Mexican Drug Cartels Taking Over Rick Perry’s Texas—But He Still Says “No Fence”

19
8128
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A window into the mind of a Republican:

Mexican Drug Cartels Taking Over Rick Perry’s Texas—But He Still Says “No Fence”
By Allan Wall on October 18, 2011

Early in the morning of September 27th, around 2 a.m., a gunfight erupted between moving vehicles on an expressway.

Jorge Zavala, the 32-year driver of a Ford Expedition, was driving down the expressway, accompanied by a 22-year old man. A Chevrolet Tahoe pulled up alongside them, from which a gunman unloaded a volley of gunfire.

Zavala lost control of his Ford Expedition, crashed and died. The cause of death, though, was not the crash but the multiple gunshot wounds.

Police believe that Zavala was associated with Mexico’s Gulf Cartel, which has been undergoing its own internal struggle for power, pitting the Rojos against the Metros.

Just another day in Mexico? Not this time. Zavala’s killing occurred on the Texas side of the border, on the McAllen Expressway. Fatal gunshots on McAllen expressway point to Gulf Cartel, The (McAllen) Monitor, Sept. 27th, 2011)

Not only are drug cartels shooting up Mexico, they’re now north of the border. They are expanding in several states—notably Texas.

And it’s been happening under the watch of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who wants to be our president.

That’s the same Rick Perry who opposes a fence on the border and brags about giving benefits to illegal aliens.

Two reports have just been released that point out the gravity of the Mexican cartel infiltration.

In August the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center released its “National Drug Threat Assessment 2011”. [PDF]This report has plenty of bad news in it.

According to the document’s Executive Summary:

“The illicit trafficking and abuse of drugs present a challenging, dynamic threat to the United States. Overall demand is rising, largely supplied by illicit drugs smuggled to U.S. markets by major transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). .. Major Mexican-based TCOs continue to solidify their dominance over the wholesale illicit drug trade as they control the movement of most of the foreign-produced drug supply across the U.S. Southwest Border.”

(Emphasis in original).

Full story here: http://www.vdare.com/articles/mexican-drug-cartels-taking-over-rick-perry-s-texas-but-he-still-says-no-fence

Recommended Resources:

How the war against drugs turns out will not affect the slightest bit the dedication of drug rehabs to helping drug addicts out.

Share Button

19 COMMENTS

    • Clover, the non-aggression principle has been explained to you literally dozens of times now and you still don’t get it, do you?

      Libertarians are not thugs. (In fact, Libertarians are, in terms of their ethics, the most pacific and humane people on this earth.) They oppose all gratuitous violence and use or threat of force to coerce people. They advocate for free choice, voluntary cooperation and liberty.

      So, Libertarians certainly oppose the “war on drugs” – that is, they oppose criminalizing mere use, possession or manufacture of drugs – which involves no violence toward others (as such). Just as we oppose Prohibition of alcohol – as I suspect you do too, too.

      But just as we view Al Capone’s thugs as criminals so also we view the violent drug cartels as criminals – something that ought to be obvious even to someone as dense or deliberately dense as you appear to be.

      And, of course, the primary reason for “drug violence,” is that some drugs are arbitrarily illegal while others (like alcohol) are not.

      If manufacture/possession/use of pot and so on were decriminalized, the organized violent crime associated with these drugs would largely disappear, as happened with alcohol after the repeal of Prohibition.

      • What aggression? They’re private business operators who operate in spite of what the government says and aren’t afraid when government thugs try to stop them. Libertarianism at its finest.

        • Except for the murders, beat-downs and intimidation tactics they routinely use. Which makes them as far from Libertarian as you are from being intellectually coherent.

          Listen up, chump. I am not normally rude, or try hard not to be. But with you, I make an exception. I and others here have explained, at great length, the non-aggression principle that is the fundamental starting point of Libertarian thought. You continue to ignore this and post idiocy to the effect that Libertarians want the opposite (e.g., we support violent drug cartels). Well, enough.

          Others here are sick of you, too. You add nothing worthwhile to the discussion. All you seem interested in doing is deliberately provoking people, or trying to.

          So, henceforth, unless you submit intelligent, coherent posts, they are not going to be published.

          G’day, mate.

        • That is what the drug cartels WOULD be if we could get rid of our drug laws! Problem is, they kill innocent civilians and police indiscriminately. Their hitmen will kill women, children, old men, and cops just the same. Capone’s gang had a moral code – kill a woman or a child, even accidentally, and youd wind up in Capone’s crosshairs yourself. The gangsters of today would NEVER have been tolerated in the Prohibition era – and should not be tolerated today, either.

          • Anyone half-bright realized this long ago; only people with a moralistic (and arbitrarily moralistic) fetish and the cynical (power-lusters) still support the “war” on (some) drugs.

          • Eric, your comment “Except for the murders, beat-downs and intimidation tactics they routinely use” sounds suspiciously like what government actors routinely do with impunity. Our Aussie clover admits he knows this much with his statement “and aren’t afraid when government thugs try to stop them.” I’d say that Gil’s “government thugs” observation was a bit of a Freudian slip.

            My dad dealt with a lot of police officers at his gun shop and told me that “Cops and crooks are heads and tails on the same coin”. Many (not all) police officers are violence prone hunters out looking for the most dangerous game; other armed men. The police and the military are about the only two professions that pay you to bully and even hunt other men. Worse yet, you can not only get away with this behavior but are often recognized and decorated for it! This what makes our “criminal justice” system extremely dangerous and the “war on drugs” is a key variable in this equation for a police state.

            I had occasion to deal with some narcotics officers a few years ago. One of the officers was a former Marine. He had seen active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. He told me point blank that he loved kicking in doors. He was a big guy and I’ll bet the DEA was happy to have him. The problem is he’d just spent several years in a situation where he’d dealt with a hostile populace using raw force. Now he’s back here on our streets specifically trained to do just that. He’s carrying a gun, a violent attitude and state sanction to use them; that’s a scary combination to say the least.

            Guys like that live for the adrenaline rush of a violent confrontation. There’s probably nothing more exciting than a door breach and dynamic entry. The problem is, in a civilized society you don’t have many opportunities for that kind of sport. So as is often the case, if we want to do something we go looking for and often create the opportunity to do it. The war on drugs has been the ultimate facilitator for providing these opportunities and encouraging bad behavior on both sides. We’ve already seen what happens when the “authorities” kick in the wrong door by mistake: Innocent people die, the cops cover for each other and their supervision and the courts try to sweep it under the rug. Then we, the taxpayers, get to pay the bill for this mess. Is this a great country or what!

            • Yes, I agree.

              One of the steps on my path to awakening (if you like) was when I pondered what it would be like to become a cop. I mean, the everyday reality of being a cop in the US – as opposed to the fantasy ideal (i.e., keeping the peace and going after bad guys). I thought about what it would be like to spend my days pulling people over and implicitly threatening them with murderous violence… for “speeding” and failing to “buckle up for safety.” And using actual violence against people who had done nothing to anyone and whose only “crime” was to transgress against some administrative edict such as growing a pot plant or perform a U turn to avoid a probable cause-free random search or declining to voluntarily hand over one’s lawful property to state thugs under the rubric of such as “property taxes” etc. It repelled me. And more, it occurred to me that only a moral defective could wish to spend his days so occupied. A person without a moral compass or empathy. A bully. A sociopath, even. At best, a rule-quoting automaton.

              Dangerous, indeed.

          • What wrong with violence when it’s in self-defence? What you called “sociopathic” should be the bravado of anyone who defend themselves and other from aggressors as if to say not being sociopathic is to hide and whimper under your bed until the bad guys have finished looting your place. As said before gang members routinely snuff out government officials who stick their noses into their business – how can not a Libertarian be inspired by such business operators?

          • There is a saying that great philosophers use and I’m sure you’ve heard it.

            “nanos gigantium humeris insidentes”

            “Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants”

            Well, the ass clowns of today are merely dwarfs standing on the shoulders of dwarfs. -not even sure they’re standing

            P.S. I don’t even know why I approve your posts, Gil.

            • I’ve been round-filing his pointless posts lately. No sense encouraging him – and people here are tired of dealing with him. I don’t have a problem with intelligent disagreement. I do have a problem with incoherence – and stupidity. He literally can’t be reasoned with. There is nothing there. Just endless hysterics, gibberish and childish attempts to provoke people. Why he lingers, I don’t know. The only reason I can come up with that makes any sense is that he is in fact one of those government-paid shills whose job is to try to clutter up web sites like this with argumentative non sequiturs.

  1. Mr. Peters doesn’t trust normally trust government, but has surprising faith in the National Drug Intelligence Center, famous for its drug war integrity.

    • As Eric pointed out, he didn’t write this. He’s just reporting what they said. The interesting thing is that the boneheads at DOJ somehow believe that a large supply of drugs leads to demand. The idiots must have studied economics at the Fed. Demand creates the need for a supply. High demand and high risk lead to exceptionally high profit. This encourages the cartels to bring the drugs in and, because they are already breaking the law, the violence that goes along with them.

      We don’t see Philip Morris shooting it out with R.J. Reynolds over tobacco or Jack Daniels gunning down the management at Jim Beam. It’s time to end the war on drugs, treat drug abuse as a social problem not a crime and legalize it all. Once the profit is gone, and it will be when the dopers can go get what they want at the local pharmacy, the violence will be over too. Alcohol prohibition was a classic case in point. Only the hopelessly delusional can’t make that correlation.

      • My guess is he’s a Republican.

        Ron Paul gets hit with this a lot, too. That is, his opposition to the “War on Drugs” (that is, to the criminalization of manufacture/possession/use as such) means he’s in favor of shoot ’em ups and all the rest of that idiocy.

        The idiot (and tendentious) moralizing of Reeepublicans and conseeeervatives drives me nuts.

        I haven’t touched pot since college more than 20 years ago, but I know firsthand (as does Obama and every other one of these assholes) that pot is no more harmful as such than alcohol; less so, in fact.

        I had some understanding, as a kid 20 years ago, for the attitude taken by people like Ronald Reagan – people too old to have had any direct firsthand knowledge of the drugs they were arbitrarily railing against (often, retiring home that evening to have a glass of wine or some Jack on the rocks). But today’s politicians, judges, prosecutors, cops, etc. are mostly in their ’40s and 50s and younger, so they grew up with the same drugs I did, probably tried them or had friends who did – and know the scare stories are absolute bullshit. Yet they continue to tub-thump for destroying the lives of people who get caught doing just exactly what they themselves (or their friends) did, who have harmed no one and represent no threat to anyone.

        It’s despicable.

        • “Yet they continue to tub-thump for destroying the lives of people who get caught doing just exactly what they themselves (or their friends) did, who have harmed no one and represent no threat to anyone.”

          From The Godfather

          Tom Hagen: Sollozo is known as the Turk. He’s supposed to be very good with a knife. But only in matters of business, or of some sort of reasonable complaint. His business is narcotics. He has the fields in Turkey, where they grow the poppy. In Sicily he has the plant to process it into heroin. He needs cash and he needs protection from the police for which he gives a piece of the action, I couldn’t find out how much. The Tattaglia Family is behind him here in New York so they have to be in it for something.

          Don Corleone: What about his prison record?
          Tom Hagen: Two terms, one in Italy, and one here. He’s known as a top narcotics man.
          Don Corleone: Santino, what do you think?
          Sonny: There’s a lot of money in that white powder.

          Don Corleone: Tom?

          Tom Hagen: Well, I say yes. There is more money potential in narcotics than anything else we’re looking at now. If we don’t get into it, somebody else will, maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them. And with the money they earn they’ll be able to buy more police and political power. Then they come after us. Right now we have the unions and we have the gambling and those are the best things to have. But narcotics is a thing of the future. If we don’t get a piece of that action we risk everything we have. Not now, but ten years from now.

          Sonny: Well, what’s your answer gonna be, Pop?

          ————-

          Ending the failed War on Drugs means both the drug cartels, and that competing gang of thugs calling itself government both lose.

          • “Ending the failed War on Drugs means both the drug cartels, and that competing gang of thugs calling itself government both lose.”

            Yes, which is why it will never end – and more deeply, why it’s not a failure, from a certain point-of-view.

            The “war” has massively enhanced the riches and power of the government. Asset forfeiture, “grants” from the FedGov to local departments… and that assumes (naively, ridiculously) that the government isn’t itself directly involved in and massively profiting from the manufacture/sale of these illegal drugs.

          • @Eric:

            and that assumes (naively, ridiculously) that the government isn’t itself directly involved in and massively profiting from the manufacture/sale of these illegal drugs

            EXACTLY. Why is it that before we “liberated” Afghanistan, the Taliban had essentially stopped all opium production; but post-“liberation”, they’re growing more than 90% of the world’s supply? And who taught them the handy trick of refining it to heroin on-site? And who openly guards the poppy fields and transports the product?

            How about the extremely cozy relationship between various alphabet agencies and the Sinaloa and Zeta cartels? Ah, but then they’re good boys, they launder their money though only the best banks, the TBTF’s…who, when they get caught, pay fines amounting to 0.1% of the take.

            As Hillary Clinton said recently, “they’ll never legalize it, there’s too much money in it.”

            Indeed, Hillary. Let’s have a chat about Mena, Arkansas.

LEAVE A REPLY