Mexico Is Disentigrating…It Must Be American Gun Owners’ Fault

Over the last month or so, we’ve all have watched with horror the events in Mexico’s struggle with narcotics traffickers. Mass shootings, commonplace kidnapping an murders and the whole country basically devolving into a Colombianesque nightmare.

There are many factors behind this; first and foremost of course, America’s continued insane policies of drug prohibition, without which, virtually all the money the cartels make (and use to arm themselves and create chaos) would go away in an instant.

Second is Mexico’s sad, long history of official corruption, which, when combined with the sheer size of the bribes the drug traffickers can offer, thanks to prohibition in the U.S., can reach into virtually every area of Mexican officialdom. This makes enforcing laws nearly impossible, because the traffickers frankly have more money to offer in hefty payola than the government has to offer in salaries. Add to this the ever present threat of Plata O Plomo (silver or lead in Spanish, meaning take the bribe or die) and you’ve got an enormous mess on your hands in a very poor country right on our southern borders.

But, none of that has really been forthcoming form the U.S. media, and certainly not from the U.S. Government. No, this time, in an effort to find a bogeyman to distract us from our insane drug prohibition policies the government, with willing assistance form a news media too lazy to even bother checking its facts, is blaming U.S. exported guns.

But the math doesn’t work out, as this excellent article details.

Money quote:

A big part of the argument being made by the U.S. and Mexican governments with respect to the source of guns in the possession of Mexican narco-trafficking groups is based on statistics related to so-called gun traces conducted by the ATF.

But if you follow the media narrative on this, as well as the U.S. government’s own proclamations, you soon discover that the math being practiced is right out of Alice in Wonderland, via the Mock Turtle: Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic — Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.

By all means read the article. It’s well researched and has plenty of solid factual links, as opposed to the piss-poor reportage the MSM has done on these frankly ludicrous claims of a steady stream of American firearms to Mexico.

But let’s take the issue on here just for an exercise in common sense.

1. It is a major felony to export arms from the U.S. without an arms export license
2. The ATF already audits gun shops routinely and checks their records of sales, that background checks were run on all gun-buyers and that serial numbers on guns were kept. Violation of these regulations can wind up getting a gun dealer thrown in jail on federal charges.
3. Straw sales, that is sales to one person who intends to give the gun to another person not legally allowed to own a gun (like illegal aliens and other non citizens in most cases) is another serious federal crime.
4. It is illegal under Mexican law to import arms into the country except under express circumstances.
5. Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the Western Hemisphere.

Given the fact that the cartels are doing business literally in the billions of dollars, does it make the slightest bit of sense that even if the border wall were up and 100% foolproof as far as guns go, they would somehow be disarmed?  A fully automatic AK-47 (illegal in the U.S. since the 1930s under the National Firearms Act) is available on the black market in any third world country for well under $200.  That’s a great deal cheaper than $900-$1,700 a semi-auto American manufactured long gun costs here in the U.S., even a used one.

Bottom line is that the weapons found in Mexico which are from the U.S. are without a doubt stolen in the vast majority of cases. I suspect the rest, not linked to U.S. legal purchases came from the Mexican government in return for some hefty bribes and from other international sources.  The continued hoopla raised by the Obama administration clearly has two goals:

1. Ratchet up the anti-gun rhetoric
2. Whatever they do, DO NOT actually deal with the fact that the only reason Mexico is having this problem is because of the insane policies of drug prohibition in the United States.

After all, we wouldn’t want to spoil the narrative with facts now, would we.

Hillary Clinton’s private PAC

I’ve written before that I think Bill and Hillary Clinton got a bad rap in the ’90s, and here in Massachusetts, I voted for Hillary in the Primaries. (A tactical move, not fanatic support).

At the time of the primaries, Joe Biden, always my first pick, had dropped out and I had the option of voting for Hillary, Obama or McCain. Since McCain was in no danger here, I voted for Hillary because at the time I deemed Obama had both lack of experience and was unelectable due to his race. Of the three, McCain at the time would have had my vote in the general election.

As we all know, Hillary lost the primary. I thought at the time that she would have made a fine choice as President.

These days I’m not so sure.

My change of heart has nothing to do with Obama. It is true he has, I think, won both the electability and the judgement argument, so the main points things against him are resolved as far as I’m concerned. But my second thoughts have less to do with this than with Hillary’s activities since the Democratic convention.

Conservative Democrats, women and center-right independents are key electoral demographics in a presidential campaign. Clinton won many states in the primaries specifically because she appealed to these groups. Obama’s weakness among these demographics probably could have cost him this election if the economy hadn’t melted down. Hillary’s support, including campaigning for Obama would have given him enormous credibility as well as pushing leaners firmly into the Obama camp.

But she’s remained virtually silent on the Obama campaign since the convention.

But she hasn’t been silent about her own private little PAC, called HILLPAC.

To have a PAC named after you is egotistical in the extreme. Only Hillary would have the moxie to do this. And no one but a blind person could fail to see the fact. I’ve been getting emails from this organization, all signed by Hillary, since about three days after the convention, asking for money to elect other Democrats, all women, to the U.S. Senate and Congress. Not a word from her on the Obama candidacy.

Let me say that again in case you missed it: NOT A WORD ON THE OBAMA CANDIDACY.

No one expected the Clintons, after a rather brutal primary, to sit down and sing “kumbaya” with Obama. But I did expect Hillary to get out there and campaign for him. It was hugely important and she knew it, as did everyone else. She hasn’t. She’s spent plenty of time electioneering, but not for Obama. –Until this week.

Now, when the election is nearly upon us, when the polls are showing Obama likely to win a huge victory, NOW she starts making campaign stops.

There is only one explanation for this: She was hoping he would lose so she could run again in 2012. Now that it looks like he’s going to win, Hillary is covering her bets.

So no, Hillary, I won’t be donating to your PAC (not that I’d contribute money to the Democrats so they can have a veto-proof, filibuster-proof majority anyway) nor will I ever, ever consider you a serious candidate for office again.

This stuff is so transperantly cynical and self-centered that it is a virtual disqualifier for holding high office. I hope New Yorkers send you packing the next election.

Image of the Day

I saw this image and nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

Hat tip –RBC

Is Wall Street weighing in on the election?

I’m no financial wizard, but I think this chart of the Dow Jones Industrial averages shows an interesting trend.

Note the dates of the Democratic National Convention: August 25-28.

Day one of the convention, when many Hillary supporters were (according to the MSM) ready to defect en masse to McCain: Dow goes down.

Day two, same coverage, things are looking a little bleak for the Dems: Dow goes down more.

Day three, after Hillary’s speech seems to dramatically change the tone and woo voters back to Obama: Dow goes up.

Day four: After Biden’s speech, Dow spikes

Day five: Day after Obama’s speech, Dow still up, small down-cycle, but not significant.

Now compare the above to the RNC:

Down, down, down, and down some MORE.

Who do you trust to manage the economy again? It seems to me as though the markets are speaking louder than anyone else on this issue.

Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and sexism

I’m a Hillary fan. Let me rephrase that; I’m a HUGE hillary fan.

It’s not because of what she has between her legs, it’s not because I’m a rabid “liberal” (I don’t subscribe to labels in general and certainly not THAT one.)

I’m a fan of Hillary because the lady is my kind of policy geek. She’s smart as a whip and she’s not afraid to let people know it. She has a better grasp of policy issues than almost any politician I can think of (probably better than Bill). She’s tenacious, she’s tough, and she genuinely gives a shit, which is more than I can say for most pols.

I voted for her in the primary, I talked to everyone I know about her and was able to get some people to actually change their votes. I was very disappointed when she lost.

Some people are actually claiming they supported Hillary and are so angry that they are going to vote for John McCain. I’m really having a hard time believing this. I’m of the opinion that a whole lot of this PUMA thing is a Nixonian COINTELPRO operation. Let’s see…Hillary…McCain…