Guest Commentary – Open Border with Mexico: A Study in Contrast

Tonight for our guest commentary, we have the long anticipated second part of the immigration installments from the good Colonel. The last article sparked some good discussions, and I believe that this one will as well. The discussions this week have been excellent, and there have been some well thought out responses right along with some that identified a bit of a contradiction in folk’s values and principles. We will be addressing that concept soon, I promise, as it is an important discussion to have. But for tonight we focus back on the border between the United States and Mexico. Tonight, we place the spotlight on the violence that is occuring on a regular basis along that border.

I find the look at the border that D13 provides to us to be an especially insightful one. While there are many of us who certainly have opinions around illegal immigration and border security, there are very few who have dealt with the border problems first hand. D13 has done just that. He has worked to train and support the folks working on the borders for some time now. He has seen the violence and the problems first hand. He has talked to the ranchers, their families, and the ranchhands who work the land. What he provides isn’t an idea of what the situation on the border is. It is an account of what the situation on the border is. And that is what makes it valuable. What the MSM is not willing to tell you, you will get from those who experience it. This isn’t a vague concept. This isn’t a principle discussion. This is a report on what is happening on the border.

I must admit that this is not the first time that I have heard reports along these lines about the Texas\Mexico border. But it gripped me a little harder this time. There is the inherent trust that I have in the word of someone who I share a similar background with. But there is also a human element to this article that is compelling. My heart tells me that I should be getting my butt down there and offering my unique skills and services in order to protect families that just want to live a peaceful life (unfortunately my wife tells me that my heart is out of luck on this one). I also feel a tinge of sadness. I have spent significant time in Jaurez, and I used to love it. The border towns were always a place I found friendly and fun. It saddens me to know that those places no longer exist. I will be extremely interested in hearing everyone’s take on how this situation can be handled.

Open Border with Mexico
A study in Contrast – Part Two
by D13

It is March 22, 2010. The dawn is breaking over the Pecos River in Val Verde County, the antelope are beginning to move, and the quail are beginning their morning song. The faint sound of the windmill wheel that needs a little oil begins to turn faster as the morning breeze picks up with the warming day bringing forth the most important refreshment from the depths of Mother Earth in the form of cool water from the well that is hundreds of feet deep. The rancher and his family are already up with the children getting ready for school and the mother busy with readying breakfast and the dad, getting ready for his day of work. There are cattle to be branded and fed, fences to mend, windmills that need preventative maintenance so water continues to flow, and ranch hands that need to be assigned their daily routine. This is the normal rancher in south Texas. His bank account has $30,000 in it. He has no 401(k), his children do not go to private schools nor can they be home schooled because mom has other chores. He has no Cadillac or helicopter or a five bedroom home with central heat and air, no investments other than what his land…his generational family land…provides. He scratches out a living in the earth just as his father did….just as his grandfather did…just as his great grandfather did….and so on. His children have no Ipods, no play station 3, no cable TV…but they have chores to do when school is over. There are barns to be swept out, manure to be shoveled, and other animals that need to be cared for….all before their homework is done.

Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz... Murdered while he tried to assist Illegals he found at his irrigation site.

A vision of a rancher’s life and family? Normally, yes. But, this is 2010, and the children go out and get on an armed school bus. The rural route is so far out in the country side that the children start getting picked up at 5 AM. And the dads all take a turn to insure the kids get to school safely…..without the school bus being stopped by border bandits that cross into Texas to steal their shoes, their clothes, and what little lunch money they have. The local police cannot patrol every road all the time….there are not enough of them. The State Highway patrol are on the highways and not rural ranch roads. They arrive at their school where there are armed guards to prevent kidnappings from across the border. As the kids are getting to school, the rancher gets in his pickup and starts his morning rounds with his foreman in the cab with him. Each have a set of powerful binoculars, each carries a 30.06 lever action rifle, a .270 Winchester with a 12 power scope in the gun rack, two .30 caliber semi automatic carbines under a tarp in the bed of the truck, a .357 colt python strapped to the hip of the foreman with a tie down holster, a 9mm Browning Hi power in a shoulder holster of the rancher and a .380 Walther PPK as a boot gun and 750 rounds of ammunition. There is a hi-power satellite radio in the cab of the truck in constant contact with the mom at the ranch headquarters who has a 12 gauge Remington automatic shotgun by the back door with the plug removed (five shots this way), another 12 gauge Remington automatic shotgun by the front door in the same manner, and two more pistols in drawers in various parts of the house. There are two more hidden weapons in the barn, all loaded and ready to go. But this is just the start of the day…on March 22, 2010.

As the rancher and his foreman approach the Pecos tributary that empties into the Rio Grande, they stop at a high point to survey the river with their binoculars and their fence line, which they discovered, has been cut yet again. The rancher, calls into the headquarters on his radio, to let his wife know what is happening…as there are periodical calls to let her know where he is… case he does not show up for dinner. They go to repair the fence to discover that 15 ft of fence has been cut. As they get out to repair the fence, one stands guard while one works. This time the foreman draws the work assignment and the rancher scans the Mexican side of the river to watch for snipers. He takes up an over watch position to protect the foreman…..this is Texas on the border in 2010. This is not some third world country nor the 1800’s watching for Indians. This is a rancher trying to make a living. His cattle are stolen and killed, his fences are cut, his line shacks are burned, he has notes left on fences and barns telling him to abandon his ranch or his family will be killed. But, this is Texas and we are independent and no one will run us away.

With his eyes, the rancher scans the river bank to discover that someone has paved the river bottom with flat rocks. The river is 120 feet wide but only 2 feet deep in this part. Stones have been brought in to create a submarine highway so the four wheel ATV’s do not get stuck in the river bottom. This is a drug and human trafficking crossing. It is a new one that he has just discovered. As he is calling it in to his wife so she can report it, shots ring out from the Mexican side. Not single shots, but automatic weapons…the faint popping sounds of an Uzi….out of range to be effective but a wayward bullet found its way into the thigh of the foreman. The rancher, not militarily trained but acted as though he were, maneuvers his way to the downed foreman who was returning fire in the direction of Mexico but not knowing where the shooter was his bullets were not well aimed. The rancher was carrying his foreman to the truck which was now being peppered by more shots from across the border, when an all terrain vehicle approached the “submarine” highway from the Mexican side and started across but the rancher and the foreman unleashed hell with the carbines from the bed of the truck disabling the ATV in the river and killing the driver. In the meantime, the wife had been in contact with the other ranch hands and they started arriving and the fracas was over. One hour later a National Guard helicopter with armed soldiers arrived, dismantled the submarine highway, picked up the ATV four wheeler and the dead driver, and the rancher fixed his fence. Further in on his property, he discovers a makeshift shelter that was housing illegal immigrants that were brought across the border and left alone. Obviously, the gunfire from the previous exchange scared off the other “coyote” and he leaves the 5 men, 4 women, and 3 children and 4 kilos of pure cocaine in “belts” around the immigrants.

Sounds like a great beginning to a novel, doesn’t it? While this is not a typical day in the life of every rancher, it is beginning to be a norm. Thus far, in 2010, there have been 211 shootouts on the Texas/Mexico border with ranchers. There have been 14 abductions from Texas schools, 23 abductions from Texas hospitals, and 22 abductions from infant nurseries on the Texas side. All taken back across the border in Mexico to be sold into slavery………SLAVERY !!!! Not whips and chains in the cotton fields….but as prostitutes and drug runners….forced into this profession. In the Big Bend National Park, year 2009, there were 14 abductions and 16 sniper incidents all from the Mexico side. Innocent rafters that were on picnic excursions on the river were murdered, raped, and robbed. Campers, on overnight camping excursions, robbed, raped, and their vehicles stolen and driven across the border. And, in the later months, their vehicles involved in drive by shootings and crimes in the United States.

This year, 2010, Fort Hancock HAS made the news. The Mexico town just south of the border has been ordered evacuated by the drug cartels. Families are forced to pay 5,000 pesos or have their children killed. Threats made that those Mexicans fleeing to the United States side will have their children tracked down and kidnapped and murdered if they refuse to pay. February, 2010, Eagle Pass, Texas….three American children kidnapped from school on the Texas side and held for a ransom of $100,000 USD. They were murdered after the ransom paid. Del Rio, Texas, January 2010, fourteen Honduran teenage girls ranging in age from 9 to 14 were stopped on the Texas side and saved from prostitution. They were being taken to New York City. The US consulate bombed in Nuevo Laredo, April, 2010. Three female college students on spring break abducted on South Padre Island and taken across to work the brothels in the Mexican town of Matamoros, March 2010…and then murdered after three days in the brothel. March, 2010, US consulate employees murdered after leaving a party in Juarez, the border town of El Paso that has seen over 5,000 murders in three years. Laredo, Texas, January 2010, fifteen illegal immigrants brought into the United States via rail, locked in a refrigerated car with no ventilation….all dead. Reynosa, Mexico, March 2010, an American couple on honeymoon at a restaurant just across the bridge from McAllen, Texas, kidnapped, the husband murdered on the street and the bride…no one knows.

Results of a Brownsville Cartel Shootout

As of January 1, 2010, 481 cattle on the Texas side have been butchered or stolen. Four ranches have been burned and its occupants murdered. The National Park of Big Bend is open but enter at your own risk. You are advised by the Parks service to go armed and protect yourself. In Hudspeth County, Texas (Fort Hancock area), the sheriff has gone on statewide television and told the occupants to leave or to protect themselves. The local law enforcement is not large enough to protect everybody. There is a move in the Texas legislature to authorize automatic weapons in Texas for protection on the border. Mexico is now on the State Department’s warning list. You are warned not to go to Mexico. The border towns that once survived on the tourist industry are almost vacant. There is no law enforcement on the Mexico side.

Couple all of this, as I stated in part one, with the fact that Mexico emptied its prisons on the border and those felons are in the United States drawing on our resources and forming gangs. In addition, the illegal immigrants that are now entering unfettered into the United States, are recruited into gangs on penalty of their families being murdered in Mexico. The money made by the immigrants is not being sent back to families in need…..the money is being extorted to the gangs and the criminal element that prey on the illegal Mexican population.

I do not think that I have to go further….if you do not get the picture now…you never will. Open the borders? It will not stop this problem. It will exacerbate the problem. In part one, I have already gone into the great cost of the immigration problem. The violence associated with immigration is in this part. The border must be controlled and controlled tightly. It is a sad commentary when ranchers in this country have to have shootouts to exist. The rancher’s only crime is just being there. Even those on the left, would not like it when their family members are shot, or their houses burned, or their livestock butchered or their children kidnapped.

This has nothing to do with mercantilism or hegemony or the policies of the United States and those that wish to say so…………..have no idea and are ignorant of the situation. This has nothing to do with Texas Independence from Mexico or drug policies in the United States. Even if you legalize cocaine…it will not stop the border violence. It will not stop the kidnappings and the extortion. If you legalize prostitution in the United States, it will not stop the kidnappings and extortion. Our borders must be protected. Open up the borders and have no immigration policy will not stop the gangs and the extortion. What most of you do not realize, is that LEGAL Mexicans are also being extorted to protect their families in Mexico.

I don’t have all the answers, but shutting the border down should be step one. Make it criminal to cross illegally and quit being nice guy. Being a nice guy and turning the other cheek…..only gets the other cheek slapped.

I am not an advocate of martial law. It is wrong and it is finite. The military should be used for one thing and one thing only… protect the United States from invasion. THAT is the function of the military. However, I am fast becoming an advocate of using the military to patrol the borders and to be the enforcing arm of immigration on our Southern border. There is not enough civilian law enforcement to do it and their rules of engagement are tantamount to throwing cotton balls against a brick wall. Dropping the borders? Lawlessness will prevail. You have it now with borders… and there is no law. Should the ranchers band together as free men? They are…there are not enough of them. The ranchers are outnumbered and out gunned. They are now inviting in private militia’s and that is a travesty. Why is it a travesty….because they will shoot and the innocent immigrant that is really looking for work…will be killed. Why should OUR citizens be forced to provide armed guards for schools? Why should our citizens be forced to patrol their lands like the military in order to raise cattle? Why should our citizens have to give up their freedoms? Where is the enforcement going to come from? Any answers out there? Any suggestions out there? Any of you want to give up your jobs and come and help out as free men or will you sit back and say….it is NOT MY problem. Think about it before you take a stand.


  1. Good article Colonel, You have painted a rather disturbing picture. I’m short on time at the moment and will post later today.



  2. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Dear Sir…

    WOW! I feel as though I have my head buried under a rock…I have seen many news articles and reports about the killings in Juarez (normally beheadings), but I haven’t heard hardly anything else that you’ve listed. Why isn’t this plastered up front on every single national news outlet in the states? Why is this still being ‘allowed’ to happen?

    This whole “border” issue along with the illegal immigration seems to be sucking America dry in so many different ways.

    Thank you for an excellent article. I look forward to reading more throughout the day so that I can hopefully get a better understanding around this.

    If I don’t get anything out of the discussion here today, I know that I will be paying more attention to this issue in its entirety instead of my continued whining and frustration about one aspect of the issue (ie the costs/drains on taxpayer resources that illegal immigrants create).

    Best Regards,

    • Good morning Richmond…..

      You asked: “WOW! I feel as though I have my head buried under a rock…I have seen many news articles and reports about the killings in Juarez (normally beheadings), but I haven’t heard hardly anything else that you’ve listed. Why isn’t this plastered up front on every single national news outlet in the states? Why is this still being ‘allowed’ to happen?”

      D13 simply states: You can fill volumes of papers with what is NOT reported. It is not reported because it flies in the face of every politician wanting the Hispanic vote. It certainly flies in the face of Obama and his outreach…but this is NOT Obama’s fault…this has been brewing for sometime. This is the ONLY TRUE thing that Obama inherited. He inherited it from the policies of before…..decades before.

      The be-headings you have mentioned still go on. There are U tube pictures that have been blocked from distribution that shows be-headings done live and the victim is alive while doing it. You can hear the screams of pain as the “saw” is slowly drawn across their neck. Sorry for the graphics…but it is graphic down here. What gets me….there are leaked U tube pictures of supposedly war crimes being committed in Iraq, et al….but why can’t a U Tube picture of this be leaked? What is the real agenda here?

      • TexasChem says:

        D-13: “What is the real agenda here?”

        TexasChem: The current administration would see what is happening as negative publicity towards their agenda on the looming Immigration Reform legislation.What a shame it is that the freedom, liberty and livelihood of American citizens is superceded by the ambitions of the elitists political gain by both political parties.

        • True, TC. I think another possibility is its requirement for the North American Union our ‘betters’ are planning for us. Gotta love those Globalist plans for their One World Government…..

          • USWeapon says:


            I have been looking at the North American Union stuff lately. I am not convinced at this point that there are many in the halls of power who actually support this. It is counter-productive to their cause.


            • Thanks USW. Can you please give me a short (I know you’ve got lots going on) explaination of why you feel this way?

              • USWeapon says:

                Absolutely. It would seem that those who truly have the power to make this happen are folks who are interested in control and money. They would be big business. To incorporate the Mexican government into this deal would eliminate a haven away from the eyes of the US government. It is, at this point, easier for them to have limited visibility and limited regulation in the north and south. It allows them more leeway. That may change, and it may still be the ultimate plan for some folks in the shadows. I am merely offering a truly uninformed opinion based on the stuff I have read lately. I am interested in learning more in this area, but simply don’t have enough time to really get in and research it hard.

                • Your argument makes sense. Altho, the way things are progressing, I am not sure it will make sense for long. The big companies are not far from not even needing a “safe haven” from government, as the two are in bed so deeply. More importantly, the idea of consolidation of power is always appealing to those seeking power. Enough power negates the need for making money, and vice versa. I don’t think the regulation of government will be a motivator for distribution of power among big companies for long. Soon, we will be looking at consolidation simply for the purpose of increased power, with regulation being a farce for the public eye only, when in fact it is a benefit for large corporations (it is close to that already).

                  • Hmmm, both of you guys makes sense on this one. I haven’t followed it too much. One, I don’t have a lot of time, and two, knowing that things are not changing for the better, at least for the middle class American, is pretty depressing. I figure I’ll try to enjoy what’s left of the good times while I still can….

  3. D13 I’m interested in what your opinion is of this program.

    Officers on Border Team Up to Quell Violence
    Guillermo Arias/Associated Press

    Published: March 25, 2010

    United States law enforcement authorities, seeking to avert a spillover of drug violence from Mexican border cities, are cautiously trying out new cross-border cooperation with the Mexican federal police, according to senior Homeland Security officials. The efforts will include coordinated operations and expanded intelligence sharing.

    Robert Valdez, a Customs and Border Protection officer, took information from Kendra Duarte, a U.S. citizen, in Nogales.

    American border and customs agents are working more directly with the Mexican police, the officials said, despite a history of collaboration efforts that were compromised by leaks through Mexican authorities to traffickers and smugglers south of the border.

    American officials said they had been encouraged to try joint programs because Mexico had shown a new openness to United States assistance and had allowed more direct American involvement in training and background checks of Mexican police officers.

    The move toward cooperation intensified in the past year after law enforcement leaders in both countries recognized that working separately, they were losing ground against increasingly aggressive and bloody Mexican drug trafficking and immigrant smuggling organizations, American officials said.

    In one experiment, United States Border Patrol agents have since September conducted parallel daily patrols with the Mexican federal Public Security police along an 80-mile stretch of the border around Nogales, Ariz. Each morning, Border Patrol officials said, their agents advise the Mexican police of the locations they plan to scout that day, and Mexican officers patrol across the border, in what the officials called “mirrored enforcement.”

    “We will call them, and we will tell them where we are going to concentrate our efforts,” Jeffrey D. Self, acting deputy chief of the Border Patrol, said in an interview. “They will deploy on the south side in that area.”

    Mr. Self described the parallel patrols in terms that evoked the United States’ military approach in Iraq. “Gain, maintain and expand — that’s the strategy,” he said. “We hit a target area real hard, we bring it under control and we leave just enough resources behind to maintain that control.”

    Mr. Self said the program had led to “all different levels of communication that have never been established before” between the Border Patrol and Mexican Public Security agents. “The agent in the field is speaking with Public Security on a daily basis during their shift,” he said.

    While the Border Patrol’s daily planning is based on classified intelligence from many American law enforcement agencies, Mr. Self said, American agents share less secret information with Mexico, identifying the terrain they plan to scout on a given day.

    “The whole effort is an intelligence-driven operation,” Mr. Self said. “But we don’t give exact locations of our agents. We refer to common names of geographic areas, and landmarks.”

    Mexico is also sharing some operational intelligence from its agencies, American border officials said.

    As part of the program, the Border Patrol has been training Mexican police officers in Nogales, which has helped American agents to come to know individual officers they will work with, Mr. Self said. Since September, 36 Mexican agents have received training in urban close-quarter combat tactics, behavior analysis and pointers on detecting hidden compartments in vehicles, American officials said.

    The Nogales program, which involves only civilian agents on both sides of the border, is closely watched in Washington, where officials have decided to steer antidrug efforts with Mexico away from an emphasis on military operations. In recent weeks, after drug mayhem left dozens dead in Ciudad Juárez, another border city, President Felipe Calderón has revised a strategy that relied primarily on Mexican Army troops to lead the fight against traffickers.

    During a visit to Mexico on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a $331 million plan to bolster Mexican civilian law enforcement agencies.

    Ms. Napolitano said that President Calderón had been more open to law enforcement cooperation than his predecessors.

    “I’ve been working border issues since 1993,” Ms. Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona, said in an interview last week. “The level of cooperation from Mexico, the resource commitment, the willingness to let the U.S. provide some direct assistance, all are very different than I’ve seen in the past.”

    American border officials chose Nogales for the new program because after Juárez, it had been “our most chaotic environment” along the border, Mr. Self said. An extra 318 Border Patrol and customs agents were added for the effort. In the first six months, he said, drug-related arrests were down (a counterintuitive sign of success), and violent attacks on Border Patrol agents have dropped sharply.

    The program does not involve local Mexican police officers from border cities, where drug corruption has reduced some municipal police forces to disarray.

    Many Border Patrol agents remain wary of working with the Mexican police, Mr. Self acknowledged. Agents know countless stories of intelligence tips shared with Mexican law enforcement, which only served to give traffickers time to get away or to set up ambushes for officers.

    “Are they plagued with corruption? Yes,” Mr. Self said. “We recognize there is a lot of work still to be done on that.”

    But through the Nogales training and daily consultations to plan patrols, Border Patrol agents have gradually identified “good, honest police on the Mexican side,” Mr. Self said.

    Any Mexican police officers who enter Homeland Security facilities for training or consultations go through extensive background checks by American intelligence.

    Border officials are building on years of experience by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, who have set up background check programs for the Mexican federal antidrug police, according to Michael A. Braun, who retired in 2008 as chief of operations for the drug agency. Mexican federal antinarcotics teams take regular polygraph and urine tests, and their personal information is regularly updated, he said.

    But security analysts noted that Mexican traffickers, who wield threats of violence and huge amounts of cash, had managed to infiltrate carefully selected narcotics teams in the past.

    “There is always a risk they are sharing information that is then out of their control,” said Eric L. Olson, coordinator for the Mexico security program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. “They are giving information and hoping the Mexicans will do right by it and with it.”

    • Not awake this morning-here’s the right one

    • Good morning, VH….. this is not a new program, although it seems to be reported as one. Nogales is on the Arizona border and they have their problems as well. It is sad commentary that Phoenix, Arizona is not the “kidnap capitol of the world” even over Bogota and Cali, Colombia combined. All of it associated with the border gangs and Mexico.

      The mail problem is that it is not only the local law enforcement on the Mexico side gives out intel to the druggies but the Federales do the same. We now employ a triple threat on the Texas border. In Vietnam, we had an operation that was called bird dog. You would have a slow flying plane buzzing the tree tops while a higher flying plane was watching. The slow flying plane would draw fire and it would be spotted by the high flying plane and then the air strike followed. We share our patrol information with the Mexican authorities knowing full well that it will be given to the bad guys. We then precede the patrol with an earlier one….and then we will follow up with another one when the regular patrol goes through. The triple threat comes in with the drones and infra red capability that follow even after the other patrols. These are intelligence gathering drones…not armed ones. They fly at 1500 feet and scan the area and are silent. Each drone is equipped with a TOD. (Transmitting optical device = TV). When the infrared scanner is triggered, the camera turns on. we can then respond with the appropriate measure. If they are armed and we see they are armed…they are taken out. We do not ask questions, give Miranda rights, tell them to stop or we will shoot…none of that. They are simply taken out.

      The main problem with all of this bull shit from Napolitano and Clinton and the “do gooders” is that they know it will all be sanitized for political gain. They are not sincere in their efforts. Sharing the intelligence would be great….provided the intelligence is not given to the other side…so to speak. It always is. The Federal agents on the Mexico side are in so deep with the Cartels.

      However, here is the additional problem. To deal with our enforced security, the cartels and gangs are now “forcing” carriers. That is to mean, they will go get a man that lives in Mexico and has family in Mexico and tell him if he does not run their drugs, they will kill his family. So, the innocent man gets caught or worse and the druggies still run free.

      Extortion and kidnapping are on the rise. The more drugs we stop…the more kidnapping and extortion that occurs. So, I am of the opinion, that we let Mexico deal with Mexico, close our borders, and turn a hardened heart south. Take care of our own. Tough stance…but until someone comes up with a better idea…..I say this is what we do.

      • Sorry….Phoenix Arizona is NOW the kidnap capitol…the word not needs to be replace.

      • I have to agree with you D13. We need to turn hard eyes toward this problem. As far as I am concerned this is not a immigration problem as much as a problem with vicious, murderous drug gangs and criminals. Their race and nationality to me is secondary to the crimes committed. We would not tolerate this behavior among our other states and citizens, so exactly why in the hell are we tolerating it on the border.

        Politicians of ALL parties and positions need to give a mighty heave and jerk their heads out of their behinds. Votes mean nothing compared to the lives of our Nation’s citizens. The comparison to VietNam is apt.

        Obama has indeed inherited this problem, but to simply say that is not enough. That is not an excuse to just stand and let it continue. It’s all well and good to say it didn’t start with him, it’s still his problem to fix. This will not wait for the next President to tackle. This has to be fixed NOW! Will it? I. Don’t. Know.

  4. Common Man says:

    Dear Colonel;

    I had some idea that things were falling apart, but not to this degree. It is an invasion for all practical purpose, and must be stopped.

    Coming down to assist is not an option, as I have a responsibility to provide for my own up here in Michigan. However, could you suggest some things that we could do to at least “get the word out”? Are there organizations that would benefit from financial or material donations? Would it help to write our Congressman and State officials?

    Could you give us some info on what the Texas representatives are doing?
    What and how are the Texas Rangers involved?
    Are the Texas Legislator’s seeking help from the Fed’s, or DEA, ATF, etc?
    Could Texas construct their own border fence?
    Have you folks sought the aid of local celebrities like Ted Nugent and others to get the word out?
    How about soliciting all the owners of Texas hunting and game ranches to band together and help get the word out?

    I am of the opinon that soliciting the Federal government would waste a great deal of time, effot and result in a whole pile of bullsh*t, but maybe if enough people stand together it may at least encourage some assistance.

    Having spent a great deal of time in Texas back in the mid to late 80’s I learned that Texan’s are a tenacious bunch, with a great deal of fortitude, and will win in the long run. But, as fellow American’s we all should do what we can to assist.

    I am sure Arizona and New Mexico are experiencing the same challenges. Maybe the states officials should form an alliance to combat the problem and help awake the American public.

    I commend you for all your effort and wish you and your fellow citizens a fast and safe solution.

    I will do my best to inform as many as I can to the delema. Hopefully that will help to bring some resolve.

    Stay safe my friend.


    • To CM…

      CM states: Coming down to assist is not an option, as I have a responsibility to provide for my own up here in Michigan.

      D13 understands: CM…yes, I know and do not expect anyone to come here even if they want to as it is not feasible. You have a family and business interest and that is completely understandable. The best thing that you can do….is to get congress or your representative to not vote for amnesty or soft peddling this thing. It is a dangerous game that Congress is playing for votes. We need to control the border first….then worry about the immigrant.

      CM inquires: “Could you give us some info on what the Texas representatives are doing?”

      D13 answers: ” We are not immune to our own political wrangling but for the most part, the State Reps, including 80% of the Hispanic State Reps, are for strengthening the border and using National Guard troops. In addition, some of them are trying to set up a protection program where illegal activity can be reported without divulging who reported it. This is beginning to help.”

      CM asks: “What and how are the Texas Rangers involved?”

      D13 responds: ” Great question. The Texas Rangers are deeply involved. There are not enough of them for to pull the majority of the Rangers off other law enforcement also exacerbates that problem…however, we do have the Rangers highly involved in training the ranchers and farmers, infiltrating the gangs, patrolling known routes, and responding with Guard units to provide civilian authority on the scene. They are well involved are doing great.”

      CM inquires: “Are the Texas Legislator’s seeking help from the Fed’s, or DEA, ATF, etc?”

      D13 (while biting tongue) answers: ” Yes, on many basis. remember, Former President Bush is from Texas. Texas voted overwhelmingly for McCain. Texas is Republican and even most democrats are considered independent. Not very many really liberal dems here except for Dallas and Houston area. We have received lip service….nothing else. The DEA is here…but ONLY in an advisory role and does not arrest. ICE has been told to back off and do nothing. I have talked with many ICE agents. These orders are direct from Napolitano. The ATF is active in gun running and they sincerely are helping. But that is all. AND I WILL BE THE FIRST to tell you, that Bush did nothing either, Clinton did nothing, Bush I did nothing…it is political for the Hispanic vote and THAT is a tragedy.”

      CM inquires further: “Could Texas construct their own border fence?”

      D13 advises: ” It is a physical impossibility to fence the entire border because of geographical conditions, however, many fences have been constructed in the populated areas that “channel” most of the traffic to specific areas. The immigrant that is actually looking for work will channel…the drug runners and such try to breach. The object is to force them into outlying areas where it is easier to capture or kill them BUT, they (cartels) are not stupid…they get “mules” (humans) to do their work, they extort and they kidnap. We even have found American, European, Asian, Arabic, and Chinese MERCS helping the bad guys.”

      CM asks: “Have you folks sought the aid of local celebrities like Ted Nugent and others to get the word out?”

      D13 responds: “Yes we have and they have responded. But most of the entertainers are amnesty and safe haven people and refuse to help our cause but will help the illegal side.”

      CM asks a great question: “How about soliciting all the owners of Texas hunting and game ranches to band together and help get the word out? ”

      D13 responds: ” We have and they are helping the best that they can. They have their own brochures and things that are helping out. However, we have newspapers here that are owned by the Washington Post, New York Times, etc. They will refuse articles and ads that are aimed at any law enforcement. My own newspaper, the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Dallas Morning News will print excerpts on the “poor immigrant” but shy away from depicting the border issues unless it is headline grabbing and law enforcement is not headline grabbing.”

      CM states: “But, as fellow American’s we all should do what we can to assist.”

      D13 responds: ” Down here, we understand that there are lots of people that want to help. The unfortunate part of that is there is not much that you can do except politically with your own reps. That will be the greatest help. I would be willing to bet that Michigan has its own immigration problem there as well and it is politically charged…but help in getting the word out is the best thing and getting to your representative to not support amnesty and to close the border is the only thing that I can see now….may be Draconian in the beginning, but it is like a bullet wound. Stop the flow of blood, stabilize the patient, then correct the problem.

      As Texans, we know that you and others want to help. We understand also that it is not possible for you to quit your post there and come down here. We are resilient. We are banding together and we are fighting back in OUR way. Our independent way. But that usually is heavy handed because we have no choice.

      BF says to not use violence on the non violent but in Texas, the minute you step on MY land, uninvited, you just initiated violence. The minute you cross my border in violation of the law, you initiated violence. Immigration laws do not initiate violence on the non violent. Enforcement of our laws do not initiate violence on the non violent.

      Arizona has no choice in the matter either. They are using law to try to stop their issues…we use a gun. I have NO PROBLEM with profiling right now and I am FULL AWARE……FULL AWARE….that could lead to problems further down the road…like someone coming back to say…it starts here, where does it end…Blue eyes are next? Good and valid arguments…..but until one comes up with a better solution……

      Did I help you any and address your questions?

      • Common Man says:


        I appreciate the feedback. Sounds as if you are also combatting the media, who seem to also be part of the problem.

        I think the effort would greatly benefit if the news of this could reach the American citizen. I am surprised that Fox News is not doing more.

        What is Perry doing other than deploying the NG?

        I and my best buddy have a personal relationship with Ted Nugent. We will ask him to consider taking up the cause by being more outspoken to get the word out. I have to believe that if the general public was more aware there would be more news coverage, and then maybe the Fed’s would take more appropriate actions.

        I don’t know if legalizing the drug business would help simply because evil always finds a way to do evil. The only way to prevent evil from doing evil is to elliminate evil.

        I think we should all let everyone we know that Mexico is no longer a country to visit or conduct business with. I would strongly recommend that anyone considering Mexico as a vacation alternative scratch it off their list.

        We have a fine Congressman here in Michigan Mike Rogers that I will also contact and ask for help. He has a strong record of standing tall in congress, so possibly he can encourage others as well.


        • CM asks: “What is Perry doing other than deploying the NG?”

          D13 responds: ” Running for re-election. ” He favors controlling the border and he is trying to do the politically correct thing…appease both sides. I did mention, we are not immune from politics….

        • Oh…thank you for any help you can do. Ted Nugent would be a great asset and he is on the side of security already…but a gentle nudge in the ribs would help. 🙂

          Mexico is on the State Department warning list now…but I hear rumors of Obama taking it off the list. Hurts his image.

          In reality, the border towns are almost ghost towns on the Mexican side. The tourist trade has been hard hit.

          again.. thank you sir….in the meantime…I will keep the sun at my back and the powder dry.

  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    D13 – once again – great article sir. The picture is painted quite well thank you. As mentioned before – I was once a child living in the near-border town of Sierra Vista, AZ – home to Fort Huachuca – at least at the time one of the major communications nerve centers of the US military and where Mom and Dad both worked. Back then, the late 70s, there was most certainly illegal immigration. As new houses were built south of Route 90 and the West of North Lenzer Avenue us kids used to play in & around them in the brief time between when school ended and the workers went home for the day and dinner time. As night fell, from our backyards on Andrea Drive you could see in the distance the immigrants coming across the horizon to squat in the buildings overnight for some brief rest (and often some running water) before moving on. Yes – all you folks on Carmelitta and Cottonwood – the illegals used to pee all over your unfinished floors and crap in the corners.

    But that was then. We still slept with doors unlocked and windows wide open. No fears of being kidnapped or raped or robbed.

    The flummoxing part for me is as I say “yes” – bring in more firepower – do we have enough firepower to cover almost 2000 miles? The military solution must be met with equally aggressive and consistent diplomacy. I am not naïve and realize that just building a bigger fence and shooting more people does not solve the root cause. But, another but, we’ve already tried exporting U.S. jobs to Mexico and it has left us where? How the hell is it we are supposedly the freest most prosperous nation on Earth and our best answer is to build/erect a border similar to say……a North Korea?

    • Ray, my friend…..cannot agree with you more. I am not for a demilitarized border with land mines and barbed wire. There has to be a diplomatic and concentrated solution to the problem and that is long term. Sierra Vista, AZ and Fort Huachuca are very important to our role. We intercept cell phone and radio communications all the time. If you still have friends there, ask them what is going in now. Fort Huachuca has become a major center for intel gathering and the families of the soldiers are now being threatened, major transmission lines cut and dynamited, and are now patrolled.

      I agree with you, sir, we do not need to be like North Korea/South Korea or anything like that….but free and open borders is not the way either. We do not have enough firepower without the Guard..but I do not think that is the long term answer. I am only for that to control the situation for now….not a long term solution.

      • Ray said: “How the hell is it we are supposedly the freest most prosperous nation on Earth and our best answer is to build/erect a border similar to say……a North Korea?”

        D13 says: ” You made me think further. That statement is excellent. Where have we lost it? What do we do? We have a trade imbalance with Mexico (in their favor), we export jobs to them and pay wages that are three times the normal rate in Mexico, we loan them money, equipment, and build their computer network. Are we our own worst enemy? We gave amnesty in the 80’s and it has doubled now…it stopped nothing. We do not “really” enforce our borders now. It is to the point that Arizona will enact Draconian Laws, we have cities and municipalities that are tired of the feces and urine smells under our bridges and in our parks. The Salvation Army network is over flowing, the soup and food kitchens are out of supplies….are we to easy?

        If we wanted, we cannot go into Mexico and do the same thing. We will be picked up and incarcerated and held for ransom by the Federales…it happens all the time.


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        D13 – many of our friends **escaped** (their words not mine) from Sierra Vista long ago when it became clear that the escalation in violence in the 90s into this decade was not going to lessen.

        I know one couple living there now – they are necessarily heavily armed to protect themselves and property. They have had several dogs killed (and things done to those dogs I cannot even verbalize here without getting very ill) by gangs and thugs that were moving people, money and drugs.

        I think in at least short term that there needs to be escalation – let the ranchers ranch and the farmers farm. There is money to do this – quit funneling money to wastes of sperm such as the Dept of Education and protect our people and land first.

        Stay safe sir.



        • Agreed, my friend,,,agreed. I purposely left out of my post the things that are happening to the pets of families….there was no need and you are quite correct…..they are disgusting and serve no purpose. PETA would have a heart attack.

  6. I too did not know things had gotten this out of hand. I stand by much of what I have said historically, but in light of the reality of the situation, I would say that military intervention on the border needs to happen, immediately. This is not an initiation of violence, it is a response to obvious violence.

    I definately think that an end to the drug war would solve a LOT of this stuff. The drug runners are the primary cause of violence, let us take their money. Let us import drugs legally and disolve the black market. Honestly, I would much rather have a black market reserved for those avoiding taxes, not those peddling opiates. A massive change in those laws will not fix the issue overnight, nor would a massive change be good, legalization should be spaced out over a few (no more than 3) years to avoid a sudden impact on the population wherein people go nuts with the new freedom. The drug runners will still try to make their money somehow tho, so they will be turning to other means for a while until they just dont have the income to motivate the violence. That is why the National Guard should be involved. This stuff needs to be stopped immediately.

    The tricky part is how to handle the people in the crossfire, i.e. the non-violent mexican people being forced into servitude by the drug lords. The military will still have to be careful who and how they target, both for moral and for political reasons.

    • Hey there Jon….you have mentioned a very good and insightful problem. We do try to minimize the innocent getting killed in the crossfire…as much as we can…but the drug lords have learned well from the VietCong and the Taliban…they take civilians with unloaded weapons and put them in front. From our perspective, we see an armed man….boom…he is gone. That is a problem…but we can also tell from body posture and the way they carry their weapon….the innocent does not really know how. And, when the shooting starts, they just drop to ground or stand like a deer in headlights. We are pretty good at picking them out even at night and for the most part….90% of the time, the innocent is not killed by us….but there is that 10% and that is acceptable…in the military point of view. We call it collateral damage. We do not like it but it happens.

      As to the drugs….that and prostitution and gun running are the biggest problems.

      • I am sure you guys try to monimize innocent casualties, as would the military if they were there. I am also aware that it is not always possible. Someone points a gun at me, that is a perceived threat on my life, I will defend myself. If I find out it was not loaded or the person was forced into it, I might feel bad, but I will still sleep at night. It remains a tough issue tho, as you say.

  7. D13

    You say legalizing drugs is not the answer. But you have given us no solutions either.

    I happen to think that the drugs would be a major deflation of the violence. Not all, but major.

    Is it not the drugs that fund the weapons purchases and operations costs of the cartels and gangs?

    I doubt they could have such a broad impact on human trafficking alone.

    I agree that now there is a major criminal element, the criminals will find new ways to harm. But it seems to me legalizing drugs would certainly have an impact by greatly reducing the money. Perhaps the Mexican govt would have a chance if the money for bribes was greatly reduced.

    I would appreciate some suggestions from you as to what you think the long term solutions are.

    My short term solution is to bring our forces home and post them on the border. I have no problem creating a DMZ in the short to mid term if that is needed to stop this crap. I also have no problem stopping all movement across said border, and I mean ALL movement. Perhaps that will wake up some folks on both sides.

    • Hi JAC….I did post what I would do in Part One…here is what I suggested: First, we as Americans have to make it where it is not worth coming to America. We can do this by legally requiring proof of citizenship or legal residency for jobs, education and benefits. Unable to obtain jobs and services in America, many if not most immigrants would stay at home. As part of this effort, penalties would be more severe for American companies and organizations that knowingly provide jobs and services to illegal immigrants. In a way, providing jobs to illegal immigrants is treasonous.

      Second, America needs a comprehensive guest worker program. This program would be funded primarily by Mexicans wishing to work in America and by American companies who can prove they need foreign workers because American workers are not available. In such a program, Mexicans (or American companies) would pay a processing fee to the federal government, instead of a smuggling fee to the Coyotes (human smugglers).

      Third, America needs to physically secure its borders. We must get the Southwest region of the United States under control. Either we need a beefed-up Border Patrol, or we need the military to patrol the border in sufficient numbers, or both.

      And fourth, eliminate the automatic United States Citizenry to children of undocumented and illegal immigrants.

      I will agree with you that drugs, right now, is one of two major influences…and like BF has posted referencing the prohibition days….legalizing them would put a dent in it… temporarily. But, is lowering our standards the way to fight a problem? I don’t know. But you will have to legalize prostitution as well…that is almost as big a business as drugs…but it goes unreported. But does that involve us ( the US ) lowering our standards to solve this problem or should we be more proactive and aggressive?

      I do not disagree with bringing our troops home. Bring them home and put them on the border. Is it the drugs that fund the weapons? Yes, for the most part. There is such a strong guerilla movement in Central and South America, that gun running is becoming profitable again….even with Argentina arming most of Central America. But arming the gangs is a great deal of the problem. We just stopped an 18 wheeler full of guns coming from Chicago…actually, a Texas Ranger stopped to help the trucker with a flat tire and the registrations did not match and the truck was reported stolen….the owner killed by the man driving it. This was last week.

      I do not have all the answers sir, but I did post some that might be good to think about.

      • American companies who can prove they need foreign workers because American workers are not available

        There is precisely the root of the problem.

        “Why the hell do you believe YOU have the right to demand from me WHO I chose to hire???”

        As long as this attitude dominates the American psyche – that I have to prove to someone else the reason I hire one man over another – the problem of the border will never be resolved.

        • Honestly, I never understood that one either, flag..

          I’m hanging out in the basement drinking Dr. Pepper with the Dread Pirate.. care to join us for some hold ’em?

        • BF says: “There is precisely the root of the problem.”

          D13 says: That is a small slice of the problem but it is part of it.

          BF then says: “Why the hell do you believe YOU have the right to demand from me WHO I chose to hire???”

          As long as this attitude dominates the American psyche – that I have to prove to someone else the reason I hire one man over another – the problem of the border will never be resolved.

          D13 responds: ” I do, sir. You give up your rights to privacy as long as you knowingly violate our laws. Change the law, sir, or eliminate it. But as an AMERICAN citizen, I have a right to call you into question if you knowingly violate the law. I do not like it any more than you…. and you have not given an alternative. Eliminate the law and you will be correct in your following statement :”that I have to prove to someone else the reason I hire one man over another.” Then no law enforcement will have the responsibility and I will not have the right.

          Continue on your path and you add to the problem and still not solve the problem.

          • D13 responds: ” I do, sir. You give up your rights to privacy as long as you knowingly violate our laws.

            I do not give up any of my rights – and especially not to those that by their self-proclaimed notion that they make laws against my rights

            I couldn’t give a rat’s butt what law YOU or anyone one else makes up.

            I am NOT ruled by you or anyone else.

            Keep your guns out of my business.

            Change the law, sir, or eliminate it

            I do NOT have to change YOUR laws. I simply IGNORE THEM.

            But as an AMERICAN citizen, I have a right to call you into question if you knowingly violate the law.

            You have NO SUCH RIGHT

            I do not like it any more than you…. and you have not given an alternative.

            I have so.

            It’s called “Keep your nose out of my business”.

            • BF says: You have NO SUCH RIGHT.

              D13 responds: Using your own analogy, if I understand it correctly, you have been consistent that man should not inflict violence on non violent men but if violence is inflicted, then you could respond accordingly. Therefore, if you are my neighbor, and you know it is a violation of law to hire illegals, and you hire them anyway, you have ignored or broken the law. How does that affect me? It affects me in increased costs through taxes…therefore because of your actions, have you not inflicted violence on me simply by your actions? If so, do I not have a right to respond an any fashion that I wish?

              • He has also brought a “criminal” into your neighborhood. If they feel immigration laws are not binding, how do the feel about other laws? Do they respect your property?

                Hiring only law-abiding workers is a means of protecting ourselves.

              • D13
                <blockquote but if violence is inflicted, then you could respond accordingly.


                So where do you get the right to FORCE me to NOT hire a man.

                Therefore, if you are my neighbor, and you know it is a violation of law to hire illegals, and you hire them anyway, you have ignored or broken the law.

                No matter what some men write on a piece of paper does not give you the right to attack me.

                How does that affect me? It affects me in increased costs through taxes

                Your cost is you acting in evil.

                Do demand that I also must pay for you to act in evil is more evil on evil.

                If so, do I not have a right to respond an any fashion that I wish?

                You cannot justify MORE violence so that you can INITIATE violence on non-violent men.

      • D13

        Prostitution in the USA should also be legal but that is obviously not the issue.

        It is the abduction of US citizens or visitors and the transport of the same to south of the border.

        I do not think we change our standards to address this problem alone. I happen to think our standards are stupid and against freedom. It just so happens that legalizing pot and coke would eliminate the need to spend millions on a “drug war” in other countries and could dry up the flow of cash to the druggies.

        You mentioned a wild card I had not considered. Hugo Chavez and others who are stirring the poop in South/Central America for the purpose of causing us pain. If we were to legalize drugs and that in fact reduced the cash flow, are there others who would feed the criminal element funds to maintain this war against our border?

        Another question for you. Is the gun running tied to the drugs or is this a separate criminal activity? If the latter do you have any idea what it is linked to? For example, are the bad guys buying guns to distribute to revolutionaries in hopes of overthrowing some more governments to the south?

        • JAC… asked: “Another question for you. Is the gun running tied to the drugs or is this a separate criminal activity? If the latter do you have any idea what it is linked to? For example, are the bad guys buying guns to distribute to revolutionaries in hopes of overthrowing some more governments to the south?”

          D13 responds: It appears to be linked to drugs and arming the cartels but in my small corner of this issue, I am not totally privy to the entire spectrum…you know…the old right to know routine. I do know that some of the guns we find are directly connected to thefts in the US. However, I am sure that some of the guns are finding their way South. Mexico is a country that does not allow private ownership….but everyone that should not have a gun…has one and the private, poor citizen does not have one and cannot get one. There are no legal or authorized gun dealers in Mexico.

          I will agree with you that if you legalize drugs and prostitution…it will have an effect. It will not have an effect on human trafficking nor extortion nor the creation of gangs.

    • Common Man says:

      Good Morning JAC

      I disagree that legalizing drugs will slow down or minimize the violence. Violence is preformed by evil people bent on doing evil. If drugs are legalized the evil doers will just find other ways to do evil. It is simply just their nature.

      Legalizing prostitution would not slow down the slave trade, especially as it relates to kidnapping young american women. They are valued commodity to these sick and demented sh*t piles.

      Given the fact that the Mexican government is corrupt, either as a result of greed or fear, means we should no longer coordinate our efforts. They are as much of the problem as the cartels.

      The big question in my eyes is “Why does the American government choose to ignore or play down this problem?” How does it advance their objectives? Since part of their charter is to protect the American citizen, and they are not doing everything in their power to do so, is just another example of a FUBAR’ed regime. And that goes for Bush, Clinton and Bush 1 as well.

      We should “shut-it-down” until a resolution is developed.

      I remeber the riots of Detroit 67-68 and what little effect the NG had. Interestingly when the governor brought a division of the 101st, who had just returned from Viet Nam, into the city things calmed down almost immediately. The folks that I know that were there at the time said everyone was scared to death of the 101st. They said those who were rioting could see emminate death in the eyes of each of those vets.

      Maybe we should bring the troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afgan home and line them up on the boarder. Maybe the evil on the other side of the border would also see the eyes of emminate death and stay home.


      • CM

        Legalizing the drugs would have to result in a large reduction of cash flow. Note that I did not go so far as to propose it would stop the problems all together. Just put a huge dent in the violence.

        Criminals will continue to be criminals. But without massive financial capacity the bribes drop and the ability to arm against the USA drops.

        Unless there is more going on than we know about, like third parties fueling the fire with money.

    • D13 and JAC,

      The Mexican border 1960-1980 = no big problem

      Enter “War on Drugs” and “Welfare State”

      Mexican border = 2,000 killed.

      The Canadian border during prohibition was a BIG problem.

      Repeal of Prohibition…..

      Canadian border = not a problem. For 80 years… but I guess it’s still a “temporary” fix.

      And D13 says “nope, War on drugs et al – that’s not the cause nor its repeal the solution”

      • BF

        I don’t believe the evidence shows that these are the ONLY reasons for this escalation. The drug war has caused a response by the big players. But something else is afoot I think.

        All these things play a role. But as I told you last time on this subject, it will not eliminate all the heavy crime.

        The mob did not disappear with repeal of prohibition. It simply lost popular support for its activity. Now legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling etc will help on our side but that is not going to stop human trafficking, gun running, and other violent crime by Mexicans or other nationals against US citizens. They will continue to think they can live better in this manner.

        I am not sure any amount of legal immigration will solve this problem going north. As you suggested, killing the welfare state will help but the wages for even the lowest jobs is so much more than they have. So how many millions do we let in each year before we see a reduction in the illegal crossings?

        • JAC,

          The mob existed before Prohibition and exists after it.

          Crime has and always will exist.

          The degree changes.

          The real money is in the drug running. Running humans is not lucrative (how much money does a man have who is LOOKING for work?) and difficult to move (can’t build fake Greek statues to pass off humans).

          The border would fall to a small “roar” – just like in the 1970/80

      • USWeapon says:


        So your claim is that the war on drugs is the cause of the problems on the border? It is an interesting claim, but I am not sure I am buying it quite yet.

        There are far too many factors involved. The continued decline of the living conditions in the northern half of Mexico potentially play a part. The drugs were a problem before the war was declared against them. It seems too simple of an answer to me.

        • Not the only cause, but it is a large factor. More importantly, it is the major funding for the violent aspects. IF the border was just people desperate for a better life, there would not be a daily battle down there, and the people who are appalled by all the fuss on immigration would be justified. The reality, however, is that drug lords are using people who come to the border seeking better lives as pawns in a game to make money and move drugs. They care not for our laws or the laws of any other country. They care not for the lives of others, not Americans or Mexicans. They care about money and power, just like the criminals in Washington. Washington is funded by our taxes and by their control of our currency, the drug lords are funded by their monopoly on sales. A monopoly made possible by the drug war. Only the powerful, ruthless, organized criminals can be in the drug market, so they get all the money from the trade. Furthermore, most of the difficulty of getting that product to market is at the border, it is much easier to move throughout the country once it is across. So yes, some of the border problems, at least the violent ones, are caused by the drug war.

  8. TexasChem says:

    @ D-13 & USW,

    Pass along my e-mail to D-13 please USW.
    D-13 if you would send me an e-mail and I’ll send a contact number.

    I live in far southeast Texas and am amazed that even I had not known to the extent our border had deteriorated.I simply cannot believe that their has not been national coverage of these events.That is outrageous.It seems to me this would make for a great 60 Minutes documentary to get the word out about what is really happening along our border.Has that avenue been walked down yet?

    • You probably have your hands full in the “triangle” with the fishing industry and the Asian population that does not observe fishing restrictions.

      Yes, it is atrocious. I will be in contact.

    • USWeapon says:

      I forwarded it to the Colonel TexasChem.


  9. You can never win a war if you are funding your own opposition.

    End the “war on drugs,” and the financing for the gangs evaporates almost entirely.

    Legalize prostitution (another major source of funding).

    Finally, ease restrictions on immigration, and the gangs lose even more power. (To say nothing of the fact that we have no right to tell people where they can and cannot live). At the very least, massively expand the guest worker program.

    If memory serves, back when I was growing up in the days of Prohibition, we were funding both sides of the fight. We funded the mob by buying the alcohol they provided. And we funded the people trying to stop them. This frequently escalated into violence. People thought that the mob had become too powerful to keep in check and that the violence would only get worse and worse. Though in many ways, it was relatively tame by comparison to the Mexican gangs of today, in many ways, there are also strong (eerily strong) parallels. And if we stop to think for a moment, what was it that really broke the power of the mob..?


    • TexasChem says:

      So in essence what you are implying then Mathius is:

      If we lower our moral and ethical views of drug usage and women then everything is going to be alright?

      Man I bet that will really help move our society in the right direction!


      • Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body? Does it hurt you if I decide to inhale the smoke from a burning plant?

        And who are you to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? They can have sex with anyone they want, and they can receive money from anyone willing to give them money, so why is it suddenly immoral to put the two things together?

        • Do you feel the same way about salt, or does freedom apply only to you and screw the rest of us? Also, do you want the FDA regulating your Pot and the government charging you tax? Or is that only for the rest of us Proles with special exemption for you?

          • now, now.. no need to get feisty..

            Salt: you can ingest as much as you like. The government is trying to regulate the amount in processed foods make by companies. (You, human, free to salt. Companies, regulated). Because something like 70% of our intake is from processed foods, it’s very difficult for people to consume less. Likewise, it’s difficult to even be aware of how much you’re eating. So, yes, I am good with the gov’s course on this one. (so far).

            FDA Regulating Pot: Yes, this sounds amazing to me. For starters, I would be able to trust that what I buy is “the good stuff”. Beyond that, I’ll know it’s not mixed with anything else. Further still, there are people who are using lighter fluid (I think) to distill THC and making cheaper and stronger product. This is shaping up to be addictive (more narcotic) and dangerous (something about butane). I’d rather regulate it and get what I think I’m getting. What I really don’t want is some company wandering in and selling Marboro “Greens” with nicotine additives.

            Tax on Pot: I’m already paying the pot tax.. err, you know, if I smoked pot, which I don’t because it’s illegal.. Anyway, people pay the pot tax thrice: once to the gov to enforce the prohibition on weed, once because the difficulty of sneaking it, storing it, and distributing it to local dealers makes it more expensive for the cartels and yet again because the scarcity and risk allows local dealers to charge a premium. Tax it up to street value and I still save money because I don’t have to fund the people trying to stop it. It’s a great way to generate revenue and it may be the only hope California has left.

            Does freedom apply to [me] and screw the rest of [you] Nope, we are all in this boat together. But it’s interesting that you all advocate for smaller and less intrusive government but are just fine with a massive bureaucracy meddling in this kind of thing..

            • Matt,

              The progresssives pushing the salt issue have already tried persuation and weren’t satified. They WILL force the issue until they get their way. This is about control, not health. Same as the environmental movement is about control of EVERYTHING and not sound environmental policy.

              The FDA allows impurities based on how much cash lobbiest are willing to pony up. So if your pot habit is legalized and turned over to the FDA, rest assured that you’ll be ingesting lighter fluid based on how much moeny the FDA can collect.

              Personally, I’m all for legalizing drugs. I’m all for drug testing too because it eliminates competion in the job market. Your ‘president’ has showed me that way on that one; eliminate the competition. I’d prefer a small, less oppressive government but since I can’t have that, I might as well use it to my advantage. When I’m getting screwed against my will, I like to screw a little back 😉

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Cyndi – drug testing does not eliminate competition in the job market – that is a falsehood. Where there is motivation there are ample ways for people to defeat drug testing.

                Think of the employer angle also – let’s say you have a top of the food chain performer. You institute drug testing because you (falsely) believe that it will keep the bad people out of the workforce. Yet – you didn’t know your star employee likes to burn one (or two) every Friday after a long week of work. You test him and “catch him”. You gonna fire him?

                • Yes I would because the smoke he puts into his lungs affects the rates I pay in health insurance, and takes away from the greater good of society (not that I believe that greater good malarkey but its a great excuse to get druggie off the payroll). Also, many employers would weigh the costs of drug testing vs what sort of jobs they have that require top notch employees. I know its expensive. My employer requires drug testing during the prescreen process but because of budget cuts, doesn’t randomly test later unless they have cause.

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    Interesting response Cyndi – you’d fire your most productive employee because of what he puts in his body on his own time and it does not affect his job performance (nor your health insurance rates – another dubious claim).

                    I would support enabling drug testing as a sot hoc relief if an employee is suspected of doing drugs on the job or ing to work high. Otherwise it is a colossal waste of time and money – even those who spend the most $$$ on it (in re: NFL, Olympics) recognize they are fighting a losing battle.

                    • If he’s doing drug I doubt he’s the most productive employee. Of all the drug users I’ve known, not one has been top at anything, those most of them are pretty good liars.

                    • Ray Hawkins says:

                      Ricky Williams was a fairly productive running back when he was confirmed as being a stoner.

        • Are you at all starting to see the contradiction of you arguing freedom when it comes to drugs and prostitution but still thinking you have the right to tell me WHO or what I have to spend my money on. Why should you get to decide that my family should suffer for the greater good-why should you(government) get to decide who deserves help. As far as that goes why do you get to decide that a persons body is more important than their spirit?

          • Because I have no evidence of the existence of the spirit.

            This is all internally consistent. I do not see what greater good is served by making it illegal for two consenting adults to engage in an otherwise legal and harmless act. I do not see what greater good is served by threatening people with jail time if they ingest mind altering chemicals with no lasting effects.

            The only time I am ok with interfering with individual liberty is when the greater good is served. This fails that test. Other instances do not.

            • Mathius,

              This is why you are a Barbarian.

              A nice Barbarian, but one nonetheless.

            • The spirit isn’t just a religious term Matt-do you have a conscious, feelings etc-spirit.

              So simply put-freedom is secondary in all matters-harm to the individual doesn’t matter-just harm that the individual can cause society as a whole. Society has an obligation to help the poor if their being poor will harm society but no obligation to try and keep people from destroying themselves individually unless said person or persons will cause harm to society. So correct me if I am wrong but this sounds like life has no individual value, it has been reduced to it’s economical value to society. Actually absolute freedom seems to fit the same definition.

              • Correction-Absolute freedom doesn’t fit the same definition but it does put freedom before any other considerations. Which is what brings about my confusion(which I’m sure has been obvious lately)-My point is that we have to stand for one or the other but if your gonna stand on the argument of morality and not freedom for the laws in this country, they should be based on the individual not just economics-If you say lets give people money to survive but lets let them take drugs like heroin and destroy themselves, lets let young girls look at prostitution as a career choice-You simply aren’t standing on any principal. I am not saying that we don’t have to look at harm vs. benefit when it comes to these situations but the underlying reason to legislate morality is to both protect society and to help the individual-to only do one makes money the only consideration-not freedom and not compassion-money

            • Actually there are some strong “greater good” arguments against drugs and prostitution. The status of a society that engages heavily in that stuff is always poor. Rampant unbridled sex and drug use is often the beginning of the end for great civilizations in history. The problem with those arguments is not that the actions opposed are not bad for society, but that laws against them are inneffective at best and actually remove personal responsibilty and social mores at worst, actually contributing to societal demise. Just like your statist arguments, its not that I think salt is good, its that the use of government regulation is wrong and an inproper fix.

    • Common Man says:


      Proibition did help to stop the mob from making money via bootlegging, however it did not stop their continued rise to power. They just moved their efforts into other areas such as prostitution, the protection rackett, gambling, embezelling, etc, etc.

      As I have said earlier evil will find a way. Giving in to them at one level will only result in them alterinig their efforts.

      And, I would be happy to eliminate all national borders just as soon as every other country on the globe does so as well. In the mean time enforce ours!


      • It’s not about giving in. We want marijuana legalized. A plurality agree with me. But even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t matter because you cannot give me a sound argument for why it should be illegal unless you are also willing to criminalize alcohol.

        And, if no other argument will get through, by what right do you impose your beliefs on a woman that she may not have sex for money? If you are allowed to tell her what she can’t do, she should be allowed to tell you what you cannot do.

        • I gotta take Matthius’ side on this one guys. 🙂

          • HUZZAH!

          • USWeapon says:

            As do I. In my humble opinion, this is an instance where I see a lot of contradiction. We either believe in the sovereign rights of the individual or we do not. How can we pick and choose without being hypocritical?

            • Murphy's Law says:

              We can’t. Well put, USW.

              I agree with Mathius here especially concerning prostitution. If one’s rights end where the next person’s rights begin, and anyone, man or woman (of age, of course) wishes to have sex with someone who will pay for it, how does that violate ANYONE’S rights? No freedoms have been breached whatsoever. In fact, greater freedom has been, um, well, enjoyed.

              As far as pot is concerned, I am leaning towards legalizing that as well. Many call it a gateway drug…but maybe so is Ritalin.

              D13- as always, thank you for the excellent first hand info. No speculating, no philosophizing. All I can say is, DAMN. I tip my Dublin DP to you, sir.


        • I have to agree with Mathius as well…you either support FREEDOM for all…or not.

          • TexasChem says:

            This incident occurred two days ago in a business district that is right adjacent to the cities’ crack addict,junkie infested area.Prostitution, drug use and crime are rampant there.If you are so in favor of drug usage and prstitution then I suggest going to live there.Perhaps that would change your minds.


            Just after 1pm Wednesday a black male walked into Mickey McNamara’s Insurance Agency on the corner of 12th and Green Ave. and assaulted the 76 year old McNamara and employee Joyce Cross with a bat before leaving the scene. Orange Police are looking for the subject in the attempted robbery. Both victims were airlifted to the hospital where McNamara succumbed to his injuries. The bat was located near the scene but the subject is still at large. Officers believe that the person responsible for the homicide/assault is a black male, 20 to 30 years old, wearing a dark colored shirt, dark colored pants and blue Barack Obama cap. It’s believed the man had gone into the business earlier in the day and asked to use the restroom. Cross was talking to another person on the phone when the suspect entered the office and asked for money. That person then called police. It’s believed McNamara may have entered her office and tried to stop the man from beating her. Police have video of the black male walking near WOS Middle School and from The Capistrano, where you can see he was carrying an object. Cross’ condition has been upgraded from critical but still suffering from many injuries. McNamara had been in the insurance business for over 40 years and was a pillar of the community. He was an elder at the Ninth and Elm Church of Christ and a board member of the Orange Rotary Club. The incident is being investigated by the Orange Police Department Detective Division and the Orange County Homicide Investigation Team.

            Freedom for all does not include allowing for ultimate loss of freedom for others!GET IT ?

            • I do get it-but I still find myself questioning the fact that when we legislate morality, others can legislate morality which ends in a situation where there are in reality no safe guards for our individual freedoms-so I find no answer-do we continue fighting a battle to try and keep our freedoms while trying to keep some morality in our society or do we stand for absolute freedom and fight the corruptions that will follow.

              • I do so hate legislating morality..

                Tehran is telling people that “loose women” cause earthquakes. They define “loose women” as women whose headscarves are pulled back far enough that you can see their foreheads and/or hair.

                These women are jailed, beaten, and executed. Sometimes they are raped as well. (There is no punishment for the rapists since the women “had it coming” for being immoral).

                • You do legislate morality Matt. You just don’t seem to care about the harm done to the individual just society as a whole.

            • I get it, Tex, I do.

              There is high crime.

              I get it, I do.

              First, the prostitution is there because it is a relatively lawless area – it is not inherently violent, so I find your juxtaposition to be faulty.

              Second, when the laws force people to be outlaws, they will behave like outlaws.

              Third, maybe it’s time we began to look at addiction as a medical problem and not a legal one. But that’s just a thought..

              • TexasChem says:

                First, prostitution is there because the women are addicted to some form of narcotic, mainly crack which is found in abundance there, that in turn has them believing they need to sell their bodies to afford the drug.

                Second, those that use drugs make the choice to use them.They are not forced to use drugs.

                Third, addiction is both a medical and mental problem and often a legal problem.The root cause is drug abuse.These are just facts…

            • No I really don’t “get it”. There are less than optimum areas pretty much anywhere you go. As many as you point out there I can point out here. What is your point? To me freedom for all is just that. That does not give ANYONE the freedom to harm another.

              • TexasChem says:

                Why I quite agree with everything you just said Terry!But if what you define as freedom impinges upon the freedom of someone else who decides whoms freedom will be upheld?

            • TexasChem,

              You’ve got the horse/cart backwards.

              Do you complain about liquor stores and burger joints? No. Why? Because they are legal – and therefore, dispersed.

              Prostitution, drugs, etc. – as they are illegal –tend to concentrate

              • TexasChem says:

                It doesn’t take ten officers to subdue one butt naked man rampaging with inhuman strength after eating a burger or consuming a glass of bourbon.It does take ten officers to do it when that man is high on PCP and Meth. though BF!

          • Politics makes strange bedfellows… Jon Smith, Black Flag, Terry, and Dread Pirate Mathius all agree with Mathius… Amazing, no?

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi all,

          I have to agree with Matt on this one too…

          As a Mom, it pains me though. Raising children is hard enough without having legalized marijuana on sale at the 7-11. And, please don’t tell me that it wouldn’t be sold to “minors”…you know it…where there is a will, there is a way.

          Matt, dear…I don’t give a hoot what you put in your body, on your body or around your body. That’s your business and no one elses.

          In regards to the “crime” that is around the illegal drugs/prostitution ridden areas…

          I’d like to remind you about guns. A gun doesn’t shoot a person, a person shoots a gun; a joint doesn’t light itself up, a person lights up a joint — the joint doesn’t rob a home, a person robs a home — a joint doesn’t kill a person, a person kills a person. It’s the same thing for alchohol and for knives and so on and so on.

          If a person kills, maims, rapes or robs another person because of (insert whatever behavior) or with (insert some form of a weapon) — it is the PERSON exhibiting that behavior or using that weapon irresponsibly who should be punished to the letter of the law.

          I propose to you that if a person who is high kills another person during an illegal act, then that person really doesn’t have morals to begin with; I have known many people to get high and NEVER have I seen them exhibit immoral behaviors; I have also seen many people get drunk (on a legalized drug, and too my disappointment they have acted in ways which are immoral or have aggravated their already bad behaviors.

          Hope I’m making sense here.

          Best Regards to all,

          • That makes perfect sense…to me at least.

          • I don’t agree 100%, but I’m running low on time, so we’ll have to pick this up.

            General agreement from me though.. big hug.

      • The mob lost MASSIVE power after prohibition was repealed. Sure they still managed to exist, you are right that evil will find a way to exist, but they took a major hit that they never recovered from.

        Evil will find a way, that is part of the argument I use to oppose gun control. In fact, it would seem that evil’s way it has found has been to get into government, but I digress. Evil may still exist, but it will not be fully funded like it is now.

        I do not believe that being more free is “lowering our standards”. Honestly, if the legal status of an immoral act changes my standard or my ethics, then they were never my standard. Drugs were legal for a long time, even prostitution was not illegal in many places in the US, but we were more “moral” than we are now. Morals are a matter of individuals and groups of individuals. The day you depend on legal action to maintain morality is the day morality has died, because it is not in the heart but the head. It is just another excuse to control instead of a way of life.

        • USWeapon says:

          The day you depend on legal action to maintain morality is the day morality has died, because it is not in the heart but the head.

          Amen, Jon. I think that is the part that TC and some others are missing. You cannot legislate morality. But you can legislate freedom or lack of it. Morals will save us. Legislating them will enslave us.


    • I do not think so, Matt. There is one salient point that you have missed. Extortion. They will extort money from the families living in the USA to protect the families living in Mexico.

      You and I will have to agree to disagree on the point of drugs. I do not want to lower my standards….marijuana may be one thing but not the hard drugs. As to prostitution, I view that as different than drugs…but that is MY opinion.

      There are parallels that are close. I think that he lawlessness on the border will not go away…even if drugs and prostitution were not prevalent. Gun running and extortion would be. Kidnappings would increase…just like the Somali Pirates….it is profitable.

      How are you today, sir.
      and my friend, DPM? I am going to remove my submarine as soon as you unlock the door. You have a strong door there.

      • Extortion was a problem with the Mob.. for a while.. but they can only keep it up while they have the political capital and the funds to buy (literally) protection. Once you pull the vast bulk of the financing out from under the cartels (weed and prostitution), they won’t have the resources to buy off the cops and Mexican politicians. The mobs will have to take a lower profile roll and scale back.

        But I am curious about something: With all due respect, how can you be for personal freedom and liberty and a small unobtrusive government, but still be supportive of drug laws?

        • Matt asks: With all due respect, how can you be for personal freedom and liberty and a small unobtrusive government, but still be supportive of drug laws?

          D13 responds: I NEVER said that I was supportive of our drug laws. If you wish to put things into your body….do so. What I said was, we have them. It is law….change it or live with it. If they (drug laws) were not there, I would not be an advocate of them. If prostitution were legal, I would not be trying to pass them.

          But, I will not be a criminal and violate the law on the books simply because I do not like the law.

          • D13,

            I will not be a criminal and violate the law on the books simply because I do not like the law

            So if the law said you need to arrest, imprison and ship to death camps all left-handed blonds, you admit you would do that – you may not like it, but you would do it


            • Come on Flag….be real. I will not have to face such a law in the United States….but to answer your question….I have two choices….obey the law or leave the country….If I were in such a situation as you prescribe, I would leave the country. I could not support any government that would stipulate as such…but we are not dealing with death camps. The law says Marijuana is illegal…ok…it is illegal. I will not smoke it or partake in it. If I do, then I run the risk of penalty and will have to accept such risk.

              So, in the the context you put forward…No…I would leave the country.

              BTW, on another matter…you watching Germany and I think France….not supporting the bailout of Greece?

              • D13:

                I will not have to face such a law in the United States

                Poppycock and balderdash!

                You believe the US is immune to such law?

                Germany was the center of culture in Europe – and THEY had such a law!

                And the USA had such laws against the Native Indians!

                So, don’t be naive.

                However, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

                The point is your mindless adherence to words on paper written by men you do not know or have never met.

                ….but to answer your question….I have two choices….obey the law or leave the country….If I were in such a situation as you prescribe, I would leave the country.

                So, in the face of great evil, you do a “Mathius” and run away.

                The ol’ “They are killing my brothers, so I’ll leave the neighborhood” story.

                I could not support any government that would stipulate as such…but we are not dealing with death camps.

                So, you do judge law based on your own personal opinion and would be a criminal (in exile>.

                Interesting – yet you deny others this right….

                • I am still confused about how in a non governmental society we would develop laws-you have stated many times that this society would not be without laws-so in our current system or your desired system-how can society work if people refuse to follow the laws.

                • Ok BF… I will bite….here is a list of laws I ignore…

                  (1) None

                  Now, support your position and list the laws you ignore.

  10. Ellen Spalding says:

    Great article Colonel.

    I knew for years that the situation has gone from bad to worse, but never in my dreams did I know about all of this. Truly unbelievable that we have allow this to go on for this long. I dont have all the answers by any means either, but I believe we are well past just talking at this point. Action is required and in a large way.
    Hope you are well D13!

  11. Common Man says:

    Me thinks we are dealing from two or three different perspectives here folks. Legalizing drugs is not going to hault or slow down the influence of the Mexican catels anymore than Prohibition did the expansion of the Mafia.

    Again, these terroists currently running Mexico are all about taking over and gaining control. Drugs just happens to be their current mode of choice. Besides as D-13 said they are also kidnapping women and children for slave trade, stealing property, running guns and killing anyone that gets in their way. And it is all for money and power.

    Even if we as a nation decided to legalize all known drugs how is that going to stop the other violations being preformed by the cartels producing and selling the drugs. It’s not like Americans are going to be able to plant poppy and pot fields and then compete with the cartels. Hell our own government would invoke so many regulations and standards that even if we could produce enough volume, we would loose out to the cartels in price.

    As an example: Booze is now legal, however the cost of that booze is managed by the governments (Fed’s and States). It’s a controled substance just like tobacco. I agree eliminating prohibition lowered the crimes influenced by it, but it also gave the most corrupt evil of our time complete control over it.

    You people can’t really want the US Government managing the production and marketing of drugs.

    As I said we are dealing with several issues; Immigration legal and otherwise, drug trafficing, prostitution and theft being laid upon our soil, corrupt officials on both sides, and free men and women protecting their homes, land and property.

    Look at it from this perspective: You have a broken water pipe in your basement. Before you fix it you first have to shut off the water or you will eventually flood the basement and corrupt the foundation of your home.

    If you feel legalizing drugs would help to prevent violence great, prove it without duress. Giving into criminal demands will only result in the further elimination of our God given Freedoms.

  12. “There have been 14 abductions from Texas schools, 23 abductions from Texas hospitals, and 22 abductions from infant nurseries on the Texas side. ”
    And this is not news? Let’s see if we can make it more palatable for the liberal media.

    RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! The racist white media aren’t covering these abductions because the victims are mostly Hispanic. They are only interested in covering the abduction of blond white women! RACIST!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Jennie (and others) – let me be, as USW likes to say, argumentative, for a moment.

      “……22 abductions from infant nurseries on the Texas side” (for example)

      I thought this number seemed, I dunno, HIGH. I was equally astonished that someway somehow that this had not found its way into the National Media (or, according to Google, not even the local Texas media). So – I did a search on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children – search was on ages 0-2 years, State of Texas only and the last three years showed only one open case. A 10 year study ( shows that less than 11% of all infant abductions were from nurseries – over the period of the study only 14 total abductions were from Texas.

      I guess what I’d ask here is for a little more richness and context to the data.

      I am not suggesting that the good Colonel has pulled wool – I am merely suggesting that I am not sure the numbers are baking the cake to taste the right way – it looks good, but lets take a bite first before we ask for seconds.

      There is a problem – lets make sure it is described accurately before we reply with emotion.



      • Ray, let me be very explicit to some things here….believe or not to believe that is ok…It does not matter. These ARE reported and I get them from three sources….Let us use the example of nurseries…..yes the number is high…..and the abductions are not white….they are Hispanic….and no one is sure of whether or not they are victims of…say…family problems…a dad taking a child. These incidents are NOT reported to the media nor the authorities because they are illegal. My point is that they are happening at the border. They also happen in other cities but not to the extent of the border. The same thing with rapes….the authorities are not called. This is the atrocity. They are not reported to law enforcement agencies and will not be for the most part. To report a rape to the authorities will get them deported. To report an abduction to authorities will get them deported. To report any crime to the authorities will get them deported. You can search all you want…..let me direct you to get in touch with amnesty groups and churches and the like. That is where we go to find information….we do not go to the sanitized media. I would try this Cardinal in California….I bet he is full of stats that you or I do not know.

        These incidents are reported to the churches, the amnesty groups, and the self help groups that proliferate the border. In my own City of Fort Worth, there have been three abductions this year. They do not make the stats because of “family issues”…..again the mom taking a child or the dad taking a child. It is the under current that you do not see, however……

        I have reported what I found…believe…disbelieve….it does not matter. My feelings are not hurt and I do not take it personally.

        Let me give you another example….the dead. When we find them….pick them up and bring them to the morgues….they are not is simply a John Doe. If they are not found to be US Citizens, we ship them across the border. No stats. Happens everyday. This is the reality. You can complain all you want about stats but it is what is not reported or sanitized that makes it hard to pin the numbers….that is why we (military and civilian) go to the amnesty groups. That is why we do not run them out of the borders….because they are a great source of intel.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          D13 – I wasn’t complaining about the stats – the point I was trying to make is that change never occurs if there isn’t an accurate or close to accurate accounting of the numbers – if we cannot tie actuals to root cause shit doesn’t change – it just continues to be buried and a myriad of reliable/unreliable sources become fact.

      • One last little thing….I don’t know how much of a problem it still is….but we had the same issue with Asian groups here. Asian gangs preyed on Asian groups. I cannot remember where I saw this…but it was estimated by the Dallas and Fort Worth police forces that 85% of the murders, rapes, extortion..etc went unreported because of the distrust of the law enforcement. I wonder how much of that is actually in play with the illegal immigrants?

  13. D13
    I truly admire your grit and determination. Your contribution in the military is greatly appreciated, as it is for all servicemen. I have been hearing these types of stories for some time now. I know there are those here that disagree with Glenn Beck, but that is the only place I have seen/heard of the violence on the boarder to any extent.

    Have you attempted to contact Beck to see if perhaps he could do more concerning the boarder issue? Maybe you could even go on the show and relay to his audience what you have relayed to us here.

    If the issues on the boarder could garner the attention it deserves, then perhaps more help could be funneled to the states that are experiencing this boarder violence. In my opinion, the law that is currently being considered in Arizona is at least partially designed to raise some eyebrows…and it is.

    Naturally our fearless leader does nothing but admonish the state for attempting this, but if the Fed’s would give it the attention it deserves, then their action would not be necessary.

    I will be writing all my congressmen and senators to beg that they get engaged…after all we are neighbors!

    • Terry asks: Have you attempted to contact Beck to see if perhaps he could do more concerning the boarder issue? Maybe you could even go on the show and relay to his audience what you have relayed to us here.

      D13 responds: No, sir, I personally have not.

      Terry states: In my opinion, the law that is currently being considered in Arizona is at least partially designed to raise some eyebrows…and it is.

      D13 reports: It has passed. we shall see. maybe this will be the thing that will get it going. I wish our legislature will take this up and they might but we meet only every two years.

  14. TexasChem says:


    In Mathius new world of enlightenment will we expect to hear young daughters tell their daddys, “Daddy I can’t wait to grow up and be a prostitute like Mommy!”

    Teenage sons tell their Dads, “Well dad me and Jimmy are just gonna go out and shoot some heroin after school, see ya tomorrow!I’ll try to awaken from my nod in time to make it to school the next day!”

    Perhaps instead of Dads bowling night out with his buddies it will just be socially acceptable for him to run up to the pink tail bunny ranch and drop a few tabs of acid and ecstacy, score a few prostitutes and spread the HIV virus that he just got from his wife who works at the pink nose bunny ranch and then wonder how he’s gonna pay his house payment.That probably wont matter though for long cause the government will subsidize him till the next housing bubble bursts.

    • That’s pretty funny, TC. I hope that isn’t his ideal world….


    • USWeapon says:


      In Mathius new world of enlightenment will we expect to hear young daughters tell their daddys, “Daddy I can’t wait to grow up and be a prostitute like Mommy!”

      Teenage sons tell their Dads, “Well dad me and Jimmy are just gonna go out and shoot some heroin after school, see ya tomorrow!I’ll try to awaken from my nod in time to make it to school the next day!”

      Complete emotional rhetoric and not at all within the realm of reason or rational expectations. How would you feel if the majority in America banned the worship of a fictional man in the sky who expects you to be good? That isn’t my belief system, it is just an example of what happens when you believe that the majority belief should trump individual rights. Allow me to make another note…. Ever heard of the stereotype of the preacher’s daughter being the wildest whore in the school? Stereotypes exist because they are rooted in fact. So the religious teacher has a daughter who is far more likely to grow up and sleep around than the prostitute who does everything she can to keep her daughter from following her path. It seems the most harmful association that a child can have these days is with a priest, not a prostitute. I haven’t heard of a lot of prostitutes molesting children. Just a thought.

      But the point is that whether someone bothers to collect cash after sex is none of your business, and certainly not your problem. You want the freedom to believe what you want and to raise your children in the way you deem correct, yet you want to tell others that those same freedoms are not available to them. You demand that they live as you believe that they should live, yet are unwilling to accept anything that they believe that contradicts how you want to live. It strikes me as odd that you fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

      I am not trying to attack you personally, TC. I am merely pointing out that when you feel you have the right to tell others how to live, you take away your own ability to not be told how to live. This hypocrisy on both sides of the issues is why we are in the lack of freedom boat that we are in. Both sides think they have the right to dictate to the other side based on their beliefs. When you only answer to the question of “why” is because the good book says so, you really have no argument at all.

      So answer this one question without that answer. What is wrong with being a prostitute?

      • TexasChem says:

        Getting off work and have a 2 hour drive to get back to my hometown.Will reply tonight sometime.Just got off a six day 12 hour workweek and am a bit tired.I must admit I am a bit surprised and disheartened at the lack of moral fortitude this evening guys.No attack intended! 🙂

      • TexasChem says:

        Foremost among the health risks of prostitution is premature death.In a recent US study of almost 2000 prostitutes followed over a 30-year period, by far the most common causes of death were homicide, suicide, drug- and alcohol-related problems, HIV infection and accidents — in that order. The homicide rate among active female prostitutes was 17 times higher than that of the age-matched general female population.

        I don’t know USW, perhaps the risks associated with the business warrants something being wrong with it.

        • USWeapon says:

          And pray tell, care to guess how the homicide rates for prostitutes in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, compare to the rest of the country? The death rate among soldiers is significantly higher than the general population. The death rate among those living in poor areas is significantly higher than other areas. The death rate among mountain climbers is significantly higher than the general population. Should we outlaw military service, mountain climbing, and living in a poor area as well?

          • USW: I think you are being a little tough on TC. Having just survived a rough week personally I listened to a sermon on the state of our country and world today. The priest described my mom’s generation as the greatest generation. There are only so many of them left. They passed on to us the important ideas of family, faith, hard work, discipline, and personal responsibility.
            Now, since our generation got in a great big hurry and so very into ourselves, if we don’t change our mindset, then we have slapped the greatest generation in the face while simultaneously contributing to the moral decline of our own children. Our generation has failed. We cannot deny it. PC isn’t working and we’re seeing it play out today. We’re already on the heavy side of the scale. We preach freedom here everyday. How can we really be free if we don’t first do the right thing and teach that some things are just not acceptable. You can say everyone else’s life is none of your business all you want but that is why we are where we are today. TC may be ahead of time in his rhetoric but he sure has the right idea. They say it takes a village…it’s on us….like it or not.

            • Anita

              To teach what is good and bad and the reasons we consider them good and bad is NOT the same as using the force of government to dictate one persons view of acceptable onto another.

              When that behavior does not initiate the use of force against another innocent person. It does not impose upon someone who does not concur.

              The good things our parents passed on to us do not require me using govt force to impose them upon others. In fact it requires acting against the current trend in govt, as you indicated with the PC comment.

              TC is not ahead of his time, he is singing a very old song for the use of force to impose his view of morality upon others. And in doing so he aids those who want to make sure that we will NEVER be free.

              • Hi JAC,

                Now WHAT? You lost me especially with your second paragraph TC didn’t say a word about force and neither did I. We’re both saying the same thing. It’s called communication. Since when can we not even communicate?

                • Anita

                  TC has previously expressed his opinion that we need LAWS to stop what he deems immoral behavior.

                  Passing laws that authorize the govt to use force against folks for doing things that do not affect others is antithetical to freedom, liberty and justice for all.

                  I am not discouraging communications nor debate. The second paragraph should have been part of the first. I separated for emphasis but see how it is confusing. It was a continuation of the thought in P #1.

                  Tex was ranting about prostitution, using examples of our daughters seeking careers in the trade. This is strawman and fallacy argumentation. I was raised in Nevada where prostitution was legal. I never met a young girl who aspired to that career, and met very few who actually wound up in the trade.

                  Why not? Because families teach those values to our children that would make them aware of the hazards. Including the stigmas that will follow them forever.

                  If all this “cultural and social” degradation would occur as a result of legalizing this immoral behavior then how could a State like Nevada be filled with churches, good families, hard working folks, and Republicans of all things. The State should be over flowing with degradation, death and disease. But it is not.

                  • Can I jump in here and use the word Yet, I have noticed a continual lovering of what is considered by society as wrong-with time and new generations views change. What was once considered wrong is accepted as normal-this fact works to the good and the bad, but it is something to consider.

                  • Additional note-I know I will be accused by some of arguing just based on religion when I say this but I’m gonna say it anyway-you let evel get a foot hold and it grows just as government power grows.

                  • Hi JAC, Anita, and VH,

                    I’m going to jump in here and say that letting people experience/SUFFER the consequences of their behavior, immoral or not (stupid), would go a long way in reducing said behavior. I think a big part of the problem is that most people have learned that there really are no bad consequences for whatever it is they do. This is due to familiy members and society in general compensating for the behavior. For example, a young man or woman, decides not to quit the party life and get an education or aquire some kind of trade. This young person then finds him or herself with little or no means of support. The family or the government then steps in and provides this individual the basic necessities of life because they ‘care’. So what incentive does our young person have to stop partying, get a trade, and a job? There is none because they know someone will feel sorry for them and provided whhtever is needed, and some of what is wanted.

                    My parents let me live in an effing car when I was 19-20. I can assure you, it removed my head from my butt in short order……

        • TexasChem

          That all maybe true.

          But it still not your right to butt your nose into other peoples life

        • The point that behavior affects the health of society I agree with. I also agree that to remove social mores and to engage in behavior that is considered immoral by many, including yourself leads to a failure of society and of the individuals within it. I also agree that things have been headed in the wrong direction.

          What I disagree with is that the issue is a removal of morality from law. In fact I believe that the use of law to support morality is the beginning of our loss of that morality. I think Jefferson’s desire to have a separation of church and state was, in part, to prevent dependence on government for the morality of people. To prevent occasions like the end of Rome and the birth of the Catholic Church, and organization that, despite what good it has done, was instrumental in many atrocities in human history. I believe that true freedom is the key to a moral and healthy world, not control. It is through freedom that we can reach our greatest potential, not through control and planning. Morality and the drive that helps us reach greater heights comes from the inside, never the outside.

    • TexChem

      it will just be socially acceptable for him to run up to the pink tail bunny ranch

      And there, folks, is the problem.

      TexasChem confuses Socially acceptable or not with giving him an excuse to use violence on these people.

      There are a multitude of SOCIAL ENFORCEMENTS that do not use violence – shunning and ridicule for example.

      If you do not agree to someone’s behavior because it is repugnant to you – you have no right to use violence on them but you do have the right to use your right of association (which is an equal right to NOT associate) with them.

      As long as people believe they can use a gun on a person because they are socially unacceptable in the behavior tyranny lives for all People .

      • TexasChem says:

        So hows that shunning and ridicule worked for us so far?

        I don’t believe shunning and ridicule are considered politically correct!

        hrmm…Yeah I seem to remember some hate crime legislation or something…

        I mean cmon man, am I the only one who has noticed the social degragation of American

        society the past three decades jump into warpdrive?Car-jackings, murder, robbery, rape,

        home invasions,political fraud, banking fraud,newborns thrown in dumpsters,teachers

        molesting children,priests molesting children on and on and on.Hell I can’t even stand to

        watch the news any longer.

        The very social fabric binding our American society is becoming undone.Anyone care to touch

        that subject; pertaining as to why?

        All those preachers daughters must really have raised some fiery hell to get our society to

        the crass state it finds itself now.

        • I see it and I can understand the argument for it to be legal based on individual rights but to argue it isn’t harmful -that there’s nothing wrong with it-is to totally ignore human nature and human emotions.

        • TexasChem,

          So hows that shunning and ridicule worked for us so far?

          It is so powerful that in some cultures they will kill their own families to preserve “honor” to avoid it.

          Western Culture has discarded these tactics and replaced them with physical violence or its threat.

          I don’t believe shunning and ridicule are considered politically correct!


          It has been removed as the method of social enforcement – to your and your children’s loss.

          Am I the only one who has noticed the social degragation of American

          No, you are not. That is my point.

          By replacing non-violent enforcement on non-violent people with violent enforcement on non-violent people attacks the basis and core of social, civilized order

          As the core of civilized order crumbles, you will see social behavior, systemically, begin to crumble just like you see.

          Attempting to arrest this crumbling by increasing the violence on non-violent people can only accelerate the collapse of social order.

          When you understand the roots of civilized behavior – which is the condemnation of initiation of violence – you see that using the initiation of violence to enforce civilized behavior is the most destructive means possible to civilized behavior

          • BF,

            I might be mistaken but aren’t you arguing from a way forward position. I don’t recall us doing anything to the Mexicans and others stomping in to incite the violence that they seem to bring with them. They didn’t end up in our prisons for doing nothing.

            They didn’t knock on the front door either. They snuck in and started shooting on the way in. They are illegal. Why do they get a pass and we can’t do anything about it? Just asking.

            • Good question Anita, what is the short term answer to stop the killing. To me it’s close the border-Then we can debate the long term answer.

              • V.H.

                We also have to remove the incentive to cross the border.

                Remember, BF also included elimination of the welfare state as part of the solution.

                Which I might add kills many geese with one stone.

                Happy Saturday

            • Anita

              The vast majority of Mexicans and other Hispanics in the USA are hardworking, peace loving, family folks. I think you are grossly over generalizing.

              Remember how they turned out for the “family” ballot issues?

              The prison’s are full of “citizens” who committed crimes and a few “illegals” who committed violent crimes and can’t be deported.

              So this again turns to the criminalization of drugs and how it affects the poor to a greater extent. Thus the higher rates of incarceration for blacks and Hispanics in certain parts of the country.

              We must also recognize and accept the fact that many of those criminal elements developed in our cities, like L.A., where racism was strong and the criminal elements played on this to feed the racism on both sides. Now recognizing this does not solve the problem but perhaps we can keep from perpetuating it by ignoring that it does exist.

              I think the stinking welfare programs have more to do with it than anything. That and the politics of race that started in the 60’s.

              Big Hug to Ya today my dear.
              I know how it hurts.
              Warm thoughts are going your way.

              • Thanks for the kind words JAC.

                I’m sure you’re right about most of them being regular Joes just like us. But that doesn’t eliminate the violent ones who are here ILLEGALLY also.

                Why is ILLEGAL ok?

                Back much later

                • Anita

                  You apparently have misunderstood my comments so far.

                  I support open and free movement across our border…………..when the Mexican govt is operating on the same principles and rules as we are.

                  That is a long way off, in the future.

                  Right now, today we have a serious dilemma. And ILLEGAL is NOT OK by me under the current circumstances or in the future.

                  My gut instinct is to slam the border shut and I mean shut. But I know that alone will not solve the problems that get all wrapped up in the political issue of “illegal immigration”.

                  We need to figure out how to remove the incentives that cause migration without increasing the violence. Then deal with the violent offenders as a separate issue.

                  Hope that helps clear up any misunderstanding.

        • See above. The use of government to uphold morality is the very reason we no longer have any.

  15. I’ve been thinking of going to work for a contractor for ROV’s instead of being directly employed by one of the big companies. I was checking the cost of Health Insurance and was amazed by the cost. $700 a month PLUS deductible PLUS co-pay.

    I decided to look for something that will cover my wife’s prescriptions and blow off the rest. I would rather pay the fine that $10K before anything gets covered.

    I guess I had better learn to speak Spanish. Thank you Lord Obama!!!!!

    • USWeapon says:

      Wasabi…. Good to see you here my friend. I recall that you work on oil rigs. I was thinking about that yesterday in light of the recent rig explosion. I was talking to Mrs. Weapon and said that you did so. I was hoping that it wasn’t a rig you were on. Glad to see you are safe.


    This is a great example. Since Arizona is now in the news….this is being reported and is a common fact. This would have gone unreported in Texas and still does.

    Since the Arizona governor has signed the bill, I bet everything gets reported now….at least in Arizona.

  17. Todd,

    Moving forward a thread

    An increase in the money supply = Inflation

    I’m just thinking about Cause & Affect as I read from left to right…

    Fortunately, both sides of the equal sign can be flipped without impacting the definition.

    But in past discussions, your response to this scenario would be that people would learn that the apples are worthless and no longer want them, and the producer of these plastic apples would be driven out of business.

    This is exactly what happens – but this cannot happen instantly.

    If the money was free market it wouldn’t have even gone this far before the money started to evaporate.

    But because it is government money the People still are required by threat and force of violence to use this money to pay their taxes and debts.

    Thus, the people are stuck. They have to use the money even though it begins to rot.

    If money was worthless, no one would accept it as payment, and it would be replaced by real apples.

    That is what happens.

    But this is how it manifests, and how it creates recessions.

    (1) Business makes goods for sale at price “A”.
    (2) Business create inventory of goods for future sales
    (3) Money inflates
    (4) Sell inventory for “A”, but finds it cannot replace its supplies at a price that makes the sale at price “A” profitable

    In other words, it buys its supplies at a higher unit price than what they are selling their end product.

    They went into the business expecting a profit, but now time has gone by, and they discover they have sold at a loss.

    The business goes bankrupt.

    This occurs systemically across the economy as all businesses made the same fundamental mistake – because their price mechanisms changed under their feet – the length of a yard changed after they made a measure – and what they got – still called a ‘yard’ does not go the same physical distance as they were promised.

    Yes, productivity must come first. Over the last 30 years, there have been fairly big and fairly consistent increases in productivity.

    No, sir, there has not been any such animal.

    You are counting spending on your credit card as an improvement on your income – it is not.

    The US economy, over the last ten years, has had NEGATIVE growth – it costs more in real terms today then 10 years ago.

    You are poorer than a person in 1990.

    The wealthy have seen huge increases in both income and wealth. But income for the middle and working classes has been flat (actually decreased slightly).

    Again, this is not true in general regarding the wealthy.

    Generally, the “wealthy” are as trapped in the system as the middle class.

    One report has shown that the housing crisis has impacted the wealthy far worse than the middle class – they’ve seen their property fall 75% – 80% – wiping out entire fortunes.

    It is this imbalance in the sharing of the fruits of the labor that leads us to where we are today.

    There is no “sharing of any fruits of labor.

    You create your own fruit, and I create my fruit. We do not share. We trade.

    I was not suggesting wages should be doubled. But if over the past 30 years, wages had kept up with productivity gains, we wouldn’t have this current mess.

    There were NO productivity gains to keep pace with.

    As you said above: there are no real buyers of these excess goods!

    You are jumping cause and effect, like Keynes suggested.

    Where do you think the productivity INCREASE is coming from? Ghost workers?? Somebody has to be making these goods.

    Therefore, there are jobs.

    Therefore, there are wages.

    Therefore, there is people.

    People MUST spend money – you cannot NOT spend money. You need to live.

    People therefore MUST consume.

    You have an economy.

    But it starts with making something it cannot start with consuming something.

    You need productivity and consumption.

    As I pointed out above, productivity CREATES consumption, not the other way around.

    If no one has money available to buy your product,

    So who, pray tell, made the product? No one????

    it does not matter how efficiently you produce it, how productive your employees are, how many great features your product has. No one will buy it.

    So, who made the product? Ghosts?

    Thus, as the future arrives, there are no real buyers of these excess goods!


    But this was your comment! Hmmm…

    Reading the conclusion and forcing it to be the premise is not an argument.

    I described the logical sequence of artificial creation of money

    I am NOT arguing that recessions exist, as you are pretending is the case.

    If I’ve confused you somewhere – point to that, and I’ll try to explain it better.

    Do you have a reference for this? Everything I’ve seen says otherwise.


    You think you are paying less tax???????

    What’s the end game? Because you finally “seeing the light” and “lovin the kool aid!!”

    End game.

    The US government in 2009 had injected the single largest amount of money into the economy in US history, doubling the monetary bases. In 2010, they are on track to add another $2 trillion.

    In 2008, the monetary base was $900 billion. It sits @ $1.8 trillion – it is expected to pass $3 trillion by the end of 2010.

    It took 250 years to reach $900 billion. In 24 months, the US government tripled it.

    Even you cannot believe this will end well.

    However, according to Keynesian theory, this should have created the largest economic boom in history.

    According the the Austrians, they predict its effect will be muted – each infusion of artificial money will see a smaller and smaller effect to increase of GNP – up until it has no effect, or negative effect.

    In 2010, the US economy should a pre-inflationary increase of 1.3% in growth – after inflation, it was NEGATIVE.

    The Keynesian have shot their wad, and they are wholly out of ammunition. There is nothing left in their bag of tricks.

    This game started in 1914/1918. The WW1 was the single largest financial and social disaster in modern history – probably even worse than the 30 Years War.

    The economic reckoning this should have inflicted on the world had to be staggering. The destruction of wealth was unprecedented.

    Yet, history calls this time “The Roaring 20’s”.

    The world burned down their house – and instead of saving their pennies, living in ‘tents’ and rebuilding from those savings….. they had the world’s biggest party.

    The US government artificially lowered the cost of money – and supplied this low-cost credit and it created a boom…masking and delaying the reckoning.

    It hit in 1929.

    But instead of working it out, Hoover and FDR – again – tried to delay its reckoning. It made it worse and longer, until WW2.

    …which lead into the greatest economic and social disaster the world has ever known…

    …and what happened? Did the world save their pennies to rebuild the destruction of wealth? Nope.

    We call these times “the Boom of the 50’s”

    …which lead to the Korean War…

    followed by the Vietnam War…
    followed by the War on Poverty…
    followed by the Cold War…
    followed by the War on Drugs…
    followed by the Gulf War…
    followed by the Balkan War…
    followed by the War on Terror…
    followed by the Gulf War II…

    … and we thought the Depression and Reckoning of the WW1 was “bad”….

    You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, sir!

    • Last week the 1990’s were all smoke and mirrors, and now the entire 20th century was all smoke and mirrors.

      You often talk about the atrocities that occurred because of governments during the 20th century. But you fail to mention the other governments that rose up and stopped them. All of these governments are made up of people, both the good and the bad.

      I suppose Keynes’ untimely death was another conspiracy so that his misguided theory could destroy the civilized world?

      The Austrians’ economic theory sounds a lot like your version of society as a whole. The problem I see, whether we’re talking about the economy or society, is that they are made up of people. It is human nature to band together for security and mutual benefit. If we had no government, “government” would arise on it’s own, both from the good and the bad people. At least some of them would attempt to interfere or manipulate the economy and society for their own purposes, some with good intentions and some not.

      Even our founding fathers, who cherished freedom and fought and died for it, saw a need for government.

      Even with all of the problems and atrocities that occurred in the 20th century and continue in the 21st century, I think the good of our government, society, and economic system out weighs the bad. I don’t think it would be wise to throw that away and allow “governments” to form on their own with no thought about organization or limits on power – just because you say so…

      Thanks for jumping ahead to the “end game”. It saved a lot of time.

      • Todd,

        Last week the 1990′s were all smoke and mirrors, and now the entire 20th century was all smoke and mirrors.

        Todd, it has been all smoke and mirrors since at least 1913.

        You often talk about the atrocities that occurred because of governments during the 20th century. But you fail to mention the other governments that rose up and stopped them. All of these governments are made up of people, both the good and the bad.

        No, Todd.

        No one stopped Mao or Stalin – and these guys were directly created because other governments became involved in matters that did not properly concern their nation.

        I suppose Keynes’ untimely death was another conspiracy so that his misguided theory could destroy the civilized world?

        No, he just died suddenly.

        The Austrians’ economic theory sounds a lot like your version of society as a whole. The problem I see, whether we’re talking about the economy or society, is that they are made up of people.

        Economics IS the study of human action

        It is human nature to band together for security and mutual benefit. If we had no government, “government” would arise on it’s own, both from the good and the bad people.

        Free men do not need government – no one does except those that wish to do evil without direct consequences. For those evil men, government is a requirement.

        At least some of them would attempt to interfere or manipulate the economy and society for their own purposes, some with good intentions and some not.


        Does that create for you an excuse to be one of those evil men?

        Even our founding fathers, who cherished freedom and fought and died for it, saw a need for government.

        And they were mistaken.

        Even with all of the problems and atrocities that occurred in the 20th century and continue in the 21st century, I think the good of our government, society, and economic system out weighs the bad.

        Unless your the one dying at the hands of government.

        If you’re the one reaping the benefits of that death, then yeah – I guess you might thing its a “good” thing.

        I don’t think it would be wise to throw that away and allow “governments” to form on their own with no thought about organization or limits on power – just because you say so…

        You don’t have to do a thing I say.

        But I do not have to do a thing you say.

        The difference between you and I:
        Whereas you not doing what I say makes no particular issue with me, it is when I do not do what you say that just boils your blood. So you advocate forcing me to do it.

  18. D13

    BTW, on another matter…you watching Germany and I think France….not supporting the bailout of Greece?

    They will do it. All of this is show for the masses, trying to show “their tough”.

    If they do not, Greece will collapse into social unrest, insurrection, and perhaps civil war.

    If they do, all of Europe will succumb to economic disaster unseen since WW2.

    The Euro is a disaster – it is hopeless.

    All countries bought onto the Keynesian gravy train – they were warned in ends suddenly into a devastating crash off a deep cliff.

    No one listened.

    There exists no safe haven in any currency in the world.

    • I think you are correct. I believe that they will do it also. However, Do you think that Greece would actually go to revolt ( I do ), do you think it would have that great of influence on the rest of europe? I have a tendency to think that the rest of Europe will not fall into chaos if Greece is left alone. Thoughts?

      • D13,

        I think that Greece will set Europe aflame.

        It took one bullet to set off WW1.

        Greeks have a lot of bullets.

        • It is going to be interesting for sure…but I think like you..I think Europe has no choice but to bail them out. I think Spain will be next..maybe France, Italy….

  19. Finally!

    Governor Jan Brewer, (R)Arizona, signed SB1070 – Finally we have a law here in AZ that addresses one of the biggest problems throughout the United States!

    Police Officers in AZ can now be police officers as they are authorized to arrest those who break the law.

    I bet you thought I was going to say something about immigration. It ain’t about that to me, it is about when illegal is and is not illegal.

    There are immigration laws in effect in this country, now we here in Arizona can finally enforce those laws that are in effect.

    Its about time!

    • Hey G.A.. Some will say that your new law is Draconian and will not work. I say, what exactly in the crap would you have the folks of Arizona do?

      Maybe your new law will help. I know it’s not the total answer to the border problem but it sure as hell beats doing nothing at all.

      The U.S. Federal Gov’t obviously isn’t going to do anything but sit on their collective’s because it won’t look good “politically”. Politics got us in this mess to begin with. Politcal considerations have given us an Iraq or Afganistan right on our border.

      One of the only solutions I see now is Military action. Civilian Authority cannot handle this problem anymore as it is.

      • First of all, the law will not go into effect for 90 days, this to give opponents a chance to contest it in the courts.

        Second, all this law does is empower all sworn police officers in the state of Arizona the ability to enforce the federal immigration laws already on the books. It also increases the disciplinary action if it is proven that a police officer used racial profiling as his sole reason for checking on an individuals citizenship status.

        We here in Arizona still want the POTUS to activate our National Guard and put them on our southern border until we get the proper things in place to secure that southern border.

        My bet is that he will not send in the troops.

        • G.A.

          Isn’t it the Governors job to activate the States National Guard? I know that in Ohio, the NG is a State militia, not a Federal one. I know that the POTUS can activate the NG for service during war, but this seems lkie a case where the governor can activate the NG for dealing with this on a state level.

          Peace and Live Free!


          • Hey G!,

            Arizona is now a cash strapped state since our former governor(and now in charge of Homeland Security) Janet Napolotano went spend happy during her two terms as Governor. Most of our money is tied up in non-revocable federally backed social programs and we have had to cut fire, police and school funds to meet those federal requirements.

            We are asking the Feds to foot the bill for the NG troops to man the border. I do not think Obama will do it.

            • That would explain things quite well. It also adds to my overall theory. I do feel bad for the good folks dealing with this mess, they deserve better.

              Hope you have a good day!


  20. D13,

    I really had a good long think about your article today. As I read along, I couldn’t help but see how any “law changes” would have any effect at all. Like USW, I felt that maybe there was something I could do, as I have no Mrs. G reminding me of my family resposibilities, 🙂 . But as you put it, there’s not much that I or USW or anyone can do under the current circumstances.

    My biggest questions about how to help, allowed me to ask some questions of the situation. Do the ranchers want help from outsiders? Why can’t the ranchers combine their resources, ask the State to help, and finance a small group of well trained vets to come in and work for the ranchers? Would the State offer a bounty for armed illegals crossing the border, in conjunction with rancher sponsorship of the bounty hunters? E.G. The State offer 2K a head to stop an armed illegal once they have entered private U.S. property, the ranchers offer a place to sleep and 3 squares. The State may even make it better by offering 100 bucks a head to “arrest” the unarmed, non-violent illegals.

    Just some food for thought.

    Thanks for the great info, I would have never known this without your efforts!


    • G. Do you think maybe they could make that bounty on ARMED illegals Dead or Alive?

      And maybe let the Feds subsidize the State bounties? I mean hell, they’re gonna subsidize everything else, so why not?

      • Evening Esom!

        Good to hear from you! My idea with the armed illegals was “dead or damn near dead”. After all, assassination, after someone is down is not right. Obama will not like my ideas, he wants to be their friends and hold hands and sing Kum-By-AH (sp?).



        • Those are my thoughts also. I will be the first to admit that my views are considered just a bit bloody minded. I propose that you have to meet violence with even greater violence and pinpoint death to those so deserving.

          • Agreed Sir,

            Those willing to deal death to the innocent, deserve death in response. I do not believe one can negotiate peace with evil men, so one must dispose of those evil men accordingly.


        • G,

          He doesn’t want to be their friend, he wants to get their vote.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            USW – you’re saying Obama favors armed and illegal immigrants because he wants their vote? Even you know how ridiculous that is.

            • USWeapon says:

              No, I am saying that politicians are not likely to crack down on illegal immigration in the US because they are only interested in gaining the hispanic vote.

            • Ray….I will say that I do not think he favors it….but I think he is willing to turn his back on it.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                USW & D13 – not trying to split hairs but just trying to understand this position….

                Are you saying that politicians (regardless of party affiliation) turn a blind eye to illegal immigration (here forward that if illegal Hispanics) to gain the vote of the illegals or that of legal voters of Hispanic ancestry and their sympathizers? Not to be naive – but I’d be curious of the potential volume of illegals voting in our elections.

  21. Late to the show today.

    Thank you D13 for sharing this information with us. I join others in not even remotely realizing how serious the situation is.

    I will contact my Congress people and do my best to get the information out to others.

    Thank you and stay safe!

  22. In other news….

    Colt finally selected. D13 – you surprised at how far he dropped?

    • Hi Kathy!

      I follow the NFL too much, 😆 I’m a Dolphins fan, but I thought that the best pick that Cleveland made was Colt in this draft so far. I think he is gonna be a very good pro once he gets in there. I live in Browns country, so I hope he does well!


    • No..not at all….Great college quarterback…not pro material, I think.

  23. Question for the crowd:

    I’m too lazy to go searching around at the moment but didn’t I just read here recently that no United States flag shoud have anything attached to it such as gold fringe around it. Doesn’t that represent martial law being in effect? And isn’t it actually illegal to even display a flag like that? I just happened to see that my family’s church is displaying a flag with fringe. Should I have an attitude or not?

    • Hi Anita.

      Hope today finds you well today. Gold fringe on the U.S. Flag is allowed. Fringe is used on indoor and ceremonial Flags and should not be flown outdoors, as the fringe deteriorates too fast. This site tells the story of Flag Etiquete very well:

      Many people outside of the Military, vets and vet organizations and government will have true knowledge of this. If you see a Flag being improperly flown, and it’s friend or family, kindly tell them so, as they may not know. If they get angry or alittle upset, you can say that I told you it was wrong 😆 and your just passing on the info. I got your back!


      • Hey G: I could have sworn I saw it written here – may have been elsewhere – about the gold fringe being a total faux paux. But since you da man I’ll buy your line and if I have to I’ll just tell em to take it up with G-Man. BTW thanks for the condolences the other day my friend. 🙂

        • Matter of fact–I have some serious frustration to get out– WHERE’S MATHIUS TODAY? I know I can count on him to get get me fired back up. Back to the same ol Anita I’m sposed to be….Let’s go Matt.. Wake up wake up!

          • On the other hand D13 can accomplish the same thing just from a different angle, right Kathy? 🙂

            • Oh you’re back alright.

              Give yourself time, though, girl. Losing a parent is rough, to put it mildly.

              I’ll cut you some slack for a little while……

  24. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Great article! Great comments from all!

    At this point I strongly agree with TexasChem’s point of view.

    USW, Mathias, BlackFlag and others make excellent arguments, but it seems “freedom and liberty at any cost”, can be to high a price to pay.

    We will never all agree in this country on every issue, or agree when/if ones freedom is stepping on another person’s freedom. To give freedom and liberty the protection it deserves, I think the “Two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner” would actually be an improvement over a simple majority vote we use today even with the 3/5 Senate rule that is sometimes used.

    A 2/3 or 3/5 vote required at all levels of government, to change or create, any law which restricts freedoms would be an improvement in my mind.

    Again, I think everyone made great points.

    Gotta work now, later………

    • Hence the previous article about whether we really want freedom. Its not easy, nor is it safe, nor is the price ever, ever, EVER low.

  25. D13, Sir, your article shocked me! I didn’t know that it was already that bad. I knew from problems in San Diego but attributed it to liberal California.
    Now I know that we all sit in the same boat and I am ashamed of Texas and AZ! They seem to do very little in order to protect their citizen although this one of the few reasons why one should pay tax. I know of the stricter laws in AZ now but we still have to wait whether they have the desired effect.

    Maybe they should legalize pot in the US. I still don’t understand why alcohol is allowed and pot is prohibited. People smoke pot all over the world and there is no evidence that they would be better off with just drinking alcohol instead. The rules for smoking pot should be the same of course as for drinking alcohol (not in the public, no driving etc.). People already are smoking lots of pot in the US so why do we have to support drug cartels?

    This definetly would produce huge income and influence decreases for the cartels.

    Second of all I think that it would be very easy to protect our borders to the South.

    We have 2000 miles of border. I’m fed up with the fact that US soldiers get killed in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan etc. while our borders are not secure. The army alone has more than half a million soldiers and this alone is more than enough to make our border impervious. Now throw in all the technical equipment we have from drones to helicopters to motion detectors. 10.000 men would be more than enough to seal up the border completely.

    What would be the cost? Let me think…NOTHING! The soldiers are already paid for, we already have the military equipment and all the equipment is already in use. I cannot understand why soldiers have to stay in their funny bases all over the country. Why do they have to make all kinds of maneuvers and drills in the countryside, when they could do them under real conditions at the border? If there still are some holes, build concrete walls!

    Within a few months the flow of violence and criminals into the US would be stopped forever. I really don’t understand why these traitors in our political parties do nothing. This is where America really gets attacked and needs to be defended, not in Iraq!

    • You make good points, Manuel. You said it in your last paragraph; TRAITORS! That’s what they are.

      As for the pot issue, I’d like to see it legal. Not because I smoke it, but because the FDA would regulate the hell out of it, and the government would tax it to kingdom come. Then our liberal friends will get a taste of their own medicine and the FDA & Govt. will have something really juicy to keep them busy. Maybe they’ll get distracted and forget about our salt…. 😉 Also, employers will still be able to screen users out thus reducing competition in the job market.

      • I completely agree. Not only would the pot users pay taxes then but the cartels would lose lots of business as well. And I wouldn’t mind a little less competition on the job market either 😉

  26. D13,

    Excellent article, sir!!!

    My strongest thought, a nation that does not control it’s immigration is not going to be a nation for very long. A simple truth, we are being invaded. By 2050, the US will be a third world nation, unless we take decisive action.

    America has been a success in the past by requiring it’s immigrants to assimilate
    and become citizens. Allowing millions to live here who believe Texas and California are rightfully theirs because the US stole them from Mexico is suicidal.

  27. The Border Violence Myth

    The increase in drug-related violence in Mexico over the past few years is well established, the result of a crackdown on drug cartels by President Felipe Calderón’s administration. By most accounts it began in December 2006 when 6,500 federal troops</b. and police were dispatched to the Mexican state of Michoacán. In a series of gradual steps, this war on drugs broadened: over the past two years, 45,000 troops and 20,000 federal police have been dispatched to different regions of the country, primarily in northern Mexican cities like Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez. Almost 8,000 cartel-related deaths have been reported in Mexico, with a spike in the summer of 2008. The situation, however, had been viewed from a distance in the United States until the media began raising the nightmarish scenario of a spillover across the border.

    So the increase in violence in Mexico came as a direct result of the increase in government action against the drug trade!

    As more government force is applied to the situation, the worse the situation gets – it does not get betterit never has and it never will.

    Example after example, at home and abroad all proves this.

    Yet, what is the push?

    More government violence

    The problem at the border is directly and singly due to the actions that D13 supports. An increase in these measures will absolutely increase the problem at the border.

    • When men attack non-violent men, the non-violent men turn to violence.

      Simple formula.

      • The criminals are not non-violent! Moreover I’m pretty sure that many corrupt people, police offercs took part in the “war against drugs” and tried to get rid of some competition. This is not the case in the US, our police force and military are still working.

      • Yes, hence the reaction of those like D13 on the border, or are those not men to you? Are only non US persons men? It may be that violence was initiated by government action, but does that mean that there can be no defense against the resulting violence? There must be immediate solutions, including defense against initiated violence, not just theory. Most importantly, remember that drug lords are not just a bunch of nice non-violent people defending themselves. Nor was their initiation of violence always a result of government action. It began in many cases as greed for power and wealth at any cost, much like those in government. Remember, government is not an evil entity without the evil of men in government fueling it. You may argue that government is a mechanism of evil (tho I would disagree that it is that necessarily), but it still requires evils acts of evil men. As such men exist, it stands to reason that they are not solely members of government nor born of government action. Some of the violence on the border may be concentrated there because of government legislation, but the violence is born of evil men, period. Do not forget this in your emotional outrage against government itself, lest your rationale be flawed and your anger misplaced.

    • BF

      Sorry my dear friend but you are proposing absolutes when all you really have is conjecture based on what you assume to be the relationships. “So the increase in violence in Mexico came as a direct result of the increase in government action against the drug trade!”

      Your conclusion here, for example, ignores the fact that the increase in govt action was a response to increased violent crime by the Mexican Gangs that had spread through northern Mexico and up the western states of the USA.

      No doubt that increased govt action caused the gangs to fight back against the govt. But the inter gang wars were already heating up and govt action does not explain gang violence against the citizens they depend on for cover.

      You are vastly over simplifying what has been building south of the border. Criminalization of drugs certainly has the biggest role, but to lay all this at the feet of govt taking action against “innocent” or “non violent” men is ridiculous.

      • JAC,

        I presented the facts – that NOT until the government began using troops against the drug trade did the violence escalate.

        That is a fact.

        The War on Drugs is the excuse to attack non-violent men. 90% of those in prison for drugs committed no violence.

        At the militarization of the Mexican border is killing non-violent Mexicans sneaking across – and killing innocent people on both sides.

        The fact remains – the difference between 1960 and today at the border is one thing – government’s WAR of Drugs.

        They wanted a War, and they got one.

        • No sir, you provided your opinion. The drug trade was violent before the government began using troops against it. That you choose to ignore that is baffling. Your entire statement here is a compilation of opinions:

          The War on Drugs is the excuse to attack non-violent men. 90% of those in prison for drugs committed no violence.

          Or the war on drugs was an irrational response to a fear of drugs ruining society. Why not ask those that fight it? I have done so on a limited basis. I didn’t do it as an excuse to attack non-violent men. I did it because I wanted to stop violent and evil men from using that violence on others. That you think these evil men who work the drug trade only resorted to violence as a reaction to government is both naive and dishonest. You know better than that. I agree that a lot of violence against non-violent people happens because of the war on drugs. But your version of how this played out is both flawed and egregiously incorrect.

          At the militarization of the Mexican border is killing non-violent Mexicans sneaking across – and killing innocent people on both sides.

          That is interesting because very few of the killings on the border are done by government, and the non-violent immigrants sneaking across are rarely killed, they are caught and returned to where they came from. Most who are killed are killed by drug runners, not US government.

          The fact remains – the difference between 1960 and today at the border is one thing – government’s WAR of Drugs.

          That is A difference, not THE difference. There are many, many differences on the border between the 1960s and now. You are simply ignoring every other difference because it waters down your faulty conclusion.

          • USW says: “That is interesting because very few of the killings on the border are done by government, and the non-violent immigrants sneaking across are rarely killed, they are caught and returned to where they came from. Most who are killed are killed by drug runners, not US government.”

            D13 thanks you: I obviously have not gotten across that there are great steps taken to not “kill” the immigrant coming across the border looking for work. We can easily tell from their posture and their reactions who and what they are. We simply take them back to the border after finger printing. As I stated earlier, the drug runners know how to handle weapons and carry them differently. Also, if you point one…you die. The illegals that are “mules” are easily identifiable. Simply because they are forced to carry cocaine belts around them dose not automatically make them a drug runner….simply a forced “mule”. We know this and act accordingly. 90% will not run when confronted. They will just lay down as they know to run means getting shot and they want the drug belt removed in the first place.

            I don’t know if that makes it any simpler.

          • USWep,

            Your contention is false.

            Your first premise:
            There exists some action that will stop another action.

            This premise is faulty. You cannot stop ALL action.

            No matter what you do, there will be violence.

            Thus the measure is what escalated the violence

            (1) making drugs illegal
            (2) militarization of both sides of the border.

            To de-escalate the violence, proven tactic #1:
            – end the war on drugs; end prohibition.

            #2 best tactic – demilitarize.

            Anything else will only continue to escalate the violence, as amply demonstrated by my facts so presented.

            • The issue is, your “facts” were exaggerated and therefore inaccurate. This makes your argument lose credibility. It becomes propaganda. Stick to the point you really wish to make with facts presented in a realistic and accurate way and you will make your points much better. In an ignorant crowd, propaganda may work, not so much here.

              • What fact was exaggerated?

                You mean they didn’t send 45,000 Mexican troops into the border area to combat drug runners?

                You mean the death toll didn’t spike to 8,000 dead due to the escalation?

                I believe you want to dismiss this obvious cause and effect.

                But escalation is a fact and it only tends to go one way – worse…

                • No, but the idea that it was peaceful before (note that the government escalated violence, not created it) is lost in your presentation of “facts”. also lost is the concept that drug runners are violating property rights and attacking civilians. I agree that legalization would fix a lot of this, but you are ignoring the violence of the drug lords, or blaming it all on some act of government. It is the same faulty logic employed by gun control advocates who say that if there were no guns then there would be no killing. If there were no border or drug laws there might be no violence, but the violence itself is perpetrated by evil men. Government reaction may be an escalating factor, but that does not change the fact that the men are evil. In ignoring this, you exaggerate the real state of affairs on the border, you ignore certain realities, you exaggerate the role of government in this scenario to fit your ideal, but you give the drug lords who are INITIATING VIOLENCE a pass, saying we should just lay down and let them do whatever.

                  That sir is inaccurate. It is total BS and propoganda weilded to support a certain message, rather than put forth accurately.

    • Ignoring it will not make it go away either.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    7 Mexican police officers killed in Ciudad Juarez

    Associated Press


    CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Gunmen ambushed two police vehicles at a busy intersection in this drug- and violence-plagued city, killing seven officers and a 17-year-old boy who was passing by, …

    CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Gunmen ambushed two police vehicles at a busy intersection in this drug- and violence-plagued city, killing seven officers and a 17-year-old boy who was passing by, authorities said.

    Six of the police officers killed in Friday’s attack were federal, and one was a local police woman, said Enrique Torres Valadez, a spokesman for the state of Chihuahua, where Ciudad Juarez is located. Two local police officers were in critical condition.

    Authorities said the police officers had stopped to talk to a street vendor who flagged them down for help when gunmen opened fire from behind their pickup patrol trucks. The assailants fled in three vehicles.

    Investigators said they don’t know why the officers were shot, although they don’t believe they were targeted because of any recent arrests they had made.

    No one has been arrested but police said they have recovered two of the three cars used in the shooting.

    Hours after the attack, a painted message directed to top federal police commanders and claiming responsibility for the attack appeared on a wall in downtown Ciudad Juarez. It was apparently signed by La Linea gang, the enforcement arm of the Juarez drug cartel. The Juarez cartel has been locked in a bloody turf battle with the Sinaloa cartel, led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

    “This will happen to you … for being with El Chapo Guzman and to all the dirtbags who support him. Sincerely, La Linea,” the message read. The authenticity of the message could not be independently verified.

    Ciudad Juarez, a city of 1.3 million across from El Paso, Texas, is one of the world’s deadliest cities, and a two-year turf battle between drug cartels has left more than 5,000 people dead.

    Elsewhere, police in the Pacific coast state of Guerrero said they found the bodies of five men who had been shot to death lying on a dirt road near the state capital, Chilpancingo. Three of the men were brothers, all in their 20s.

    The state has been a major battleground for warring cartels, including the Beltran Leyva gang, but it was not clear whether the shootings were part of the ongoing drug violence.

    In central Morelos state, federal police and the Mexican army raided two ranch homes and arrested 15 men near the town of Amacuzac. Those arrested were taken to Mexico City in a helicopter.

    The men are suspected of working for alleged drug trafficker Jose Gerardo Alvarez Vazquez, who was arrested on Wednesday in Mexico City, said Ramon Pequeno, the head of the anti-narcotics division of Mexico’s federal police.

    Authorities say Alvarez Vazquez has been battling for control of the Beltran Leyva drug cartel with his partner, Edgar Valdez Villarreal, a U.S.-born enforcer known as “La Barbie.”

    Pequeno said the men arrested provided security and carried out killings for Alvarez Vazquez and Valdez Villarreal.

    In the western state of Michoacan late Friday, the mayor of a town arrested last year for alleged ties to drug traffickers was released from prison.

    Genaro Guisar Valencia, who was stripped by lawmakers of his post as mayor of Apatzingan because of his arrest, told reporters outside the prison in the state capital of Morelia that he would ask the state’s legislature to reverse its decision.

    Guisar Valencia was among 12 Mexican mayors arrested last year in an unprecedented roundup of elected officials accused of protecting drug traffickers in Michoacan.

    He’s the ninth mayor released for lack of evidence.

    An estimated 22,700 people have been killed in Mexico’s drug war since December 2006.

    • Use 10.000 soldiers and seal up the border, legalize marijuana and all the problems would be gone.

      • The radical part of my brain says we should say to heck with the Mexican government and supply the innocent Mexican citizens with their own weapons, something like machine guns so they can protect their own families and people against these worthless, evil cartels. 😈

        • I completely agree. The problem with most weapons legislations is that they prohibit the normal citizen from legally owning a gun. So only the criminals have guns and the normal citizen is not able to protect himself.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:
  30. One argument I have heard on here a lot is that having the border is the problem-that we have dealt with this type of problem with the mafia and such-that it is a problem with criminal behavior that is exacerbated because it is centralized because of the border-What I would like to know is-even if this statement is true-what difference does it make if we don’t control our border if Mexico continues to control theirs?

  31. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    It seems that the solution to the problem is quite complex. Black Flag contends that the Mexican Governments huge “war on drugs” holds a lot of blame. So, I would ask BF if he thinks the MG should stand down and let the drug cartels battle it out and continue to kill innocent civilians, in both our Nations?


    • No, G-man

      It’s not Mexican problem – it is a USA problem.

      The day after “illicit” drugs are no longer “illegal”, the drug war ends.

      The drug cartels no longer have a significant source of funds and would shrink away into a minor force.

      As long as the USA keeps drugs “illegal” – there is not one thing that can be down to de-escalate the violence. It will get worse and worse and worse.

      • I understand that it’s a problem for the U.S., and a big one at that. I’m not against making these drugs legal, hell, why not try that, seems nothing else is working to well. I’m going to post below, I have a theory that I’ve been researching.


      • You should go where I have been, then maybe you might get your head on straight and change your mind about all this “legalize ALL drugs” bulldookey . . .

        I would say more, however I respect USW’s wish that we keep our posts civilized and what I have said is about as civilized as I can get on this subject.

      • No, it will not get worse and worse. Seal up the border with our military and neither criminals nor drugs will find their way into the US. The cartels will not be able to sell their stuff since they cannot get it into the US. Violence will decline. The problem right now is that our border is like switzerland cheese with holes everywhere. As I said, we pay taxes for our military to protect the US but instead of protecting US soil many soldiers get killed in countries like Iraq. That’s ridiculous.

        In addition to that we could legalize marijuana but definetly not cocaine and all other hard drugs. The problem with legalizing hard drugs is that human lives are somewhat like a rollercoaster ride. Especially during very hard times when people lose someone, get severly ill or things are very bad they could turn to hard drugs. We all know about the people who start drinking then to lighten things up. What would happen if you could buy a ten times “better” alcohol (cocaine) with a much greater feeling of enlightenment in the supermarket next door to a very low price?

        If legalized, these hard drugs would not only be easy to obtain but their quality would be high, the prices would be low and there would be no punishment so all the reasons that could keep someone from using them are gone. People will try them and most of them will instantly get hooked on them for the rest of their lives, not only because they are so addictive but also because they are available everywhere then.

        • Manuel

          Seal up the border with our military and neither criminals nor drugs will find their way into the US

          This is exactly why D13 or G.A. Rowe’s ideas cannot work.

          Without a doubt, the most controlled, commanded and centralized political and police violence is applied upon prisoners in jail.

          And they cannot keep drugs out of the prisons

          It is insanity to believe that the US can stop drugs entering the country.

          • And they cannot keep drugs out of the prisons

            This is true for many prisons but not for all. After the border is protected by the military I’m quite sure that the drug cartels will switch to boats, submarines or little planes in order to smugle the drugs into the US but I’m OK with that. It involves much less innocent people, the kidnappings would stop and the farmers wouldn’t have to worry anymore. The illegal immigration would also slow down.

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    D13, I thought you wrote a very good article. Sorry I didn’t mention it earlier.

    Hope you’re doing well today.

  33. Drug wars, not just in Mexico and the Southwest border states. In Northeast Ohio on April 10, 2010, a gunshot victim was brought to the cities largest trauma center, with 57 gunshot wounds. The first one to the head would have been sufficient, but in this retaliatory attack, the gand from W.PA wanted to send a message. What is truly frightening, is what happened at the hospital. According to the nursing staff in the ER, in excess of 75 armed men arrived in the parking lot. Armed with everything up to ak-47’s, every city cruiser was dispatched, along with hospital security, to keep the peace. Less than 15 cops, on duty on a Saturday night, left the entire city unprotected (as if they protect anyway) to deal with one local event.

    Fortunately, no one was hurt. No one was arrested, and the news media never reported a single squeek about this event. Yet, despite these events, many ignorant citizens want gun control, so that only the criminals and cops have the guns. On this occasion, the cops were outnumber 5 to 1, and it could have been a complete slaughter purpatrated by the criminal element. It stayed sane, this time. But did they noticed that they outnumbered the cops by such a huge margin? Will they see this as a weakness in the Government system that they can exploit in the future? The Liberal media would never report this and inform the citizens, because it would destroy their liberal gun control BS. If the citizens were informed, guns would sell like fresh hotcakes on a cold winter morning.

    A few short weeks ago, a judge in Ashtabula County, Ohio told the citizens to get arme and get to know your neighbors and look out for each other, as over half of the Sherrif’s department was getting laid off, leaving one patrol for the states largest county. This at least was reported.

    If any American cannot see that the cops cannot protect the citizens, despite their best efforts, then their will be many victoms of crime, and fewer criminals getting caught. Arm up my friends, there are bloody times ahead.


  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    Virginia to Teach Gun Safety in Elementary Schools

    A new law will require Virginia’s education department to come up with a gun-safety curriculum for public elementary schools that incorporates guidelines from the NRA.

    Two Arizona made guns are shown at Caswells Shooting Range Tuesday, April 6, 2010 in Mesa, Ariz. (AP)

    Schoolchildren in Virginia who aren’t old enough to pack their lunches yet will soon start learning about packing heat.

    Move over, Crime Dog McGruff. There’s a new mascot on the playground and he’s got the backing of the powerful National Rifle Association.

    The NRA’s Eddie Eagle will soon be offering his brand of gun-safety lessons to the state’s schoolchildren.

    A new law will require Virginia’s education department to come up with a gun-safety curriculum for public elementary schools that incorporates guidelines from the NRA.

    The law allows local school divisions to offer gun-safety education to pupils in kindergarten through fifth grade. While each school board can decide whether to offer it, those that do must use the state curriculum — which will include rules used by the NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.

    Some parents are up in arms over the new law.

    “I personally don’t think firearm safety has a place in the schools,” Lori Haas, spokeswoman for the Virginia Center for Public Safety, told “That’s up to the parents to teach that at home.”

    Haas, whose daughter is a survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, said her group is outraged that state lawmakers are placing “a burden” on the state school board that it didn’t ask for.

    “For the general assembly and governor to dictate to the board of education in writing curriculum is not their area,” she said, calling the law a “freebie to a special interest group.”

    Legislation passed in March by the General Assembly had included an amendment that allowed the curriculum to include materials from the National Crime Prevention Center. But Gov. Bob McDonnell proposed removing the amendment because there is no such group, and the legislature on Wednesday approved his change.

    The legislation meant to refer to the National Crime Prevention Council, home of McGruff the Crime Dog. But McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said that rather than fixing the name, the governor deleted it because the council doesn’t have a current stand-alone gun-safety program.

    NRA’s Eddie Eagle website says that the program’s goal “isn’t to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children.”

    The Eddie Eagle mascot advises children: “If you see a gun: STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.”

    Eddie Eagle does not promote firearm ownership or use and firearms are never used in the program, the website says.

    “Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they’re treated simply as a fact of everyday life,” the website says. “With firearms found in about half of all American households, it’s a stance that makes sense.”

  35. Off topic but possibly of interest to some…here’s the link so you can see the certification text.

    Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds. (See JB’s new article on The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen)

    What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.

    The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.

    Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.

    Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.

    The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.

    Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.

    This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…

    This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…

    Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.

    Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…

    The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.

    The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.

    Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…

    Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.

    Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.

    Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.

    Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American
    Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.

    No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?

    How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?

    And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?

    The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…

    The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident
    Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.

    Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read – proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.

    DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…

    Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.

    They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…

    The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.

    The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.

    I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.

    But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.

    The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?

    Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know – already know.

    What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.

    • Hi CP 🙂

      This subject is just not going away. Let’s for the sake of debate, say it is shown that he is not eligible to hold the Office of the President. Then what?

      Hope today finds you well!


      • Hey There G-Man,

        I’m doing great. I had a busy couple of weeks at work but am now enjoying a little breather with the rest of the team. I’m getting excited because my daughter will be coming to see me in July. I’m enjoying the two month psych up 😉

        As for the story, it would be a crisis that’s for sure! That said, letting him and his party continue with their plan for America would be even worse. I imagine that the economy would tank immediately, and that’s just for starters. Dear Reader would have to be arrested along with his shadow government of czars and all the top Dems in Congress. It could get real ugly real fast. Another possible way to do what needs be done, would be for the Supreme Court to go public with the information and give the perps 1 hour to surrender or the military moves in and physically arrests them. It would all have to happen very quickly so the union thugs and ACORN types can’t mobilize. There would also have to be some kind of riot control or something because the 20% or so who would use violence to protect him will go on a rampage. Either way, its bad news for America. I say remove him, and the sooner the better. Allowing the Dems andhim to remain in office doing what they are doing will destroy the Republic within a couple of years. So lets do what needs be done sooner rather than later. At least that way, we’ll have a chance to repair the damage.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Nice post Cyndi – I do find that reading detritus like this helps give me context of what the spectrum still looks like.

      • Ray,

        I’m one who would quantify the “birther” thing as a conspiracy theory, as I know them. Early on, I did not consider this to be an issue of importance. But it won’t go away. We all know that the Hawiian Cert of Live Birth is of no legal value, even in Hawaii, so why doesn’t BO just provide a real birth certificate and put this to rest? His inaction is the only thing keeping this alive, and I for one would like to see it ended, one way or the other.



        • Ray Hawkins says:

          G – to respond to the conspiracy theory legitimizes it. And ask yourself this – lets say this whole nonsense were actually true – even if he produced a ‘supposed’ legit birth certificate why the hell would any birthers believe it to be the real deal and not a fake?

          • You’re right we wouldn’t because his actions don’t match up with the rhetoric. We would also demand all the other records as well. Then we would chip away at his legitimacy until only the most mindless of sheeple follow him of the cliff, much like what was done to President Bush, which BTW, is pretty much what is happening now ;). Then, maybe, we can get a president who isn’t corrupt, and a congress that isn’t corrupt, and start fixing the problems the Left has created for the country.

            • YEAH! What she said!

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Cyndi – which is precisely why you will never see anything – you prove my point well that once there is a crack in the door there will be a flood of frivolous requests.

              • The requests aren’t frivlou Ray. Your president will lose legitimacy either way. The more his supporters keep defending him while he refuses to show the documents requested, the worse he looks no matter how you spin it. The more damage his policies cause to the country, the more people will question his motives. The more money he spends hiding the documents, the more suspious people will become no matter what you say.

                I wonder what Hillary will do. I’m pretty sure she’s well aware of all this. She and her husband have the money and the connections to expose this fraud. All she has to do it wait for his numbers to drop a little lower and for things to get a little worse because of his policies, then WHAMO, she and Bill make their move. She will look like a patriotic American exposing this FRAUD to the country. See Ray, your president can keep his his documents sealed to likes of the little people and still be exposed for what he his no matter you say. Go Hillary!

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  Cyndi – your Courts have deemed these requests frivolous. From a theoretical perspective, if the BC request is deemed ridiculous and frivolous then any linked request to that will be deemed as frivolous also. Regardless of what happens policy-wise in the next 2 or 6 years of his Presidency, your President will not likely be questioned legitmiately on his citizenship status. He or his supporters will not look worse for not cowering to the Birther reqeusts, the birthers will continue to be marginalized by the all around.

                  • Actually, the Courts don’t belong to me because if they did, they wouldn’t slam the doors shut everytime the BC folks show up. If they did belong to me, the doors would fly open and everyone would be invited in, including the TV cameras for all the world to see, and we wouldn’t just be looking at the BC, it would ALL the other records as well.

                    Are you trying to convince me or yourself about the legitmacy of your president? My mind is made up, along with millions of others who believe this man is a fraud. Spin it however you have to, to keeping believing, lol. Maybe Tinkerbell will sprinkle some fairy dust on you to keep the fantasy sparklie and fun.

          • Ray,

            No Sir, the conspiracy theory does not legitimize it, in my mind anyway. In my mind it would be nothing more than CT, until the LtCol refused is orders, and as of today, as I have not heard different, he has been simply reassigned. In my, I would have been in Levinworth in two weeks. As a vet, who knows the UCMJ quite well, this is unprecedented in the military. 👿 My eyes are open now! 🙂

            As far as the what if’s, only time will tell. If he had a real birth certificate, it would have been public over a year ago when it became an issue.



            • I missed that one, G-Man. You mean they aren’t going to go ahead with the court martial?? What if they decide to court martial him, but don’t allow him to call for the BC. Wouldn’t he get convicted?

              • To the best of my knowledge, there are no charges at all that have been filed against him. I will say this, if this would have happened under any other President, he would have been Court Marshalled by now, justice is swift in the service. As far as being reassigned pending investigation, that’s BS, he would be in the brig.


                • Swift justice is how I remember it from my days in uniform. I can’t recall one incident in my five years of active duty where a court martial wasn’t pursued when justified. Most infractions I was aware of were dealt with under Article 15 of the UCMJ. Some cases recieved a Field Grade Article 15. Do you think the LTC will at least recieve a Field Grade? The whole reassignment issue is suspicious to me. Usually the military doesn’t mess around wtih soldiers who miss deployment. That’s pretty serious offense.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              G – responding to the CT legitimizes it.

  36. D13,

    Ok BF… I will bite….here is a list of laws I ignore…
    (1) None

    So, indeed, if the law said to round up the Left-handed Blonds, you’d do it.

    List of laws I don’t follow?

    I don’t follow any law I do not agree with…..which pretty much almost all of them.

    My test:
    Any law that “legalizes” violence on the non-violent people, I ignore.

    <iI am free, no matter what rules surround me.

    If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

    I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

    A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as “state” and “society” and “government” have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.

    He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.

    But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.

    * Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please.

    Rules, laws — always for other fellow.

    A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up.

    Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.

    Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good.,

    • BF says: I don’t follow any law I do not agree with…..which pretty much almost all of them.

      D13 says: So, it is safe to make the assumption that (1) you do not pay taxes, (2) you run red lights, (3) you run stop signs, (4) you speed through school zones, (5) you do not have a drivers license, (6) you do not have drivers liability insurance, (7) you do not register your vehicle…etc….simple laws but ones you have mentioned before as a violation of freedom. Am I understanding you correctly?

      • D13

        D13 says: So, it is safe to make the assumption that (1) you do not pay taxes

        I organize my affairs in a manner that those that make claim to my earnings find they have no claim.

        (2) you run red lights,

        When it is safe to do so, yes.

        Who is smarter? A blinking light or me? I say “Me” so why would I defer my safety to a absolutely stupid and dumb blinking light?

        Ever hear of the European cities that have removed all their stop signs and traffic lights? The accident rate PLUMMETED since each driver knew he was responsible for his own safety. Traffic jams all but disappeared (as drivers no long sat dumbfounded at a red light where there was no cross-traffic) and fatalities dropped 90%.

        I bet this utterly surprises you, right?

        (3) you run stop signs,

        I proceed through ALL intersections with appropriate caution.

        (4) you speed through school zones,

        I travel at a speed at which I, by myself deem appropriate and safe for me and others.

        (5) you do not have a drivers license,

        Unfortunately, that is one thing cannot avoid. Car rental companies by universal policy do not rent their cars to unlicensed drivers – and in my work, I need personal transportation.

        I’ve been successful in maintaining an International Drivers license for a number of years, limiting my need for local licensing.

        (6) you do not have drivers liability insurance,

        I believe being appropriately insured is a smart thing to do. I have life insurance, even though there is no law forcing it.

        Same with car insurance – just because there is a law doesn’t matter one wit to me.

        (7) you do not register your vehicle

        In this matter, like a license, it is near-impossible to avoid.

        …etc….simple laws but ones you have mentioned before as a violation of freedom. Am I understanding you correctly?

        If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

  37. V.H.

    I am still confused about how in a non governmental society we would develop laws

    What law needs to be developed?

    Society and civilization – which are NON-government created abstractions works the best when violence on non-violent men is prohibited – no exceptions, not even one.

    With that simple understanding, civilization came into being.

    What other law do you need beyond that?

    -you have stated many times that this society would not be without laws-so in our current system or your desired system-how can society work if people refuse to follow the laws

    The only people who would not follow this law are evil men who believe they can use violence on non-violent men.

    By their action – and the response to such an action – these men will not survive for long. Men, acting in their self-defense will eventually eliminate these brain damaged souls.

    Beyond that, what else could you possible want to be a “law”?

    • I don’t know BF, define non-violent to me-if a couple decides they want to have sex in the middle of the park in front of my kids can I shoot them in the butt. If someone high on some mind altering drug decides using the bathroom outside in front of people is okay are they violent-how about speeding is this non violent or dog fights or two humans deciding to fight to the death for money is this imposing on my rights. Or naked people sitting on public benches, so unsanitary could give me a disease, or a naked family member deciding to give my child a hug can I smack the crap out of them. If a religion decides that human sacrifice is just the thing and the one being sacrificed agrees is this non-violent does it impose on my rights.

      • Shoot em in the butt? Cuss them out first.
        Using your tree? Squirt em with the garden hose.
        Naked people on public benches leaving skidmarks? Insant public flogging.
        Naked hugs to children. Public flogging also.

        Good post V. Any more violations up your sleeve? 🙂

    • One thing-you keep using this definition as the defining rule of civilizations-Why do you think that? I have always been of the mind that the defining rule would have been based more on societal norms of the time.

      • I need to restate that last remark-I have always been of the mind that the defining rule would have been based or interpreted more on societal norms of the time than on freedom.

    • V.H.

      I don’t know BF, define non-violent to me

      Non-violence: the lack of violence.

      Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

      -if a couple decides they want to have sex in the middle of the park in front of my kids can I shoot them in the butt.

      What “physical force” are they using you? Asw: None.

      If someone high on some mind altering drug decides using the bathroom outside in front of people is okay are they violent

      That would be a matter of use of private property – it would be up to the property owner to decide if that person should stay or leave.

      But for YOU, again – what “physical force” is he using on you?

      -how about speeding is this non violent

      What “physical force” is harming you?

      or dog fights or two humans deciding to fight to the death for money is this imposing on my rights.

      If those two people as their own free choice decide to dual – what right do YOU have to stop them?

      Or naked people sitting on public benches, so unsanitary could give me a disease,

      Why do you think naked people are unsanitary? When you are naked does that mean you are no longer “clean”?

      And again – what are they doing TO you? Nothing.

      They may disgust you – but that, really, is your problem. They haven’t done anything to you at all.

      or a naked family member deciding to give my child a hug can I smack the crap out of them.

      If the hug is unwanted, then they have crossed the line.

      Whether your response should be smacking the “crap” out of them – well, you will need to justify the level of your response to the imposition. If you exceed a reasoned level of response, then you will be guilt of violence.

      I’d probably suggest you ask them to leave you alone as an initial act.

      If a religion decides that human sacrifice is just the thing and the one being sacrificed agrees is this non-violent does it impose on my rights.

      How can it impose on your rights?

      • Pretty much the answers I expected 🙂 But now since the only answer I received a yes answer to was on the hugging of my child- then the next logical question is who decides how far I can go with my violence-and if said relative felt I had introduced violence on him unfairly-who decides what his appropriate response should be.

        • You decide – but with a warning:

          What you do to others gives others the right to do you

          Do not expect mercy upon you if you give no mercy.

          If you exceed your right, others will do the same on you.

          You take their heads because of a hug, when you will touch someone else, and they will take your arms and legs.

          With that in mind, do as you see fit.

          ..or ask your peers for what they believe you should do..

  38. There have been many questions posed about this article, which I found enlightening in many ways. The one I found most appealing, is why the Fed’s have done very little to secure our borders and contain the violence to south of the border? So I looked into the past and discovered that the CIA had, on numerous occasions, been caught running drugs (in L.A. in the 90’s and Arkansas in the 80’s) to fund their covert operations (namely the Contra’s).

    Knowing this, and adding that the immigration issue is a very emotional issue, let’s add some things up and build a small puzzle. Fact, the CIA are known for running drugs and initiating violence on foriegn soil to overthrow governments. Fact, we have between 11 and 18 million illegals in country, many of which have family that are citizens. Fact, the drug cartels are at war with each other, which is very violent. Fact, the Mexican government has done very little to stop the Cartels. Fact, the U.S. government has not offered military help to the mexican govt to resolve this issue. Fact, the violence from the cartels is spilling into the U.S. at alarming rates. Fact, the MSM has had little to say about this as it has grown. Fact, Obama wants amnesty for the illegals. Fact, Arizona has passed a law that is causing a big stir (now the MSM gets involved).

    Let’s piece this together. 2 Governments, a lot of violence and death, the CIA’s past, the MSM’s silence on the issue until a new anti-immigration law is passed, the emotional appeal of the violence and the immigration issue, and what do we have?

    A big damn mess! But the facts are leading us to a cause and effect, and I would bet that both governments are behind both the cause and their desired outcome, but what is the desired outcome? Here’s where I need help, what do they want to achieve? I have a theory or two. But would like some input to confirm one or the other.

    Think with an open mind, lose the emotional aspect and the answer could be right in front of us, or at least a few suggestions for answers.


    • Hint about one theory. The governments what two things badly, MONEY and CONTROL. How could they use these events to accomplish that?

    • G,

      I am working on an immigration article as well. Your thoughts here fit right in with what I am working on. I may shoot you an email within the next day or so asking for some input.


      • Good Morning USW!

        In my theories, I’ve separated immigration and the drug running, human trafficking cartels, as I think they are two separate issues that are intertwined to achieve the goal(s). I’ll hold off on the immigration side and will await your input to address the drug side. This way I won’t interfere with your article.


  39. The Iowa Department of Labor claimed a small northeast farmer was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an agent out to interview him.

    Iowa Department of Labor employee: I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them.

    Farmer: Well, there’s my farm hand who’s been with me for 3 years. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board…Then there’s the mentally challenged worker. He works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes about $10 per week, pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally.

    IDL employee: That’s the guy I want to talk to…the mentally challenged one.

    Farmer: That would be me

  40. Perhaps, but societal norms are slow to change, taking away all moral laws at once would probably quicken that process up but I don’t think a 100 years of prostitution being legal proves your point-look at the process of turning from a democratic to a socialistic country -how many years will it take for them to fall or loss all there freedoms a 100, 200, etc. ?

    • V.H.

      I agree – the establishment of a FREE society must be as measured as removing a body full of knives.

      Sudden removal of all the knives will kill our patient as the knife, while killing the patient is also blocking the wholesale blood letting.

      One knife at a time, and healing – then another, etc. is the only way to go.

      But First – no more knives into the body!

      Thus, all further damage must be resisted – because it is killing the body nonetheless.

      • I certainly agree with your statement but that wasn’t really the basis of my remark-We were talking about the danger of our society falling or not, because of the lack of moral law and the gradual acceptance of these activities changing social norms over a number of years.

    • V.H.

      I don’t understand what point you are trying to make regarding prostitution as the example.

      I raised this to counter Tex Chems long list of other characteristics of prostitution as reason it should not be legal.

      I am pointing out that where it HAS been legal for a very long time you do not see these other “characteristics” associated with it. This should call into question the arguments being used against legalizing personal behavior that does not impose force upon others.

      I did want to mention that in your examples of you being exposed to moral depravity due to freedom the factor that creates an apparent conflict is the existence of “public spaces”. You and I have a right to not have to be confronted with naked people walking around. But in a free society with “govt owned places” we can not restrict the naked from using the park. In a free society without govt owned places then we would have the option to only use those parks where nakedness was prohibited.

      We often forget when building what we think are examples of conflict that we are doing so from our current understanding of society. A TRULY free society would require wholesale changes beyond just legalizing drugs and prostitution in order to prevent these freedoms from imposing on those of others.

      • I was actually talking about the taking away of all moral laws and the effect that would have on our society over time-
        Sorry I wasn’t very clear. I think my understanding of what all the differences would be is definantly part of the problem and the differences become more unclear because we speak of absolute freedom with small limited government and then without government 🙂 So with VDLG-there would be no public lands.

        • V.H.

          There would be public lands because it would be impossible to get rid of them until we come to fully appreciate freedom and how such a society is possible.

          There will also be certain laws which I think are not needed but will at least fit the criteria BF has listed. Those laws that act to prevent violence against the innocent. Such as some of our pollution laws.

          But even these need to be redesigned around the new principle of freedom, thus giving the citizens more power and the govt agencies much less.

          I would say that given the amount of underground prostitution and drug use in this country that legalizing these two would probably not shake our core moral fiber.

          There is no doubt that what is considered morally acceptable by future society will more than likely differ from today. It could even be stricter. Again, I think our fear is derived from conditioning and misinformation about what will happen. That is why I love the Nevada example. If all the “this will happens” were true the State should resemble Sodom and Gomorrah, but it doesn’t. So the cause and effect relationship assumed by many must NOT be true.

          • Cyndi mentioned that legalizing drugs and such might have the effect of making people live with the consequences of their choices which might indeed help to stop the moral decline which could or as I believe would come with the removal of moral law. As people saw the damage that was done they might well return to a societal norm that discouraged them, then again they might limit freedom by writing new laws-really hard to say.

  41. V. H.

    One thing-you keep using this definition as the defining rule of civilizations-Why do you think that?

    Good question! This is such a good question, I’m surprised no one else has ever asked it before of me!

    Congratulations! You win 1 Black Flag point. Since there has been less then 8 Black Flag points in the market, that it is very rare.

    To the question and answer at hand..

    Humans are always in some degree in conflict, since we are all individuals with absolute unique wants, needs and desires. No one (well, no one I’ve ever know in all history) can achieve their needs, wants and desires within themselves. They need external resources to live. There are a finite of these resources, thus scarcity.

    Thus, people need to establish a means of prioritizing who should get resources and what resources.

    Thus, two methods only exist.

    (1) Earn and Trade
    (2) Fight and Steal

    Prohibition of violence on non-violent people created civilization because it removed the “Might is Right” doctrine.

    Review: there are two equal, but opposite consequences of the Law of Mutuality

    (1) I DO NOT hit you, so not to give you the right to hit me.
    (2) I HIT you, because I don’t care if you hit me back – I am bigger and stronger.

    If (2) is prohibited within a culture and society, the “Might is Right” and its “Fight and Steal” consequence of resource allocation.

    Thus, by using (1), the allocation of resources becomes “Earn and Trade” – with the establishment of Natural Law deriving out of the rightful means of action.

    If I cannot steal, I must trade.
    Trade cannot be forced, thus requires trust.
    Trust requires consistent social behavior (politeness).
    Social behavior requires “not pissing off your neighbors”.
    Mutual social norms creates social order.
    Social order creates cooperation.
    Cooperation provides the optimum strategy for human success – called “Civilization”.

    • “Mutual social norms creates social order” This is the part I am not sure will work because I don’t think we have mutual social norms now-I think laws are the only thing that keeps a good percentage of people under any kind of control.

      • Mutual social norms derive naturally from the people – which is why each culture has their own norms.

        By working inside such norms, you build “likeness” and “similarity”.

        Think about what is your most powerful tool in keeping your kids under control.

        Is it the threat of a beating?


        Is it the threat of your disappointment?

        • It’s normally disappointment but my children love me-other people in society may or may not care what I think or feel. Although I will give you that most people do care about what the public thinks of them -but I honestly believe that we have different cultures in this country, different public social norms if you will, and they do care one wit what the other cultures think. Law is the only thing that helps to keep these differences in check IMO.

          • Correct.

            That is why social behavior builds similarity – it is harder to “love” those who do not act or think as we do.

            Why do you wear makeup and lipstick? Why do you bath and wear clean clothes? Why is your lawn tidy and mowed?

            Not because of any law – but because of social pressure – your peers. You do not want to be ridiculed, ostracized, ignored.

            • V.

              Law is the use of VIOLENCE to enforce an edict.

              Be darn careful about what edict you need to use violence, or you end up with using violence on non-violent people – and begin the undermining of society.

              • BF,

                I don’t think you like the sound of the word LAW. If we strike that from our vocabulary can we agree on some RULES?

                • Anita,

                  Law is Great! Just needs to be used Rightly.

                  Laws prohibiting violence – that is, the Right to use violence against violence – are Rightful Laws.

                  But use Law badly, and evil is created.

                  Rules are non-violent enforcements of behavior.

                  When someone says “We need a Law” they are saying we need to beat up someone.

                  When someone says “We need a Rule” they are saying we need manage non-violent behavior without resorting to violence.

              • Which is why I am against a big government and also why I fear no government.Government- Violence used to force compliance to unfair laws and no laws causing mob justice.

                • You do NOT need government to enforce Rightful Law

                  You need government to enforce Evil Law

                  • See the video.

                    Government was trying to enforce an evil law.

                    Call enforced Rightful Law.

                    You do not need government to enforce Rightful Law.

                  • And you may well need law to stop evil action-I watched the video and I do love that show but the truth is the soldiers could have just as easily have been criminals just demanding what they wanted and either party government or criminal could have shot Call in the head-I do however see your point of the solders having the law behind them but without law the criminals could just ride away unless someone else was more powerful than they were.

                    • Anyone can shoot anyone in the head.

                      No one there had a right to shoot anyone in the head.

                      If someone did, a small war would have broken out.

                      You cannot prevent violent criminals – even with government

                      So you cannot use that as an excuse to keep government either.

                    • I can unless you show me how we enforce your one law.

                    • This was, V.

                    • V.H.

                      The local Justice League would have rode off and caught the culprits.

                      They would have been tried and hung on the spot, or ……

                      They would have been returned for trial and then hung.

                    • This is not enforcement of law unless the one in the right wins.

                    • Can’t go for hanging on the spot but rtied , I can live with.

                    • V.

                      Enforcement always requires the “right” one to win – and often it doesn’t.

                      But it just has to win more often then not.

                      Eventually the bad guys are wiped out.

                    • V.

                      The most important lesson in all of this is to avoid looking at the “end” and concentrate on the “means”.

                      Justiful living does not guarantee happiness or success.

                      Evil living does not guarantee disaster or failure.

                      We cannot measure our actions by the success of the outcomes.

                      We measure our actions directly as being Right or Evil.

                      Doing Right tends to lead to Right living.

                      Doing Evil tends to lead to Evil living.

                      But neither is guaranteed.

                      But it is the way to bet.

            • BF I’m thinking you are jumping ahead with the things I agree with and ignoring my qualifiers

              • Although if I had used the word they do NOT care a wit-you might have noticed the qualifier was a qualifier. 🙂

          • Right on V

    • BF:

      Sorry Man but I don’t see it as quite as astounding as you do. It’s simple. It’s the difference between good and evil. We all know that. But from that point ther still has to be some structure to live by. Called laws. That’s where your mental block comes from. I think. I’m not hating BF and your Utopia sounds great on paper but there has to be more to it. That’s where you part ways with lots of folks. You aren’t buying it…but you have to as with car you admit it has to exist. So now what?

      • Anita,

        I have no mental block.

        I understand quite well “laws”.

        A Law is the use of VIOLENCE to enforce an edict, Plain and simple.

        You had better be darn clear when you decide you use violence – because if you are haphazard about it, you will destroy the core of civilization.

        Using Law to enforce non-violent behavior will eventually lead to the undermining of civilization.

        Using Rules – that is non-violent enforcement of social behavior – will strength the core of society and civilization.

        Getting these two things all muddled up is incredibly dangerous to mankind.

        Utopia – is a story written by St. Thomas More about a place that had no private property, everyone was taught and learned and knew the same thing, where order and piety was more important the freedom.

        I laugh when someone claims this is my goal. It is usually THEIR goal.

      • Anita,

        I have car insurance because it is prudent to do have it, not because some moron demanded it.

        • Anita,

          I brush my teeth because it is prudent to do so.

          If some moron made it a law, I’d still brush my teeth.

          If some moron made it against the law, I’d still brush my teeth.

          Does that help understanding my position?

          • Yes BF..I totally understand. You and I could live hapilly ever after. But the more people in the mix the more complicated it gets. Why? Because you can’t make everyone happy at the same time. Don’t ask me why. Some things just are. Does that make sense.

            Can I have some Flag points please since that’s the first time you ever YELLED at me?

            • He He, I just love you Anita 🙂

            • Everyone’s happiness is not a goal.

              Everyone’s right to seek their happiness IS THE GOAL.

              Whether they find it or not – that’s up to them and the Universe.

            • Anita and V.H.

              It is not the numbers of people that create cause for concern in obtaining freedom today.

              You are correct to be concerned but the problem is not the diversity of cultural norms. It is the conditioning we have undergone that has erased our institutional memory of freedom and liberty. What we were and why it was important. How to make it happen and what it means to each of us. This has been lost to most.

              You fear a society without govt. because we have been taught that we can not survive without it. Our great grandparents would have laughed at our fear.

              Also consider the size of this country. The reason our founders were so adamant about State’s rights and limited Federal govt was to allow for the diversity you describe. Yet holding those diverse cultures together with a small set of core values. Freedom, liberty and justice for all.

              • Agreed JAC

                What I don’t get is we all rise and we all go back to bed at night. Just be good in between and life is easy. I have no clue where in that timeline it gets messed up. Or why it has to get so ridiculously complicated.

              • I can agree that if the majority respected the ideals of Liberty and freedom(for all) that would go a long way to becoming a society truly based on freedom with respect for our fellow man which would help to maintain a societal norm of tolerance and compromise on moral issues but we are a long way from reaching that point. Where we are right now-no laws, absolute freedom would be suicidal.

              • Anita, V.H.

                I think perhaps your outlook is affected by where you live and the media you watch.

                I hear the hate on the radio, in the news and see it on the internet.

                But I do not see it when I walk my neighborhood or travel around the various states.

                I do see it among certain groups and primarily in the big cities. It is easy to foment hatred there by telling the poor it is somebody else fault.

                But I do not see it in small towns, cities and around the country side.

                • No doubt, because I don’t just hear of it on TV, I hear it in the words and see it in the eyes and the actions of my fellow citizens-is a sad and scary picture of our world today.

                • JAC

                  I’m from the Motor City.

                  People have terrible attitudes around here (except me 🙂 )

                  You’re right though

  42. Man, I really wish I had the Lonesome Dove video, for some reason I really have a desire to watch the movie. 🙂

  43. Hey everyone, look at who is being violent. Hint: It’s not the Tea Party people. A nation of laws should be able to “discriminate” against criminals.

  44. Jon

    No, but the idea that it was peaceful before (note that the government escalated violence, not created it) is lost in your presentation of “facts”.

    It WAS most certainly MORE peaceful – which is my point.

    In fact, prior to the war on drugs, it was darn right peaceful!

    That is a FACT, Jon.

    Since it WAS GOVERNMENT who created the WAR on Drugs – government DID start it. You can’t believe it was the Cartels that started it?

    also lost is the concept that drug runners are violating property rights and attacking civilians.

    Deal with it as trespass and assault. Neither of these enforcements requires the Army.

    I agree that legalization would fix a lot of this, but you are ignoring the violence of the drug lords, or blaming it all on some act of government.

    The law against drugs is government’s.
    The escalation is government’s.

    What do you think?

    If there were no border or drug laws there might be no violence, but the violence itself is perpetrated by evil men.

    I have never made that argument so its merely a strawman on your part.

    I’ve said the escalation is due directly to overt government action.

    you exaggerate the real state of affairs on the border,

    If you wish to continue to ignore the facts, I can’t help you.

    The “real state” at the border is directly due to the continued escalation of government force.

    Asking for more government force will -guaranteed- increase this violence.

  45. BF, is it your contention that no violent conflict is winnable?

    I see that your argument is more sound than it seemed at first concerning the violence aspect, but I still take issue with two parts of your point.

    1) That the trespassing issue does not require the army. In its current state (regardless of the cause) it requires more than the locals are able to handle, otherwise there would be far fewer American deaths. That is why I ask you if you consider no violent conflict winnable.

    2) That the drug lords would be peaceful persons without the government. I think they would have to find another means of gaining great power, but I do not think that they were forced into a violent life by government action. The fact that they engage in rape and trespassing and theft and human trafficking indicates to me that they are violent people who would engage in violence if it got them what they wanted, regardless of government action or inaction. In fact, it is men like this that require defensive violence, which, in many cases, cannot be reasonably handled by individuals, because not all individuals are equipped or physically able to handle such a defensive requirement. It is the reason to have a government in the first place. As you have stated in your definition of civilization, people cannot usually meet all of their own needs and wants, this includes a need for some to have the job of defense, both of themselves and others.

    If I have misunderstood your argument concerning what would happen without borders or drug laws, I apologize, but it certainly seems that you are saying it would all be fixed by the removal of those things. I think there needs to be immediate defensive action employed as well as a removal of drug laws.

    • Jon,

      1)No matter what you do, you will never eliminate violence.

      You can prevent, mitigate and restitute from acts of violence.

      2) I do not think that they were forced into a violent life by government action.

      No, it was extremely profitable venture for them. They understand -just like those in government – that violence is extremely profitable.

      When it is no longer profitable (because drugs are not that scarce naturally – only become so due to government monopolistic action) they’ll move on to find other risky, but profitable ventures – just like the Mob.

      The drug lords, with the end of the drug trade, will move into politics and get elected.

      Government is not the answer -ever- to any human problem.

      An excellent book that no one other then me has taken out of the library:

      “Against the Leviathan” by Robert Higgs.

      If you want to understand in a very articulate way my complaints regarding government, this is the book.

      But, as I said, no one will read it.

      • BF, I haven’t read it, yet. But totally understand what you said.


      • I will read it. I would love more insight into your line of thinking.

        In the mean time, unless Higgs converts me, I will stand by my thought that there is a place for government. It is limited and must be controlled, much like fire, but there is a time for it. I heard it said that “Anarchy is the state of being in denial of what a human can become”. It makes a lot of sense, but it does not seem to handle evil and unreasonable people realistically.

        • Jon,

          Yet, government doesn’t handle evil and unreasonable people well at all – instead it elects many of them and gives them legitimate violence to inflict death and destruction on a scale enormous.

          No mobster has even come to 0.00001% of the slaughter of government.

          I’m sure you recall my definition of a politician – an evil, unreasoned coward.

      • You know, this book – even though articulates my own mind back at me – did impact me.

        G.A. Rowe maybe right.

        I can easily avoid the Leviathan and mitigate all but its trivial idiocy.

        I can be free of it.

        But is that all I should do?

        • Free men make are capable of making that decision, so make it!

          By the way, your one of very few people that I would like to sit down with a cooler full of beer, and just talk with. I would like that, hope you would too!


          • I concur, Except I think I would prefer a good bottle of red…or scotch

            • I’d like to just sit in and listen.

              I couldn’t have anything with alcohol in it though. It puts me to sleep in a minute, especially if my tummy is full….. 😛

              • Your bottle of red could be a Red Bull 🙂

                • Yeah, that might work, but I probably won’t shut the hell up! Maybe I should just stick with a nice cup of coffee, half-n-half, no sugar. Trust me, it’ll be better that way!


  46. Finally, someone who agrees with me on this whole idea of reaching out to alien life forms.

    • Magically, someone of intelligence, has figured out why our Federal Government isn’t listening! 😆

  47. Ray,

    I notice the standard for drug users is now ‘fairly productive’ as opposed to ‘top performer’.

    • I know plenty of top performers, depending on the arena of work and the drug of choice. I myself find I do well with a heavy dose of caffeine and other chemicals found in energy drinks. Not a hard drug, but addictive and used to give short term bursts to my performance. Drugs are not automatically the bad thing that they are portrayed to be. It is, in fact the overstatement of how bad they are that is the biggest gateway for kids to get hooked on the bad stuff. They find out they were lied to by their parents and others about how bad weed or alcohol or other light level drugs are, and they assume its all crap and go shoot up. Don’t overreact to drugs, it just comes of as propoganda.

      • I love caffine myself. My point is that I would support using drug testing to gain a personal advantage over drug users. I prefer a free market system however, that is no longer allowed. Since I’m forced to participate in a BS system (the US was at least somewhat free before O), I will use it to my advantage if possible. Since the majority of drug useres probably voted for Obama, I feel no guilt in screweing them using their methods and system they’ve imposed upon me. If they don’t like, they should have thought about that before they begged for tyranny.

  48. TexasChem says:

    I would like to add that I think D-13 should submit this article to the American Thinker blogsite to increase the awareness of the issues on our borders!

%d bloggers like this: