Saturday, February 24, 2007


The All England Club announced this week that Wimbledon would now pay out equally for the men's and women's tournaments. Their new policy matches those of the Australian and U.S. Open, where the men and women are paid equally throughout the tournament. The French Open differs in that it only pays the winners equally.

Venus Williams was among the people who lauded the decision:
From this moment forward, Wimbledon will be treating the women equally to the men. ...

It’s an historic moment for women’s tennis and for the players, from pioneer Billie Jean King to the stars of today, who have always believed and never given up in the struggle for equality. ...

Equality is a principle and it is a cause. More importantly for women, it is a mindset. The decision by Wimbledon is significant because it will positively impact that mindset in young girls and send the right message to all corners of sport and all of our society, that women and men merit equal treatment. ...
Equality, huh? What about the fact that the men play best of 5 set matches, while the women play best of 3? So the men's champ has the potential to play 35 sets over the "fortnight" while the women's champ could potentially play 21. Roger Federer, who won last year and dropped just a single set, played 1 more match than a women's champ could possibly play. (Last year's women's champ Amelie Mauresmo played 17 matches.) So much for "equal pay for equal work."

If I were a woman, I'd be embarrassed. This is groundbreaking for the equality of women? To be paid the same as men while working less? That's equality?

Talking heads on sports TV and radio have been looking back to a previous "win" in the fight for equality in tennis. On September 20, 1973, Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs (6-4, 6-3, 6-3) in the "Battle of the Sexes." King had this to say about the match: "I thought it would set us back 50 years if I didn't win that match. It would ruin the women's [tennis] tour and affect all women's self-esteem."

At the time, King had won 10 career Grand Slam singles titles, with 2 more to follow. Riggs, meanwhile, was the #1 ranked men's player ... in the 1940s. Earlier that year, on May 13, Riggs had defeated the top ranked women's player, Margaret Smith Court, 6-2, 6-1. Court won 3 Grand Slam singles titles in 1973, and 24 for her career.

I find it sad that King thought that "all women's self-esteem" would be affected by a tennis match between a nearly 30-year old woman and a 55-year old man. Actually, I'd find it sad if she would have thought that about an evenly paired match.

I'm sick of empty rhetoric of "equality." Who cares that Maresmo won "only" $1,117,000 for winning Wimbledon last year? (Compared to Federer's $1,170,000.) Is that really a major battleground for equality in our world? $53,000 for playing a sport? What a joke. Aren't there actual problems with equality out there? Or was Wimbledon the final frontier?

Reason #1,500,945 Why I Hate Politics: Arrogance

From Hillary Clinton:
“President Kennedy said he wanted a man on the moon by the end of the decade. I want universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”
Give me a break. So many questions, so few answers. What does health care coverage have to do with JFK? Why is anybody talking about their second term? Don't you have to be elected to serve a first term first? And don't you (in general) have to win the party nomination first? And isn't the caucus/primary season still nearly 11 months away? Will there be a single candidate who stands up for what they believe is best for our country instead of saying what they think will win them an election?

Another Real Border Patrol Story

This past week, Glenn Beck shared the story of former U.S. Border Patrol agent David Sipe. An editorial from Wednesday's Washington Times explains:
On duty in April 2000 near Panitas, Texas, Mr. Sipe, his partner and two other agents responded to a disrupted motion sensor to find between 12 and 15 illegal aliens crossing the border. Most of the illegals followed the agents' instructions and surrendered, but several attempted to flee, running into a patch of tall dense reeds. What happened after Mr. Sipe pursued three men into the reeds is, as court documents note, disputed.

In the course of making the arrest, Mr. Sipe struck one of the border crossers, a Mexican national named Jose Guevara, in the head with his flashlight. He said it was necessary, but the U.S. Attorney's office said it wasn't. In 2001, Mr. Sipe, who had no previous complaints against him, was convicted for using excessive force, and dismissed from the Border Patrol. The story doesn't end there, and when the conduct of the prosecuting attorney's office came to light Mr. Sipe was tried again and acquitted.

It turns out that three illegal aliens who testified against Mr. Sipe -- that is, Mr. Guevara along with two others who had fled into the reeds -- received a very nice gift package. The Washington Times reported Monday that the three illegals got Social Security cards, witness fees, travel expenses, living expenses and the use of government telephones to call relatives in Mexico, and were allowed to travel to and from Mexico and to North Carolina. The government offered everything to the three who had broken the law, all to obtain testimony against an agent who had enforced the law.

The U.S. Attorney's office, moreover, covered up the generous benefits it had handed out. It failed to disclose the fact that all three illegal aliens had been living together in the months preceding the trial. Nor did prosecutors reveal that when Border Patrol agents stopped Mr. Guevara, again traveling with illegal aliens, they let him go when he flashed the "get out of jail card" he got from the prosecutors. "His arrest with illegal aliens was evidence that he was a transporter," wrote the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering a new trial, "as well as evidence of the extent of the government's support accorded him in order to obtain his testimony."

Mr. Sipe's felony conviction has been overturned, and despite the way he was treated he is working to rejoin the Border Patrol. But the repercussions of such zealous and aggressive prosecution go well beyond his case. The message to Border Patrol agents, who are assigned to the difficult and dangerous job of protecting our borders, is to worry less about the execution of their duties and more about how things could be made to look in court. Agents, like the rest of us, are not above the law, but government prosecutors must not lose sight of who the criminals are.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Adoption Discussion

There's been a lot of discussion the past few days on my previous post on adoption, in which I posted John Piper's "similarities between what God did in adoption and what happens in a Christian adoption today."

Call for Mistrial

The attorney for U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos is calling for a mistrial, arguing that the prosecution violated the "Jencks Act requirement," which "requires prior statements of a witness be turned over to the defense before the defense begins cross-examination." The defense for Ramos was never shown a Department of Homeland Security memo by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez, which may have served to prove the agents' innocence.
As previously reported by WND, the memo lists seven Border Patrol agents and two supervisors who were on the scene of the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting incident for which Ramos and Compean are now in federal prison, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively.
Mary Stillinger, the attorney for Jose Compean, adds:
"What the Sanchez memo proves is that if Ramos and Compean were guilty that day, then the other Border Patrol agents who were there and their two supervisors were equally guilty."

"At the trial, the prosecution acted like it was the most ridiculous thing in the world for my client to have assumed the other agents heard the shooting. Yet here you have a DHS special agent investigating the shooting, and Christopher Sanchez came to the conclusion Ramos came to."

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Resolutions vs. Bills

Here is an explanation of the difference between resolutions and bills. There are three types of resolutions, one of which serves the same basic purpose of a bill as far as actually having the "force of law." The current nonbinding resolution, that was just passed in the House, is a concurrent resolution, which "must be passed in the same form by both houses, but [it does] not require the signature of the president and [does] not have the force of law." The resolution failed to pass in the Senate today. Needing 60 votes to "pass," the vote was 56-34.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Border Update

More news about lying:
Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, the Mexican drug smuggler given immunity to return to the United States and testify against two Border Patrol agents, was involved in smuggling a second load of marijuana into the United States after he was given court protection, records have confirmed.
As part of his immunity, Aldrete-Davila received a "multiple-use border pass signed by Homeland Security Special Agent Christopher Sanchez." He then apparently lied about his drug smuggling escapades during the trial that sent agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos to prison.

Evidently perjury and drug-smuggling were not violations of his immunity deal?

Reason #1,500,944 Why I Hate Politics

Bear with me for a moment. This may be my longest post yet, at least in regards to the number of lines. First off, I want to share a list of U.S. Representatives. I'll explain why after I finish listing these 246 individuals:

Neil Abercrombie
Gary Ackerman
Thomas Allen
Jason Altmire
Robert Andrews
Michael Arcuri
Joe Baca
Tammy Baldwin
John Barrow
Melissa Bean
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Howard Berman
Marion Berry
Sanford Bishop
Timothy Bishop
Earl Blumenauer
Dan Boren
Leonard Boswell
Rick Boucher
Allen Boyd
Nancy Boyda
Robert Brady
Bruce Braley
Corrine Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Lois Capps
Michael Capuano
Dennis Cardoza
Russ Carnahan
Christopher Carney
Julia Carson
Michael Castle
Kathy Castor
Ben Chandler
Yvette Clarke
William Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
James Clyburn
Howard Coble
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Jim Cooper
Jim Costa
Jerry Costello
Joe Courtney
Bud Cramer
Joseph Crowley
Henry Cuellar
Elijah Cummings
Artur Davis
Danny Davis
Lincoln Davis
Susan Davis
Tom Davis
Peter DeFazio
Diana DeGette
Rosa DeLauro
William Delahunt
Norman Dicks
John Dingell
Lloyd Doggett
Joe Donnelly
Michael Doyle
John 'Jimmy' Duncan
Chet Edwards
Keith Ellison
Brad Ellsworth
Rahm Emanuel
Eliot Engel
Philip English
Anna Eshoo
Bob Etheridge
Sam Farr
Chaka Fattah
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Gabrielle Giffords
Wayne Gilchrest
Kirsten Gillibrand
Charles Gonzalez
Bart Gordon
Al Green
Gene Green
Raúl Grijalva
Luis Gutiérrez
John Hall
Phil Hare
Jane Harman
Alcee Hastings
Stephanie Herseth
Brian Higgins
Baron Hill
Maurice Hinchey
Rubén Hinojosa
Mazie Hirono
Paul Hodes
Tim Holden
Chris Van Hollen
Rush Holt
Mike Honda
Darlene Hooley
Steny Hoyer
Bob Inglis
Jay Inslee
Steve Israel
Jesse Jackson
Sheila Jackson-Lee
William Jefferson
Eddie Johnson
Henry Johnson Jr.
Tim Johnson
Stephanie Jones
Walter Jones
Steve Kagen
Paul Kanjorski
Marcy Kaptur
Ric Keller
Patrick Kennedy
Dale Kildee
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Ron Kind
Mark Kirk
Ron Klein
Dennis Kucinich
Nicholas Lampson
James Langevin
Tom Lantos
Rick Larsen
John Larson
Steven LaTourette
Barbara Lee
Sander Levin
John Lewis
Daniel Lipinski
David Loebsack
Zoe Lofgren
Nita Lowey
Stephen Lynch
Tim Mahoney
Carolyn Maloney
Edward Markey
Jim Matheson
Doris Matsui
Carolyn McCarthy
Betty McCollum
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Mike McIntyre
Jerry McNerney
Michael McNulty
Martin Meehan
Kendrick Meek
Gregory Meeks
Charles Melancon
Michael Michaud
Juanita Millender-McDonald
Brad Miller
George Miller
Harry Mitchell
Alan Mollohan
Gwen Moore
Dennis Moore
James Moran
Christopher Murphy
Patrick Murphy
John Murtha
Grace Napolitano
Richard Neal
James Oberstar
David Obey
John Olver
Solomon Ortiz
Frank Pallone
Bill Pascrell
Ed Pastor
Ron Paul
Donald Payne
Nancy Pelosi
Ed Perlmutter
Collin Peterson
Thomas Petri
Earl Pomeroy
David Price
Nick Rahall
Jim Ramstad
Charles Rangel
Silvestre Reyes
Ciro Rodriguez
Mike Ross
Steven Rothman
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Dutch Ruppersberger
Bobby Rush
Tim Ryan
John Salazar
Loretta Sanchez
John Sarbanes
Jan Schakowsky
Adam Schiff
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Allyson Schwartz
David Scott
Robert Scott
José Serrano
Joe Sestak
Carol Shea-Porter
Brad Sherman
Heath Shuler
Albio Sires
Ike Skelton
Louise Slaughter
Adam Smith
Vic Snyder
Hilda Solis
Zachary Space
John Spratt
Pete Stark
Bart Stupak
Betty Sutton
Linda Sánchez
John Tanner
Ellen Tauscher
Mike Thompson
Bennie Thompson
John Tierney
Edolphus Towns
Mark Udall
Tom Udall
Fred Upton
Nydia Velázquez
Peter Visclosky
James Walsh
Timothy Walz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Melvin Watt
Henry Waxman
Anthony Weiner
Peter Welch
Robert Wexler
Charles Wilson
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Al Wynn
John Yarmuth

So besides being U.S. Representatives, what do these people have in common? They all voted for a nonbinding resolution this afternoon:

This measure expresses the House's disagreement with President Bush's planned troop buildup in Iraq. The nonbinding resolution pledges support for U.S. personnel serving “bravely and honorably in Iraq”' but says Congress “disapproves”' of the president’s plan to add more than 20,000 combat troops.

While the 95-word resolution has no legal weight to force the president to change his course in Iraq, it marks a first key showdown between the White House and the new Congress controlled by Democrats.

I'm definitely no political expert. It may be common for Congress to pass such nonbinding resolutions before voting on actual binding legislation. But what it tells me is that these 246 people are candidates for spine transplants.

I actually read an article that claimed that debate over funding of the war "would have been unthinkable even six months ago." Really? Six months ago puts us back in the middle of August of last year, as campaigns for the mid-term elections were heating up. I remember being repeatedly told that those elections would be a "referendum on the war." It took me all of five seconds to find this article from August 8 that used that exact phrase.

After the elections were over, I was told that "the people had spoken." They were against the war. Our troops would be coming home soon. So 3 months after the elections, and a month after Democrats took control of Congress, we get this? Whatever happened to standing up for your convictions? Um, never mind. I forgot for a moment that I was writing about politicians. It will be interesting to see if any of these jellyfish vote to cut funding and actually end the war, as they promised in their campaigns, or if this is just more political posturing so they can say, "We're against the war," while still bashing the President as the war continues.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

John Amaechi basketball Chris Broussard shares his take on John Amaechi, the former NBA player who reveals his homosexuality in his new book. Some excerpts:

Where he stands:
I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I'm not a member of the Religious Right). And I'm against homosexuality (I believe it's a sin) and same-sex marriage.

But before you label me "homophobic," know that I'm against any type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That includes heterosexual fornication (premarital sex).
On LZ Granderson, an openly-gay writer for ESPN The Magazine:
I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle. Still, we can laugh together, and play ball together.

That's real diversity. Disagreeing but not being disagreeable.
On "progressive" or "enlightened" morality:
Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- is that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened.

That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system.

Where's the diversity in that?

Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion.

Look, I'll accept your right to have your own belief system and to live as you please, but I'm not changing mine. Diversity is not just accepting alternatives to what has long been perceived as normal, but it's accepting the significant number of people who hold to long-standing "traditional" beliefs as well.

Millions of Christians who follow the Bible -- and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many nonreligious Americans -- believe homosexuality is wrong.

That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree.

And please don't compare being homosexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word).

You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from definitive.
Broussard's bottom line:
If I can accept working side-by-side with a homosexual, then he/she can accept working side-by-side with someone who believes homosexuality is wrong.

If an NBA player can accept playing with a homosexual, then the homosexual must accept playing with guys who don't agree with his lifestyle.

Believe me, when the ball goes up, his sexual preference isn't going to matter.
(HT: Tim Ellsworth)

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Name Above All Names

For a couple years while I was in college, I met weekly with 3 other friends to memorize Scripture. The first passage we memorized was Philippians 2:1-11:

     If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from His love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

     Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

     Who, being in very nature God,
          did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
     but made Himself nothing,
          taking the very nature of a servant,
          being made in human likeness.
     And being found in appearance as a man,
          He humbled Himself
          and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!
     Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place
          and gave Him the name that is above every other name,
     that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
          in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
     and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
          to the glory of God the Father.
I've been reminded of this passage recently (along with Acts 4:12 - "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."), when hearing a new Phillips Craig and Dean song, titled "Your Name." The song, which was written by Paul Baloche, features the following lyrics:
As morning dawns and evening fades
You inspire songs of praise
That rise from earth to touch Your heart
And glorify Your Name

Your Name is a strong and mighty tower
Your Name is a shelter like no other
Your Name, let the nations sing it louder
'Cause nothing has the power to save
But Your Name

Jesus, in Your Name we pray
Come and fill our hearts today
Lord, give us strength to live for You
And glorify Your Name

Your Name is a strong and mighty tower
Your Name is a shelter like no other
Your Name, let the nations sing it louder
'Cause nothing has the power to save
But Your Name
You can listen to different full versions of the song at the artists' respective myspace pages: Phillips Craig and Dean or Paul Baloche. Click on the "Your Name" link in the song lists to the right side of the pages.

He Knows My Name

We sang this "simple" song, written by Tommy Walker, to close our Adult Bible Fellowship (ABF) Sunday morning:
I have a Maker
He formed my heart
Before even time began
My life was in his hand.

He knows my name
He knows my every thought
He sees each tear that falls
And hears me when I call

I have a Father
He calls me His own
He'll never leave me
No matter where I go

He knows my name
He knows my every thought
He sees each tear that falls
And hears me when I call
For the story around this song, go here.

Border Update

From this WorldNetDaily article:
The Mexican Consulate played a previously undisclosed role in the events leading to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's high-profile prosecution of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for their role in the shooting of a drug smuggler


In the case of agents Ramos and Compean, WND has obtained notes made by a congressional staff member who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with three investigators from the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General's office.

The staff member's notes indicate the Inspector General's office briefed the congressmen that the Mexican consul had also intervened in the Ramos and Compean case.

According to the notes obtained by WND, the congressmen were told:
Several weeks later (after the February 17, 2005
event near Fabens, Texas), the Mexican Consulate
contacted the U.S. Consulate in Mexico saying that
they have a person who claims to have been shot
by a Border Patrol agent. On March 4, 2005, the
U.S. Consulate contacted the U.S. attorney.
DHS investigative reports filed by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez document that March 4, 2005, is the date on which DHS initiated the Ramos-Compean investigation.

WND can find no evidence the Border Patrol, DHS, or U.S. Attorney Sutton had started any investigation of Ramos or Compean concerning the events of Feb. 17, 2005, prior to March 4, 2005.
(HT: Glenn Beck)

Funny Irony

You can't make this stuff up:
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
(HT: Drudge)

Tuesday, February 13, 2007


This past Saturday John Piper gave a message on adoption, titled "Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel." He shared 8 similarities between God's adoption of Christians and Christians' adoption of children:
1. Adoption was (for God) and is (for us) costly.

When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:4-5)

2. Adoption did (for God) and does (for us) involve the legal status of the child.

When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:4-6)

3. Adoption was blessed and is blessed with God’s pouring out a Spirit of sonship.

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6)

You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:15-16)

4. Adoption was (for God) and is (for us) marked by moral transformation through the Spirit.

All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

5. Adoption brought us, and brings our children, the rights of being heirs of the Father.

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. (Galatians 4:6-7)

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:16-17)

6. Adoption was (for God) and is (for us) seriously planned.

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6)

7. Adoption was (for God) and often is now (for us) from very bad situations.

We . . . were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:3)

8. Adoption meant (for all Christians) and means (for Christian parents) that we suffer now and experience glory later.

The whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:22-23)
(HT: Between Two Worlds)

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Border Patrol Update

I previously wrote (here and here) about two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to prison for shooting a drug smuggling illegal alien in the butt. The whole story sounded extremely fishy, including the Department of Homeland Security giving the drug smuggler immunity to testify against the agents.

I thought there must be something more to this story. Today I found out that there is more to this story, only it wasn't anything that I expected to hear.

Last September 26, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General's office met with four Republican congressmen from Texas to discuss the case and DHS's investigation. Accoring to WorldNetDaily (see here), the following evidential claims were made at that meeting in regards to the Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean:
  • Ramos and Compean confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect. Again – they claim the two agents knew he was unarmed when they fired their weapons.
  • Ramos and Compean stated during the interrogation that they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting.
  • Ramos and Compean stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican."
  • Ramos and Compean were belligerent to investigators.
  • Ramos and Compean destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
Yesterday, DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner testified before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee (see story here). Texas representative John Culberson was questioning Skinner about the September 26 meeting with DHS officials. When Culberson asked Skinner about the investigative reports to back up their claims, which supposedly included eye-witness accounts and signed affidavits, Skinner admitted that DHS in fact did not have any such reports:
"The person who told you that misinformed you," Skinner reportedly replied.
It took DHS four months of failing to produce the reports for the congressmen before ultimately admitting that the reports never existed. You can be sure we haven't heard the last of this, especially with this news coming on the heels of a report of agent Ramos being assaulted in prison by illegal aliens. The story is still fishy - why would DHS go to such extremes to prosecute these men and lie about evidence? What's the story with the drug smuggler? Why would DHS grant him immunity to testify against two U.S. Border Patrol agents for shooting him in the butt?

Thursday, February 01, 2007

I Love Lovie

From this article about Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith:
“God is the center of my life. It controls all that I do. I hope I don’t have to spend my time telling my players I’m a Christian. I hope they see it in my life every day,” Smith said.
(HT: Tim Ellsworth)