Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Putting the Cartel Before the Hearse

stilton’s place, stilton, political, humor, conservative, cartoons, jokes, hope n’ change, mormon family, mexico, drug cartels, murder, trump, obama, holder, fast and furious
WE remember, you insufferable lying assholes.
By now you've heard the story of the Mormon family who had three women and six children massacred by drug cartel members while traveling through Mexico to attend a wedding. The story is heartbreaking...and a legitimate source for righteous anger.

To that end, President Trump has made the offer to Mexico to basically go to war with the cartels, using American troops to wipe this scourge from the Earth. Which is a very refreshing change from the way Barack Obama dealt with the problem by sending automatic weapons to the cartels.

We discussed this a lot at Hope n' Change way back in 2011, but will serve up a refresher for those who have forgotten details...or never heard them.

"Fast and Furious" was a program administered by the ATF under attorney general Eric Holder's direction and almost surely Barack Obama's endorsement. The program helped smuggle more than 1700 weapons to Mexican criminals and drug cartels just "to see where they'd surface."

Theoretically, this would provide valuable information which would allow the ATF to shut down the gunrunners. But unsurprisingly, "theory" went out the window, the program flew out of control, and the AK-47s and armor-piercing shells were used to murder dozens (if not hundreds) of people including a U.S. Border Patrol agent and a Customs Enforcement agent.

Speculation, which we personally find entirely believable, is that the primary purpose of the program wasn't really to track gang members at all, but rather for the Obama administration to pretend to be shocked that guns sold in America had been used to slaughter people in Mexico - which would have given Obama and Holder an excuse to attack the second amendment rights of Americans. And had "Fast and Furious" not been exposed, their bloodsoaked plan might actually have worked.

The contrast between the administrations of Trump and Obama could not be more marked. Trump wants to kill the bad guys who kill Americans...Obama wanted the bad guys to kill others, and equipped them to do so, in order to make his own covert attack on Americans.

And this is why, despite his many rough spots, we strongly support Donald Trump. And why we're still sickened by the memory of Barack Obama and everyone who surrounded him.


mamafrog said...

Personally, that kind of war sounds like another eternal never win situation. Just like certain overseas conflicts that we are being pulled out of now. Drug money and cartels are octpussed into everything in Mexico and Mexico doesn't seem interested in getting down and dirty and getting them out. Their states are still separate entities and don't want to work together.

Pat Cummings said...

Battles come in two categories, @mamafrog: offensive and defensive. When you choose to fight a defensive battle, it can be termed an act of war—but choosing not to fight is an act of surrender. And surrendering to cartels and criminals is simply a different kind of never-win.

That's why President Trump was wise to call on Mexico to fight this war in Mexico... while promising, but hardly specifying, assistance from the US, whose citizens are also—and now, obviously—at risk from a criminal power-base south of the border.

Crazy World said...

Bravo, excellent post on this awful day.

She’s A Beauty said...

Jugears, and the incompetent racists he surrounded himself with (including his miserable wife), left an 8-year-long shit stain on this country that we’ll be struggling to wipe clean for years to come. Thank God DJT seems to have an infinite supply of Charmin and isn’t afraid to use it.

j said...

Maybe we could listen to Al Gore - remember him?- and just offer to set up basketball hoops for the cartels, so they could play "midnight basketball" and that would do away with their urges to be mean. After all, it worked with all the gangs, right?
Seriously, though - I feel such pity for the average Mexican who has no say in the corrupt elections, no power over the corrupt police forces, no protection from the corrupt army and no mercy from the cartels. I know there are many good people there who feel that they live in Hell.

Dan said...

Who benefits from cartel cash and favors in the US?
What politicians (from town council to state governor, representative, senator or cabinet-level executive) current or past? What law enforcement personnel?
Who are the others in media and education, unions, or whatever, who benefit from the cartels' trade?
These people need to be rolled up, too.

Jim Irre said...

Sometimes I wonder if asking permission is worthwhile anymore.

REM1875 said...

The best source of news south of the border that our media simply will not cover ..... Borderland Beat

If it happened in Croatia, Uganda, Nigeria, Bulgaria, hell even Maldives, it would be front page news........... A few mile from us and our media does not even give it a nod ......

I got a feeling the cartels have some deep pockets in dee cee they keep filled ......

Fish Out of Water said...

Oh yes, I too see my blood pressure rise several points at the mention of fast and furious. If there was an impeachable offense, that was. But then the worst electoral mistake since the peanut farmer from Plains Ga rose unicorns and shot rainbows from his hands.

Just looked at WSJ OpEd section. For today and the sub banner reads American drug users are complicit in the murder and mayhem in Mexico.

So is the lassie fair attitude held by many towards "recreational " drug use.

Wouldn't be surprised if some prog airhead publicly calls for legalization as a "solution"

Mike said...

We have the means to make every head of cartel "disappear". We can do it with or without Mexico's approval. We also can silence make sure Obrado stays silent.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

Fish Out of Water said...

In other news, Its a very blue Wednesday morning here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the self righteous progs now control both houses of the state legislature.

It doesn't take a PhD in poly sci to see this as a storm bell warning for other states who now have small blue principalities dictating (or in the future dictating) what is best for the rest of the state. And farther down the line, these self contained, closed loop prog principalities determining what will be on a national level.

Have said this before and say it again; it time the legacy state borders be redrawn so the progs can live happily in their trash/feces, drug, homeless filled "utopia" (utopia for me but not for thee) and leave the rest of us alone.

This conversation needs to start while the conversation can still be civil.

Elbarto said...

Article 10 of Mexican Constitution of 1917 guaranteed the right of Mexicans to keep and bear arms. In 1971 Article 10 was amended to effectively remove that right and gave the Mexican government the authority to severely restrict the ownership of firearms. Does anyone believe that violence in Mexico has decreased since Mexican citizens were legally disarmed?

Roger Myers said...

I have read a lot of articles about this tragedy, your post is far and away the best. It should be read by every American.

Roger Myers

M. Mitchell Marmel said...

Long past time for another Blackjack Pershing to stand up.

Unknown said...

All this is well and good. Theoretically we could totally decimate the cartels within weeks. Only one small deterrent: thousands of both Mexican & US officials from the top to the bottom of this festering slimy stack are making a handsome living from not only allowing the drug traffic to flow, but actively encouraging and abetting said flow. I expect distressed howls immediately from the left if this gains any traction whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

@Fish, with Democrats now in control of both chambers of the legislature, as well as the Governor's office, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as a native son of the state, I bemoan that the Old Dominion is on the fast track to becoming California.

Snark said...

There is conjecture that this attack was a case of mistaken identity; one cartel thinking that the caravan was a competing gang. The victims were also family with people fighting for justice and the end of the narcotrafficers. To the cartels, they become just as likely a target as the police or anyone else wanting to hinder their business. Such an attack sends a "message" to the survivors. I recommend reading Don Winslow's series on the Mexican drug industry starting with "The Power Of The Dog". It describes in graphic detail how the cartels work, their history and just how firmly entrenched they are in all aspects of Mexican and most of Central American governments. Going to war with the cartels would mean the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in addition to the tens of thousands already murdered.

This is an incomprehensible evil, infecting the entire society of Mexico, trying to infect our country. With the help of the progressive idiots, they stand a good chance of succeeding.

Geoff King said...

I know! Let's just make drugs illegal, then the cartels will have no one to sell to.
Oh....wait a minute..

Fred Ciampi said...

Part of the reason Virginia went to the left is that the universities' students can vote as if they are citizens of that district. Not good. Glad Me and mine have some good hiding places. And I don't think Old Dominion will go the way as california because although the left is in charge they're not quite as bat shit stupid as jerry brown and gavin newsome.

As for the cartels, I would endorse drone strikes, AF-18 napalm strikes, B-52 strikes and of course a few thousand Tomahawks on a daily basis.

Buck O'Fama bust be proud.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Mike: The INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY has those means. Notably, they're part of the "deep state", and are currently aligned against anything this president does. It would only be a matter of seconds for the order of any clandestine maneuvers south of the border to become the next "impeachable offense" the libtards in the house will jump on.

@jpb252: Time and again, we see this. It isn't for public safety, the "elites" want the citizenry disarmed. It's for their own so that they can abuse their power without any chance of real repercussions...

@Geoff: No, no, no - you've forgotten how these idiots think. They want to make the drugs LEGAL so that the illicit market prices collapse, then make GUNS illegal so that they can't use them to get into some other "business"! Then, all the "undocumented pharmacists" in Meh-hee-coe will have to go legit! See? BRILLIANT! What could go wrong?

Alfonso Bedoya said...

The cartels are nothing less than international terrorists and should be treated as such. This would mean all-out war on Mexico's cartels on their home turf, provided, of course, that they could be found after melting into the populace. It would require a military invasion of Mexico that would result in mass executions of cartel members, without trials---anathematic to our law-abiding nation and to a feckless Congress and Far-Left liberal national media.

It's all a pipe-dream, however, since it ain't a-gonna happen, and the problem won't/can't be solved by ordinary means. Actually, it is a problem that can't be solved on Mexican soil anyway because the cartels virtually own the Mexican government and its army. So what does that leave? An impenetrable border wall, but with snipers, machine-gunners and attack dogs at effective intervals. Congress would gasp at such a proposal.

In the meantime, more Mexicans and hapless Americans who venture south of the border will be targets, and more ISIS members and drug-dealers will continue to invade our country across our southern border. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be an unsolvable problem at this time.

millard fillmore said...

I just found out that the Air Force didn't really 'retire' the F-117 stealth fighters,they just corralled them at a base in the desert.We still have 51 of them,and I don't think the cartels have enough of Obama's weaponry to stop a few,'Oops,training accident' smart bomb drops.If Mexico had no particular problem with Obama arming the cartels,what's a few 'accidental' bomb drops among friends?

Sergio said...

The "Mexican Drug Cartel" problem is America's consumption problem. They exist due to a demand for the dope in America. We're a huge market for their "product" or "service". As a nation we must "clean up" and get off all the dope. Another idea is call this dope what it is "poison". It truly poisons those who use it and their relationships with friends, families

John the Econ said...

I don't get it. Mexico has extreme gun control and single-payer health care. It should be the paradise that upset Democrats fled to after the election of Trump.

But the reality is that Mexico is a near-failed state that is now largely run by the cartels using weaponry that has been 100% illegal:

In many parts of Mexico, government ceded battle to cartels

If this isn't a "why we have the 2nd Amendment" allegory, I don't know what is: Pliant citizens give up their guns and the government promises to protect them. The criminals do not give up their guns. In fact, the acquire more. The pliant citizens start becoming victims. The government does not protect them. The criminals become more wealthy and powerful. The government now is afraid to protect the citizens, and actually answers to the cartels instead of the citizens. The criminals now call the shots. (pun intended)

Why people think choosing this path for "safety" is a good idea is insane, especially considering what is going on immediately south of our own border. I guess it's just another example of how Progressivism has become a religion based solely on blind faith and denial of reality.

Personally, I'm skeptical that Trump can do much about the situation in Mexico. Are we going to actually invade like we did going after Pancho Villa? Quite frankly, I think the only thing that can have any impact at all is quenching America's insatiable thirst for the contraband that fuels this madness. And I don't see that happening either.

American Cowboy said...

@ Snark said..."Going to war with the cartels would mean the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in addition to the tens of thousands already murdered."

The two atom bombs dropped on Japan caused a horrific loss of civilian life, and destruction of property. Had they not been dropped it is estimated by some that their would have been millions of causalities on both sides, civilian and military, that were prevented.

It is time that the United States once again grow a pair-grow a backbone or whatever other phrase could be used and start taking out the trash.

Pat Cummings said...

@Snark: You are so right: The victims were also family with people fighting for justice and the end of the narcotrafficers. To the cartels, they become just as likely a target as the police or anyone else wanting to hinder their business. Such an attack sends a "message" to the survivors...

The family whose women and children were "mistakenly" slaughtered are FLDS (fundamentalist Mormons), have dual citizenship (Mexico and USA), and have been very outspoken in their criticism and disgust of the cartels on both sides of the border.

Anyone still think it's a case of mistaken identity?

james daily said...

President Trump's outreach was doomed to failure because the MX government is completely owned by the Cartels and those that are not are scared schitless of pissing them off.I am all for testing some of these multi-million dollar missils.

On the other hand, if we eliminated 100% of the MX drug trafficking, we would still be at the mercy of Columbia, Brazil, and Venezuela who would pick up the slack in a heartbeat. The Mary Jane Mexican market is shrinking as the domestic market is oversaturated. It is the hard drugs, including prescription drugs that will keep these dealers in business.

There are two solutions: Cut off all visiting MX including on Cruise ships and vacation spots, use a three strikes and you are dead for the addicted since it was voluntary addiction. Yes, give them two and only two shots at rehabilitation paid for by the taxpayers. Cut all foreign aid to these countries and make it illegal to send money back to these countries. You have got to hit their pocketbook to get their attention.

John the Econ said...

@Fish Out of Water, are you really surprised? Over the last quarter century, Virginia has largely become just a suburb for the swamp dwellers. The bigger government gets, the more this will happen. There is no stopping it, short of stopping the growth of government.

And even with Trump, I don't see that happening anywhere.

@jpb252, brilliantly put.

Unrelated topic: If you operate in the Apple universe, it looks like Johnny Optimism will be getting his own emoji. There's also an emoji to express that you are menstruating, if you find that as being necessary to announce.

John the Econ said...

@Snark said "Going to war with the cartels would mean the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in addition to the tens of thousands already murdered."

And now we have "science" on the pro-side of that argument:

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

"The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating."

So it looks like "science" says we should nuke Mexico, and the better part of the turd-world before they grow in more numbers and start wanting comfortable homes and SUVs.

So now I'm convinced.

Old Cannonballs said...

Hell, Stilt, all that President Trump needs to do is have Jack Ryan take care of the Mexican cartels the way he did the Columbian ones. That'll show 'em.

Colby Muenster said...

I've not checked the nooze lately, but this morning, on my favorite conservative talk radio show, they were reporting that El Presidente turned down Trump's offer of help, and proclaimed that they had already arrested the bad guy. Well by golly! That tells me that El Presidente has it all under control and is in no way connected to the cartels. Am I right? Nothing to worry about there, for sure.

I am not a war monger, but f**k him. We should not only take action, but take it with extreme prejudice. What's the weasel turd going to do, go whining to the UN?

I somehow have the feeling that Trump is not going to take no for an answer on this. Innocent US citizen women and children were brutally murdered by the same people flooding our borders with poison. Use our intel to find them, then turn them into greasy spots in the desert.

Fish Out of Water said...

@john: Surprised, no. Alarmed, very for what this portends to my state and the country in general. That a collection of progressive pockets dictate and control how the rest of us live our lives.

So either we agree we can't live under the same roof and like the Czechs and Slovaks, go our separate ways, or have some clever legal mind make the argument the developing situation is also a form of disfranchisement forcing a means to restore balance.

Last, when you say there's no stopping federal government growth, does that mean like the Blob, it will eventually consume everything, or like an overinflated balloon, eventually burst?

Old Cannonballs said...

@ Colby Muenster: Not a bad idea. I suggest we use drones marked "Hecho en China" to create the grease spots, to trick El Presidente into thinking they were attacked by China. That could stir up some interesting s**t; El Presidente has got to feel the hurt from China horning in on their drug smuggling with all that fentanyl.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@mamafrog- I wish it WAS as easy as going in and carpet bombing, but of course it wouldn't be. It's entirely possible that the best (or only?) method for fighting the cartels would be the legalization of drugs in order to kill their business model. I don't like the idea, but would consider it in the absence of a better plan.

@Pat Cummings- You're quite right that twiddling our thumbs is probably the worst thing we can do. Action is called for, but not just "action for action's sake." We need a deep strategy and the cajones to pull it off.

@Crazy World- The fires of resentment I hold for Obama and his whole crowd still burn pretty intensely.

@Section147- The damage Barry did to this country is still happening and will, as you say, for years to come. The rat bastard.

@j- Damn, I'd forgotten about Al Gore's "midnight basketball" plan! Sheesh. And I agree that it's an ongoing tragedy that the many good people in Mexico are essentially living in corrupt war zones now. Even though I strongly support building The Wall, I can understand the desire to get out of harm's way.

@Dan- I have no doubt at all that cartel money finds its way into the political coffers of some of those fighting Trump on The Wall and border security in general. And I'd like to see everyone on the receiving end of that money tossed into prison.

@Jim Irre- I'll say "yes, it is" but I'm not sure I've convinced myself.

@REM1875- I think the cartels have well-funded PR departments that keep coverage to a minimum.

@Fish Out of Water- Yesterday I saw Greg Gutfeld, who I respect, make the sad but logical case for legalization. I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. We don't need more druggies, but the cartels are like Forbidden Planet's "Monsters from the ID" - getting all the power they need from those who they would happily destroy.

@Mike- I think taking cartel heads out would be worth trying. Plus, at times like this, I ask myself "what would Israel do?"

@Fish Out of Water- Yes, it wasn't a particularly happy election day, and I worry about what may be coming next year.

@jpb252- How much do you want to bet that the cartels helped fund that legislation?

@Roger Myers- Thank you for the kind words. I'm no scholar or journalist, but I feel strongly about these things and try to write with accuracy (except when I'm obviously joking).

@M. Mitchell Marmel- Sounds good to me.

@Unknown- I agree with you completely.

@Anonymous- It's both amazing and depressing to see how many states are on the fast track to becoming California, especially since California is such an obviously unsustainable shithole these days.

@Snark- You paint a bleak but undeniably accurate picture..

@Geoff King- Funny, it worked on paper...

@Fred Ciampi- Your battle plan reminds me of the old adage: "moderation in all things, including moderation."

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Emmentaler Limburger- Good points.

@Alfonso Bedoya- I don't like the word "unsolvable," but I don't have a better one at the moment.

@millard fillmore- I'm not sure it would be good policy, but it sure is satisfying to consider!

@Alej- You can never go wrong quoting the Duke.

@Sergio- I agree, but how can we get people to stop using drugs? If anything, the increasing emptiness of life for many encourages drug and alcohol abuse as an escape. I don't know how to turn that around, and I'm very fearful of where we'll end up if we DON'T turn it around.

@John the Econ- Good analysis and an unhappy conclusion.

@American Cowboy- Part of the problem is that the cartels are amorphous and spread out, and likely wouldn't care that much about dramatic attacks here and there. They make for a messy target.

@Pat Cummings- From accounts I've read, it's entirely possible that the family was targeted owing to members of their sect opposing the cartels. Then again, the cartels seem to butcher people just for the hell of it every day.

@james daily- There's a lot of pragmatism in your suggestions. I'd like to see these ideas further explored.

@John the Econ- Damn, that kid in a wheelchair emoji DOES look like Johnny Optimism! And I'm trying to think of any reason that someone needs a "menstruating" emoji. Surely it can't be used to explain why someone is in a horrible, illogical mood - right?

And regarding the 11,000 scientists warning about population growth, I'd like to extend 11,000 STFUs.

@Old Cannonballs- Damn! Sometimes the obvious answer is just staring us in the face!

@Colby Muenster- I'm not surprised that the Mexican president didn't announce war on the cartels. That would be pretty much like declaring you have evidence that would put Hillary Clinton in jail. Not good for longevity.

@Fish Out of Water- It does seem like the days of "People, can't we all just get along?" are increasingly behind us.

@Old Cannonballs- I like your sneaky way of thinking!

Jason Anyone said...

Supposedly, the inept President of Mexico prefers a more "hug it out" solution.

(30 seconds from Tucker)

Mexico's president under pressure over 'hugs not bullets' cartel policy

Dan said...

Veterans' Day.

Off topic, but if you're a Veteran, or know one, I got this in a VA e-mail. Check this out:

observances, discounts, 40 bucks off Amazon Prime for a year.

John the Econ said...

Unfortunately, @Dan is right. Should the demand for illegal drugs magically disappear, does anyone think that the people making millions of dollars and with millions of dollars invested in their smuggling infrastructure are just going to shrug and give up and go straight? Nope. They'll just move on to the next thing.

One thing for sure: Once the Democrats succeed in outlawing guns, they'll ironically be cheaper and easier to buy.

Alej said...

When I am king, all the drug evidence impounded by LEOs everywhere in the USA will be salted with strychnine , &c, and discreetly put back into circulation on the street.

After the first wave of users flopping around ( for the few seconds left to them), dealers will be massacred, and drugs will in general lose their appeal.

Elbarto said...

@ Alej - people are already dropping dead left & right from fentanyl and it hasn't even slowed them down.

Alej said...

It's a start !

Unknown said...

Still waiting for someone to make the Kurds and Whey connection

Anonymous said...

@John the Econ: Thank you for your post about “If this isn’t why we have the 2nd Amendment...“

It blows my mind that progressive politicians talk about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens but never talk about taking guns away from the criminals. What you wrote is so true, and I wish everyone would understand that. I hope you don’t mind if I repeat the first part of what you posted, because it bares repeating. I wish the MSM would publish your post, but that is just wishful thinking on my part.

John the Econ wrote (in part): If this isn't "why we have the 2nd Amendment" allegory, I don't know what is: Pliant citizens give up their guns and the government promises to protect them. The criminals do not give up their guns. In fact, the[y] acquire more. The pliant citizens start becoming victims. The government does not protect them. The criminals become more wealthy and powerful. The government now is afraid to protect the citizens, and actually answers to the cartels instead of the citizens. The criminals now call the shots. (pun intended)

Why people think choosing this path for "safety" is a good idea is insane, especially considering what is going on immediately south of our own border. I guess it's just another example of how Progressivism has become a religion based solely on blind faith and denial of reality.

Unknown said...

all makes sense when you see our government as a bunch of criminals.

Alej said...

"all makes sense when you see our government as a bunch of criminals."

Truer words were never spoken.

This is not the country I was born in.

John the Econ said...

@Anonymous said, "It blows my mind that progressive politicians talk about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens but never talk about taking guns away from the criminals."

It's almost as though that's the real agenda, isn't it. Because it is. To the state, the criminals are not the real problem. Free citizens are. The existence of criminals only serve as the excuse for more government, so they will get to exist relatively unmolested.

I've long asked Progressives exactly how they would achieve this confiscation. Can you imagine the optics of body-armor-clad police going door-to-door on the south side of Chicago looking for illegal weapons? Of course not. The only weapons that they'll be able to collect are those surrendered by a pliant middle class that has too much to lose to the state otherwise. The criminal class will get to keep theirs, because of the bad optics, and because the police would be insane to even try it. Everybody knows this.

It was remarkable to actually see somebody push back on "I'm coming for your AR-15" Beto on this. Of course, immediately after his candidacy cratered.

Yes, it is insane. But is it any more insane that most of the rest of what Progressives propose today which has been an abject failure every where and every time it's been tried?

Anonymous said...

"Americans have too much to lose if they remain pliant."


The difference between America today and Marx's world is that the life of Marx's proletariat was that of abject poverty, whereas the middle class that today's Marxists want to convert are the richest that has ever existed on this planet. They do have too much to lose, even if many don't even realize it.

The trick is making them realize it.

udaman said...

I heard the "president" of Mexico response to Trump's suggested war: He does not want a war, he wants to use the tactic of "hugs, not bullets" to deal with the cartels. We see how well that works with terrorists.
Now, somebody convince me that he is not getting paid huge sums of money to look the other way!!!