Where’s the Outrage?… Border Patrol Officer Jailed For Pulling Illegal Alien’s Handcuffs and Not Disclosing It? | The Gateway Pundit

Where’s the Outrage?… Border Patrol Officer Jailed For Pulling Illegal Alien’s Handcuffs and Not Disclosing It? | The Gateway Pundit

Border Patrol Officer Jesus Diaz was prosecuted and convicted of one count of excessive force and 5 counts of lying to Internal Affairs. The excessive force? He allegedly pulled on the handcuffs of his illegal alien drug smuggling prisoner! He faces up to 35 years in prison and is currently being held in solitary confinement 23 hours per day.

BPO Jesus Diaz Jr. Photo via LEOAC

The Examiner reported -

In what appears to be yet another case of the Mexican Government orchestrating a fake crime against one of their drug smuggling criminals hauling dope into the U.S., Border Patrol Agent Jesus Diaz, a 7-year Border Patrol veteran, was convicted in Federal Court on February 24 of one count of excessive force (under color of law) and 5 counts of lying to Internal Affairs. He is facing a maximum of 35 years in prison when he is sentenced in November. Meanwhile, he’s been in jail since the verdict nearly two months ago. He’s in solitary confinement 23 hours per day for his safety. So far, the judge has refused to allow bond while Diaz awaits sentencing.

This latest prosecution against a U.S. border agent stems from an October 2008 incident near the Rio Grande River in Eagle Pass, TX where Diaz and several other agents responded to illegal aliens who had crossed the river into Texas with bundles of drugs.

Agents apprehended the aliens and as Diaz was getting ready to put one of the aliens in the truck for transport, he allegedly pulled on his handcuffs, a common law enforcement technique to get suspects to cooperate. It was 1:30 in the morning and Diaz and the other agents were trying to find the drugs brought over by the suspects and determine if any other cartel smugglers were hiding in the bushes nearby. The suspect refused to answer their questions. They eventually found the drugs and all were taken to the station for processing.

You will never guess who the prosecutor was that initiated Diaz’s prosecution. Remember this guy?

This case was brought by the infamous U.S. Attorney in West Texas, Johnny Sutton, known for his extremely aggressive and controversial prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean back in 2006. Sutton left office in 2009, but his chief deputy took over and prosecuted this case, once again at the demands of the Mexican Government.

Diaz was tried in September 2010, but the case ended in a mistrial. The DOJ tried the case again in February 2011 and this time they got their conviction, even though federal agent witnesses admitted they had lied to a grand jury. The judge did not allow the fact that they had committed perjury into the second trial.

Sources close to the case say there were numerous holes in the claims made by the illegal alien drug smuggler from the start. Photos taken at the Border Patrol station just after the incident show no bruising or injuries to the alleged “victim”, who was 16 at the time of the arrest.

Also, Agent Diaz was allowed to remain on duty with his weapon for over a year before the U.S. Attorney finally decided to bring charges.

The Mexican drug smuggler, who is now an adult, was given full immunity from all his crimes to testify against Diaz at trial. He is also now eligible for a free visa to come and go within the U.S. if he wants to.

Where is P.J. Crowley to protest Officer Diaz’s treatment the way that he is Pfc. Bradley Manning’s of Wikileaks fame? Where are the 250+ scholars outraged at Manning’s treatment?

And where is Governor Rick Perry?

Obama To Implement Gag Order By Decree | NetRight Daily

Obama To Implement Gag Order By Decree | NetRight Daily

Obama To Implement Gag Order By Decree

By Bill Wilson – On April 18, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner, broke a story for Pajamas Media about a draft executive order by the White House to compel companies, their directors, and officers to disclose donations to candidates, parties, campaign committees, and non-profit groups that make independent expenditures during an election cycle.

The executive order would apply to both “[a]ll contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control” and to “[a]ny contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”

As von Spakovsky notes, contractors are already barred from making “[a]ny contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.” So why the seeming redundancy?

The additional obligation, von Spakovsky writes, is that “this will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report political contributions those employees have made, not out of corporate funds (which is illegal), but out of their personal funds.” And therein lays the motive.

As part of the contract-awarding process, the White House wants to know who is giving to whom and will surely make decisions based on that knowledge. This is corrupt Chicago-style political thuggery at its worst.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell strongly condemned the draft order, saying, “No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation before deciding if you’re worthy of a government contract. And no one should have to worry about whether their political support will determine their ability to get or keep a federal contract or keep their job.”

McConnell continued, “Democracy is compromised when individuals and small businesses fear reprisal, or expect favor from the federal government as a result of their political associations.” He’s right. This adds a criterion that affects the awarding of bids that has nothing to do with the price of the contract or the efficiency with which it would be delivered.

Instead, the order will likely have four effects disrupting activities otherwise protected by the First Amendment and distorting the bidding and awarding process: 1) it will intimidate directors, officers, and employees of federal contractors from engaging in political speech and from making donations to candidates and organizations engaged in express advocacy; 2) it will cause others to believe that they need to pay up with the right people in order to get a contract; 3) it will increase the price of federal contracts and lead to inefficiencies; and 4) it will institutionalize corruption as contracts are awarded on the basis of who the employees of the contractor are donating to.

The sheer bias and outrage of this order is indicated by who it does not apply to, as von Spakovsky notes: “Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.”

So, labor bosses and advocacy organizations that receive federal subsidies, particularly those that have been supportive of Barack Obama and Democrats more broadly, would be exempt from the disclosure requirements. How convenient.

Making matters worse, atop the corruption of the federal contracting process is Obama’s attempt to arbitrarily amend the laws of the land by executive decree. Federal contractor requirements cannot be changed without a vote in Congress. This is an end-run around Congress, with the Obama Administration once again attempting to implement administratively what it cannot achieve legislatively.

The White House could not get the DISCLOSE Act passed last year, and so the draft executive order would compel federal contractors to publicize its employees’ donations to candidates, parties, and also political non-profits that make independent expenditures.

The executive order would apply to any donations in excess of $5,000 in a given year. Any contractor and its directors and officers that donates in the past two years in excess of the specified minimum to an organization that engages in express advocacy of a candidate would have their names submitted to http://data.gov.

Senator McConnell held out hope that the executive order would never be enacted, saying, “It is my sincere hope that recent reports of a draft Executive Order were simply the work of a partisan within the Obama administration and not the position taken by the President himself.” Let us hope he’s right.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Bill on Twitter at @BillWilsonALG.

Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/04/obama-to-implement-gag-order-by-decree/#ixzz1KCibpDfo