Our children should not be political pawns.

Below is a copy of an email I recently received from my son’s school.

A message from MEADOWBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL

Dear Meadowbrook Parents:

As many of you know, the tragic incident in Parkland Florida on February 14 has begun a student movement that includes a 17-minute National School Walkout on March 14, starting at 10:00 AM.  This day also corresponds with our previously scheduled minimum day which will not change.  Our goal is to provide a safe, neutral environment that honors student voice and action, as we balance our efforts and responsibilities to uphold district attendance policies, school safety and the First Amendment Rights of our students and staff.

I have heard from various student leaders on campus, who wish to participate, listening to their ideas and collective efforts on ensuring their voice with this issue is heard. We realize that not all of our students want to participate and we want to honor each and every student.

At Meadowbrook Middle School, students who would like to assemble at 10:00 a.m. can do so in the Quad or the lower fields of our campus.  Our administrative team will be present to supervise the gathering to ensure we meet our responsibility to keep students safe while they participate in this nationwide event.

Students will not be penalized academically for participating in the gathering. Tests, quizzes, nor presentations will be administered during this time and there will not be any make up work required that results from this 17 minute time period. However, if your student elects to leave campus as part of the “walk out” and does not return, PUSD Board polices regarding absences and/or truancies will be implemented.

As a school, it is important to honor each student by remaining neutral on the issue.  I hope this information equips you with talking points to discus with your student.  Should you have any follow up questions, please feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you,

Dr. Miguel Carrillo

Proud Principal

_____________________________________________________________

Ok… so what is this really about? I’ve seen other parents post similar emails on FaceBook. Why are schools allowing this nonsense? Aren’t they charged with providing an education to students? I could understand this if it were something high school students were doing on their own time, but middle school students? This stinks to high heaven as some social cause promoted by liberal school administrators and complicit teachers.

Most middle school students have no idea who they are politically. They’re nothing more than little cookie cutouts of their parents. Sure, some kids are politically aware but most are not. They’re certainly incapable of organizing such a ‘walk-out’ in time to commemorate the one month anniversary of the Parkland school shooting. These students are being used as pawns in something they cannot truly understand. It saddens me and lessens the respect that I had for teachers and principals alike. Our children are better than this… and our educators should be ashamed of themselves.

The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

A lot of hysteria surrounds the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida. Could more have been done to protect the students? Should more laws be passed to control or ban weapons? Why wasn’t this shooter questioned by the FBI after having been reported many times in the preceding months? Why did the armed resource officer refuse to enter the building and confront the active shooter? So many questions!

I really don’t want to dwell over all the ‘if’s, ands, or buts’. I would rather address the 2nd amendment as it relates to this story. People are calling for gun bans because of this shooting event. Most are quick to say it’s ‘for the children’. Really, now??? If they’re so concerned about the children, how come they’re not calling for a ban on abortions? Methinks it’s more about disarming law abiding citizens than about ‘saving the children’.

My personal opinion on this subject is simple… The 2nd amendment is absolute. It cannot be amended, ‘interpreted’, or otherwise watered down. This is because it contains the language ‘shall not be infringed’.

People will tend to argue that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has the ability to rule on the constitutionality of our laws. I disagree. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant SCOTUS this right. The SCOTUS took this ability via Marbury v Madison (1803). In essence, the SCOTUS has been acting unconstitutionally since the time of this ruling. Here’s another point that should be mentioned… Congress may grant the SCOTUS additional powers, to include judicial review, but hasn’t up to this point. Why haven’t they done so? Hard to speculate, but it could it could be as simple as all the other SCOTUS rulings coming under review.

Here’s my line in the sand… the 2nd amendment is absolute, period. Is it a good idea to let mentally ill people etc.,  possess weapons? Absolutely not… but that isn’t up to me. The 2nd states ‘shall not be infringed’. That means we don’t have the ability to deny another citizen their constitutional right to bear arms.

Orlando Shooting

On June 12th, 2016… Omar Mateen went into a gay bar in Orlando, Florida and killed 49 people… wounded another 53. Mateen was a registered democrat and a muslim. But do you think the media and our illustrious president called this a terrorist attack? No, they refuse to use the term. Instead they doubled down and blamed the United States and then called for more restrictions of our 2nd amendment.

We’ve become a nation of idiots being led by fools.

Could this be a possibility?

This election cycle, for lack of better words, has been very unusual. Sure, both Parties are consumed by the typical infighting we’ve all become accustomed to seeing, but there’s also a growing undercurrent at work here.

I remember the days of Ross Perot dividing the Republican Party and helping to cause the election of Bill Clinton. The Democrats just loved that. Then came along Ralph Nader a few years later and did the same to Al Gore. Wasn’t as funny to the Dems then. But the Republicans loved it! Now comes along Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is threatening to split the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. I think it is safe to say that Trump is no conservative. Hell, he’s no RINO either. If I had to define Trump politically, I’d call Trump a populist. Trump is smart, he’s not running as an independent. Trump knows a third party candidate faces a near insurmountable political climb to the presidency. Make no mistake… the Republican Party has no love for Trump. The current Republican establishment is full of RINOs. That said, Trump’s best chance is to run as a Republican.

For many years now, people have felt they’re not being represented by our entrenched two-party system. That sentiment has given rise to the occasional independent candidate. Independent candidates fail. Trump appeals to this group of voters. He’s as ‘anti-establishment’ as a candidate can get. He owes no political favors to any party and cannot be bought. He’s a maverick and a successful businessman. Love him or hate him, Trump is Trump.

This is my prediction. I believe Trump will win the Republican Party nomination. In the general election he’ll take away a lot of Democrat votes to win the presidency in a landslide. It’ll look like the Reagan-Carter election results all over again.

What I hope will happen: After Trump gains the presidency, he leaves the Republican Party and establishes a new Populist Party. The new Populist Party forces both the Democrat and Republican Parties to put forth candidates who appeal to the American people. The subsequent election cycle will be the first modern three-party election.

Will a Trump win eventually lead to elections being won by popular vote? I hope so.

Concerning the SCOTUS and gay marriage…

Here’s the deal. I don’t care if you’re straight, gay, or get your kicks with little furry animals. The SCOTUS does not have the right to rule on the constitutionality of any law. They only have two powers… original jurisdiction and that of setting up lesser courts. They granted themselves the power of judicial review with Marbury v Madison. Since that time, they’ve been a rogue branch of government. With all of that said, the SCOTUS should never have the ability to overturn the will of the people.

Baltimore and Freddie Gray

I’ve refrained from commenting on this story all week. But with the arrest of six officers in Mr. Gray’s death, it seems like a rush to judgment is in full swing.

Freddie Gray

Freddie Gray, died at the age of 25. He was first arrested at 17 and his police record has consisted of 18 different arrests.

  • March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
  • March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
  • January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
  • January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
  • December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
  • December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
  • January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
  • September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second- degree escape
  • April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
  • July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
  • March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
  • February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
  • August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
  • August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)

Barely two weeks have passed and charges have been brought against six police officers in the Freddie Gray case. I highly suspect there hasn’t been enough of a depth of investigation to warrant charges being brought so soon. It is for this reason, I believe, that most of the current charges against the officers will be dismissed or fail at trial.

Baltimore Background:

It is interesting to note that all 15 city council members of Baltimore, including the mayor and police chief, are democrats. There hasn’t been a Republican mayor in Baltimore since 1967.

The current mayor of Baltimore is Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, another democrat. She currently serves as the secretary of the Democratic National Committee and is the vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. She was also a member of the Baltimore city council from December 1995 until January 2007.

The Baltimore Police Commissioner, Anthony Batts, was once married to Laura Richardson… one time U.S. Representative of California’s 37th congressional district. She was defeated in 2012 by democrat Janice Hahn by more than 20 percentage points. In August 2012, the House Ethics committee found that Laura Richardson violated federal law, violated House rules, and obstructed the committee’s investigation. She was found guilty on seven counts of violating House rules by improperly pressuring her staff to campaign for her, destroying evidence and tampering with witness testimony. There were many allegations concerning Anthony Batts during his tenure as Chief in Oakland and Long Beach. Among them were Lobstergate and the possibility the Oakland Police Dept would be put under federal receivership.

Baltimore State Attorney Marilyn Mosby is a democrat. She’s married to Baltimore City Councilman Nick Mosby (D). Nick Mosby represents areas of west Baltimore where riots erupted earlier this week. Marilyn Mosby also has ties to the attorney representing Gray’s family, William Murphy, Jr. Mr. Murphy has raised monies and contributed to Marilyn Mosby’s campaign… as well as being a member of her transition team. It was for this reason, Gene Ryan (police union leader), asked Mosby to appoint a special prosecutor. She’s resisting appointing a special prosecutor.

Balitmore facts and demographics:

Population: 622,000

63% of the population is black

29% of the population is white

Low-wage service economy jobs accounts for 90% of jobs in the city.

Baltimore is an independent city and is not part of any county.

Baltimore has been a democratic stronghold for 150 years.

 

My take on this…

I believe liberal democrats have destroyed many people’s lives, their livelihoods, and the communities where they’re entrenched. Trillions have been spent on LBJ’s ‘war on poverty’ and guess what? We still have poverty. Yet, the liberals will bitch and complain that we’re not doing enough as a nation to end poverty. Our schools have suffered under the collective thumbs of teacher’s unions… another huge pool of liberal democrats. In my opinion, today’s democratic party is a modern slave plantation. Sounds absurd, I know. But think about this… if you’re dependent upon Social Security, welfare, Section 8/government housing, of a whole host of other entitlements… would you really vote for a conservative that wants to cut or reduce those entitlements? Of course not! In essence, your vote has been purchased by way of entitlements. You’re a slave of your overlords, the Democratic Party.

I believe Baltimore is just the latest example of the failure of liberal democrat policies. There aren’t any Republicans around to blame for their plight. And they cannot blame racism either. While 3 of the 6 officers charged are white, the other three are black. The whole governing political structure in charge are black and democrats.

Nuclear tensions in the Mid East

It looks as if the United States has capitulated and Iran will have The Bomb within ten years. Or will they?

Israel cannot depend upon the United States for support in stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Israel’s very survival is at stake. Israel has a few basic options available to them at this point; 1) Send in a small commando force and set off a suitcase sized nuclear device within the Qom complex to seal it off forever, 2) form a coalition force with like minded Arab neighbors and strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, or 3) do nothing.

Iran has, for several years now, been positioning themselves to become a regional powerhouse. They’ve inserted themselves into several Mid East conflicts. Iran helped establish Hezbollah in Lebanon, supported the Shi’ite Iraqi government forces in Tikrit, funded the Shi’ite Houthi rebels in Yemen, is backing Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and funds Hamas in Gaza.

The Middle East is largely divided along two distinct lines… Sunnis/Shi’ites and Arab/Persian. While Shi’ites welcome political and military backing from fellow Shi’ites, historically the Arabs distrust Persia (Iran). This plays into what I see as an ‘unholy alliance’ that results in the formation of a coalition force of Arab states and Israel to combat the ambitions of Iran. Remember, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said sanctions are not working, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, recently visiting Washington, said, “All options must remain on the table” — alluding to a military attack — and “we expect all those who say it to mean it. We mean it.” Israel has, in the past, conducted military strikes against what it saw as external threats to its national security. In 1981, Israel targeted a French built nuclear plant in Iraq. More recently, Israel bombed a missile storage site in Syria in 2013. Those missiles were thought to be bound for Hezbollah.

What would it take for Israel to end Iran’s uranium enrichment program? This is where a coalition force becomes important. Should Israel decide to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, it would have to use weapons that can either contaminate the target with lethal radiation levels or seal it beneath millions of tons of rubble. One of Iran’s nuclear facilities is at Qom (central Iran) and is built into the side of a mountain. Most likely, this facility would require a small nuclear device to destroy/seal it. Israel, by the way, is an undeclared nuclear power.

So why, if Israel has the power to unilaterally attack Iran, does it need to do so within the framework of a coalition force? Simply put, the distance needed to traverse across multiple airspace during a strike, coupled with the political ramifications of ‘going it alone’, it is in the region’s best interest to present a unified front against Iran. Saudi Arabia would be best suited as the coalition base of operations, given its strategic location to Iran and its uneasiness of letting Iran become a Middle East super power.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming months…

 

A brief look at how we’re losing our Constitutional Rights.

Every day we’re losing our Constitutional rights. They’re being slowly eroded away and it seems no one really cares or knows any better. We’ve been taught in public schools that Our United States Constitution is a ‘living’ document. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Constitution is a rigid document and can only be changed via the amendment process. Our Constitution has been ‘interpreted into meaning different things at different times in our country’s history by the Supreme Court of the United States (henceforth referred to as SCOTUS). This ‘interpreting’ of the Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional. If our society deems it necessary to grant additional rights or constitutional protections, then it must be done by amending our Constitution or the Congress granting additional powers to SCOTUS instead of the SCOTUS arbitrarily making law (known as judicial activism). So what went wrong?

Marbury V Madison (1803)

What was Marbury v Madison and why is this case of such great importance? It is precisely this case in which the SCOTUS granted itself the power to rule on the constitutionality of any law and render it void if the SCOTUS felt it went against the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly grants SCOTUS only two powers; 1st) original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2), and 2nd) to set up lesser courts under their authority (Article III, Section 1). The Constitution does not grant the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. The SCOTUS was never intended to be equal to either the Executive or Legislative branches.

The 14th Amendment 1868

The 14th Amendment has often been cited as a ‘backdoor’ way around the amendment process. The main point of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee that former slaves were to be treated as full citizens of the United States (Section 1). The other sections of the 14th addressed controversies that arose over how to deal with the former Confederate States while the last section authorized Congress the power to enforce all sections of the 14th. Again, why is the 14th important today? We, as a nation, no longer have any slaves or old Confederate soldiers. It’s important because it is often used to circumvent the amendment process. Instead of passing a new amendment, the courts can just ‘reinterpret’ the 14th to convey new rights or privileges against the will of the people. This reinterpretation is more commonly known as ‘judicial activism’.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is what courts do to change laws without having and constitutional authority to do so in the first place. They overturn the will of the people and create law. We’ve seen the use of judicial activism many times since Marbury v Madison (1803). We saw it when the SCOTUS created a ‘separation of church and state’ that never existed before. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Notice that the restriction is placed solely upon Congress, i.e., the state. It is a one-way clause. I won’t argue the pros or cons about having a true separation of church and state… My point is that if the people want that separation to be two-way, then we should do so via an amendment.

The same is true with most other issues we face today… gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc. The courts should never have the ability to overturn the will of the people or state constitutional amendments. The courts just don’t have that constitutional power or authority. The people of each state should have the right to live as the majority of that state pleases. Why have individual state constitutions if a judge can overrule the will of the constituents? If any state chooses to legalized marijuana or legitimize gay marriage, so be it. Other states should not be compelled to embrace that which runs contrary to the will of its own people.

Remember… Our Declaration of Independence starts with “We the People…” We are the rightful masters of our government. Insist on our government acting constitutionally.

9 Things You Didn’t Know About the Second Amendment

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment

1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right

 

The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed … this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).

2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights

 

The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion in modern times, because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in context, “it was clearly an individual right” (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body” (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p. 6).

3. Every citizen is the militia

 

To further clarify regarding the use of the word “militia,” the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not necessarily just men. The Court explains: “’Keep arms’ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p. 9). Since the militia is all of us, it doesn’t mean “only carrying a weapon in an organized military unit” (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p. 20).

4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

 

We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn’t the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves … the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury’ (p.21). They conclude “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56).

5. There is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment

 

Interest-balancing means we balance a right with other interests. The court notes that we don’t interpret rights this way stating “we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all” (p.62-63). This doesn’t mean that it is unlimited, the same as all rights (more on that below). However, the court states that even though gun violence is a problem to be taken seriously, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64).

6. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny

 

You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

7. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion

 

You may find this one comical, but it’s in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn’t an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).

8. The Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use at the time”

 

The right to keep and bear arms isn’t unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (p. 54). The Court upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses. What is protected are weapons “in common use of the time” (p.55). This doesn’t mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century. The Court said the idea that it would is “frivolous” and that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). The Court’s criteria includes weapons in popular widespread use “that [are] overwhelmingly chosen by American society” (p. 56), and “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans” (p. 58).

9. The Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original intent

 

The Court didn’t rule specifically on this in D.C. vs. Heller, but noting that weapon technology has drastically changed (mentioning modern day bombers and tanks), they stated “the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” (p. 55).

They further added that “the fact that modern developments [in modern weaponry] have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right” (p. 56). A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling.

Is he a traitor?

Nicaragua and Venezuela willing to grant asylum to Edward Snowden

The White House declined to comment Friday after the Presidents of Venezuela and Nicaragua announced they were prepared to grant NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum.

Although there were no concrete details from Presidents Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua or Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, it is believed that they are the first offers of asylum that Snowden has received since he requested asylum in several countries, including Nicaragua and Venezuela.

“As head of state, the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden so that he can live (without)  … persecution from the empire,” President Maduro said, referring to the United States. He made the offer during a speech marking the anniversary of Venezuela’s independence.  It was not immediately clear if there were any conditions to Venezuela’s offer.

In Nicaragua, Ortega said he was willing to make the same offer “if circumstances allow it.” Ortega didn’t say what the right circumstances would be when he spoke during a speech in Managua.

He said the Nicaraguan embassy in Moscow received Snowden’s application for asylum and that it is studying the request.

“We have the sovereign right to help a person who felt remorse after finding out how the United States was using technology to spy on the whole world, and especially its European allies,” Ortega said.

The White House on Friday refused to comment on the asylum offers, referring questions on the matter to the U.S. Justice Department, according to Reuters.

The offers came a day after left-wing South American leaders gathered to denounce the rerouting of Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane in Europe earlier this week amid reports that Snowden might have been aboard.

Spain on Friday said it had been warned along with other European countries that Snowden, a former U.S. intelligence worker, was aboard the Bolivian presidential plane, an acknowledgement that the manhunt for the fugitive leaker had something to do with the plane’s unexpected diversion to Austria.

It is unclear whether the United States, which has told its European allies that it wants Snowden back, warned Madrid about the Bolivian president’s plane. U.S. officials will not detail their conversations with European countries, except to say that they have stated the U.S.’s general position that it wants Snowden back.

President Barack Obama has publicly displayed a relaxed attitude toward Snowden’s movements, saying last month that he wouldn’t be “scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.”

But the drama surrounding the flight of Bolivian President Evo Morales, whose plane was abruptly rerouted to Vienna after apparently being denied permission to fly over France, suggests that pressure is being applied behind the scenes.

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo told Spanish National Television that “they told us that the information was clear, that he was inside.”

He did not identify who “they” were and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the U.S. But he said that European countries’ decisions were based on the tip. France has since sent a letter of apology to the Bolivian government.

Meanwhile, secret-spilling website WikiLeaks said that Snowden, who is still believed to be stuck in a Moscow airport’s transit area, had put in asylum applications to six new countries.

The organization said in a message posted to Twitter on Friday that it wouldn’t be identifying the countries involved “due to attempted U.S. interference.”  They also called for “all strong countries” in the Union of South American Nations to offer Snowden asylym.

A number of countries have already rejected asylum applications from Snowden.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.