A chilling message from the cartels:

Two things: the regulations involved with Washington's legalization process are moving drug cartels out of the region. There is a lot of paperwork that needs to be filed in order to be a licensed seller, distributor or producer that they wouldn't be able to fill out successfully.

Another thing I wanted to note - at least they are giving bribes instead of demanding tribute - but these Mexican drug cartels are getting kind of intense, epecially in the southern U.S. Just like Washington's comprehensive legalization solved the problem here, we probably do need comprehensive and realistic border policies.

That includes being realistic about immigrants being beneficial and about the current corruption in Mexico keeping them from filling out the correct forms and coming into the U.S. legally.

Armed drug cartels are a threat, while farm workers that are necessary to keep our economy going (because of how it is set up) aren't as much of one - people need to use more discernment here.

www.businessinsider.com...

An investigation by El Universal found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival cartels. Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

guess we arent funding all of the cartels just one (seems we always have to pick a side) we let one groups drugs and activities to continue in exchange for info on rival cartels and i would assume promises from sinaloa to not carry out attacks on us soil or against us citizens in mexico

www.breitbart.com...

narcosphere.narconews.com...

a reply to: 727Sky


I guess they haven't been paying attention to developments in robotics. I imagine there will be a lot of missions on the border for these bad boys.

I have wondered why this is allowed to happen. We focus on problems on the other side of the planet yet allow a drug war to agonize year after year on our doorstep.

It is so ill-logical, you have to ask who benefits from the status quo? Obviously the welfare of those living along both sides of the border is not in the calculus. Is there not enough money to be made in this hemisphere?

I have heard the whole 'how can we interfere in Mexico's problems?' garbage too many times. Why all the concern over Mexico's sovereignty when the alphabet agencies don't give a damn about it anywhere else in the world?

Would the Mexican population really be that upset if the US military crossed over into Chihuahua to secure the situation temporarily to allow the government to clean itself up and get back on track? Yeah, maybe a little pin-in-the-sky but why not? How long do we want to wait to see if it gets better? How much more of a trajectory do we need to witness before we call a duck a duck?

I say nobody in the government does jack-squat about it. When there is something of value to TPTB in Mexico, all of a sudden there will be babies dying in incubators and kites which need flying immediately. ***sighs***

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
So these drug cartels are funded by who, american drug users, who arms them, american governement.

But mexicans are the problem right.

If you cannot buy your drugs legally, then wherefore dost thou getteth them?

You would have thought, that the news article being out of Chicago, that these cartels are really Al Capone on steroids.

a reply to: 727Sky
The "Immigrants" and their soon to be freed brethren are for this:www.infragard.org...

That is to be Obama's counter civilian force against the US citizen,but first they need to be trained as an enforcement organization for the MSM pogues,in order to build up a cadre to run it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You raise the only issue and the BIG BIG issue which makes this something other than a simple matter to solve. If it were truly an enemy nation on that border, would we really be unable to close it between those who live there and those who would be assigned there? Thats absurd to suggest. It would take securing it LIKE an enemy frontier, by we certainly are capable of achieving it.

We can't though..and the innocents are the reason. I know from reading, for instance, that the back and forth across the border up and down Texas is a community level thing that goes generations back. It's not law breaking in many places, but roots across a strip on a map somewhere, but actually a mile or less apart to walk to. To secure it? That ends too. That can't end though..or we lose part of what makes America what it is.

So..How do we deal with some of the MOST dangerous and most ruthless people the world has to offer.....as a minority working among and controlling under threat of death, a legion of innocents who really do just want to live a better life?

Ya got me...but Amensty isn't it. We tried that. It failed. Spectacularly. ...Max enforcement isn't it, as noted above. Both COULD solve it, but only be redefining the terms and going extreme. I really don't know at this point?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: HanzHenry

destroyed from within due to massive IMMIGRATION.. immigration is always detrimental to those already there, only beneficial to the newcomers.

Said the American Indians?

This is why America should of stayed very "selective" and pre-judging... and ran out any foreigners that moved in. This would have kept them ALL out, good or bad.
what is better than having both? NEITHER one.

this is the original border patrol www.youtube.com...

Rich, the Irony...

To be honest I dint think the cartel did this. Both of these billboards are next to i10 and in busy areas of El Paso, how is it that nobody saw a thing and yet there are plenty of surveillance cameras in nearby businesses so why aren't the EPPD detectives reviewing those recordings. People need to start asking questions and stop being so susceptible to believe the spokespeople of the parties involved in this corruption mess. I believe this is just a foreshadowing event and more "cartel" violence will unveil in time to come all to enforce the impending Martial Law. It is a real threat and the military has been practicing it more and more. This is just a small event in the plan of the people in charge. a reply to: 727Sky

What's really bad is that, there really is a cartel problem. There really is cartel violence and crime in the US. But...and here's the problem. The United States Government doesn't want to do anything about it.

Are you telling me that if we aimed the NSA and some special forces and air force resources at the cartels that we couldn't wipe them out of existence? Are you really telling me that? We don't want to stop the cartels. That's the problem. We'd rather spy on American citizens and have our police officers shoot unarmed American citizens. Oh, I almost forgot. The Air force would rather kill poor children in Afghanistan and Pakistan with drone strikes then go after Cartels. Where's the outrage about that?

originally posted by: jchalks240
To be honest I dint think the cartel did this. Both of these billboards are next to i10 and in busy areas of El Paso, how is it that nobody saw a thing and yet there are plenty of surveillance cameras in nearby businesses so why aren't the EPPD detectives reviewing those recordings. People need to start asking questions and stop being so susceptible to believe the spokespeople of the parties involved in this corruption mess. I believe this is just a foreshadowing event and more "cartel" violence will unveil in time to come all to enforce the impending Martial Law. It is a real threat and the military has been practicing it more and more. This is just a small event in the plan of the people in charge. a reply to: 727Sky

You are possibly correct for in todays world many things are not what they seem.. I do know that the Cartels have set up shop in most of the big cities in the USA.. Chicago which has been the murder capitol of the states and was a gun free zone is but one example of what territorial claims and distribution networks are made with cartel influence IMO.

I think about the US citizen which crossed over into Mexico and in his car was found one loose bullet from a prior hunting trip... As far as I know after 2 years he is still rotting in a Mexican jail. Yet Mexicans caught with less than 150 pounds of weed are usually set free with consequences being they lost their load.

I would only imagine if punishment for illegals was dealt out on our side as it is in Mexico many things would come to a screeching halt// It won't happen..

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Honestly, those tactics (beheadings, dismemberment, etc...), won't work on US soil as well as it dose in their home country, where the police/army is under-equipped and un-caring.

Once bodies and YouTube videos of beheadings on US soil start to show up, the cartels will be wiped from the face of the earth..!!

a reply to: 727Sky
Maybe it's a biblical threat, referencing the betrayal of Jesus by Judas for 30 pieces of silver. After said betrayal, Judas hung himself. "Silver or lead," becomes "betray your god or die."

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
So..How do we deal with some of the MOST dangerous and most ruthless people the world has to offer.....as a minority working among and controlling under threat of death, a legion of innocents who really do just want to live a better life?

Ya got me...but Amensty isn't it. We tried that. It failed. Spectacularly. ...Max enforcement isn't it, as noted above. Both COULD solve it, but only be redefining the terms and going extreme. I really don't know at this point?

Legalization with low financial barriers to entry did a pretty good job at knocking the mob down a few places.

Cheap drugs to bring down the price, and free clinics to deal with the health side effects. It means some people can/will seriously screw themselves up, but it also means the cartels lose a ton of power. To put it simply we can make and sell the drugs cheaper than they can. Though the risk at that point is that the cartels retaliate against the competition. If that happens the only option is to invade Mexico (which will be opposed by their military due to the level of corruption in the government) and take out the cartels.

That's not a good option either but I think that no matter what route we choose that's the eventual end game.

a reply to: Aazadan

Okay, let me say this again because it's VERY IMPORTANT and defines this whole situation. I really didn't say it up there for some misplaced sense of nationalist pride being bruised.

The United States Drug Market IS NOT what the cartels require any longer to maintain their power base and capacity for evil.

Repeal of prohibition didn't reduce the Mob. The Mob came together to form the 5 families and national commission as a result of the events of Prohibition and that allowed them then to move into legitimate business and organized labor with such focus and intensity, all over the country, that they pretty well had it locked up tight for decades. Heck, our own FBI literally wouldn't admit they even existed until a routine screw up blew a joint "family meeting" of assorted bosses from around the nation. (A bit of mafia history there) That's how powerful and enormous our mob became AFTER alcohol all but ended as a revenue stream.

The cartels have long since reached that same level. They run enough outside any one thing and are close enough to nation state levels of power and standing wealth, not requiring more to maintain that, they won't be significantly knocked down. Just dramatically redirected. I'd guess white slavery and prostitution across the U.S. for a baseline, since it likely brings the most for them. They do a lot more though and won't be going out of business for any law changes we make.

originally posted by: HanzHenry

originally posted by: pheonix358
Rome was destroyed from within. Perhaps instead of going OS to find enemies, the US could put its military on the southern border and seal it properly.

destroyed from within due to massive IMMIGRATION.. immigration is always detrimental to those already there, only beneficial to the newcomers.

This is why America should of stayed very "selective" and pre-judging... and ran out any foreigners that moved in. This would have kept them ALL out, good or bad.
what is better than having both? NEITHER one.

Hahaha I take it you are a native then? Jesus christ, the USA is founded on immigration... Stop crying now it is your turn!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I'm aware of the mafia and how deep it went. Both sides of my own family are well connected with gaming (must be where I get it from... though I take a different approach). As a kid in the 80's and early 90's I went to parties and "family" meetings where I met some of the more entrenched people on the casino side of things and I grew up in Reno/Vegas before they had the clean image they do today.

I realize that the cartels can continue to exist without the US drug trade but that's largely due to us giving them a huge surplus of cash. If that surplus dries up they're going to lose a large portion of their income. Of course they're sitting on unknown billions of dollars and our banks are more than willing to launder mass amounts of money for them so it's not like they become powerless. The idea is to prevent them from getting more power and influence here.

If the cartels make serious moves inside the US like they do in Mexico I think we're powerless to stop them. If things go as they have been, gun battles in the streets are going to start. Quite frankly, it's a miracle they ignore us as much as they do.

This really isn't a solution but it's a starting point as I see it and that's to take the same philosophy towards it as you do to software. You can't make something secure, you can just make yourself secure enough that someone else looks like a better target. The best way to do that is to substantially lower their profit margin. Let them seek out other countries for the profits. They're still going to have human trafficking, arms dealing, prostitution (which I'm also in favor of legalizing), and all the rest but short of a military invasion of Mexico (which I still think could very well happen one day) it's the best we can do right now.

originally posted by: HanzHenry

originally posted by: pheonix358
Rome was destroyed from within. Perhaps instead of going OS to find enemies, the US could put its military on the southern border and seal it properly.

...Immigration is always detrimental to those already there, only beneficial to the newcomers.

Not so. It's incredibly beneficial to those already there that want cheap employees - big corp in particular.

Why do you think it is allowed to persist beyond reason.They undercut the reasonable wage for a job, saving big employers vast amounts of money.

Solution is not to stem immigration - i believe people should be free to cross manmade borders.

The solution is to raise minimum wage and crack down on employers paying below minimum wage. Why this doesn't happen is pretty clear - big corp has lots of money to line the pockets of those who would do the cracking down.

a reply to: McGinty

The solution is not to raise minimum wage. When you do that, you just shift everything upwards.

Labor is easily 40% of any operation. Increase labor costs to 50%, then you end up with a trickle effect. All their suppliers have labor costs raised, too. So the cost of goods goes up. Thus, a month or two later, that increase in minimum wage is absorbed into the system from a value perspective.

Prices get adjusted twice when minimum wage increases. 1 adjustment is for in house labor. Business models work on ratios. Labor costs will always be the same ratio of revenue. So you raise labor costs, prices go up to bring ratios back into line. The second adjustment comes from an increased cost of goods/cost of sales. Again, its all ratio driven. If i budget a 25% "cost of goods" on an item, and they increase their price to account for their own labor, then i will (once again) raise my prices to bring my cost of goods budget into line.

Raising the minimum wage is only a feel good answer.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very well said and i stand corrected.

I am however at a loss as to what to suggest the answer be, short of draconian measures which in themselves may end up making things worse for us all as 'population control' spirals like the cost of living in your articulate response.