" have the exact same story as each other. When they should have different stories based on their different points of view. After all, they were not all standing in EXACTLY the same spot when the shooting occurred. They did not look at the shooting with the EXACT same previous life experience (which will color the way a person sees something happen.) And yet, as though these three individuals were actually one person, they repeat, like robots, the same exact story every time and exactly like each other.
Am I getting my point across?

They have been coached. They were told by the Mexican Consulate to make sure that they got together on their stories because "it is important that Corbett 'does not get out of this clean'." Mexico's main concern is that they send a US law enforcement agent to prison. Do you ever hear about Mexico protesting when an illegal is killed by another illegal in the United States? But let a law enforcement officer protect his life, or a law-abiding citizen defend himself against an illegal alien and you can be sure that Mexico will jump all over it.

Maybe Mexico needs to remove the log out of its own eye before they comment on the splinter in someone elses. Their respectable law enforcement officers are gunned down, nearly every day, by corrupt law enforcement officers, corrupt military, and violent drug smuggling organizations. But does Mexico get on it's high horse about that? No. They are only interested in smearing the reputation of one of the United States best law enforcement agencies, the US Border Patrol. These men and women put their lives on the line (literally) every day and get very little thanks in return.

Well, I say:
Thank you, Border Patrol, for keeping the trash out of our country.

*Originally posted on 03/02/08

A Prosecutor Says "What?"*

2008-03-07T07:39:00.000-07:00

So, yesterday in court, Prosecutor Woods said something completely inane. He said, "the eyewitness testimony was 'remarkably consistent.' He said the eyewitnesses were not separated while in custody, but they were still able to tell 'pretty much the same story.'"

Hmmm. I am thinking that if you spend a lot of time with someone with whom you have experienced something out of the ordinary, it would make sense for your stories to be similar when you are questioned about it later. It makes more sense for your stories to be different if you didn't have a chance to be influenced by some one else's point of view. Also, I love how the witnesses made sure to make their stories sound like they were simply meek illegals who promptly obeyed Nick.

Interestingly enough, Nick is in the court room, viewing the same evidence as the jury. And one of the things that jumped out at him was that the video contradicted part of the witnesses stories. While the video is grainy and unclear, it was still clear that the witnesses did not surrender promptly, without argument, as they have claimed. In fact, they can be seen standing and appearing to argue with Nick. That's interesting. And wasn't in the paper.

Also, I love that the prosecution called a firearms instructor to the stand. He stated that "it would be unreasonable and negligent for a person to walk up behind and shoot someone who was facing the opposite direction and surrendering." So is he trying to say that Nick is unreasonable and negligent or that the prosecution is ridiculous trying to claim that is what Nick did?

Also, how can the firearms guru state what he believes is unreasonable if he wasn't there experiencing it with Nick? No one, except Nick, KNOWS how he felt and what the exact circumstances were.

I am excited that the prosecution has rested its case. It is now time for the jury to hear the truth.
Please pray for the jurors that they are not tainted over the weekend. Please let them hear the truth. Nick is a good man and it is ridiculous that he has had to endure this charade for the last year.

*Originally posted on 03/01/08

The Illustrious Detective**

2008-03-07T07:38:00.000-07:00

So, Detective Ursula Ritchie (I can use her name because she is a public official) took the stand yesterday. You would think, being the lead detective on the case, she would have had a lot to say. But, funnily, what she did have to say was a lot of :*

"I assumed the Border Patrol would have done that." - in response to being asked why the witnesses weren't seperated prior to questioning. Yes, because it is the Border Patrol's responsibility to know how to investigate a murder. No, I don't think they take a class like that at the academy.

"I just decided to look for the casing at the front of the vehicle, only realizing my mistake when the Border Patrol told me the shooting took place BEHIND the vehicle." - this was really interesting because Det. Ritchie has said several times that she was TOLD the shooting took place in front of the vehicle. But on the stand she said she was told the shooting took place BEHIND the vehicle. Interesting.

"I didn't know he was wearing gloves. I collected SOME clothing at the scene, but not the gloves he was actually wearing. I decided they weren't important and left them to rot in the desert." - Bumbling, bumbling, bumbling. I bet whoever trained her in crime scene investigation is really proud.

"There were too many rocks in the area to collect. . .even though I was told the deceased was holding one. So, I just figure. . .now we'll never know. Oh well." - Oh (whiny voice) my job is too hard. I don't know what I'm doing. Wah!

"I didn't tell the ME to examine the deceased's hands because I had already decided that Agent Corbett was a liar and a murderer." - Okay. That explains it. I see.

In response to why Det. Ritchie cited the deceased's clean hands on her statement of probable cause, that she did not believe he had been holding a rock, "I didn't know he was wearing gloves." - Oh, that's okay then. I forgive you. You just didn't know. How about doing some investigating?

*the preceding "dialogue" is a figment of my imagination, based on information Det. Ritchie supplied at the trial. . .or maybe it is based on info she DIDN'T supply.. . .or . . .I don't know. My job is too hard. Wah! Also, try and have a little tune playing in your head as you read my interpretation of the trial. . .like cartoon music that is played when a bumbling idiot is on the show. da dum da dum, da dum da dum, da dum da da da da dum da dum.

Oh, yeah! Guess what? The prosecution's key to the case, a video, showed . . . .TA DA-

NOTHING.

Oh, well, nothing except a grainy figure getting out of the vehicle and going to the back of the truck. Hmmm. So apparently, it did not show a maniacal Border Patrol agent waving a gun, running around and behaving erratically.

And, BTW, the Mexican consulate (and this was transcribed) said (to the witnesses), "It's very important for us, like I told you, that the policeman doesn't get out of this clean."

Hmmm. Sounds a little fishy. But that's just me.

STAY TUNED!!

*Originally posted on 02/29/08

al Qaeda in Iraq*

2008-03-07T07:36:00.000-07:00

We're dealing with a moron with brainwashed followers. . .ie:

During his debate with Hillary on Tuesday night, Barack Hussein Obama stated that "if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq" he would send soldiers back to Iraq. ("if", huh? I am pretty sure that al Qaeda is ALREADY in Iraq.)

So, John "Wayne" McCain responded to that idiotic statement by saying, "I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq,"'

And then dumb Barack Hussein Obama said "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying 'Well let me give you some news Barack, Al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers," he said. "But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Oh really, Barack Hussein Obama? There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the war? That's interesting. It isn't true, but I guess the audience thought it sounded good, based on their cheers and applause. I sincerely hope they are educating themselves independent of Barack Hussein Obama because he is wrong. Sadaam Hussein was a key supporter of al Qaeda during his reign of terror. In fact, Iraq was the location of many al Qaeda "training camps" during Hussein's dictatorship.

Don't think that just because I am blogging about Nick's trial that I am too distracted to pay attention to the mis-statements of Barack Hussein Obama.

BTW: I think Bill Cunningham is hilarious.

*Originally posted on 02/28/08

Start of trial. . . .Cochise County Should Be Ashamed*

2008-03-07T07:35:00.001-07:00

So starts the trial.

During opening arguments, the prosecutors announced that their case is based largely on the testimony of three eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses are related to the deceased and were engaged in criminal behavior at the time of the incident. They are being provided with room and board while they are here waiting to testify. They were questioned by the Mexican Consulate before Cochise County Sheriff's detectives arrived to question them (regardless of the lies that CCSO wants to make) which allowed them to make sure their stories were all the same. They are being rewarded for lying. And they are criminals.

Also, the prosecution will go hot and heavy on ballistic evidence which they say rebuts Nick's account of where the shooting took place. BUT. . . .Nick NEVER gave a statement. Any stories about what he said at the scene of the incident have been subject to a sort of game of telephone. You know the game I am talking about. Where you say something to one person at the beginning of a line and then hear some crazy nonsense that you never even came close to saying at the end of a long line of people.

Also, a Border Patrol Agent who was first on the scene stated during cross-examination that Nick NEVER said where the shooting took place. Hmmm.

Let's see. Oh yeah, all that forensic evidence. Hmm. I think it might have been collected by toddlers. For example, CCSO left the GLOVES wore by the deceased in the desert to rot. They did not check Nick's uniform for gun shot residue. And also, the deceased's relatives claim that Nick pistol whipped him, but CCSO did not check Nick's firearm for skin, hair or DNA evidence that would corroborate this. Hmmm. It is easier to deny that you know your witnesses are lying if YOU DON'T CHECK THEIR STORY.

The prosecution apparently wanted to call the deceased's father to the stand, but when the defense said that if he testified to the supposed good, angelic nature of the deceased, they would be able to ask questions about possible gang affiliation. Interestingly enough, then the prosecution declined to call the father. Hmmm, what are they hiding?

As for the defense's opening statement, they agree that the shooting occurred at close range and that Nick shot to protect his own life after he was threatened with a rock.

We love you, Nick!

*Originally posted on 02/28/08

Opening Arguments Today*

2008-03-07T07:34:00.000-07:00

The opening arguments in Nick's trial start today. Yesterday, the two sides were successful in selecting 12 jurors and two alternates. One of the alternates has already bowed out for reasons unknown. There are five women and seven men on the jury. The alternate is a male. Two of the jurors were born in the Philippines and one was born in Guatemala. This may be good news because they had to have immigrated here legally in order to be selected for jury duty. I don't know how the male/female ratio could affect Nick's case. I do know that it only takes ONE juror to hang a trial and that the county can probably not afford to retry Nick in that case. It would not be an optimal outcome, but would save Nick nonetheless. The prosecuting attorney tried one final dirty trick. He tried to have the number of jurors reduced to just eight. But federal law, and this is being tried in a federal court even though it is not being prosecuted by US Attorneys, calls for 12 jurors. Even Grant Woods (the infamous hired gun prosecutor) knows that it will only take one and he was, I am sure, trying to whittle down Nick's chances. Keep praying!

*Originally posted 02/27/08

Jury Selection Starts Today*

2008-03-07T07:32:00.000-07:00

Today the jury selection starts in the murder trial of our friend, Agent Nicholas Corbett.
Nick will be in my thoughts today and until he is found to be innocent of murder. Please pray for Nick and for the jurors who will be in charge of deciding his fate.

*Originally posted on 02/26/08

So Why Don't You Leave?*

2008-03-07T07:27:00.000-07:00

I am 31-years-old and I have been a proud American since I was old enough to understand what that meant. I have experienced tears in my eyes at different times when I viewed the flag of the United States of America. I have swelled with pride during the National Anthem. I love my country. And I invite all of those US citizens who do not love the US or who are not proud to be an American to leave and find somewhere they can be proud. GET OUT!

That being said, I am extemely offended by Michelle Obama's recent comment:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country …"

That says it all, doesn't it? For all of those people who will vote for Obama, just remember you are voting for a First Lady, too. And she is a traitor to her country. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that for the first time in her 45-years she is proud of the USA. And I'll tell you right now, if you comment my blog with something that sounds like spin, I will not post the comment. I am fired up!

Here's the spin: Obama says that his wife is not a skilled politician so she said something she should not have said. So is his point that if she was a skilled politician she would have lied? She was obviously telling the truth because this was a WRITTEN SPEECH, not an off-the-cuff remark. It was not a misstep. It was a planned statement. So, you're telling me that an Ivy League educated woman is too stupid to know that this remark would cause outrage? Hmmm. I bet her alma mater is pleased to know they graduated an idiot.

Obama also said that his wife was talking about this being the first time she has been proud of American politics. Interesting. So, she wasn't proud of American politics when her husband was elected to the US Senate or to the Illinois Legislature? Sounds stinky to me.

They will break this country's spirit if they are elected. Think about that.

*Originally posted on 02/21/08

Hillary and Obama - One and the Same*

2008-03-07T07:23:00.000-07:00

I am going to educate you as to the many similarities between Obama and Hillary. There are very few things that set them apart from each other. And I feel it needs to be pointed out. As always, I will inject my opinion on these facts.

Abortion: Both are pro-choice. Both support federal financing of abortions. Both oppose the ban on partial birth abortions. I have one word to say. . .DISGUSTING.

Energy/Environment: Both favor a cap-and-trade system. The idea is simple: Companies that produce emissions below a mandatory cap earn carbon credits — which they can then sell to companies that don't meet the cap. This rewards those who invest in ways of reducing pollution and penalizing those who don't. The problem is, Europe has already tried this system and it isn't working. Just like Democrats to want to do something that is already proven to be unrealistic and that doesn't work.

Immigration: Both candidates appear to be mouthing the words they think we want to hear. They are both for the border fence which is good because it is already being built. Both would have illegals already in this country come forward and pay a fine and then become US Citizens. This is unrealistic because why should they come forward to pay a fine when they can continue to live in the US for free (while receiving benefits from many states)? Also, both support employer sanctions for hiring illegals. Really? Probably not.

Iraq: Both candidates would set a timeline for troop withdrawal or a timeline for the terrorists to wait out so they can reclaim Iraq. Obama has always been against the war and Hillary now claims to be against the war despite originally voting for it. Both would cease to support our troops in an attempt to force withdrawal.

Taxes: Both would raise taxes for the wealthy (the majority of whom worked hard for their education, training and salary. So basically the candidates want to reward hard work by punishing them.)

Guns: Both candidates would require registration of firearms. So did Hitler. Obama would create a law banning citizens from legally carrying a concealed weapon unless you are retired law enforcement or military. Apparently, he has ignored statistics showing lower crime rates in areas that provide for permits for carrying concealed firearms.

Healthcare: Hillary would mandate healthcare for all Americans. That's great, except I don't want to pay for it. We already are responsible and pay for our own. Obama only wants mandated healthcare for kids. Both would help pay for their plans by raising taxes.

Homeland Security: Hillary is the lesser of two evils here as she voted for the Patriot Act twice. Obama would create several new government positions designed to protect us (spend more money and improve on Bush's track record of no attacks on US soil since 9/11). Hmmm.

Gay Marriage: Both candidates claim to be against gay marriage. . .but both oppose a constitutional amendment banning it. Hmmmm.

Social Security: Both candidates oppose the only thing that will save SS: privatization. Obama wants to raise payroll taxes and Hillary doesn't have any long term plans to save it.

Stem cell research: Both candidates support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research which means a loss of human life to research stem cells that have been found to be ineffective. The only stem cells that have been found to be useful are umbilical stem cells and adult stem cells, which do not require a loss of life. Both candidates do not seem to care about life at all.

I hope the above information helps you make a decision about who you vote for. Don't be seduced by sweet talk. Think about the real issues. Okay, that's it. No more trying to show you how wrong you are. Ha ha.

*Originally posted on 02/13/08

Why You Should Vote for President*

2008-03-07T07:18:00.000-07:00

I know that many conservative Republicans are disappointed by the impending nomination of John McCain. But it is time to take a step back and look at the good things that McCain can offer as a president. (And just so you know, I am not a big fan of McCain, but I will make the best of a less than perfect situation).

First of all, if you are honest with yourself, none of the Republican candidates for President lit you on fire. Right? Thompson would have been awesome had he not been so lethargic. Romney was a little too slick. Huckabee has some trust issues and kind of scared me about losing my homeowner's credit when I file tazes every year. Guiliani was way too liberal on the social issues. And, Ron Paul. . .well, he's just Ron Paul.

So we get to McCain. A war hero. An experienced Senator. A moderate. A friend of Democrats.

1. A war hero. John McCain was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War for five and a half years. I have heard some people say that that does not qualify him to be a war hero. I disagree. I have even read that he was a terrible pilot and that's why he was captured. That is pure and simple disrespect of a courageous military hero. But you can have your own opinion, I'm just sharing mine. You cannot deny his constant support of the war and the soldier in Iraq and Afganistan. He WILL continue the fight against the terrorists. He will not surrender.

2. An experienced Senator. In 1982, McCain was elected to the House of Representatives with political views in line with Ronald Reagan. In 1986, McCain was elected to the Senate. He has served on many committes and has co-authored several bills.

3. A moderate. The most visible example of this tendency is McCain's soft stance on the border. He has recently said that after the failure of his amnesty bill, he came to realize that the important thing is to secure the border first, then make a new law regarding the illegal aliens already in the US that is acceptable to the majority of Americans. At least he is learning. And, I respect McCain because he stands up for what he believes in, even if I disagree. He has always been honest about his intent and does not care if it is unpopular. That will go a long way in the international community.

4. A friend of Democrats. Now, now. Settle down. I greatly dislike Ted Kennedy and it irks me that McCain co-authored a bill with him. However, he has co-authored many good bills (McCain-Lieberman that created the 9/11 Commission) with Democrats. As much as I would like to say that we should never cooperate with the other side, it is important to do so. It is important to work together, especially if it gets you what you want. (Plus, now, Lieberman is an Independant. . .ha ha).

So, for all you people who have decided not to vote this year because you just didn't get your way. . .suck it up. We cannot have a Democrat in the White House. Unless, of course, you are a sissy, tree hugging, troop-hating, dishonest, immoral, dishonorable, America-bashing liberal. Then, maybe your dreams are closer to coming true than in a long time.

If Hillary or Barak are elected to the Presidency, our country will be destroyed. They will surrender to the terrorists and we WILL face more attacks on American soil. And YOU will be responsible for that outcome if you don't vote because you are too busy throwing a tantrum. Let's grow up and make a decision that can only be better for the US than a Democrat in office during a time of war. Just promise me you will think about it.

COME ON!! DON'T BE A MORON!

*Orignally posted on 02/08/08 on MySpace Blog