The facts are beyond dispute. Humberto Leal, an illegal alien who had been in the United States since he was 2-years-old, abducted, raped and murdered 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, an intoxicated teenager who had already been repeatedly assaulted by multiple men at a backyard party. Leal "raped her some more before finally ending her misery by crushing in her skull with a 35 lb chunk of asphalt" and then left her brutalized body on the side of the road with a broken stick approximately 14 to 16 inches long with a screw at the end of it protruding from her vagina. It is difficult for anyone to argue that, if one concedes the propriety of the death penalty, that an offence such as this one would merit any other form of punishment.

Leal is set to be executed by the state of Texas this evening in retribution for his horrific crime. When that happens, the world will be a cleaner place.

However, there are those who are seeking to stop this execution – including the federal government under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama.

The execution of a Mexican national on U.S. ground scheduled for Thursday has become something of an international brouhaha.

President Obama, the State Department and Mexico, have all asked Texas for a last-minute reprieve of Humberto Leal, 38, who was convicted in 1995 in the brutal raping and murder of a teenage girl. Citing the U.N.-enforced 1963 Vienna Treaty, the officials believe Leal could have altered his penalty had he been given the chance.

The treaty requires foreign nationals who are arrested in foreign countries the right to access their consulates. Texas police would have been required to inform Leal that he has the legal right to contact the Mexican consular, which could have offered him legal advice.

A couple points:

1) There has been no evidence produced that Texas authorities DENIED Leal access to consular officials. Rather, they did not know that he was a Mexican citizen when he was initially arrested and therefore did not know to inform him of the treaty rights. Is it the position of the Obama Administration, which is suing states for having cops make inquiries about citizenship and immigration status, that cops must now make inquiries about citizenship and immigration status to comply with the treaty?

2) Based upon the totality of the appellate record, multiple courts have found that his trial and conviction complied in all regards with the requirements of the US and Texas Constitutions. There is therefore no evidence that this technical error harmed him (as has already been determined by a federal court), and no basis for either a new trial or a commutation of his sentence to something other than death. The hearing that is now being demanded is, therefore, utterly superfluous because he has already one (as noted in the link in the last sentence) – and granting him an additional review to him and other foreigners (including illegal aliens) has the effect of GIVING MORE LEGAL RIGHTS TO THEM THAN TO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

3) The 2008 Supreme Court precedent that allows this execution to go forward still holds, and the buffoon in the White House has produced absolutely no argument regarding substantive changes in the facts or the law hat would result in the high court repudiating that earlier precedent. At best, the Obama Regime is arguing that the introduction of legislation in the US Senate – legislation which is by no means certain of being enacted into law – ought to have the same impact as a law enacted under the procedures laid out in the US Constitution. Unfortunately for the “professor of constitutional law,” that line of reasoning is a constitutional non-starter.

In other words, there is no reason for Texas not to proceed with this execution. Hook up the IV and let 'er DRIP!