Media, Bush and Obama on Mexico’s page; Perry defends US sovereignty

President Barack Obama joined media in undermining US law by elevating international law in the bizarre case of murderer and rapist Humberto Leal. For the second time, Texas Gov. Rick Perry wasn’t buying it. Why Americans should thank Perry for rising above hysterics attributed to the Vienna Convention but in fact related to advocacy for abolishing the death penalty. LEAL’S CASE—COMPLICATED YET SIMPLE

As the execution date for convicted rapist and murderer Humberto Leal approached, US media memed the federal government and Mexico’s talking points. Reporters at every network, even those perceived as conservative, bandied about the lofty sounding term ‘Vienna Convention.’ Some warned the U.S. would risk lives if Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn’t halt the execution.

President Barack Obama’s solicitor general took Mexico’s position, advocating for Leal, trying to stop the execution and buy Leal 6 more months of life.

Congress bought into this approach, with progressive Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont pushing legislation to, as the Associated Press said, “bring the U.S. into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provision regarding the arrests of foreign nationals…”

Missing from all the rhetoric and political grandstanding: Leal’s victim and a major political issue.

THE REAL VICTIM The sixteen year old girl Leal killed is referred to as Adria Saveda in some documents from the 1990s when Leal committed the crime. Recent accounts refer to her as Adria Sauceda.

Texas lists photos and details about Death Row inmates online. There is a verbatim description of Leal’s crime he committed against a victim categorized as “Hispanic female” on May 21, 1994: “Summary: Convicted in the abduction, rape and bludgeoning death of 16-year-old Adria Saveda of San Antonio. Saveda was raped with a piece of lumber and her head crushed by a 35 pound piece of asphalt after being abducted from a party by Leal. Her nude body was found near a creek off Reforma Drive with the piece of lumber still protruding from her vagina. When arrested, police found scratches and cuts on Leal’s face and body.”

THE VIENNA CONVENTION, THE ‘AVENA’ CASE AND POLITICS Obama followed the policy of President George W. Bush on the point of executing a foreign national—that term, by the way, is both accurate and misleading.

Leal, like Jose Ernesto Medellin'S case Bush attempted to intervene in, had been in the U.S. for years, benefiting from educational opportunities and any other opportunities available to those in the U.S. legally or illegally. If they’re children, they qualify for federal assistance and a free public education.

Medellin’s crime was equally as brutal as Leal’s. Medellin and his fellow gang members gang-raped, tortured and murdered two teenage girls in Houston in 1993.

Ted Cruz, the first Hispanic solicitor general in Texas—Cruz is also running for a US Senate seat—wrote an eloquent and articulate explanation of the Medellin case and its repercussions for The Harvard Law Review. Cruz said Medellin “waived his Miranda rights and wrote a four-page hand-written confession” of the crime against the two teens who were walking home and had the tragic misfortune of encountering Medellin and his gang.

Cruz wrote: “Displaying no remorse whatsoever, he [Medellin] admitted gang-raping both girls, and he described how they pleaded for their lives before he stomped on one girl's neck and strangled them both with a shoelace and a belt.”

Cruz’s article should be required reading for every member of Congress, and every American who cares about liberty should read the article too. Cruz explains why the Supreme Court upheld US law, declining to bow at the political altar of the World Court’s Avena decision.

Perry upheld the laws of his state by going through with Medellin’s execution.

Cruz pointed out that Avena aimed at getting the U.S. to “reopen the convictions and sentences of fifty-one Mexican nationals on death row across the country.”

Cruz wrote, “For the first time in the history of our nation, a foreign tribunal attempted to bind the US justice system, and to disturb final criminal convictions.”

The Law Review article is lengthy, but it is written so clearly even a layperson can understand it. The article explains much of the foundation for Bush ’43 and Obama’s siding with a foreign country over the issue of U.S. law.

Bush '43, however, can be given a small pass because a Supreme Court ruling hadn't been made when he asked for the cases to be reviewed. (See the followup below this article.)

US HELD TO STANDARDS OTHER COUNTRIES WON’T ADOPT Cruz points out the double standard in numerous countries hoping to foist laws on US citizens, and in the process, undermine US sovereignty as well as disturb the separation of powers in our government.

Cruz explained that the Medellin case decision “rightly held that World Court decisions do not have authority greater than that of US domestic courts, that the World Court cannot overrule the Supreme Court, and that the executive branch cannot unilaterally set aside state laws inconsistent with its policy preferences.”

Cruz also noted 90 nations filed amicus briefs against Texas in the US Supreme Court case, but “not one of those nations enforces the Vienna convention or the judgments of the World Court in its own courts.”

Cruz pointed out the irony in all those nations pushing the U.S. to undermine her own sovereignty even as they clung to their own.

CUTTING THROUGH BUSH AND OBAMA’S POLITICS The state of Texas permits capital punishment for certain crimes. Mexico, whose murder plagued country displays little regard for human life, does not.

In 2003 The San Antonio Express News featured an article about Mexico lobbying for a halt on executions of Mexicans in the U.S. Mexico wanted the World Court to “order a temporary halt,” said the paper.**

The article referenced the case of Javier Suarez who murdered an undercover Dallas police officer in 1988.

The article also carried remarks by a political science professor who taught at Mexico’s National Autonomous University.

Professor Federico Estevez said Mexico was “grandstanding.” Mexico wanted to gain domestic political capital by appearing to be concerned about the wellbeing of Mexicans living in the U.S.

A historian and human rights activist living in Matamoros, Andres Cuellar, told the paper Mexico “was sending an important message that could one day lead to big changes.” Ironically Cuellar suggested Mexico had more respect for human life than the U.S. and he also said that by appealing to the World Court, “Mexico has won by asserting itself before the world.”

Rick Perry vs. Obama's Chicago Mob

"Humberto Leal’s defense attorney, Sandra L. Babcock, of the terrorist-sheltering law school at Northwestern University, has an interesting vitae. Ms. Babcock’s research interest is imposing international law on the American justice system, a hobby she practices with her colleague, terrorist-cum-law-professor Bernadine Dohrn. In 2008, Babcock and Dohrn worked “tirelessly” together to get Chicago’s city council to pass a resolution signing on to the U.N. Convention for the Rights of the Child. Of course, such things always sound nice."

"In 2003, along with the A.C.L.U., The Jimmy Carter Center, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Open Society Institute, Sandra Babcock, Bernadine Dorhn, and Van Jones (he’s listed as “invited”) participated in an A.C.L.U. sponsored conference called Human Rights at Home: International Law in U.S. Courts. The purpose of the conference was to find ways to insinuate international (read: United Nations) laws and resolutions in American legal arenas, as Sandra Babcock is [was] attempting to do to free her client, Humberto Leal."

Crime Victims Media Report

Thank God for Texas.

When the UN stepped in, it was a red alert this was more about their globalist tentacles vs. our freedoms and sovereignty.

The EU has spent millions in the US helping promote progressive agenda. Specifically abolishing the death penalty.

From:

How EU spends £20m a year promoting left-wing causes in the U.S. (UK)

. ...But a shock report has found at least £17million of cash –around £2million from British taxpayers’ –has been ploughed into promoting the pet causes of Eurocrats in the U.S.
It is being spent on promoting abolition of the death penalty, discussion of climate change, green energy, and the International Criminal Court –all controversial subjects in the U.S.