More From Michael Scheuer......

[Deborah K]

Mexico: Failing State?

Mike's response:

Mexico is a problem for only as long as Washington wants it to be. So far our leaders seem to be doing their best not to take the easiest and most effective remedial action; instead, they are doing the kind of psuedo-sophisticated strategizing that will make sure Mexico becomes a long-term festering problem that will do America untold harm. The necessary steps to protecting U.S. interests are not: (a) blaming Mexico's problems on Americans (Mrs. Clinton); (b) giving hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and training to the utterly corrupt and cartel-penetrated Mexican military and law enforcement community (President Obama); or (c) acting out the cynical masquerade of moving border control officers around on the border to make Americans believe Washington is “doing something.”.
The correct goal is complete border control, which is an essential component of national defense and territorial sovereignty. The first step, therefore, is building an unbroken, effective, defendable, and heavily armed system of border defenses from Galveston to the Pacific. We could use some of the taxpayer money being shoveled to failed businesses, criminal financiers, and foreign governments, and instead use it for something completely unique to Republican and Democratic politicians -- defending the American people, their families, and their property. Our leaders should lock down the border under the auspices of what Obama has long promised -- bipartisan action for the benefit of all Americans. Such an action will cost both parties equally among Hispanic voters. This is a bad way to work, but it would satisfy the moral cowards in both parties by making sure both suffer and neither gains an electoral advantage. With the border controlled, we can stop shoveling U.S. taxpayer money to corrupt Mexicans and step back and let them kill each other to their hearts’ content.
But doing the right thing for all Americans is probably beyond the current Washington crowd. The border is unlikely to be effectively controlled. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, and other senior administration officials have already said things that appear to be setting the stage for what will be the Democrats’ major effort in response Mexico's troubles. Their simpering about how weapons being purchased in the United States are responsible for Mexico's violence -- part of Mrs. Clinton's blame-America gambit -- surely signals the start of a federal government move to undermine 2nd Amendment rights. Closing the border tight ends the southward flow of weapons, but it also would negate a chance for the Democrats to attack the 2nd Amendment. Thus the border will stay open to the detriment of all Americans and probably their constitutional rights. Obama will fail to protect the continental United States from Mexican spill-over and his party's anti-gun Crusaders will cause more divisiveness among Americans




http://security.nationaljournal.com/contributors/Scheuer.php

[Minarchy4Sale]

Deb, are you like, officially the new Mike fan club mistress? :P

[Deborah K]

hehe, he's a friend. I got to know him after I invited him to speak at the RevMarch. Just trying to get his ideas some exposure. He's been getting a really unfair rap lately.

[Minarchy4Sale]

hehe, he's a friend. I got to know him after I invited him to speak at the RevMarch. Just trying to get his ideas some exposure. He's been getting a really unfair rap lately.

I sent him an email throwing him props. Seriously, if you pimp all your friends like this, make me your friend, I need some PR too!

[He Who Pawns]

Well of course he is correct, but only partially. The obvious problem is demand, and that won't be solved by federal agents any more than demand for beer was solved by Prohibition.

Where is Scheuer on ending the unconstitutional federal war on drugs?

[Deborah K]

I sent him an email throwing him props. Seriously, if you pimp all your friends like this, make me your friend, I need some PR too!

Thank you for doing that Minarchy. Let me know if he answers you, I'm curious. You need PR? ;)

[Deborah K]

I sent him an email throwing him props. Seriously, if you pimp all your friends like this, make me your friend, I need some PR too!

Btw, I got to know other speakers from the march too. I get accused of name dropping and bragging when I mention it. LOL! :D Salright.

I was 'pimping' Ed Griffin a while back. Am still trying to get him on the Glenn Beck show: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=156729

[Deborah K]

Well of course he is correct, but only partially. The obvious problem is demand, and that won't be solved by federal agents any more than demand for beer was solved by Prohibition.

Where is Scheuer on ending the unconstitutional federal war on drugs?

I don't know where he stands on that issue. You could always ask him. Otley52at aol.com

[Kraig]

Wouldn't it be better to let Texas worry about their border?

[Deborah K]

Wouldn't it be better to let Texas worry about their border?


Texas has asked the fed for help. So has Arizona, New Mexico, and California.

[Deborah K]

Besides, protecting our borders from invasion is in the Constitution.

[Kraig]

Besides, protecting our borders from invasion is in the Constitution.

Which is flawless of course!

[Deborah K]

Which is flawless of course!

I note sarcasm. It is flawless in the sense that it can always be amended. Aside from that, it is the supreme law of the land. Do you not agree?

[Kraig]

I note sarcasm. It is flawless in the sense that it can always be amended. Aside from that, it is the supreme law of the land. Do you not agree?

I would say it's flawed in more ways than that. I would also say it's not the supreme law of the land! It is so often disregarded, not much in terms of supremacy. The same people who swear to defend it are the same people I have to hide from at risk of losing all freedom. :(

[Minarchy4Sale]

Thank you for doing that Minarchy. Let me know if he answers you, I'm curious. You need PR? ;)

Definitely need PR. If things dont open up soon, I may have to plaster my face on a bus.

[Deborah K]

I would say it's flawed in more ways than that. I would also say it's not the supreme law of the land! It is so often disregarded, not much in terms of supremacy. The same people who swear to defend it are the same people I have to hide from at risk of losing all freedom. :(

How could you say it is not the supreme law of the land? It sets up exactly how our government is to be run, and it spells out the restrictions on the gov't via the bill of rights. The problem is not the constitution rather it is those in office who side-step it and outright subvert it. We are the ones at fault for allowing our paid, elected officials get away with this. Dont blame the Constitution for the failures of WE THE PEOPLE.

[muh_roads]

"The correct goal is complete border control, which is an essential component of national defense and territorial sovereignty. The first step, therefore, is building an unbroken, effective, defendable, and heavily armed system of border defenses from Galveston to the Pacific."

Or we could do a much cheaper method and actually save money... End the War on Drugs. End the birth-right citizenship. End other free crap for illegals like free care at ER's.

I don't want to live in East Berlin with a wall.

[Kraig]

How could you say it is not the supreme law of the land? It sets up exactly how our government is to be run, and it spells out the restrictions on the gov't via the bill of rights. The problem is not the constitution rather it is those in office who side-step it and outright subvert it. We are the ones at fault for allowing our paid, elected officials get away with this. Dont blame the Constitution for the failures of WE THE PEOPLE.

I'm just saying that if it was really supreme it would still be obeyed, that's all. It was supposed to be the supreme law of the land, but it's not, unfortunately for you and me. I would probably be enjoying a better life instead of spending so much time on this forum if it was. I think it has other flaws too, outside of simply not being followed, such as giving congress the power to coin money! I made a thread about that the other day.

[Kraig]

"The correct goal is complete border control, which is an essential component of national defense and territorial sovereignty. The first step, therefore, is building an unbroken, effective, defendable, and heavily armed system of border defenses from Galveston to the Pacific."

Or we could do a much cheaper method and actually save money... End the War on Drugs. End the birth-right citizenship. End other free crap for illegals like free care at ER's.

I don't want to live in East Berlin with a wall.

As long as the war on drugs continues I am fearful of any increased power sent to the border. Too close to home for me.

[Deborah K]

"The correct goal is complete border control, which is an essential component of national defense and territorial sovereignty. The first step, therefore, is building an unbroken, effective, defendable, and heavily armed system of border defenses from Galveston to the Pacific."

Or we could do a much cheaper method and actually save money... End the War on Drugs. End the birth-right citizenship. End other free crap for illegals like free care at ER's.

I don't want to live in East Berlin with a wall.


We could do those things in conjunction with complete border control. Although I am for decriminalizing drug use not legalizing it. I think the gov't would just screw it up if it tried to regulate it - among other reasons I have for not wanting drug legalization. And I doubt seriously that the Mexican drug cartels would cease to exist if we legalized it. They'd just compete and continue to kill. In fact in their desperation, they may just go to all out war. And as corrupt as the mexican gov't is, they'd probably help them (behind the scenes of course).

[Deborah K]

As long as the war on drugs continues I am fearful of any increased power sent to the border. Too close to home for me.

I am fearful without it. I have lived near the border in all 4 states my entire life. I patrol the border as a Minuteman. This isn't just about the drug cartels.

[Kraig]

I am fearful without it. I have lived near the border in all 4 states my entire life. I patrol the border as a Minuteman. This isn't just about the drug cartels.

Yes but at this point in time war on drugs agents are far more dangerous to me than anyone who has illegally crossed. Border agents also happen to be war on drugs agents.

[He Who Pawns]

Yes but at this point in time war on drugs agents are far more dangerous to me than anyone who has illegally crossed. Border agents also happen to be war on drugs agents.

Well you have no idea who has been crossing the border. The federal government refuses to release information about the number of "Arabs" it catches at the Mexican border. I wonder why?

[Xenophage]

I am fearful without it. I have lived near the border in all 4 states my entire life. I patrol the border as a Minuteman. This isn't just about the drug cartels.

I've always been fond of volunteer citizen border police. We need more of YOU, and less government encouraging illegal immigration and drug trafficking through welfarism and prohibition.

[Deborah K]

Thank you for that. Much appreciated.

[muh_roads]

We could do those things in conjunction with complete border control. Although I am for decriminalizing drug use not legalizing it. I think the gov't would just screw it up if it tried to regulate it - among other reasons I have for not wanting drug legalization. And I doubt seriously that the Mexican drug cartels would cease to exist if we legalized it. They'd just compete and continue to kill. In fact in their desperation, they may just go to all out war. And as corrupt as the mexican gov't is, they'd probably help them (behind the scenes of course).

More money = more power. The cartels would shrink dramatically if things were legalized. Would they go away completely? I don't know. But selling the stuff everywhere from walgreens to wal-mart would destroy the cartels and reduce inner city crime at the same time since stealing for the high prices is what contributes to a great deal of the theft. Inner-city drug lords would vanish. Cartels down south would have so much supplier competition. It goes on and on.

This is a great article...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91102


Advocates for the drug war often hypothesize nightmare scenarios where the legalization of drugs will lead to chaos and total social breakdown, constructing fantasies about legions of chemically addled criminals preying upon the helpless citizenry while in search of their next high. But, as has been seen in Colombia and more recently in Mexico, it is actually the illegalization of drugs that causes social devastation, as the drug war's efforts to interdict supply only increases the price of drugs and therefore the profit of the criminal gangs willing to trade in them. As these profits grow, so too does the power of the drug-dealing criminals, until they are strong enough to directly contest local and state government authorities. Or, as is all too often the case, simply purchase and control them.

[...]

How does one win a drug war when millions of Americans who use recreational drugs are financing the cartels bribing, murdering and beheading to win the war and keep self-indulgent Americans supplied with drugs? There are two sure ways to end this war swiftly: Milton's way and Mao's way. Mao Zedong's communists killed users and suppliers alike, as social parasites. Milton Friedman's way is to decriminalize drugs and call off the war. Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America's young – or a failed state of 110,000 million on our southern border?

[raiha]

I am fearful without it. I have lived near the border in all 4 states my entire life. I patrol the border as a Minuteman. This isn't just about the drug cartels.

What's a minuteman? You are very versatile Debk. I got an email from Mike Scheuer when i congratulated him for getting hate mail...(meaning he is more and more effective.)

Keep up the info from him. Funny, if people appreciate someone's efforts and verbalize it, others accuse you of fanclubism. I don't see it like that. I see it more as networking and maintaining friendships. They're going to be needed in a few years.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I sent a kudo's email to him and received a very nice reply 2 days later. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Deb...it would be fun if you could convince him to come on this forum on a specified date and we could field questions to him. I really enjoy listening to him. tones

[ClayTrainor]

Deb...it would be fun if you could convince him to come on this forum on a specified date and we could field questions to him. I really enjoy listening to him. tones

That is a really cool idea!

[TastyWheat]

Wouldn't it be better to let Texas worry about their border?
I would agree if it wasn't the federal government's fault there's so much violence around our border. If federal drugs laws were lifted but we criminalized it ourselves then we'd have to deal with those consequences.