As Obama Ignores Latin America, Foes Rush In
Imprisoned drug lord Walid Makled is a symbol of the narco-corruption that has infected Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. He is also a symbol of declining U.S. influence in Latin America.
Arrested last August in Colombia, Makled allegedly spent years sending gigantic cocaine loads to the United States. At one point, his U.S.-bound shipments amounted to ten tons each month. Since his incarceration, Makled has revealed that “he had as many as 40 Venezuelan generals and top officials on his payroll to provide security and distribution, among other things,” according to the Wall Street Journal. This revelation was explosive but not altogether surprising, given what U.S. officials already knew about the Chávez regime and its role in the drug business.
A few years ago, the Treasury Department formally accused Gen. Henry Rangel Silva, now serving as Venezuela’s “general in chief,” of trafficking with FARC, Colombia’s prominent narco-terrorist organization. The Government Accountability Office subsequently reported (in 2009) that the volume of cocaine moving through Venezuela had increased “significantly.” Indeed, the oil-rich country is now a major hub in the global drug trade: The United Nations reports that Venezuela was the departure point for more than half of all maritime drug shipments from South America to Europe between 2006 and 2008.
The close relationship between Chávez and FARC helps explain Venezuela’s growing importance to international cocaine trafficking. In March 2008, Colombian armed forces launched an operation that wound up killing FARC leader Raúl Reyes just across the border in Ecuador. They subsequently discovered documents that revealed extensive Venezuelan links to FARC. After these documents were publicized, Chávez responded by branding Colombia “a terrorist state,” sending military personnel to the Venezuelan-Colombian border, and banging the war drum. In July 2009, Colombian troops raided a FARC training camp and found anti-tank rocket launchers that were originally made in Sweden and then sold to Venezuela. In March 2010, Spanish National Court judge Eloy Velasco charged the Venezuelan government with conspiring to assassinate then Colombian president Álvaro Uribe with terrorists from FARC and the Spanish terror group ETA.
During the 2010 campaign for the Colombian presidency, Chávez described conservative candidate Juan Manuel Santos as a “threat to the region” and “a wolf sent to bomb and invade Ecuador.” The Venezuelan radical further warned that Santos “could cause a war in this part of the world, upon instructions from the Yankees.” In the end, his incendiary rhetoric backfired. Santos cruised to election with 69 percent of the vote in the second-round runoff.
The current Colombian president is a former defense minister and strongly pro-American leader who has pushed for Congress to ratify a bilateral free-trade pact, and has supported a larger U.S. military presence in his country — all of which makes it even more interesting that Santos has chosen to extradite Walid Makled to Venezuela rather than the United States.
What explains this decision?
For starters, according to Santos, President Obama assured him that the extradition destination was not a significant concern for the United States. (National Security Council official Dan Restrepo insists that Obama expressed a clear interest in the matter.) Regardless of what exactly the two presidents discussed, Santos recognizes that Obama has treated Latin America as an afterthought. “While the rest of the world, while Europe and Asia, are strengthening their ties to our region, the U.S. is passive, is disengaged,” Santos said in a speech at Brown University last month.
Washington’s passivity has created a leadership vacuum, now being filled by the likes of Iran, Russia, and China — much to the delight of Hugo Chávez, who has established a strategic partnership with Tehran, purchased massive quantities of advanced weaponry from Moscow, and received generous financial assistance from Beijing. In the absence of U.S. leadership, governments around the region will naturally seek some type of accommodation with Venezuela, which is busy flexing its muscles and bullying its neighbors.
When it came to Makled’s extradition destination, Chávez probably tempted Bogotá with economic concessions and promises to dismantle any FARC camps that are discovered in Venezuela. But had Obama been a better manager of the U.S.-Colombia relationship, and had he shown a greater commitment to Latin America, it’s likely that Santos would have sent Makled to United States. His decision to placate Chávez cannot be separated from his perception of U.S. disengagement.
With the drug kingpin now sitting in a Venezuelan jail, we don’t know what vital intelligence information may be lost to U.S. authorities. But we do know that Colombia has delivered a powerful message about Obama’s neglect of Latin America.
Editor’s note: a Spanish translation of this article appears on the following page.
El traficante de drogas Walid Makled, ahora encarcelado, es un símbolo de la narco-corrupción que ha infectado a Venezuela bajo el gobierno de Hugo Chávez. Makled es también un símbolo de la decreciente influencia de los Estados Unidos en América Latina.
Makled, que fue arrestado en Colombia en agosto de 2010, pasó supuestamente años enviando cargas gigantes de cocaína a los Estados Unidos. En un momento, los cargamentos destinados al país del norte ascendían a diez toneladas por mes. Según el Wall Street Journal, desde que lo encarcelaron, Makled ha revelado que “tenía en su lista de empleados a sueldo un total de 40 generales y altos funcionarios venezolanos encargados de proveerle, entre otras cosas, seguridad y distribución”. Esta revelación, obviamente explosiva, no es del todo sorprendente, si se tiene en cuenta lo que los funcionarios estadounidenses ya sabían sobre el régimen de Chávez y su papel en el tráfico de drogas.
Hace unos años, el militar Henry Rangel Silva, que sirve ahora como “general en jefe” de Venezuela, fue formalmente acusado por el Departamento del Tesoro norteamericano de traficar con la prominente organización narcoterrorista FARC de Colombia. En 2009, la Oficina de Responsabilidad Gubernamental (GAO)informó que el volumen de cocaína puesto en circulación a través de Venezuela había aumentado significativamente. De hecho, ese país rico en petróleo es ahora uno de los centros más importantes del tráfico global de drogas: las Naciones Unidas informan que, entre los años 2006 y 2008, Venezuela fue el punto de partida de más de la mitad de todos los cargamentos marítimos de drogas enviados a Europa desde Sudamérica.
La íntima relación entre Chávez y las FARC permite entender la creciente importancia de Venezuela en el tráfico internacional de cocaína. En marzo de 2008, las fuerzas armadas de Colombia lanzaron una operación que concluyó con la muerte del cabecilla de las FARC Raúl Reyes en Ecuador, al otro lado de la frontera entre los dos países. Posteriormente, las fuerzas armadas descubrieron documentos que revelaban las extensas relaciones que existen entre Venezuela y las FARC. Después que se hicieron públicos estos documentos, Chávez respondió tildando a Colombia de “estado terrorista,” enviando personal militar a la frontera entre Venezuela y Colombia, y batiendo el tambor de la guerra. En julio de 2009, tropas del ejército colombiano hicieron una incursión en uno de los campos de entrenamiento de las FARC, donde encontraron plataformas de lanzamiento de cohetes antitanques fabricadas en Suecia que habían sido originalmente vendidas a Venezuela. En marzo de 2010, el juez Eloy Velasco, de la Corte Nacional de España, acusó al gobierno de Venezuela de conspirar con miembros de las FARC y del grupo terrorista español ETA para asesinar al entonces presidente de Colombia Álvaro Uribe.
Durante la campaña presidencial de 2010 en Colombia, Chávez describió al candidato conservador Juan Manuel Santos como “una amenaza para la región” y como “un lobo enviado a bombardear e invadir Ecuador”. El populista radical venezolano advirtió, además, que Santos “podría causar una guerra en esta parte del mundo bajo instrucciones de los yanquis”. Pero, al fin, la retórica incendiaria de Chávez fue un rotundo fracaso: Santos venció fácilmente con el 69 por ciento de los votos en la segunda rueda.
El actual presidente de Colombia, es un antiguo ministro de defensa y un líder marcadamente pro-norteamericano que ha hecho presión para que el Congreso de Estados Unidos ratifique un acuerdo bilateral de libre comercio y que apoya una mayor presencia militar estadounidense en su país. Por eso, resulta mucho más interesante que Santos haya elegido dar la extradición de Walid Makled a Venezuela en lugar de a los Estados Unidos. ¿Cómo se puede explicar esa decisión?
Para empezar, según Santos, el presidente Obama le aseguró que el destino de la extradición no preocupaba particularmente a los Estados Unidos. (El funcionario del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional Dan Restrepo insiste en que Obama expresó un claro interés en esa cuestión.) Si dejamos de lado lo que se dijeron exactamente los dos presidentes, Santos tiene consciencia de que Obama ha tratado a América Latina como algo que no merece particular atención. “Mientras el resto del mundo, mientras Europa y Asia están fortaleciendo sus lazos con nuestra región, los Estados Unidos se mantienen pasivos y distantes”, dijo Santos en un discurso pronunciado el mes pasado en la Universidad de Brown.
La pasividad de Washington ha creado un vacío de liderazgo que están llenando países como Irán, Rusia y China, para contento de Hugo Chávez, que ha establecido una alianza estratégica con Teherán, ha comprado en Moscú cantidades masivas de armas avanzadas y ha recibido generosa asistencia financiera de Beijing. A falta de liderazgo por parte de los Estados Unidos, los gobiernos de la región buscarán naturalmente algún tipo de acuerdo con Venezuela, que está empeñada en sacar músculo e intimidar a sus vecinos.
En el caso del destino de extradición de Makled, Chávez posiblemente tentó a Bogotá con concesiones económicas y promesas de desmantelar todo campo de las FARC que descubriera en Venezuela. Pero si Obama hubiera dirigido mejor la relación entre su país y Colombia, es probable que Santos hubiera enviado a Makled a los Estados Unidos. Su decisión de apaciguar a Chávez no puede separarse de la percepción del desinterés del gobierno estadounidense.
Con el cabecilla de las drogas encerrado ahora en una cárcel de Venezuela, no sabemos qué información de inteligencia vital pueden haber perdido las autoridades norteamericanas. Pero lo que sabemos es que Colombia ha enviado un poderoso mensaje sobre la negligencia de Obama con respecto a América Latina.
Jaime Daremblum fue embajador de Costa Rica en los Estados Unidos desde 1998 hasta 2004 y es ahora director del Centro de Estudios de América Latina en el Instituto Hudson.
Traducido del original en inglés por Inés Azar.
Has it occurred to anyone that President Obama has no interest in stopping, or even reducing, the drug trade in the United States?
His hard core supporters on the left love illegal drugs about as much as they hate the idea that law-abiding Americans can legally own firearms. They are convinced that drugs are fun and good for you, and also make them more sensitive, more intuitive, smarter, and just generally better than everyone else- all they have to do is get, and stay, stoned.
At least that’s what they claim. I suspect it’s more that they just enjoy short-circuiting their higher brain functions and acting like John Belushi in “Animal House”. (Forgetting how that story ended off camera.)
Legalization has been their demand since I was in grade school (hint; Neil Armstrong hadn’t landed on the Moon yet). And every time the Democrats, especially their “progressive” wing (about the only one they have left, now) have managed to gain control of two or more of the three branches of the federal government, they have immediately… done nothing to get drugs legalized.
Why?
I have come to the conclusion that they like the idea that drugs are “illegal”, but that the government doesn’t do anything effective to stop the traffic. It gives them a feeling of being outlaws, the avant-garde’, the “rebels”- when all they’re really doing is just screwing around.
The fact that the drug trade is wrecking Latin America (notably Mexico) and the “inner cities” (which we aren’t supposed to talk about in the name of multicultural sensitivity) doesn’t bother them. Part of their whole ethos is an open disdain, bordering on outright screaming hatred, of our society; they hate the fact that it isn’t the way they want it to be, and that they aren’t in charge. Which means that the more damage illegal drugs do to everyone else, the better they like it.
The end result is that “progressive” politicians, like Obama, have realized that to please their base, they don’t have to push for legalization of narcotics like cocaine, heroin, etc.- all they have to do is do nothing to seriously impede the traffic. This avoids criticism from the “bitter clingers”, and keeps their base happy in their “outlaw chic” lifestyle, while avoiding actual action that they are opposed to – like actually extraditing and trying drug kingpins.
Myself, I don’t see a simple or reasonable answer to this problem. At least, not as long as our “enlightened elite’” think their desire to go tootski trumps reality.
As for The One being “disengaged” overall in Latin America, He looks south and sees cheap oil from Brazil, burgeoning leftist movements, and increased influence by Communist China, an increasingly fascist/nationalist Russia, and Iran’s radical Islamist regime’. Coupled with increasing hostility toward the “imperialistic”, “capitalistic”, United States- which He also intensely dislikes. All of which is well in keeping with the rest of his foreign, and domestic, policies.
As a result, His attitude is basically, “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It.”
clear ether
eon
Eon;
No one is forcing stupid and willing Americans to buy drugs. No demand, no supply.
Marijuana and cocaine should be legalized immediately. The tragicomedy war on drugs is costing billions of dollars, corrupting governments and police, making neighborhoods unsafe, stuffing our jails, and STILL you can buy those two drugs most anywhere.
Are we not doing the same thing over and over again and still expecting different results? By the way I am most definitely not a democrat!
I fail to see why cocaine should be legalized. I can understand that marijuana, just as alcohol, can be used responsibly and is non-addictive and not a health- or life-threatening drug.
But cocaine? This would be just as bad as someone advocating the legalization of crystal meth or heroine. The U.S. needs to find better ways of dealing with these addictive, mind-altering, mind-destroying and life-threatening drugs. Addicts should be helped, and stricter controls should be enforced – cocaine should not be legalized.
I don’t believe cocaine and marijuana should be legalized for any reason other than the fact that, like alcohol, many people want to use these substances to entertain themselves. To the point that their worldwide use, if monetized as a GDP, would represent a substantial country indeed.
I’m interested in your thinking though, please tell me in what way can alcohol and marijuana be used responsibly that cocaine can not?
Ken,
I don’t know about the “responsible use” angle, but, from a purely economic point of view I think there’s more of a case for legalizing marijuana than cocaine since cocaine has to come into the US from abroad while US companies (presumably tobacco companies) could grow and sell marijuana. Also, marijuana is a product consumed in it’s natural state, the closest analogy would be legalize coca leaves for chewing.
While long term effects such as lung cancer are likely as bad with marijuana as with tobacco, cocaine is a more immediate danger heart wise. Acute overdose on marijuana isn’t a possibility, but it is with cocaine.
But, you are correct that recreational drug use by adults is non of the government’s business, particularly the federal government which Constitutionally has no right to prohibit these substances (as exemplified by the fact that federal prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional amendment).
Not the cigarettes, but marijuana OIL cures cancer and other degenerative diseases. Look it up on the internet! For skin cancer, a person would use the oil topically on the skin cancer and also take the oil internally. Every person on earth should be allowed to purchase this healing oil!
Daily Mail
Boy, two, with brain cancer is ‘cured’ after secretly being fed medical marijuana by his father
By Daily Mail Reporter
4th May 2011
A desperate father whose son was suffering from a life-threatening brain tumour
has revealed he gave him cannabis oil to ease his pain. And he has now apparently made a full recovery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383240/Boy-brain-cancer-cured-secretly-fed-medical-marijuana-father.html
Marijuana should definitely be legalized.
In the U.S. it is not even allowed to grow hemp, the very close relative of marijuana. Hemp contains no THC. It is a highly nutritious food and it has to be imported from Canada and the seeds must be shelled so that they cannot be sprouted! It has the perfect Omega 6-to Omega-3 ratio and rich in EFAs.
The easiest way to solve all of these problems is to legalize everything. Trying to pick and choose, legalizing “soft” drugs while doubling down on prohibition of others, will not solve anything. The only laws should be against force and fraud, actions that violate a person’s right to life, liberty or property.
I’m not a Democrat either, and the only drugs I use are alcohol and tobacco; I’m puffing on my pipe and drinking from a beer can now as I write. However, in view of the dismal unsuccess of the “War” on drugs and its high costs, as well as the increasing penetration of Mexican and other drug cartels and the resultant gang related activity in the U.S., I also suspect it might be better to legalize and tax the stuff. Perhaps the Feds should take off their aprons and stop playing mama: use the stuff if you must, but don’t come crying to me if you suffer because of it.
My guess is that enough could be collected in taxes and saved on enforcement to reduce the need for some other taxes as well as to pay to the same extent that we now do to treat those innocently injured as a result of drug use by others. The prices charged for now prohibited drugs could still probably be sufficiently below those charged by illegal peddlers to ruin their markets. Elimination of some of the incentives to behave illegally might even help to reduce the recreational use of such drugs.
Choices have consequences, or at least should; folks who indulge should not receive financial benefits to treat the resulting illnesses or to rehabilitate.
“I’m puffing on my pipe and drinking from a beer can now as I write”
11:47 am
:O
Are you kidding? The leftists love the fact that drugs are illegal. It helps foster individual dependence on the state for guidance on everything, including what they put into their own bodies. It allows the creation of a massive police state that can easily be re-tasked to other purposes the left wants to use it for (ala “Gunwalker”). And last, but certainly not least, it siphons millions of dollars from tax payers directly into the coffers of the DNC via the trial lawyers and police unions. The left and social cons are in complete lock step on this issue.
Prohibition is nothing but a tax, paid by the US taxpayer but collected by organized crime, lawyers and unions. A tax paid ostensibly to protect people from their own poor judgment and bad habits. Legalize the drugs and tax them, then the revenue goes into the general fund.
Obama’s grasp of foreign affairs challenges Palin’s in terms of depth. His main interest is in reordering the economy of the United States. Never forget that he’s declared our position in the world is one of equals, a chilling thought when you consider the likes of Sudan, Burma, North Korea . . .
“Since his incarceration, Makled has revealed that “he had as many as 40 Venezuelan generals and top officials on his payroll to provide security and distribution, among other things,” according to the Wall Street Journal.”
Maybe that’s the best way to achieve real “Hope and Change” in Venezuela, pay off the generals. Do what we’ve done for decades in Latin America, pay off the generals to take out that toad Hugo Chavez. Everybody has a price, and Latin American generals always seem to have theirs. Paying these vultures off would be a lot (and I mean a lot) cheaper than invading the country or bombing it. And I’m sure some enterprising army officer would just love to have the job running Venezuela. This would be a real example of “Smart Power” and it would allow the Venezuelans to do the dirty work of regime change themselves, rather than have us do it for them. So let’s get that basic human characteristic trait to work for us for once. What is it, you say? Greed. Latin American generals and money seem to go together like peas and carrots. Time to see if it works.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rapid-Fire-2011-05-23-06883/
It’s not our job to parent Latin America.
Obama revealed his foolishness early on when he sided with the Chavez ally in Honduras, who was trying to keep power unconstitutionally.
Latin America–just another example of how Obama works against US interests abroad and domestically.
I have no doubt that all obama’s int’l actions are to set up his exit strategy.
He would love to see as much of SA & CA to be like Cuba and Nica. Then when he visits ala Carter on the American taxpayer, he can ride around and wave to los peones.
Oh, I forgot: obama ala Carter will be able to use his fame to sanction all elections in these parts as legal. Therefore spreading his fame and cancer.
With how weak the US has become, political correctness (is this an oxymoron yet), we will never again take out a dictator.
There is something we can do about this over the long term, regardless of what the BO administration does. We should back and pass a guest worker program as part of our immigration law reform.
We are the safety valve for families suffering under the corrupt and foolish leadership of countries like Venezuela. Not only do we get their narco-terrorist fallout, we also get their most vigorous and desperate people who leave their families and come here to work. People who come here to work admire us, and learn our ways of doing things. They change. They learn about efficiency, and they become intolerant of corruption and dumb laws, generally. It’s already easy for them to come here: we should make it easy for them to go back.
A person who lives here and works here, and sends money home, could also return home with resources that may be weak here, but are significant there. I envision 20,000 men in their fifties at home in Venezuela, with a little bit of money.
“anti-tank rocket launchers that were originally made in Sweden”.
Made in Sweden? Is this the same preachy Sweden (I have preachy friends from that neck of the woods) that went neutral in 1701 give or take a decade or century (I’m not going to look it up) and sat out every major war since. Is this the same Sweden that the left and Obama want us to pattern our government after, never mind the small difference in populations? (Hey 65% taxe rate and up, that’s serious money for socialist agendas) Is this the same Sweden that has a non-diverse (or is that un-diverse..Hmmm) population made up of mostly Swedes? (try to move to Sweden, not going to happen, they don’t want your kind) WOW. Will wonders of the world never cease.
Maybe we can send Danny Glover or Oliver Stone down to Venezuela to look into this and do a documentary about ‘Chavez the Great’ socialist benefactor and savior of Latin America and who is the hero of the marxist left and Obama right here in the good old U.S. of A.
Obama and his administration were certainly not passive when it came to Honduras. Obama was very aggressive and took the side of Cuba’s Castro against courageous, anti-communist, little Honduras. I am proud of Honduras for standing up for the Free World against far Left Obama!
May we never lose our freedom!
While Ted Nugent may not be the exemplary life to end all, in his recent TV appearance on Piers Morgan said, “Because drugs are 100 percent about reducing your level of responsibility, getting high, disconnecting,”
That’s a pretty good argument — Obama’s lackadaisical outlook towards border control is all about reducing individual responsibility and enslaving America to Federal dominance. It’s the liberal way.
When “libertarians” argue for decreased control on responsibility, they fail to acknowledge that the length of their liberties end where their fist reaches the nose of honest, hard-working folks with borders and boundaries to rational, decent societal norms. No amount of “legalization” will change that.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112804/most-dangerous-cities-247
“The number of violent crimes committed in Flint increased for all categories considered for this list between 2009 and 2010. Perhaps most notably, the number of murders in the city increased from 36 to 53. This moves the city from having the seventh highest rate of homicide to the second highest. The number of aggravated assaults increased from 1,529 to 1,579, a rate of 14.6 assaults per 1,000 residents, placing the city in the No. 1 rank for rate of assaults. Flint police chief Alvern Lock stated late last year that he believed the city’s violence stemmed from drugs and gangs…”
And everybody knows an entertainer is an automatic expert on everything, right? Since when does someone taking a drink, toke, snort, whatever impact the “honest hard-working” folks next door? Who here is the one who wants to limit the liberties of another?
As for the statistics you sight, I’m sure the police chief, who’s budget largely depends on prohibition is as unbiased as the day is long. A closer look would likely result in finding out the violence stems from the profit margin on drugs which is the direct result of prohibition, not from the drugs themselves.
I guess you have finally found a Federal program that the government can defund. Do you always look for the lowest common denominator to achieve your stand on various issues of morality and lifestyle, JustAl?
I’m sure the police chief is just drooling to see cheap, legal drugs on every corner so he can turn the other way — cheap supply and increased demand is just what he needs to de-complicate his job. I’ve heard they’re pretty cheap in Thailand — why don’t you see how their little experiment is working.
Thanks SH!
I’ve got a whole list of federal programs to defund, and I do, in fact, look for the lowest common denominator when it comes to the government. . . it’s called the Constitution. I’m sure your intrepid police chief would also love to confiscate all civilian owned firearms, how about you?
So, I guess the US before the 1930′s was just like Thailand huh? Reaching, really reaching, if you think the government should regulate “morality and lifestyle” sponsor a Constitutional amendment, after all the Iranian government regulates those things, maybe you should check out how their little experiment is working.
Thailand, where they execute people for drug possession? Yeah, that bolsters your point. The police chief is just drooling to see pot smokers and heroin users arrested because they don’t pose a threat to the police like the actual violent criminals they would have to pursue if drugs were relegalized. And what the hell does your first paragraph even mean? Just because drugs are no longer prohibited doesn’t mean that everyone will suddenly be forced to use them. Morality and lifestyle are for each individual to decide for himself, not for the government to dictate. That means that you get to decide for yourself as well, and if you choose not to use drugs, that is entirely up to you.
Well, Brandon, I guess you’re insistent on flattering your innocence if you believe that drugs are not plentiful and cheap in Thailand. While you’re still languishing in your dream, here in the U.S. laws are legislated and meant to be enforced, but I’m suspect that your “government of the people” will force drug use. Not a great argument.
http://afrocityblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/if-youre-black-and-tired-youre-fired/
Maybe afrocity can help you understand. But I doubt it.
(And last time I checked, Ted Nugent was kinda against confiscating firearms, but he really doesn’t advocate irresponsible shoot-em-ups against folks mindin’ their own business).
I suppose that you advocate drugs only for decent yuppie white boys, because they would never take liberties with situations outside their gated communities. Am I right, “Just” Al?
A “more perfect union of domestic tranquility” — yup, drugs: that’ll do it.
Big on calling people out when you know nothing about them and projecting a persona on them that you want them have aren’t you.
How about addressing the facts with logical arguments like a conservative instead of continual ad hominem attacks like a liberal?
You conveniently redirect a comment I made about your reference to the police chief to one I did not make about Nugent. I guess you assume I’m a “yuppie”, which is some funny shit by the way, because I can make a logical argument without attacking the credibility of my opponent.
To answer your final question sh, you haven’t been “right” about anything you’ve written in this thread except that Nugent is defender of the second amendment. Of course, we still don’t know where you stand on that, now do we?
In my quaint little state of Texas, we have a pretty nifty law that lets us shoot those who try to upset the domestic tranquility of our homes. And we don’t want to abuse the privilege or waste good ammo on losers, like drug addicts who can’t find their house next door. Good enough for you?
By the way, it’s “cite” not “sight” — just being helpful.
Really? Well, here in the Texas I live in a great many of us don’t think the federal government should run our lives for us.
I agree about wasting ammo certainly, it’s way too expensive to replace, otherwise I’d be in the panhandle shooting prairie dogs like I usually do memorial day weekend. But you are waaaay over the top here if you really think you need the nanny state to tell everybody how to live so you don’t have to shoot them, or is it alright to shoot drunks?
Well, if you and Billy Joe Bob get liquored or lit and go out shootin’ up West Texas, more power to ya. I’m sure you won’t drink and drive, either, ’cause you’re a law-abidin’ citizen.
Or when you’re defending you own little castle after a little snort, your aim’s a bit off there cowboy.
We won’t even mention Duke Watrous of Oak Point.
I don’t think anyone around here rally gets what is happening – including many of the writers. Obama is not ignoring Latin America. You mistake blindness for “underground support”.
Obama WANTS a Socialist Latin Empire that stretches from South America to our southern border – one that is engaged in trying to oppose white Imperialist America at every point and which is working to “drive the gringo from the lands he stole” in the Southwest. Drug trafficking is just a tool to fund Socialism and hurt gringos by depleting their money to fight it. Remember that whole “the ends justify the means” thingy?
Obama SUPPORTS the creation of an Islamic Caliphate across the Mideast and Africa – not because he is a Muslim but because he sees them hating capitalist, white, Christian, Imperialists, their allied dictatorships, and the illegal Zionist / Imperialist beachhead in the Islamic World.
Obama partially SUPPORTS a resurgent Russian global power. His problem with them is that they betrayed the Soviet Socialist Utopia of old and haven’t returned completely renounced their recent capitalism even under people he was sure would recreate the Socialist Light of the World they once held high.
Obama is kind of stuck with China as he’d love to see them return to pure Communism instead of this classical Fascism (government-dominated capitalism) they have embarked on now AND Liberals just hate Asians in general as most native Asians are racial supremacists that don’t recognize the natural superiority of Liberals. Same deal for India, Pakistan and the rest of South Asia in varying ways.
This all about sun-setting Western Imperialism and the White culture – which requires a world gathered in rage to celebrate the funeral.
Absolutely correct. It’s difficult to think of a foe of the US this clown has not embraced, nor a friend of the US he’s tried to scorn.
I think, even more than his love of communism, he is driven by his hatred for the US. Examining his clumsy foreign policy reinforces the opinion I’ve always held that he is just too stupid to be a true ideologue, he’s just a hater, pure and very, very simple.
Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence. He doesn’t think through what he says or does, he just instinctively reacts in an anti-American fashion, no matter what the circumstance.
“nor a friend of the US he HASN’T tried to scorn.”
My kingdom for an edit function.
A. The less one does for Latin America the more likely they will evolve (devolve) along the socialist/fascist path. U.S.A.’s exceptionalism came in part from the outlaws, religious renegades, and head strong independents who wanted to be away from Europe’s lock on owning land. South Americans were politically built downward from kings and the oligarthy and slaves. Like Europe until recently they were the rich and poor with no middle class drive. Obedience to the strong man is Pavlonian to them.
B. All of the drugs, illicit stimuli, are instruments of slavery, and in rare exception, enlightment. Check the history of each. Buying the product in the North is financing tyranny South of the border. Staying stoned is not enlightenment. Each medicine has its value in limited use.
A. Prove it. Take a look at how much we’ve “done” for Latin America, the cartels in Mexico are armed with US government issued weapons and employ US trained ex spec ops guys for muscle. Tell us how much what we’ve “done” for Egypt has helped now that the islamists are about to take over. We can not make over other countries in our image, giving someone freedom and democracy simply means they hold those things cheap. Latin America is what it is because of the influence of Spain, which is today a crippled, socialist failure of a nation that would fit right in to Latin America if it could be scooped up and moved. And there is absolutely nothing any outside force can do to change the culture. The more we “do” for Latin America, the more we waste.
B. Right, Latin America was a bastion of free enterprise and democracy before we outlawed marijuana in the ’30s. Sorry, Latin America isn’t our fault, and it isn’t our responsibility. We should replace the canal Jimmy The Peanut gave away by widening and extending the Rio Grande so aircraft carriers can pass each other in it. Then build a fifteen foot wall along the bank.
For all of those knee jerkers who think the “war on drugs” keeps us safe in our homes:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/americas-overmilitarized-police-claim-another-innocent-life/#comment-1065572
You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation however I find this matter to be really something which I feel I’d never understand. It kind of feels too complex and very vast for me. I am looking ahead for your next submit, I’ll attempt to get the hold of it!