Mexico’s violence: The darkness before the dawn, or the darkness of the abyss?
by RickG | 05/15/2008 1:17 pm | Alert moderatorAs Mexico seems on the brink of returning to banana republic status, as evidenced by the open warfare in its streets, one has to ask if this is that darkest time before the dawn, or the abyss swallowing the country whole.
Drug “kingpins,” as we know, are not your average criminals. When pursued by police, the ususal bank robber, murderer or mugger will run and hide for as long as it takes to stay off the radar screen. By contrast, drug lords start all-out wars.
The best known example was Columbia’s Pablo Escobar, who operated with impunity for many years, becoming (according to Forbes Magazine) one of the world’s richest men, even cloaking himself in the mantle of respectability by being elected to public office. But when Columbia, partly through the prodding of the US, decided it was time to re-take the country from Escobar, he pushed back - and pushed back hard.
The carnage in Columbia was unimaginable to most Americans. After the widespread bribery ceased to suit Escobar’s purpose, he turned to murder. He directed the killing of hundreds of politcians, judges and police officers, and countless other civilians were caught in the cross-fire. During one two-month period, deaths at the hands of Escobar averaged 20 people per day. And that’s not counting those under Escobar’s control who were killed by his enemies.
Ultimately imprisoned (where he continued running his drug and murder empire), Escobar escaped. A year and a half later, he was cornered and died in a gun battle with police (or, according to some, was executed on the spot, the government having no intention of allowing him to escape again). He was 44. (For the complete story of the demise of this brute, I highly recommend the page-turner Killing Pablo by Mark Bowden.)
To be sure, Escobar’s death did not mean the end of the Columbian drug trade, but it was a successful battle in a potentially perpetual war, much like we face in the War on Terror. It disrupts the bad guys, driving some of them back underground, and shows a skeptical public that even the most poweful criminals can be brought down.
Which brings us to the crisis in Mexico. Since President Calderon announced a year and a half ago that he was out to get the drug cartels, they have made it clear they were not going away without a fight.
And fight they have - murdering policemen and government officials in broad daylight, in very public places, sending a message that they are in control.
Things have gotten so bad that, according to today’s Houston Chronicle, some police officials are now begging to leave their country:
. . .American officials said Wednesday that three Mexican police chiefs have sought asylum north of the border in fear for their lives.
Jayson Ahern, the deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Enforcement, told the Associated Press that the officials had sought asylum “in the past few months.”
US officials say the chiefs feel abandoned by their own officers and department. The chief of Puerto Palomas recently sought asylum here after his department received death threats, and the entire force then quit.
And the shocking violence continues:
- Seven men were killed “gangland-style” Sunday in Puerto Palomas.
- More than 3,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence since Calderon began his pursuit of the traffickers.
- The police chief of Ciudad Juarez was killed last weekend, shot 60 times.
- A senior Federal Preventative Police official was murdered in Mexico City last week.
- Three Mexican state policemen were shot this week near the West Texas border.
- Two officers were killed, and six kidnapped, in the state of Guerrero.
- Gunmen reportedly attacked a police outpost in Sinaloa state, on the country’s Pacific coast.
And these are just recent incidents. We all recall other outrageous, such as machine gun battles in Nuevo Laredo, just a short bridge walk from Laredo, Texas, USA.
Mexican officials do not deny that some of the policemen killed were involved with this gang or that, but there is no mistaking that the drug lords sense a threat to their wealth and power, and are trying to force Calderon to call off the dogs - or face more of the same.
The US, which has a huge stake in, at the very least, keeping the violence from spilling wholesale over the border, is readying financial help to Mexico. President Bush has asked Congress to allocate $1.4 billion in “anti-narcotics” aid for countries to our south, with the overwhelming majority of those funds to go to Mexico.
That’s a lot of money, but it will be well-spent if it actually assists Mexico in re-gaining control of its country and reining in the vicious drug gangsters.
It’s provincial, I know, but I prefer that these gun battles remain confined to the streets of Mexico, though they threaten to burst into Texas and other states almost daily.
So we watch intently to learn if the explosion in violence is a precursor to the Mexican government re-establishing order, or rather a sign of a free-fall into the darkness.
75 Responses to “Mexico’s violence: The darkness before the dawn, or the darkness of the abyss?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Does anyone anywhere (outside the Beltway) actually believe that any of this money or other resources will actually get to its intended destination?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
SEAL THE BORDER, and let Mexico fix the problem.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
1. Rastus
I do. I believe much, if not all, of it is in materials instead of cash. I will double-check on that.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
And if Mexico won’t fix the border, send in the Marines - again. Wouldn’t be the first time.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
RickG - Mexico has gobs of oil and they receive all the money floating back south of the border. They have the money to fix their own problem. But I have no issue with the US advising them on how to do it - just let them use their own money.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I worry supplies won’t stay long in the right sides hands. If history repeats, we have supplied before, and the supplies have wound up on the wrong side. Also, these cartels are well funded. They have state of the art weaponry. The concern USBW has in Houston, is the Columbians coming, here, joining gangs here, are deadly. They have no respect for life. I don’t know the answer…… Close the border.
On a happier note, I just heard John McCain say after his first term as President, we will have returned those illegals who have broken out laws AFTER they came here, and will have a good guest worker program that makes sure these people are treated in a humane manner. It all sounds very nice, but not making them responsible for entering illegally is amnesty. DUNCAH HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT
May 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’m not sure how the funds will actually be turned over, but at least some of them will be used for military equipment (ie, not cash):
http://www.witnessforpeace.org/mexico/planmexicoalert.html
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that any money we give Mexico will end up in some corrupt official’s pocket. I don’t think we have widespread evidence of that with the Calderon administration, though certainly I would appreciate the info if you have it.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
If George W. were serious about aiding Mexico, he’d seal the border now. no doubt these drug kingpins make hge amounts of $ selling drugs and smuggling people to the US. Sealing the border would greatly defund these drug lords which would give Calderon a huge upperhand in his righteous war against them.
Like the Miranda deal, allow the 1.6 billion to Mexico *if* matching funds were given to the border patrol and border sheriffs on our side.
Tanks to Pat and Edd in making headway to this end.
Now George W. has yet *ONE MORE REASON* to seal the border. Is the North American Uninon *really* that important to jepordize the saftey of Americans as well as to aid (by not doing what you can to stop it) in the deaths of Mexican officials and citizens?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
5. dcgirl
Oh, I wish the US didn’t send money to dozens of countries. But if we are going to do it, I think trying to fix Mexico is about as good a return as we might get. It certainly makes as much sense as billions of dollars in other aid we hand out around the world.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
american woman #6;
YES!!!! My sentiments exactly!!! That says it all for me.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
8. Darren
What is your plan for “sealing the border”?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Duncan Hunter has less of a chance of being president than Ron Paul.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Good story, Rick.
We have helped Colombia and other countries in their narco wars. And the specter of the Islamic Jihadists finding safe haven and passage in northern Mexico increases exponentially with the anarchy expanding across that region. Chavez and the presidents of Ecuador and Bolivia have been firmly linked to the FARC in recent intelligence coups. There is strong circumstantial evidence of growing cooperation between these Latin Leftists and the Islamic terrorist groups. An enormous sparsely populated area completely under the control of multinational criminal gangs immeditely along our southern border constitutes imminent danger for America.
I am all for support in money and material to the Mexican government as long as we can implement the proper oversight.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
13. texpat
Good points. We’ve all heard, since shortly after September 11, of the danger of terrorists coming at us from the south. I only hope it’s not just a matter of time.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Rick, I can’t find a good article on current corruption but this is kind of interesting.
http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/normal.asp?pageid=308
May 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The problem with sending money to Mexico is that they have plenty of their own. I say make them use theirs first and then, if they can prove that they can’t afford to spend more, we can take a look at the situation again.
I also agree that we need to cease foreign aid to most countries, except for humanitarian aid after an earthquake, etc. Note that I didn’t say $.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
A really good case for securing our borders, especially the Southern Border.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Marine Corps and Army divisions average around 17,500 men per division. The border is 10,400,000 feet long. Figure 2/3 of a division on the line at any one time. You could put 10 divisions on the line and have an average of one man every 90 feet, plus plenty of reaction forces available. THAT would seal the border. Modern night vision and aerial observation equipment would ensure it stays sealed.
What would it cost us, and would would it save us in lower welfare payments, medical costs, prison costs and associated police, court and crime losses, plus education costs.
Then you have to add back in what it would cost us in paying higher wages and costs for everything.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
The corruption is so rampant down there, I don’t know if it can ever be fixed. And as someone previously stated, the government has enough resources in the country owned oil company to pay for this. Don’t send financial help, send military training only. If you give them weapons they will only fall into the hands of the drug dealers. Spend that money on this side of the border—–CLOSE THE DAMN BORDERS!!!!!!!!
May 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I like the idea of our military taking charge of training theirs. And I like the idea of a firm stand of military along our boarder.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
#16 dcgirl
The US 2006 budget was 2.7 trillion dollars. We spent a little less than 40 billion in all foreign and military aid programs, less than two percent.
Iraq, Afghanistan and other war expenditures are not included in that. They fall under the Defense Dept. budget.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
dc girl, our military special forces trained the Mexican anti drug teams. Then those teams went to work for the drug lords.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/mexican_drug_commandos.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004298820_mexdrugs22.html?syndication=rss
May 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’m with Big45, seal them up, put in a naval blockade, and watch the fireworks. We CAN seal the border, anyone who tells you different is either stupid or lying. The problem is that we have not even TRIED to seal the border. We, as a nation, don’t WANT to. We SHOULD, We COULD, but we won’t.
The alternative is to send in troops and clean the mess up ourselves and annex them as the other 7 states that Obama must have been talking about.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#22, Bigs is right, they are the Zetas, they are the drug smuggler’s bodyguards now.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mexico is corrupt. We can’t change them unless we take over the country. We don’t want to do that. We are already baby sitting one country while they learn. I would approve going into Mexico en masse and killing all the drug groups and leaving.
And we sure as heck don’t want to annex them. Can you imagine how much that would cost us in welfare payments?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Ted Poe said at that meeting, we could close the borders today if our government wanted it done. There is no desire to do so.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
There is nothing wrong with Mexico that a few well placed tactical nukes would not solve.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
#25, Bigs, we’re already spending the money now, it just is in a different form. My annexing them, we could actually REDUCE the expenditures by getting rid of the corrupt middlemen.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
excuse please, that should read “By annexing them…”
May 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
You know Rorschach, my thoughts leaned towards annexation until I started to see their lack of desire to assimilate. I don’t want us to loose American culture.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
That’s where my #27 comes in…..
May 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I get a little concerned when it seems that 40 billion dollars is just a “little” bit. Gee 40 billion here and 40 billion there and you have a whole lotta money! Just think what we could have done with that money - maybe even lower taxes some!
May 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
18. Big45
But that doesn’t solve the problem. Putting one man every five feet wouldn’t solve it. You still have to deal with them. And, as we know, you just can’t shoot them. Now, they are processed and returned, all of which costs additional millions of dollars.
And the political will in this country has been proven to be insufficient to do what you propose. Not to mention the lawsuits and constituional attacks on such a program.
I still think the best solution is to encourge Mexico to upgrade its society and help out where we reasonably can. That woujld be better than any kind of military solution, wouldn’t it?
I’m not sold on the claim that Mexico could never be reformed. Calderon is taking on the drug traffickers right now, and it is a pitch battle. But in the end it’s all about leadership.
Wouldn’t a prosperous, clean, safe Mexico complement us nicely?
May 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
RickG;
MY PLAN FOR SEALING THE BORDER;
If believe we had this once upon a thread ago.
Militarize the border. ANY people coming across would be arrested. Jail time for any and all illegals. No “just shoot them” necessary…in this case.
ANY people coming across armed will be treated as hostile. If they do cot comply to orders, they are liable to get shot. And before you announce that this may not be constitutional like I recall you commenting once upon a thread ago, please show what part of the US Constitution would prohibit US authorities from shooting people coming across and posing an immediate treat to them.
BOTH these simple and cost-effective actions *combined* with cracking down on employers as well as encouraging the country to move in a direction to deny social benefits to those here illegally, would be quite an effective seal on the border.
In terms of cleaning up Mexico, is it not true that that will not happen unless the people there do it? Allowing people to come across openly only prolongs the corruption in Mexico. I’m all for helping Mexico AS LONG AS we help ours as well. Match ALL foreign aide to Mexico to those on our own border, and you’ll find me a very outspoken suppoter for aiding the Mexican governemtn in their righteous fight against the drug cartels.
As for the border, let’s create a small, simple photo essay from my all time favorite talk radio morning show, the Don Wade & Roma Show based in Chicago. They took a trip to the border. Don’t know when but they did.
Take a look at this pic:
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304970
Now this:
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304972
And now this one:
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304973
What are the similarities?
- All in broad daylight
- All imply very dangerous
Don strapped on a protective vest and the sheriff carried a high-powered rifle. This is nothing new to those here in the border state in of Texas, particularly to KSEV listeners.
Now, regarding the war in Mexico’s streets…
…look at this pic…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304976
…and this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304977
One single bridge Don and Roma simply walked across and entered Mexico. NO ONE MANNING IT.
Also see this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304978
..and finally this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304979
That’s a lot more dope than two stupid kids can place in someones’ skull dug up from a cemetary.
Who’s making money from these drugs? I say Sesame Street is but others may say the Mexican drug cartels are. WE MUST CLOSE THE BORDERS if only to severely defund the drug cartels and help Mexico. this alone, far and away, more than ANYTHING ELSE we can do, would help Mexico win this war *AND* protect americans from it crossing over to our side.
Now, one more look at this picture and fill in the blank.
“Deputy Kelly Legarreta, who encountered the _____________________ (two word answer)with the 3 SUVs loaded with drugs.
Please explain why we *can’t* shoot on sight in this situation. This situation *alone*, with nothing else said or done, qualifies as an act of war/agression from a foreign power. What part of the Constitution would prevent us from taking such action against it and to prevent it from repeating itself?
May 15th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I don’t see the post I just sent. I had several internet links in it. Would that be cause for it to be moderated before we see it? If so let me know. i can easily break up my post.
HAL chokes at two links, positively stops breathing at three or more. LST Moderator
May 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
#32 dcgirl
Yes, 40 billion is a lot of money. I often hear people saying we should stop sending all our money overseas. I wanted to point out the amount of money is miniscule compared to what we throw away here.
For instance, the US Senate voted 85-15 to pass a Farm Bill of 307 billion. That includes a 10.9 billion increase in food stamps and another 20.9 billion in “nutrition programs”. In fact, over 200 billion of those funds do not even go to farmers. I would gladly spend a portion or all of that food stamp increase to kill every last dope gangster in Mexico.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Rick, actually my microwave solution would work. No nonsense about cooking people now. In a microwave field, when you entered it, you would start getting a headached. The farther into the field, the worse your headache. Now if you didn’t go back, sooner or later you would cook. But the headache would force you back before then. All we would have to do is put up warning signs and have a squad to guard each tower. One tower can seal for more than a mile. Of course the animal rights/endangered snail people would raise hell, but it would work.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
My response RickG # 11 response : part 1
RickG;
MY PLAN FOR SEALING THE BORDER;
If believe we had this once upon a thread ago.
Militarize the border. ANY people coming across would be arrested. Jail time for any and all illegals. No “just shoot them” necessary…in this case.
ANY people coming across armed will be treated as hostile. If they do cot comply to orders, they are liable to get shot. And before you announce that this may not be constitutional like I recall you commenting once upon a thread ago, please show what part of the US Constitution would prohibit US authorities from shooting people coming across and posing an immediate treat to them.
BOTH these simple and cost-effective actions *combined* with cracking down on employers as well as encouraging the country to move in a direction to deny social benefits to those here illegally, would be quite an effective seal on the border.
In terms of cleaning up Mexico, is it not true that that will not happen unless the people there do it? Allowing people to come across openly only prolongs the corruption in Mexico. I’m all for helping Mexico AS LONG AS we help ours as well. Match ALL foreign aide to Mexico to those on our own border, and you’ll find me a very outspoken supporter for aiding the Mexican government in their righteous fight against the drug cartels.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
My Response to RickG # 11: Part2
Take a look at this pic:
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304970
Now this:
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304972
And now this one:
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304973
What are the similarities?
- All in broad daylight
- All imply very dangerous
Don strapped on a protective vest and the sheriff carried a high-powered rifle. This is nothing new to those here in the border state in of Texas, particularly to KSEV listeners.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
My response to RickG # 11: part3
Now, regarding the war in Mexico’s streets…
…look at this pic…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304976
…and this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304977
One single bridge Don and Roma simply walked across and entered Mexico. NO ONE MANNING IT.
Also see this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304978
..and finally this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304979
That’s a lot more dope than two stupid kids can place in someones’ skull dug up from a cemetary.
Who’s making money from these drugs? I say Sesame Street is but others may say the Mexican drug cartels are. WE MUST CLOSE THE BORDERS if only to severely defund the drug cartels and help Mexico. this alone, far and away, more than ANYTHING ELSE we can do, would help Mexico win this war *AND* protect Americans from it crossing over to our side.
Now, one more look at this picture and fill in the blank.
“Deputy Kelly Legarreta, who encountered the _____________________ (two word answer) with the 3 SUVs loaded with drugs.
Please explain why we *can’t* shoot on sight in this situation. This situation *alone*, with nothing else said or done, qualifies as an act of war/aggression from a foreign power. What part of the Constitution would prevent us from taking such action against it and to prevent it from repeating itself?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
My response to RickG # 11; part 3;
Now, regarding the war in Mexico’s streets…
…look at this pic…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304976
…and this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304977
One single bridge Don and Roma simply walked across and entered Mexico. NO ONE MANNING IT.
See note above. HAL positively LOVES original thinking. LST Moderator
May 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Now Part 4 and DONE. sorry about the nature of this response. it might be irritating but I could not squeeze it in in one post.
Also see this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304978
..and finally this…
http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=18876&photoID=1304979
That’s a lot more dope than two stupid kids can place in someones’ skull dug up from a cemetary.
Who’s making money from these drugs? I say Sesame Street is but others may say the Mexican drug cartels are. WE MUST CLOSE THE BORDERS if only to severely defund the drug cartels and help Mexico. this alone, far and away, more than ANYTHING ELSE we can do, would help Mexico win this war *AND* protect Americans from it crossing over to our side.
Now, one more look at this picture and fill in the blank.
“Deputy Kelly Legarreta, who encountered the _____________________ (two word answer) with the 3 SUVs loaded with drugs.
Please explain why we *can’t* shoot on sight in this situation. This situation *alone*, with nothing else said or done, qualifies as an act of war/aggression from a foreign power. What part of the Constitution would prevent us from taking such action against it and to prevent it from repeating itself?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
42,
Darren,
In response to one of your points, yes, shooting someone at the border without just cause is a violation of the constitution and will get you sued if not imprisoned. Merely crossing the border, without more, is not “an aimmediate threat.”
There are slews of Supreme Court and lower court decisions discussing use of excessive force as a violation of civil rights and subject to civil and/or criminal liability. And, whether you or I like it or not, the courts have extended civil rights protections and access to our courts to non-citizens, including illegals.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
addendum to 43
The Constituion doesn’t say anything about having to provide public education for illegal immigrants, but the federal courts have said the Constitution requires just that.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
37. Big
I actually like that idea. Relatively inexpensive and very effective. But, alas, you’re right. The PETA group (along with the ACLU, no doubt) would be so up in arms…heh, heh…
May 15th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Big, The microwave pain generator that the USAF has been experimenting with would foot the bill nicely.
Rick, State law allows the use of deadly force to protect your property, that would include trespassing and destruction of property (cutting fences). So your #43 is not entirely correct.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
If they are caught coming across the border and they are not in uniform, they are SPIES.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
How about spending the 1.4 billion on the US side. Less drugs making it in the US, the less for all those good-hearted people south of the US to kill each other trying to get it across. And we help the US the economy by spending it here and not putting it in the back pockets of a few dozen good citizens of mexico.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
46.
Yes, but I believe that there has to at least be a perceived threat before you can kill someone. I don’t think stepping across your property line qualifies. But, I agree, and intended to (if I didn’t) assume the absence of a real or perceived danger.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Amnesty again;
Speaking of our reations with our southern friends, manesty was attached to the Iraq spending bill according to NumersUSA. Please call your senators to demand they vote against this. cornyn’s phone lines are busy at the moment. that’s a good sign. Email should do fine as well.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
#48
Does anyone think the Republicans don’t want to spend 1.4 billion on our side of the border or fully fund our border security? Talk radio operates in a “perfect world” not the real world. Last time I looked the Dems had a 231 to 198 advantage. Any bill introduced would have died in committee. Even if it went to vote it would be defeated. Now the latest bill (with the Merida initiative) has been defeated (hopefully to be reborn in the Senate. However if it had passed at least our border patrol & sheriffs would have had the drug forces weakened by our military aid before they hit the Rio Grande. Know they can advance at full speed. The Dems will never allow border security. At this point I would have taken the Merida Init. over zilch which is now what we have.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
RickG #43;
Just because courts have decided this does not make it unconsitutional. Regardless, I focused on the policy of arresting illegals, not shooting them because they’re here.
Also, you’re correct in the slew of court cases offering illegals civil rights. The court’s intervention and ruling that everybody havs civil rights here is part of the problem we are having. People here illegally automatically inherit civil liberties that literally people around the world would die to provide in their own country. Social benefits are also provided to illegals via the courts. Their rulings over the decade erode distinction between citizen and illegal alien. despite the fact that the power of the purse is constitutionally given exclusively to the Legisature and Excecutive, courts have dictated who gets Social Security and welfare benefits. All rulings are highy unconstitutional by the mere fact that the Judiciaary has NO constitutional authority over money.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
#43;
Exactly the probem I just cited. The Taco Supreme Court also read the Constitution where it says private land may be taken for public use and so decided that private land can be taken for private use. They also cite international law to justify capital punishment against a crimial under 18 as unconstitutional.
These rulings do not make taking private land for private use any more Constitutional, nor does international law. The Executive and Legislative branches are destroying ur Republic, our system of checks and balances by not impeaching these judges.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Rorschach #46;
Very nice on both points.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
cncfan #48;
Yes, I’ll support any amount of aide to Mexico if we provide equal amounts to our side.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
RickG #49;
Like the Mexican military crossing the border? (See post# 32)
May 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
48.
I think there are several separate issues, including drugs, illegals and their drain on resources, and physical danger from criminal aliens and terrorists.
Shutting down the border is not going to eliminate the drug use here. A signficant amount (and growing) of marijuana consumed in the United States is now being grown here. In 1982, the DEA destroyed 38% more domestic marijuana than they even thought existed! Studies show that US-grown marijuana is the country’s LARGEST CASH CROP - with a value of almost 36 billion in 2006! Perhpas we should be a bit more sheepish about lecturing other countries on how they need to shut down their drug growing industry.
Supposed bastions of law-and-order thinking Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama and West Virginia are in the top 10 of US marijuana production (with Tennessee and Kentucky second and third behind only California). And, believe it or not, studies show that it is the top cash crop in 12 of our states - bigger than cotton in Alabama or peanuts in Georgia, or even tobacco in North Carolina. Most of the marijuana seized by the government is from outside the US, and it appears that most of the marijuana consumed in the US is made in the US.
And not a penny of tax on any of it.
http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf
May 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
56.
Sure, but those aren’t the people being detained by the Border Patrol. It’s the migrant workers, mostly.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
sdhook #51;
YES, I absolutely think that. Bush went to Latin america and there praised Sen. Kenedy as the best legislature that will get things done to provide them (foreign nationals) more access to our schools and social benefits. not a wrd on, lets say, getting children of war vets more access to our schools, not a word on getting funds to our border agents (actually opperating on less money this year than last). The GOP sucks in terms of getting money to our side. Granted that those who do like Rep. Poe and Hunter are pretty much all Republican but as a party (in GOP, the “P” stands for “Party”), they could care less about funding our side.
Hunter ‘08!!!
May 15th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
RickG #58;
Then let’s shoot the military and detain the “migrant workers” (I call them illegal aliens myself).
May 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
TO ALL
May 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
52. D
53. D
Darren,
Of course, the problem with all that is it is your opinion. As much as you don’t like it, if the Supreme Court rules something is or is not constitutional, that’s how it gets treated by society.
A guy may think the income tax is unconstitutional, so he doesn’t pay it. The Supreme Court says it is constitutional. Guy gets arrested. Guy tells judge: “But it’s unconstitutional.”
Who does judge believe - Guy or the Supreme Court. (Hint: Guy goes to jail.)
So repeating over and over that a Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional will never make it so in the real world.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
TO ALL;
PLEASE REREAD POST#50 AND COCTACT YOUR SENATORS!!!
May 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
#59
Should have been more clear. I was speaking more of the vote in the House. I’ve given up on W.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I hope no one coctacts their senator. I’m not certain, but there might be laws against that. Except in California, I suppose.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
#62;
One of my greatest concerns over Mitt Romney (I came around to support him but I still hold this against him) is that he issued and excecutive order as Gov. of Mass. that ordered all gov’t deptartments to recognize gay marriage. He did so under the guise of believing in the “rule of law”. He did so to “avoid a constitutional crisis”. Since when does a court ruling establish law. It establishes an interpretation of law. Neither the Excecutive nor the Legislative branches of any state or federal government have to abide by a court ruling. Constitutional Review has done more to defy the Constitution than anything else the other 2 branches of gov’t have done. You will not find this power ANYWHERE in the Constitution. It is a self-declared power by Chief Justie Marshall I believe. The MA. Constitution clearly states that a change in law must be done through the legislature. Yet their Taco Supreme Court ruled that banning homosexual marriage there was against the state’s constitution and upon a simple opinno of the court that homosexual marriage is constitutional in their state the Leg. jumped and began to try to change it. While Romney fought against the Ccourt’s ruling, he was the one who ushered in gay marriage with his excecutive order. By doing so he acceerated the constitutional crisis which began with their court’s decision. His excecutive order should have been along the lines of following the rule of law and upholding the laws on the books against gay marriage.
This is not my opinion. This is what I read in the Constitution itself and what I see going on in courts. It is an opininon to say that the Judiciary has the final say in any legal matter. and if you believe that, than you might as well get rid of the Excecutive and Legislatve branches and let the courts decide everything. A big reason the courts are becoming more and more oppreive is because the other two branches are not standing up and rotexctiong their own athority against the judiciary. These two branches represent We the People and so they should stand up and we should demand them to do as much.
Ad as for the tax constitutionality, Tom Cryer is a wonderful turn of events.
“The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years.”
“He said throughout his battle, he’s offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened. ”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=42749
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=42571
May 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
#64;
Agreed on both.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
#65
LOL, my grammar sucks.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Rick, who was it that said “Laws which are repugnant to the Constitution need not be obeyed.”?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Although your post was very informing, it just gave me an idea…
TTC should be re-named:
The Pablo Escobar Highway.
Thanks, shuug!
May 16th, 2008 at 9:07 am
To be sure, Escobar’s death did not mean the end of the Columbian drug trade, but it was a successful battle in a potentially perpetual war, much like we face in the War on Terror.
That’s about the most valid link between the war on drugs and the war on terror I’ve heard yet. The death of Escobar was a good thing, but hardly a “success” in any other sense.
After nearly a century of waging this war illicit drugs are cheaper and more widely available than ever. The war on drugs has not only failed to achieve a single objective, it has succeeded in wasting billions of dollars and has endangered the lives of millions of people both here and abroad.
It’s a toss up as to which are more stupid, drug abusers, or drug warriors and the politicians that don’t have the guts to address the issue honestly.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
70.
LOL
May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
69.
Absolutely. The problem is, if one decides to disobey a law because he believes it is “repugnant” to the Constitution, he better be right.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
66. D
As you know, there are occasional instances of scofflaws getting off because a jury, for whatever reason, lets them off. However, the jury can always seize on something like lack of intent, etc. An acquittal by a jury does not invalidate the income tax laws.
There are far more people who go to jail when they evade taxes. They don’t make as much news, because it’s the norm.
Cryer is a known kook. His statement that the IRS could not show him any authorization for taxes is silly. I’ve been down this road on other forums where people made similar misstatements. I have actually looked it up, D. The constitution authorizes the Congress to collect taxes, and Congress enacted statutes authorizing the collection of income taxes. Anyone who says there is no authority is dishonest. Go look it up. (Hint: you can start with Art. I, Sec. 8.)
May 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
70 ST
Oooh, I like dat!