Medellin had lived in the US, Cruz wrote, “for most of his life…had attended American schools, and read and wrote English…” But Medellin had been born in Mexico—technically, like any other illegal alien, he was still a Mexican citizen.

The US Supreme Court didn’t overturn Medellin’s conviction. He was executed by the state of Texas in August, 2008. What’s important is that Medellin cited Avena as justification for his challenge.

The US Report on Human Rights, however, with a statement pledging compliance to Avena, upends that Supreme Court decision and effectively places International Law above US laws and sovereignty. That single statement in the UN report backdoors international law and not a single media outlet noticed. Nor did Congress.

I read the whole report. There are many troubling statements within it, including yielding to Mexico again on the new Arizona immigration law.

Compliance with Avena is the most troubling statement in the whole report.

This is not a new issue. After President Harry Truman seized the steel mills on the pretext of necessity because of the Korean War, Watkins said “three Supreme Court justices approved this action by citing to the UN Charter and the NATO treaty.” Republican senator John Bricker proposed an amendment that would have restricted treaty power. The amendment did not pass.

Watkins believes the Bricker amendment should be reintroduced.

Obama has voiced support for elevating international law, and so have some of his cabinet members.

 Cruz wrote, “Medellin was a significant victory for U.S. sovereignty, for separation of powers, and for federalism. Yet these fights will keep on coming. The creep of international law, and the asserted authority of international tribunals, will pose one of the greatest challenges of coming decades. And there will remain a continued need to defend our sovereignty, and our structural limitations on government, so as to preserve our liberty.”

That need is critical because our president and his state department have pledged, via the Avena decision of the ICJ, to elevate international law above the sovereign laws of the United States. And that bit of policy was pushed through the back door by way of a report on human rights.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Aug. 30, 2010)

It’s hard for a thinking person to take The Washington Post seriously. I never link to the paper although I will cite it when I absolutely have to. There was the Obama salon—Politico said the WaPo publisher was going to sell access to White House officials, congressmen and even WaPo minions who write the daily dithering leftwingers love to read and cite.

Then there was the Journolist scandal—most political class media were afraid to report it because they had people on the list. The Journolist founder whose name I forget was some leftwing reporter who worked at WaPo and kept running his list. Democrat supporters gathered at the list like Holy Rollers gather at the river only the Journolist faithful were baptized in the blood of progressive politics and propaganda.

There’s more but we’ve only got so much time. I really did mean to get out of my office early today.

But then I saw the blurb about the Glenn Beck Rally—the proper name for it is ‘Restoring Honor.’

Naturally leftwing and Democrat allied readers pulled out their keyboards to publish allegations of racism, race-baiting and every other vile thing under the sun because if it’s one thing a so-called Progressive hates it’s anyone who happens to disagree with him.

WaPo blurbed the rally with a precaution—“With Glenn Beck's Saturday rally, it's best to be wary of estimates.” This statement was followed by an (in my opinion) inflated estimate of a demonstration best described as an amnesty rally for illegal aliens. Here’s the double irony—‘Restoring Honor’ hasn’t even happened yet. WaPo apparently wants to nix estimates before the crowd convenes. Typical of current reportage, I suppose.

Coincidentally I saw a header about employees at old-time TV networks coughing up campaign donations for President Barack Obama during the 2008 election. The Washington Examiner said, “Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.”

I reported on Democrat sympathizers in media two years ago after concluding media were acting as Democrat groupies.

US media is entitled to whatever position they prefer of course. But I think it’s safe to say that all those ‘nastyisms’ people fling at Fox News stem from their frustration over the fact there is one network leftwingistas don’t control.

I’m not upset by that. Main Street is a whole lot smarter than the political elitists assume.

But when I read the vicious remarks at WaPo by readers of that publication—when I saw the level of spitefulness and pejoratives displayed by people who, if they could, would silence the voices of those who disagreed with them, I realized exactly how unbalanced—perhaps even unwell—so many of those people are.

Are Democrats proud of their political offspring? Because on their worst day, the most rabid right wingers don’t sink that low.

A final thought—those readers who post vile accusations and profane insults on sites like WaPo are part of the Democrat brand. Remember that when you head to the polls November 2.