For many parts of the world, it is hard to predict which Donald Trump will enter the White House on January 20. Will it be the Donald Trump who promised to decimate ISIS in 100 days, or the Donald Trump who promised to avoid an Iraq-like quagmire? Will it be the Donald Trump who campaigned on building up a decrepit U.S. military, or the Donald Trump who said he would slash military spending to balance the budget? Will it be a Donald Trump who is eager to strong-arm China at the negotiating table, or the Donald Trump who promised to discard the Trans-Pacific trade deal designed to increase American leverage over the region?
While Trump continues to regularly contradict his own supposed views on U.S. foreign policy, his approach to the U.S. southern border is clear. He talked a lot about building a wall while running for president. Since winning, he’s repeatedly emphasized the seriousness of his promise.
“You think we are playing games,” Trump said earlier this month, at a rally in Wisconsin. “We’re going to build the wall, okay? Believe me. We’re going to build the wall. We have to. We have got to stop the drugs from coming in and the wall is going to be a big, big factor.”
In the Trumpist view, the lack of a continuous border wall between the U.S. and Mexico facilitates the flow of drugs, undermines U.S. wages, and provides a potential gateway for terrorists trying to find their way into the United States. The wall is a concrete way to address fears among Trump’s base surrounding immigration, an issue that gives concerns over jobs, wages, and terrorist attacks a common focal point along the southern border. This worldview is so compelling as a political vision that it has sometimes caused Trump’s national security team to back it up with fabrications. Michael Flynn, Trump’s choice for national security adviser, has wrongly claimed that there are Arabic letters written on the backs of signs along the Mexico border, intended to guide terrorists into the United States.
John Kelly, the retired Marine general who Trump has chosen to lead the Department of Homeland Security, has his own pattern of exaggerating the border threat. Between 2012 and his retirement in early 2016, Kelly served as head of U.S. Southern Command. In this role, he coordinated all U.S. forces in the Western Hemisphere south of Mexico, including the Caribbean and Guantánamo, which is home to the hemisphere’s largest overseas U.S. military base. As Obama trimmed the military’s budget with the sequester, and prioritized Asia and the Middle East over the relatively peaceful Western Hemisphere, Kelly complained that the budget cuts were undermining regional security.
In a 2014 interview, he said that the flow of drugs and instability in Latin America posed an “existential” threat to the United States. During a March 2015 hearing before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Sen. Mike Lee. R-Utah, asked him to explain why the southern border posed such a large threat. Kelly responded with these words:
…there’s 40,000 Americans that die every year from the drugs that move up through my part of the world, and into Bill’s [Adm. William Gortney, who was then head of Northern Command], and into our homeland — 40,000 people a year.
You know, since 9/11, there’s — half a million people have died from narcoterrorism, as we call it in — down where I live — narcoterrorism. Five hundred thousand Americans have died. Very few have died from, you know, traditional terrorism, if you will, since 9/11. It costs our country $200 billion a year to deal with the people that are into drugs but are not, you know, dying. So I see that as a huge, huge, huge threat.
Kelly’s first claim — drugs kill roughly 40,000 Americans each year — is accurate. It is also true that drugs have killed more than half a million Americans in the 15 years since 9/11.
But Kelly’s second claim to the Senate committee, that 500,000 Americans “have died from narcoterrorism” since 9/11, is a significant exaggeration. The real number of Americans who have died of post-9/11 terrorism in all its forms is well under 1,000, according to a 2014 study that was supported by the Department of Homeland Security. And at least one-third of the 40,000 killed by drugs annually do not die, as Kelly claimed, from drugs coming into the U.S. across the southern border, but from overdoses of legally prescribed opioids. Almost all of the profits from those addicts flow not to drug cartels but to pharmaceutical companies. Sales of legal opioids have quadrupled since 1999, particularly in those white, rural areas of the country where Trump’s support is strongest.
Kelly’s claim of 500,000 deaths doesn’t appear to be reflected in any known official numbers. The RAND Corporation, for example, estimated that less than 100 people in total died due to terrorism in the U.S. between 9/11 and 2009.
While it is true that drug-related violence poses an existential threat to Mexico and Central America, Kelly was wrong to suggest that is the case in the United States. The number of Americans killed each year in drug-related homicides is around 1,000, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is one thousand too many, but it does not add up to the half million post-9/11 U.S. victims of narcoterrorism that Kelly claimed had lost their lives in his testimony before the Senate committee.
“Prescription drugs make billions of dollars for Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies,” said Kathleen Frydl, historian and author of “The Drug Wars in America,” by email. “It may be preferable for John Kelly to pretend that narcotrafficking, rather than homegrown greed, lies at the heart of the opioid crisis.”
Kelly’s claim of 500,000 U.S. narcoterrorism deaths is more than a one-time slip of the tongue. He said the same thing later last year in a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies:
…our country is right at 40,000 dead a year, year after year, from another kind of terrorism, narcoterrorism … the cocaine and the drugs and the network it travels on, it moves anything. Guns, women, other people, human beings. Uh, potentially terrorists. Potentially, anything. All you have to do is pay the fare. But the network is very, very well developed.
While the rhetorical link that Kelly makes between terrorism and immigration is central to Trump’s pitch for sealing the U.S. border, new walls are just one of many ways that Kelly will likely carry out his agenda at the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is a very young, very large, and very powerful federal agency created 11 days after the September 11, 2001, attacks. It is roughly one-tenth the size of the Pentagon in terms of budget ($52 billion vs. $524 billion) and personnel (240,000 vs. 2.3 million), and oversees almost all of the federal government’s operations relating to immigration. If confirmed by the Senate, Kelly will be responsible for a wide portfolio of security measures inside of U.S. borders, including responding to natural disasters, stockpiling vaccines, inspecting cargo, scanning luggage and passengers at airports, passing federal intelligence on to state and local police, and managing Secret Service protection for the president and his family.
Trump said he will triple the number of federal officers working to deport immigrants, and immediately deport 2 million to 3 million people now living on U.S. soil. He has called for the “extreme vetting” of Muslims trying to enter the U.S., and perhaps banning entirely those seeking entry from certain countries, such as Syria.
Kelly will be the first military officer to lead the agency, in a country with longstanding legal prohibitions against military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Kelly, like Flynn, another retired military officer, has frequently referred to the possibility that Middle Eastern terrorist networks could link up with human smugglers to move operatives or weapons of mass destruction across U.S. borders, a persistent fear in government circles. It has never been conclusively disproven as a possibility, nor has it ever demonstrably taken place. Adam Isacson, who covers security for the Washington Office on Latin America, said that Kelly perceives the region “in terms of complex networks of criminals looking to do ill within the United States.” The potential for cross-border terrorism threat should not be completely discounted, he added. “You only have to be right once,” he said.
The southern border narcoterrorism scenario was also graphically depicted in the 2012 film “Act of Valor,” produced with the help of the Navy and active-duty Navy SEALS. Real-life investigations into the drug-terror connection tend to turn up less spectacular results, as recent investigations by Pro Publica and The Intercept have shown.
Russell Baer, a spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Administration, said there was no official tally kept of deaths caused by narcoterrorism. “There’s no specific way to answer that question,” he said, by email. “Narcoterrorism has more to do with using drug proceeds, or drug money laundering services, to support a terroristic cause throughout the world. We are all victims of narcoterrorism.”
Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request asking them to clarify or explain Kelly’s remarks.
Top photo: Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, former head of U.S. Southern Command, testifies with other military officers at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to review the 2014 Defense Authorization Request.
500 thousand is probably not a high enough number. If Mexicans are included, they’re Americans also. As are all people that occupy the American continent. It is funny how citizens of the United States use “American” to describe themselves exclusively.
“The wall is a concrete way to address fears…”
If Mexico is paying for it, I doubt he’ll be able to afford concrete.
Too much of what passes for journalism these days is reporting like this that grasps at straws, that is driven by the negative, that cherry picks facts and then stretches them to cover the writer’s presuppositions. This piece tries to create a falsehood (that Kelly is either a liar or incompetent) to undermine someone’s credibility. This is shameful. This is on a par with Greenwald’s exaggerated outrage about The Post’s exaggerated claims that the Russians had hacked the power grid. Shame on Intercept.
The real narco-terrorists are the government who make a profit off of feeding off the gangs which only exist because of government’s prohibition.
Because the statement comes from Trump, it is doubtful that by ”Americans” he would mean Latin Americans. Narco-terrorism in the form of the war on the drugs, the DEA, the Alvaro Uribe client-regime in Colombia have killed far more than half a million ( Central and South) Americans.
Good point. He could have meant all americans – partly because it does affect the US and partly because it makes the problem sound more alarming to the US…
Articles like this destroy the credibility of your otherwise excellent reporting. 500,000 due to narcoterrorism is not what the General was claiming at all. I understand that his numbers are inflated – but your analysis is purposely misleading. Surely you can do better than this.
“500,000 deaths due to narcoterrorism isn’t what he was saying.” Are you serious? How could you possibly come to any other conclusion, particularly when he was quoted as saying, “…since 9/11, 500,000 people have died…500,000 Americans died due to narcoterrorism.”
Pray, tell, what was the general really saying? What was he actually claiming with his above quote? In what way was the article misleading regarding what the general said about the number of deaths from narcoterrorism?
Back something up.
Trump is not my president. My president is appointing a different guy which you will like a lot.
This is an embarrassing article…
The general was including all drug gang deaths. Maybe turn on the Chicago news sometimes
The Prohibition laws that were created by pure scumbag authoritarians are the main reason this violence exists in the first place. Drug gangs are a consequence of prohibition.
FLASH———
Deborah Wasserman Shultz enters convent !!!!!!
says she wants to repent .
Barack and Hillary are heartbroken . Bernie says ” It’s the start of a revolution ! ” .
Donald tweets ” OMG ! ” . Pope Francis laments ” What’s this world coming to ? ”
Mudbone shouts out ” Hey, gimme another beer ! “
WaPo: Dems are competing with Trumpers for extent of feverishly held delusions
…ah…you can include 99 United States Senators in your cherry picked cite.
don’t you just love selective emphasis!
repeat up a bunch of shyte and hope no one in this tiny bubble of commentariat notices the tactic.
Graham: Most Senators Agree Russia Was Behind Election Hacking
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-99-senators-russia
What Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky was sexual harassment. The woman Lewinsky’s reputation, career and life were destroyed while the man Clinton got away with almost no consequences and continued to retain public legitimacy and media adoration.
I tried to find a single comment by Hillary apologizing to Lewinsky or expressing regret for the harm Bill Clinton caused Lewinsky and I found nothing that would redeem Hillary.
And Hillary Clinton, this enabler and defender of serial sexual predation by her husband, attempted to cast herself as the feminist breaking the glass ceiling by becoming the first female POTUS. The hypocrisy and cynicism involved is nauseating.
And yet MSM took Hillary’s feminism seriously! She was portrayed as the example for female achievement!
Just look at her history –
“1. Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers; calls her “trailer-trash.”
In an ABC News interview in 1992, Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers, a women Bill would later admit to having an affair with, as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” Hillary also referred to Flowers as “trailer trash.”
2. Hillary slams former White House intern Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon” after she had consensual relations with her husband in the Oval Office.
CBS News reports: “According to the friend, Diane Blair — a political science professor whose papers were donated to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library – Hillary Clinton credited Bill Clinton with trying to break away from Lewinsky, whom she called a ‘narcissistic loony toon.'”
3. Hillary, defending an alleged rapist, smears his 12-year-old alleged rape victim, claiming the young girl had a “tendency to seek out older men.” She also laughs on tape over the cunning way she had vital evidence dismissed, destroying the alleged rape victim’s case.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Hillary wrote in the affidavit about the 12-year-old girl.
Hillary is even captured on tape laughing at the fact that she got the only piece of evidence against her client dismissed: “He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Hillary says, audibly laughing.
The alleged rape victim told The Daily Beast what she would say to Hillary if she ever has the chance: “‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.'”
4. Hillary disparagingly refers to the numerous women her husband was involved with as “bimbos.”
In 1991, Mrs. Clinton called the onslaught of women accusing her husband of sexual misconduct or consensual infidelity as the “bimbo eruption.”
5. Hillary reportedly threatens Juanita Broaddrick, Bill’s alleged rape victim, into silence at a political fundraiser after the accused rape.
According to Broaddrick, Hillary threatened her while knowing her husband had raped her:
Hillary sought out Broaddrick at the political fundraiser after Bill had raped her; she grabbed her hand and “thanked her” for “everything” she had done for Bill. Feeling frightened, Broaddrick says she tried to turn around and leave, but Hillary allegedly squeezed her hand tighter and wouldn’t let her go.
Broaddrick told The Daily Wire that there was “no way” Hillary did not intend for that interaction to be construed as a threat.
“So many people have said since then that, ‘Maybe she just knew that you had been with him, maybe he hadn’t told her the complete description of what he’d done to you,’” she said. “I still feel like she knew.”
6. “I mean, I would crucify her,” Hillary says of Gennifer Flowers.
Hillary “told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, ‘I mean, I would crucify her,'” notes The Washington Post. ?
7. “[W]e have to destroy her story,” Hillary allegedly said of one woman state troopers sought out for her husband to have a sexual encounter with.
As noted by National Review: “When a rock groupie alleged that a state trooper approached her on Governor Clinton’s behalf, Hillary said ‘we have to destroy her story.'”?”
Former MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry – Clinton was an “appalling choice as a feminist,” noting “not that she stayed with her husband, but that she did not speak out in defense of a barely-older-than-teenage girl who was harassed by her husband … And then she used that experience to create sympathy for herself.”
From an excellent article on Hillary Clinton’s dubious claims to being a feminist –
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/21/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-hillary-president
““So where, you might be wondering, were the feminists back then?” Lewinsky wrote in 2014 in Vanity Fair. They were absent, she continues, calculating that a president who had been good for women in terms of policy should not be held to account for his conduct with her.
But feminists are here now. We’re creating a culture where it’s OK for women to speak up about being on the receiving end of misogyny, to push back when they’re being ill-treated or harassed. If a Lewinsky-esque scandal happened today, far more responsibility would be placed on the shoulders of the president, and the uneven power dynamic, and far less on the guileless intern who made, or was coerced into making, a very bad decision.
Asked last year to elucidate on her “loony tunes” remark, Hillary Clinton refused: “I am not going to comment on what I did or did not say back in the late 90s,” she said to Diane Sawyer. And sure, that’s her prerogative, to say nothing. But I think it’s a bad choice. What happened in the 90s happened: it’s a crucial part of the narrative of the Clinton dynasty that has driven Hillary Clinton forward. Hence, it’s my prerogative to feel ambivalent about supporting a candidate who positions herself as a feminist but who has been yielding in her support of a partner who has been a serial ill-user of women – and who, lest we forget, paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit out of court.”
Monica Lewinsky should run for President.
“The Monica Lewinsky scandal is arguably the most renowned unadjudicated instance of sexual harassment in the workplace. Indeed, to this day, the possible illegality of former President Clinton’s actions re Lewinsky is a nonexistent aspect of the public discourse. In this piece I want to show you how Lewinsky was a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace and how she was not the only victim in this case. And finally, I will suggest what Hillary needs to do if she is to live up to her claim to speak for women’s rights. (This is a long piece in which I also explain what workplace sexual harassment is.)”
http://www.israeldiaries.com/workplace-sexual-harassment-white-house-time-for-hilary-to-come-clean-about-it/
Hillary is done. Move on.
In 38 years of being in the public eye, for the most part as the spouse of an elected politician, is there a single Hillary Clinton quote that stands out as brilliant, as bold, as brave, as exceptional?
The only two Hillary Clinton quotes that are memorable are
1. her dismissive mocking of a significant proportion of the US electorate as deplorables –
““You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
2. her disgusting comment and laugh on camera about Gadaffi’s lynching
“We Came, we Saw, he Died.”
Both of which show her in extremely poor light.
A woman who had 38 years to make a public impact has not said anything else that stands out in all these years.
Glenn GreenwaldVerified account
?@ggreenwald
50% of Clinton voters now believe Russian hackers *tampered with vote tallies* to help Trump – Dem pundits encouraging this Fake News belief
Believing something untrue to be true isn’t “fake news.” It’s called being human.
For something to be fake news, it has to be reported as true. As far as I know, no credible news organization has made that claim.
Obama specifically said, “We were frankly more concerned in the run up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of, …”
That seems pretty clear to me. I have not seen one single news report disputing Obama’s statement. So how is this fake news?
Let’s recall the false story of Obama’s place of birth. A large percentage of Republicans believed it to be true at some point. But it wasn’t fake news because no credible news organization made that claim.
Many organizations reported that some people questioned Obama’s birth certificate. But that’s not fake news. It might be rumor-mongering and certainly unsavory reporting, but it isn’t “fake news.”
Since these two “big percentage of losing party accepts a falsehood that discredits the legitimacy of the elected President,” seem parallels, let’s look at the very human response to disappointment — your sports team lost (the winners must have cheated!); your spouse leaves you, (because a person seduced your spouse), there are strange circles in crops (there must be aliens,) the Glapites lost the war to the Plagites, (God must favor the Plagites.)
We all do this. It is as natural as sneezing. When we can’t explain something which happens that defies our previous understanding or our hopes or our expectations, we grasp for explanations.
This isn’t fake news. This doesn’t even reach the level of aliens autopsied at Area 51. People need a buffer — a cognitive time out — to accept certain unpleasant events. It’s why we human invented Gods.
Religion is not fake news either.
” For something to be fake news, it has to be reported as true. “
____________________________________________________________
So a lie is not a lie unless the liar is under loath ?
loath s/b oath
And if the person relaying the false information believes that information is true is that person a liar or just misinformed bubba . ?
Here comes the Judge , the Lawyers ,, the Jury ,,, and the Beer&Pretzel Guy .
Jesus!
It’s like trying to teach a dog to wind a watch.
Things are true or not true. Many things reported are both. Reporters aren’t under oath. News should be accurate. Fake news isn’t a recent phenomena; political propaganda isn’t fake news. Inaccurate reporting isn’t fake news. Reporting a widespread belief in something non-existent isn’t fake news. Unproved claims are not fake news. Your grandmother’s dementia isn’t fake news.
Words have meaning.
What’s the point of disguising, hiding, twisting, or intentionally misconstruing meaning?
If you can’t understand my meaning, go chase some squirrels.
You didn’t read carefully enough. Glenn wrote of a “Fake News belief.” He later states he’s referring to Dems “deliberately using the phrase ‘Russians hacking the election’ to evoke that deceitful image [of hacking the voting machines].” He gave an example with a tweet from MSNBC journalist Joy Reid.
There is no fake news here.
None.
No one credibly reports something unproved as factually proved.
Characterizing a “belief” as the consequence (or cause) of non-existent fake news (in this case) is flat-out political propaganda.
Even the dubious claim that X% of people believe this or that falsehood is, in itself, an example of political propaganda.
You might as well claim that 50% of the people who voted for Donald Trump approve of the KKK. It’s a useless, inaccurate and biased claim that serves no purpose other than to promote (or discredit) a certain political point of view.
First get your facts accurate. Then draw your inferences from those facts. Distinguish the one from the other. This entire concept of “fake news” adds another bucketful of confusion to an ocean of pre-existing confusion.
Mr. Wiltmellow ,,, God as a Euphemism for The Unknowable is OK . That is not the way humans , after they reach the ” age of reason ” , relate to the Unknowable . After the proper amount of conditioning most “civilized” humans have been successfully separated from the Unknowable , make images of the Unknowable , and call these images God .
Next thing you know someone is passing the collection basket for their Godly image . It is all FAKERY of the first order !!
“Which Trump will inhabit the White House?”
All of them, of course. That is the heart of the matter. Rather, the heart of the crisis.
Mona has been bringing up YouTube’s Brother Nathanael a lot recently in these threads. A lot.
https://www.youtube.com/user/zionget
I linked to that freak’s his wiki entry. To, you know, show all the nice people what you think is a source of great insight. That antisemitic fruitloop — ranting about the anti-Christ — is exactly your cup of tea.
You even went to his site just now.
Yeah, to show the folks at home what you like to read.
Now, bugger off. I’m not helping you hijack this thread any longer.
You’re the threadjacker, crapflooder.
Don’t miss this.
Hey children PLAY NICE !!
None of that Nah-Na-Nah-Na,,Na-Na stuff .
Be nice and you get a cookie .
Drug-related violence poses an existential threat to millions of people in Mexico and Central America – especially the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador). Thousands -if not millions- have died because of illegal drug trafficking, not to mention all the legitimate business that have closed its doors because of money laundering and the corrosion of the public institutions of these nations. The Drug War has decimated the African American community by unjustly sending its young men to jail but it also has thwarted the democratic process and economic growth of these nations and the lives of many innocent people.
Partisan tribalism often destroys critical thinking skills
Unreasonable and unsupported dot-connecting — and preposterous falsehoods — are the province of both too many Trumpers, and far too many Hillary Dems.
Most ironically, Bernie supporters were shrilly accused of being “conspiracy theorists” for insisting on what was manifestly true, i.e., that during the primaries the DNC was promoting Hillary and trying to sandbag the Sanders campaign. The email leaks stopped that accusation cold.
On the whole (and there are always a few exceptions), the Bernie cohort has been far and away the most rational and reasonable.
The lunatics piled into the clown car for the fringe hopeful Bernie Sanders. Way out there Bernie couldn’t possibly be credibly considered by more serious voters in polls conducted by CNN and the New York Times.
Oh dear. we Bernie supporters are “lunatics,” eh. Well, this is your favorite author:
Poor Fritz spent some ten years in a federal penitentiary for armed bank robbery. (I hate it when that happens.)
So, this is the guy you think is a font of great truth. Please keep calling Bernie supporters lunatics. And do be sure to remind everyone that you are an ardent Trump supporter.
That JudasGoat owes me $575 . The SOB caved . He promised me he would go to the convention floor and fight it out . The shame of it all is that he would have beat Donald ( e.i. Duck ) in a walk . But no , Debbie’s DNC , Hillary’s Wall Street pimps , and the MSM whores had it all locked up . A pragmatist would vote for the lesser of two evils , no ? All their polls said so ,, remember ?
Future historians are going to have a very difficult time trying to figure out the difference between “drug cartels” and “pharmaceutical companies”. They both use illegal methods to push addictive drugs, they both have competition … sort of … and really heavy penalties for trying to compete, they both are constantly innovating but spend most of their effort on marketing. They might figure out that drug cartels are Hispanic and pharma companies are white, but that’s only a red herring. Speaking of red herrings, the 40,000 figure in this article is a red herring, since it includes the figures being complained about, but excludes fools getting shot while trying to break in to steal your stereo. I don’t doubt that narco terrorism kills that many, but the big old weight in that grandfather clock is the prisons, the dead weight of their worthless sacrifice gradually pulling down all the bribes and turf wars and thefts to pay the tribute that ultimately move the hands that hold the guns. Conclusion: what do you expect? More lunatics, more prisons, more cartel profits, more tunnels and diplomatic pouches and drones and terra-coca tiles, more people dying in more gruesome ways, more Mexican refugees, with more professionally made papers from America’s cartel immigration authorities, more low wage jobs for illegals, more bozos lining up to vote Trump because they can’t make any money any more. And more freshly patented “nonaddictive opiates” to take over the market, in the name of safety of course, until the patent runs out and it’s time to release the real data.
The 500,000 number is probably based on the fact that the “narco” part of narcoterorrism kills 40,000 a year and after enough years that will eventually add up to 500K and more. “Terrorism” outside of the year 2001 has killed virtually no one relative to the “narco” part of narcoterrorism. If we were were to actually allocate our resources towards that which statistically kills us, we would have to cut the anti-terrorism budget by 99% and reallocate the money to fighting heart disease and cancer.
George W. Bush’s Ethics Lawyer: Trump Will Be in Violation of Constitution on Day One
Richard Painter, professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota. He was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from February 2005 to July 2007.
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/george_w_bushs_ethics_lawyer_trump
First paragraph. Mattathias Schwartz, the Intercept and other progressives heart the Trans-Pacific trade deal.
Your analytical skills are as sharp as ever, as when you endorse the brilliance of your favorite author. Was this a great book, or merely good?
If it isn’t reported by corporate media it’s not news. “All the News That’s Fit to Print” for Mona.
As opposed to you, who reads convicted felons– for armed bank robbery — who set forth the truth about Satanic Illuminati mind control? It’s true that guy prolly can’t get any cable air time. Which, as all savvy folk know, makes him True and Good.
Simple Minds don’t want to hear the truth but the truth shall set us free long live the republic
I wanted to read this, but “Trans-Pacific trade deal designed to increase American leverage over the region” is full-on bullshit.
The TPP is about corporate control of courts and the internet, and killing fansubs, and other intellectual poverty[sic] witchery. That’s all it’s about. Not China or leverage or other nations or sanity or anything that we actually need from a treaty or contract.
You will benefit, if you’re one of those dinosaur “content providers”, patent trolls, or perhaps one of those so-called “disruptive” companies who have long since sold what souls they may have had (like the Google+-ing ContentID-ing YouTube, the HTML-DRMing Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, …).
Otherwise, lubricate.
What you say is true as far as I can tell (since most of the details of the TPP are secret, available only to the negotiators and the industry lobbyists who pull their strings), but that is insufficient to prevent Mr. Schwartz from overgeneralizing in his attacks on Trump. Pity that the democrats feel the necessity to do that, as even understating the truth should be sufficient.
Charles Bowden (RIP) wrote a lot of good books on this very topic, including ‘Down by the River: Drugs, Money, Murder, and Family (2002)’ and ‘Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields (2010)’. Here are some of insights from spending years on research and even bankrupting himself in the course of getting this information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DIrvg8RuMA
Drug war is a red herring to distract people from bigger more lethal dangers. Most opoid deaths are from legal pharmaceuticals, still 40,000 is a result that needs to be addressed. Yet we ignore because of their corporate profits larger killers such as Alcohol with 88,000 a year and Tobacco with 400,000 a year.
But at least the drug war provides billions in funding for the Police and Military while any savvy politician can keep his seat and the money rolling in with Bales, not piles, by shouting from his soapbox about drugs while ignoring alcohol and nicotine are the larger dangers to life.
But they would lose contributions if the actually decided to go after those bigger markets. And that ignores the concept that why should government be able to tell ‘free’ people what they can and cannot have the freedom (ill advised as it is) to make their own decisions about how to live their own lives.
“it is hard to predict which Donald Trump will enter the White House on January 20″
One of the Trump octopi will be “he who builds the alt-right federal judiciary” which is already well on its way (Here Come De Conservative Judges – 5).
I was reading Barack Obama’s wiki entry and have some questions.
” He then taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, first as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[95]”
“He joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004.”
University of Chicago states that
“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Did Obama publish any peer reviewed academic papers that made Chicago Uni invite him to join full-time.
Wikipedia mentions a single court case that Obama was associated with. What other litigation/ legal briefs did he handle.
Bernie Supporters heart Corporate Media
Says the guy who think the world’s primary problem is the Satanic Illuminati plot to control our minds. Except when he’s pushing this ersatz Russian Orthodox priest who rants about Jews and the end of the world.
Nah. That’s as false as it is true that you actually do heart this guy.
Bernie didn’t win, and his supporters would rather go camping in privately owned public spaces than watch polls. His supporters still monetarily support and read the same NYT that deliberately routed his campaign right in front of their faces.
Bernie Bots, thy name is personality cult.
Garbage!
A somewhat similar linkage of Sanders and Trump appears in today’s Guardian (12/26/2016
Malignant forces will try to equate Sanders supporters with Trump — as if they have something in common. They don’t. There’s a superficial political correspondence that, if you look into it, vanishes like a morning mist touched by sunlight.
Here is my response to the Guardian nonsense.
______________
There’s little difference in message between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.
Stop commercial interests from buying legislation favorable to commercial interests. Prevent Wall Street’s depredation. Encourage grass-roots participation. Promote anti-establishment agendas and politicians. Force government to work for the majority of citizens. Decentralize. Publicize with rallies demonstrating popular anger.
So why has OWS virtually disappeared while the Tea Party emerges as a viable political force?
The answer in one word:
Money.
Here’s Frank Rich of the NYTimes (8/20/2010)
Between 2010 and now, Trump sponsors of the Tea Party political agenda grew.
Hugely wealthy people who backed Trump include Peter Thiel, Carl Icahn, Tom Barrack, Woody Johnson, Steven Roth, Sheldon Adelson, Stephen Feinberg, Stephan Mnuchin, Robert Mercer, T. Boone Pickens, Stanley S. Hubbard, Darwin Deason … the list of enormously wealthy people supporting Trump might as well be a list of the world wealthiest people.
(I left Vladmir Putin off this list although he is both one of the richest men in the world and a Trump supporter. He is another level of plutocracy — someone who uses his political position to enrich himself. Republicans don’t hate Putin, they envy him.)
In short, Trump isn’t a “solution” to the purchase of American government by plutocrats, he represents the plutocrats!
If not already made apparent by Trump’s appointments, the American people will soon learn exactly what plutocracy means when Trump bangs his political policies into reality.
Progressives disappointed (engraged) by Trump’s election must identify and link Trump supporters with the inevitably reactionary legislation that the Tea Party will drive through Congress and which Trump will sign.
We’re about to see what happens when these political arsonists throw kerosene on a forest fire.
There is absolutely no correspondence between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters.
Thanks milton. Good to hear your voice.
Thanks for your comment.
I’m still bewildered that these numbskulls haven’t figured it out yet.
Trump isn’t a subversive anti-establishmentarian.
He represents the establishment. He has simply eliminated a clumsy middleman — the media — with his stupid tweets. He is to Clinton as Lenin was to Nicholas, as Napoleon was to the ideals of the French Revolution — the opposite of a revolutionary. A totalitarian.
He will get even uglier when he is directly challenged.
The lessons he will learn won’t be used to correct poor decisions. The lessons he learns will be used to stomp the opposition.
Correct, there is no correspondence between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Why did you go off on that tangent in response to my comment?
Bernie supporters like serfdom and curtailed so-called ‘rights’ dictated by the state. Bernie supporters like being slaves.
Run out of ideas? You’ve posted that irrelevant, inane comment on other topics. Give it a rest. ; )
Except you can’t point to where.
He also has promiscuously hurled the “fact” that Adolph Hitler was a man of the far left. His “reasoning” there would require him to accept that North Korea is a democratic republic.
North Korea is democratic. So was Democratic Kampuchea and the German Democratic Republic. So is the Democratic National Committee.
(BTW, who shows up at functions with “Socialist Workers Party” scribbled over the doorbell? National as in NPR.)
(And who showed up for Obozo? Now just as conveniently disowned using the same post-Nuremberg playbook, chapter and verse.)
Well, at least my cult leader is a principled secular Jew from New York who, among other things, chained himself to blacks protesters during the civil rights wars in the 60s — getting himself dragged away and arrested in solidarity with them. Your cult leaders, on the other hand, are Frtiz Springmeier and this bizarre freak.
So principled he sincerely endorsed the violent psychopath Hillary Clinton. So principled he also accepted your money to do it.
You fell for it.
Nope. He endorsed one sociopath who is at least stable, to prevent a worse, unstable sociopath. (But my money had nothing to do with it.) Many good people made that same hard choice.
Trump never killed anybody. Trump is constructive and diplomatic.
As several have pointed out here, this article is so misleading and motivated that it might qualify as fake news.
The General John Kelly uses correct figures for Americans dying from drug abuse with most drugs coming across the Mexican border and calls it narco-terrorism. Now Mattathias Schwartz makes up his own very limited definition of narco-terrorism and then criticizes the General for his figures.
Well, why not call drug smuggling narco-terrorism? What is terrorism itself? We still don’t have an actual, neutral, universal definition for it, do we?
Now look at the lies that Mattathias Schwartz tells.
He says in the very first paragraph:
“FOR MANY PARTS of the world, it is hard to predict which Donald Trump will enter the White House on January 20. Will it be the Donald Trump who promised to decimate ISIS in 100 days, or the Donald Trump who promised to avoid an Iraq-like quagmire? Will it be the Donald Trump who campaigned on building up a decrepit U.S. military, or the Donald Trump who said he would slash military spending to balance the budget? Will it be a Donald Trump who is eager to strong-arm China at the negotiating table, or the Donald Trump who promised to discard the Trans-Pacific trade deal designed to increase American leverage over the region?”
Now can Mattathias Schwartz tell us why he finds these contradictory. Is it not possible to fight ISIS and avoid Iraq-like quagmires at the same time?
So the very first premise that Trump “continues to regularly contradict his own supposed views on U.S. foreign policy” is false and unsubstantiated. It is nothing more that Schwartz propaganda masquerading as news.
The next Schwartz lie:
“Michael Flynn, Trump’s choice for national security adviser, has wrongly claimed that there are Arabic letters written on the backs of signs along the Mexico border, intended to guide terrorists into the United States.”
Schwartz links to a CNN report for his claim that Flynn’s claim has been established as incorrect. Now the CNN report does no such debunking. It merely states the following:
“A CNN KFile review of available information about the terror threat along the US-Mexico border could not corroborate Flynn’s claim. CNN’s KFile asked Flynn for clarification about the Arabic signs, but received no reply. A Trump transition spokesman declined to comment. A spokesperson for the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “respectfully” declined to comment.
….
Shawn Moran, a vice president at the National Border Patrol Council, the labor union of border patrol agents that endorsed Trump, told CNN’s KFile the group was not aware of the signs Flynn referenced, but that they were concerned about the threat of terrorism at the southern border.”
Does this CNN report prove that Flynn was wrong. No it does not. Does this mean that Schwartz has lied. Yes, it does.
Schwartz then uses figures from conventional terrorist violence deaths to claim that John Kelly’s claim of illegal drug abuse deaths is wrong.
Did Schwartz not understand John Kelly’s use of the term narco-terrorism? Or did Schwartz decide to deliberately engage in propaganda by deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting John Kelly.
You have made some good points here Seema.
Nope. She starts out by claiming the piece might “qualify as fake news.” That’s a dumb thing to say.
She’s repeatedly been asked for a definition of “fake news.” And repeatedly failed to provide one. There isn’t one. (Or, if there is, you Karl, should certainly cite it.)
“Fake news” functionally means: “New reports I don’t like.”
Thanks Karl. I agree with your comment about Bernie lacking in principles.
I have been recently wondering what anyone saw in Hillary. What did Hillary ever do in her life or what was so special about her that the liberal elite decided that she deserved to be POTUS.
As far as I know Hillary is not exceptional in any way. She is a follower. She has never done something brave. She has no charisma. She has no original ideas. She has no real vision. She has no real depth of knowledge. I have never heard her make a statement that was remarkable. I found her very predictable always. She says what is expected of her.
I can’t imagine Hillary saying something about India, or about war or about anything else that would be extraordinarily impressive. Hillary’s entire life is a testimony to her ordinariness. And to her being compliant. She does what is expected of her. She plays the game. She has no spontaneity. Everything about her including her positions on issues is rehearsed. She is boring.
And how did her supporters and financiers not see this.
Why out of all the possible women candidates in the USA, did people think Hillary deserved to be POTUS?
and Hillary’s voice was so grating, so unpleasant. Her speeches and tone were so boring, her just droning on … Even her use of complex language and long sentences made her inaccessible to ordinary people. Trump got through to people. Hillary did not. Her ideas got lost in the boring way in which they were presented. And the ideas themselves were boring.
There was absolutely nothing exciting or energizing about her. Or even true about her. She was fake, right down to her heavily and deceptively made-up physical appearance.
The only thing going for her was the support she had within the “establishment” that she would be an acceptable President. A compliant President. A non-risky President. A reliable President. Someone who would do what was expected. She was a known quantity. Someone who the establishment knew would not step outside the lines and who would play by the rules. She was a safe bet.
It is hardly a surprise that she lost, looking back. Though the media campaign against Trump before Nov 8 made it appear as if a Hillary win was certain.
Trump won’t use the word “folks” even once. An at least four year reprieve from the word “folks.”
That is wrong. His principles have been consistent across many decades. He’s always fought and critiqued the Democrats, but also always supported them over Republicans when that is the only viable choice between 2 candidates.
Many reasonable people agree with that. That anyone disagrees merely means people of good faith can and do disagree.
Am I, or anyone else “terrorized” by someone overdosing? Uh….. no. That’s an entirely different thing than somebody blowing s*** up. He’s using it to fear-monger, and scare people into ceding more $ & power.
Well, Schwartz should have written about why Kelly used the term narco-terrorism and if that was appropriate. That would have been a much better article than this.
“A federal appeals court has revived a pair of lawsuits seeking to force the federal government to sue former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a quest to try to recover more emails from the private server she used while secretary of state.
A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Tuesday that a lower court judge erred when he threw out the cases as moot after the State Department received tens of thousands of emails from Clinton and more from the FBI following the criminal investigation it conducted.”
From Politico
Where there are consumers there will be a market….
If people, really, want to stop the consumption of hard- and party drugs they should stop using them and therewith decimate the drug-market.
@RMD
Bernie would have won.
It’s counter-factual, so no, I can’t prove it. But in the vast majority of polls, he beat Trump far more decisively than HRC did. Moreover, for those who claim we don’t know how he’d have fared once the GOP turned to heavily assaulting him, if Bernie had had the power of the DNC behind him — instead of sabotaging his stronger candidacy — he could have dealt with the GOP.
Bernie is an outstanding politician who charms people with his sincerity; people really like him. He had (and still has) vast, huge, simply enormous enthusiasm gushing from the electorate.
So: Trump is entirely the fault of a Democratic Party that insisted on offering a nominee who is widely disliked, who has very high negatives. And it did that while trashing, offending and dismissing the Bernie cohort, a cohort they needed. The Hillary Clinton campaign instead chose a rightwing Dem like Tim Kaine as VP choice, and openly courted neoconservatives, completely uncaring how the Bernie sector would take this: She basically just said “f*ck you” to all of us.
So, HRC and the DNC are reaping what they sowed. Unfortunately, so are the rest of us with the imminence of President Trump. Your ilk should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
Yes.
Bernie was just interviewed by Sarah Silverman, and it’s just fantastic. The crowds so love him for simply telling the freakin truth.
He officially endorsed Hillary Clinton. “I am proud to stand with her.” He took the clueless’s money.
Bernie Sander’s is a party politician who has been tasked with cynically using a progressive platform to draw new voters into the party. He failed miserably to address Hillary’s shortcomings during the primary season. Even after it had been revealed that his own party conspired against him, he chose to throw his weight behind Hillary in the general election. The man is completely lacking in principle.
Bernie Sanders did what many of his supporters did, to wit: In horror of Trump they pushed as hard as they could for a woman they knew to be horrible.
I wasn’t one of those, but some people I respect were. There was no clear, unambiguous moral position in the general election. Chomsky and Sanders went one way (strongly advocating a vote for Hillary), others couldn’t and didn’t.
To say Bernie Sanders is “completely lacking in principle” is like saying Carl Sagan didn’t know much about science. But then, you are a rightwinger who spews racist and other unenlightened nonsense; that you find anyone else lacking in principle cannot but inure to their benefit. You can’t stand me, either, which I take to be a very good thing.
my ilk? You mean Sanders supporters?
We’ve covered this… unless you don’t bother to read my replies.
You know, Mona, you manage, and I think deliberately, to continue to miscast me as an HRC supporter… one that ought to be ‘ashamed’… for some perceived wrong.
You pull a comment that was about the final election and ballot choices in reply to one railing against HRC while supporting Trump.
My comment was about the final election, not the primary.
I supported Sanders. Contributed to his campaign, Asked for and put his lawn sign out front. As a member of NPPA photographed at his rally locally, I have written in favor of his candidacy everywhere I post…and continue to. And, at long last, I didn’t vote for HRC. The ballot I was given offered a few choices. I voted green. My state was overwhelmingly in support of HRC; there was no chance that my vote would have contributed to a Trump win.
The specific, narrow emphasis on the final election choices, post primary, was for the purposes of differentiating between those that actually supported and voted for Trump and those that did not. The commenter I replied to supports Trump…and reviles HRC as a means to prop up his sorry conscience …as if she were the greater evil.
Forgive me, but I cannot, could not.. abide the willful dissociation from actions and statements by his depraved choice as he lathers about HRC.
I loathe much of what the democratic party has done and what they DNC did to Bernie Sanders.But let there be no confusion: what the US has now is truly frightening…. and will reverse progress on a host of issues. The consequences of the Trump ‘win’ will be enormous.
If it walks like a duck….
Every word — down to “and” and “the” — that you write is Team Hillary garbage and inanity. Not a whit of responsibility lies with her, ever, in one iota of your shit.
In any event, I’ve now instructed you as to where the blame for Trump’s win should properly be assigned.
Reflect and digest.
You never acknowledge when you are just flat fucking wrong.
A real indicator of your intellectual honesty
I am not “flat fucking wrong.”
When will you respond to the substance of my initial post in this sub-thread? Why do you assiduously avoid those points, every time?
Trump’s victory is the fault of HRC and the DNC. For reasons I stated.
Unlike you, I credit the Russians and the FBI with aiding and abetting the criminal candidate.
A unitary theory appeals to those seeking a simple answer to a more complicated reality.
As a practical matter, one could support / vote for A, B, C, or not.
The consequences are very real.
when it counted, in the final election, folks like yourself who railed with exclusivity about HRC and the democrats actually served to advance and give a pass to Trump on his heinous self.
You ought to take a look in the mirror, Mona.
1. I have never disagreed that what Comey did was outrageous. Nor do I disagree the FBI has a lot of Hillary haters in its ranks. The exit polling, however, does not show Comey’s antics doing much — if anything — to hurt her among the electorate.
2. It’s plausible that Russians, and/or the Russian government, hacked into political party emails. (We do shit like that — and far, far worse– all the time. Others have the same capacities.) But I demand evidence before I believe it. Further, I utterly and completely reject a focus on “Putin!!11!11!” as opposed to the Democratic Party’s looking in the mirror and considering, among other things, the reality in my first post in this sub-thread.
1. The exit polling continues to be examined. Evidence demonstrates there was an effect.
Did James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton The Election? We Asked The Late-Deciding Voters
…”he didn’t help”…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-comey-hillary-clinton_us_58617933e4b0eb586486f317?section=us_politics
and…
Everyone thinks you should read this
Sunstein’s research findings on the question, “Do people’s views about policies shift after they learn that majorities support them?”
pointing to evidence demonstrating the effect popular opinions have to shape views.
see: Manufacturing Consent
Nothing. Your own link does not contradict my arguments in my initial post. Points you continue to steadfastly ignore. Why is that?
I assure you, that’s false.
It does refer to the influence of Comey, and is one among a number
…..
“I assure you…”?
That is that your evidence?
I gave the title to the article but not the link, owing to the limit on links in a post permitted here.
I wrote about this yesterday…
Sunstein conducted research, published his findings. Argue with him.
Oh dear, it’s that bad with you, huh? See, RMD, you cannot and do not speak for “everyone.” How sad that this must explicitly be stated for you to (hopefully) see that basic error.
And RMD, given the reputation Sunstein has in these parts, I know, without asking, that “everyone” does not think I should read him. (Nor am I the least surprised that you think well of him and his offerings.)
Nothing that contradicts the points in my seminal post, or in any other. Points you quite amusingly continue to ignore.
talk about willful obtuseness!
The title of the article is a play on the thesis… not an advertisement.
You continue to employ ad hominem logical fallacies to guide your ‘logic’.
If you won’t even review the literature, what can one say about the research methodology and its findings?
hermetic.
arrogant.
ignorant.
I don’t like Sunstein or his views as noted just yesterday…. but his research, if valid, can easily be corroborated by others. That’s the beauty of science.
And if I say 1 + 1 = 2 would you discount that as invalid because you have such a poor opinion of me?
You reveal yourself to be guided by pettiness rather than evidence.
Irrelevant.
Nothing you claim he argues could detract from the truth of my seminal comment, or anything else I’ve written in this sub-thread.
You hilariously persist in ignoring the actual points I made. Cass Sunstein cannot rebut those points, because they are true. (Not that anything of his you offered even tries, on his own terms as you state them, to do that.)
This tap dancing you do must be exhausting!
“And if I say 1 + 1 = 2 ”
We’ve established the fact that -Mona- is not in a position to evaluate mathematical formulae.
Better move along.
(smiley face)
…but she no likey me! waaaa!
No, that’s not exactly right. I don’t believe you. Hardly anything you claim. Much of which I’ve debunked, but to do it all would be a full-time job.
I’m not interested in your belief systems.
and as far as debunking goes, making counter claims of “nuh uh” don’t rise to disproving anything I’ve posted.
since you have plenty of time for posting here, I encourage your full time efforts. Please! Continue to falsely claim that i haven’t provided compelling indications, evidence, articles, research and theoretical underpinnings for my assertions.
You cannot.
your inflated sense of worth discounts entire systems of investigative bodies and their findings, entire sets of government and intelligence officeholders…
But only Mona has the genuine trooth™
Discounting all that lies before her, she slays the dragons of falsity with the stroke of her magical keyboard!
Wonder Woman strikes again!
Graham: Most Senators Agree Russia Was Behind Election Hacking
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-99-senators-russia
““I would say that 99 of us believe the Russians did this and we’re going to do something about it.””
I wonder who the one senator is? Bernie?
Perhaps I’ve been too harsh on young Master Schwartz. If all but one Senator believes the Russians did it (whatever IT might be) then by consensus it must have happened. I see now why CFR would seek out malleable minds such as Matty. His words can back up Sens. Graham and McCain, two of the most stable people on the planet, without him occupying the same stage.
I’ll wager Matty must have been presented with a peek at secret information that proves what the government wants to portray; that’s why he’s adamant that the Russians did it.
I bet it would be easier for Master Schwartz to just print the actual evidence but then that would reveal methods and such.
We should trust Mattathias Schwartz. His apprenticeship wasn’t given without looking forward.
many suspect it’s McConnell that’s the Russian holdout.
McConnell Covered Up CIA Reports that Russian Hacks were Aimed at Electing Trump
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/mitch-mcconnell-squelched-disclosure
Listen everyone who is a muslim. I am a small person but a big speaker and I will make sure my voice and the voice of my brothers and sisters in islam are heard. I am a 11 year old 6th grader, and i stand for my religion. We are MUSLIMS! NOT TERRORIST! we will take a stand for xenophobia and islamaphobia. trump won’t stop our connection with Allah. we have to keep our guard, but be proud to be a muslim. think about all the poor hungry syrian refugees, and than us feeling the life in america. we need to make a change. Like this comment if you agree with me. we will not back down. Sister; dont take off your hijabs. Brothers, don’t stop going to masjid and walking with your thoab. May allah bless us all and those in need, and protect us from the hell fire (amen)
“Narcoterroism” isn’t that what the war on drugs was suppose stop?
Now, the USA goes to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban was burning the poppy fields. We use American blood to defend those fields.
I think the terrorists are in our military command.
If the USA was really after the drugs, they would be burning the poppy fields.
WELL HERE IT COMES BOYS AND GIRLS!! BETTER PUT ON A FRESH PAIR OF PANTYS! REMEMBER THE 70S? THEY USED SOME LAME EXCUSE FOR CRIMINALING CANNABIS. REMEMBER WHEN THE HEAD OF THE C.I.A. WAS SAYING CANNABIS WILL LEAD TO HEROIN? GOOD LUCK AMERICA…
This is fascinating.
Bernie voters support a Democratic Party candidate–Bernie–who participates in DNC sanctioned contests. Bernie’s supporters generously give to Bernie–who says he’s going to endorse warmongering psychopath Hillary–and he does.
And his supporters, rotating spirals in their eyes, want to drag Bernie–who loves the Democratic Party enough to align with it and enough to offer presupposed resistance to any putative act of being “dragged” from it.
Is this not Exhibit A of the clueless, cult of personality progressive left?
here’s another take: voters were presented with 2 choices.
purists and deluded buffoons staked out untenable ‘plans’ refuse to vote for HRC, thus strengthening a genuine “warmongering psychopath” along with a coterie of previously unimaginable fuck ups… or outright support and vote for an unprecedented clusterfuck of human deviousness in Trump.
Superior types such as yourself think that by displacing HRC we are so much better off.
Some of us. (2.8M more than donald dumpsterfire) saw the choice and opted for “not Trump”
One can argue forever about whether this would accomplish whatever goals one attaches to… but there is no argument about her opponent.
We, the US, is in for serious shit under this crazed buffoon.
but thanks for your insight.
Don’t bother trying to reason with them. They will always rationalize their way out of taking any responsibility for the shit show they helped put us in. They are too stupid to realize they’re the opposite side of that same coin of irrationality upon which the Trumpsters reside.
I have a clue, and one to share with you!
The commenter RMD is “reasoning” with — Communete — is a far-right Trumper and conspiracy theorist, who believes, among other things, that the world is in the grips of a Satanic, Illuminati plot to control people’s minds.
So, while I entirely agree that it is utterly futile to try to reason with this individual, that ain’t for the reason you think.
You’re welcome.
u mad?
Outside of California, Trump received 1.4 million more votes than Hillary did.
Why do Hillary’s illegal immigrant and Social Security Death Index voters keep ghettoizing themselves inside CA’s boundaries?
HRC is a globalist, warmongerer, TPP-supporting sociopath (and is Bernie (D-VT) endorsed).
“watch what they do, not what they say”
Instead of supporting or buying US steel, buys China’s
Instead of supporting, buying US manufacturing, uses Asian and Indonesian
Instead of hiring US skilled labor on his construction projects, hires undocumented, non union, illegal immigrants.
Instead of appointing cabinet officers who support wall street and banking reform, he appoints those who oppose reform
….
a very short list from pages-long discrediting actions…that inform deeply troubling concerns about his honesty, his ethics, his judgment, his character, his fitness for leading this nation.
You mean he was a running a business, RMD? Making business decisions for his own company, rather than in a position to set national policy? Newsweek berates him for using structural concrete.
He delegates to competent lieutenants? And has a long history of knowing how to hire? Who do you want him to hire? Angela Davis?
He’s diplomatic enough to build in New York City? Diplomatic enough to sell his product? Ouch.
Plus Trump’s really actually a liberal, right RMD? And best buds with the Clintons. Don’t they hire liberals? Isn’t that what they do?
discussing this with a dissembler and enabler is a fool’s errand…
good bye
1. write the upgrades or updates to the constitution
2. identify the common ground that will unite all other parties for a coalition
3. realise that a 3rd party will have decision power in offices
4. hold the people’s congress and have a platform approved
5. get real candidates to apply and who are not sellout negotiating whores
MAKE THIS HAPPEN
Did Trump fail to speak his mind for the electorate?
Nice work Mattathias; good piece, thanks. If I may take the General’s sentiments and your contradictions and split them into two distinct vectors. The first is Narco-Terrorism, which I take to mean an extended multi-nation, asymmetric system of violence, intimidation and crime, including unlawful deaths of individuals to protect the commerce of illicit drugs. The second is the tally of per annum US deaths not caused by violence, intimidation, or any effort through multi-national criminals. Within the first vector, the General may consider first, your correction and clarification, and his responsibility to accept them. Still, the numbers that General Kelly can attribute to narco-terrorism are enough of a shameful global tragedy that authorities must be recognized and corrected. And I take him as an honorable man who wishes to continue to serve the nation, defend our freedom and liberty and save American lives. Looking at solutions, the most obvious, and immediate is complete legalization. Legalization takes the financial legs out from under the terrorists. Those legs, of course come in large part from American consumers who include the perpetual generation of hard-core-short-lived junkies, kids in high school parking lots and all the cool folks who like to party. As cold-blooded as it sounds (and will be), the agriculture, manufacture, distribution and marketing will become a national thing, and jobs for each nation, by “legitimate” (read legal and trade-craft qualified) business people. Each stage mentioned represents a genesis of violence. The forced cultivation of crops, base chemicals’ poisoning of land, water, all forms of life and air at the point of a gun; the protection of trade-routes and transport; and the ruthless organized crime to street corner sales that take us well-passed the 1,000 homicides you list. For the second vector, whose causation and effect, the want to get a buzz and the ex-terrorism death is wreaks is statistically far worse than anything the cartels and our supportive and cooperative desires have brought us. This vector too has into magnitude and direction formed by the cycle of drug commerce, just the legal kind. Quoting the CDC; “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.”. There is a fight worthy of a Marine looking to combat a threat to our country. I respectfully urge General Kelly to read the page – https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
Looking to another legal and stylish killer, alcohol, this time form the National Institute of Health; “Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.
In 2014, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 9,967 deaths (31 percent of overall driving fatalities).”. Pretty sobering stuff I’d say. Lastly, as Mr. Schwartz argues, the abuse of legal pharmaceutical commerce, from the passage of permission to manufacture, unneeded new opioid compounds to undisciplined prescriptions, to illicit sales, is a serious killer of people. Legalization, prevents terrorism and its effects as we have defined them, but does little, it seems to prevent a large number of deaths. I’d like to argue that legalization allows us to avoid the damages and costs of incarceration allowing us to focus on prevention and treatment, leading to a falling slope of abuse, addiction, destruction and death but Jack Black, Joe Camel and Morph the Cat have proven me wrong. Getting high is here to stay, screwing up, possibly ending your life is too. Drinking is legal, drinking and driving is not. Drinking and smoking to ruin your health is perfectly legal. Should getting high be legal? Do we need another liberty to screw ourselves? Making getting high illegal has already proven an international disaster. Most people enjoy a drink and have no effect, and this is statistically proven by subtracting those that indulge and those that are damaged by it. Cigarettes (tobacco) are far more insidious; even Darrow would avoid the case. Can we argue that most people get a buzz from the booze? I think so; I do. Can we extend that argument to people who cop a buzz from pot? Do they do so harmlessly? I don’t get get high, but again, statistically, it can be proven so. Stealing and killing to get high or for any reason is already illegal. Closing, General Kelly means to protect and defend Americans. His service and his soon-to-be-approved appointment will give him the laudable responsibility to continue to serve America. I would respectfully ask him to consider the ramifications of continuing the war on drugs and contemplate the better, although still destructive, path to legalization. Nobody wins abusing drugs, but at least we can eliminate most of the terrorism associated with illicit narco-commerce. To borrow from (a degenerate) military-journalism jargon, there is a lot less collateral damage. Vr, DAMITJOE
Words like this should be bolded and capitalized.
Who can define it? Narco = bad drugs. (Unlike good drugs such as valium, xanax, viagra and gin.)
Terrorism = something violent that bad people do to hurt good people. Who knows why?
In Orwell’s Newspeak, NARCOTERRORISM would be an example of language constructed for political purpose:
What is doubleplusbad? NARCOTERRORISM. What is doubleplusgood? ANTINARCOTERRORISM
Kelly adopts this portmanteau, NARCOTERRORISM, for political purpose. Sort of like a kid who wants to stay home from yelling, “I have a STOMACHACHE! The goal is to get attention for a specific purpose. In Kelly’s case I suppose it’s mostly funding or bureaucratic significance. Like HOMELAND SECURITY or ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the term specifies and eliminates certain concepts.
As we devolve into a Newspeak vocabulary, where language is used to both emphasize and eliminate thoughts (see any Trump speech), I think it’s important to distinguish the fictional IngSoc from the actual AmFasc. Ask crooked Hillary Goldstein about this.
We see the same calculated misuse of language for political purpose in both societies but for literary purposes, Orwell makes the Party a sort of calculating entity designed to obtain and maintain power. This allows O’Brien to speak for him.
In AmFasc, we stumble towards the same end as we literally see various thoughts weeded from the common culture. Concepts like “pacifism” or “habeas corpus” have become archaic terms, more fit for a society based on diversity, political vibrancy, civil discussion, and legal principles.
Other devolving words/concepts include prolife/prochoice, red/blue, neo-anything, etc. In every case, the concept has become binary — either/or — rather than “complicated” (a word that has come to mean, “I don’t want to talk about it: in fact, I don’t even want to think about it!”
I doubt this process is intentional, exactly, except insofar as merchandisers (and political merchandisers) intentionally seek devious ways to repeat and make memorable the product they’re selling. Shaping words for political purpose can be complicated … er … stupefying.
This devolution of language is no more a conspiracy than is creating a cartoon Gecko as an avatar for an insurance company.
Yet here it is.
People occupying the highest offices in the country give us nothing but doublespeak and gibberish.
Kelly is a goodthink bureaucrat named by a malquoted buffoon to oversee an authoritarian agency which has as much to do with AmFasc security as a big fence in the middle of the Rio Grande river has to do with his soon to be established joycamps with unperson immigration.
Which is to say, everything and nothing.
For such a strong and imperial country, I cannot believe the fear the broader population tends to feel so disproportionately to any/all facts. And how skillfully politicians (of both parties) manipulate this fear. This year was particularly odious.
For such a nation of (so-called) rugged individualists I have never seen such a massive, quivering, and more fearful country of pussies.
Get you act together, people. Seriously mangled, next: Know thine enemy – and the truth shall set you free.
(A*holes.)
Agree completely with your comments. As an immigrant who grew up in the US I’m consistently surprised at how two-faced and cowardly most Americans act. They will scream and boast until they’re met with even a modicum of resistance, then they just crumble.
I’ve had grown adults throw temper tantrums because their childish behavior required me to comment. The best part? They can’t even handle someone treating them like the kids they are. They get more defensive and loud.
All that “Oh god think of the chuldren!” B.S. is coming back to bite this nation. When you make sure kids are kept sheltered, never challeneged, and dependent on the system, you get exactly what we have now.
I’m one of those lucky kids on which the education system didn’t work. I woke up, grew up, and now I stand alone in crowds of grown babies. It’s no wonder so many young people kill themselves. I was tempted at one point cuz of the hopelessness of the situation. I learned to laugh instead and now I can’t stop cuz the show won’t stop!
Your example brings to mind the pres-elect’s meeting with Peña Nieto of Mexico.
I think there are many reasons to see hope in young people, as well as misery from poverty. I don’t find that children are taught to be dependent on “the system,” but there are too many people (Repubs) who consider government bad. Fact based information (American Amnesia – Hacker & Pierson) says we thrived most when there was a balance between a strong (and effective) big government and big corporations.
It is the white middle-aged lesser educated class of people who are killing themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html?_r=0
Interesting points. I think you’re being far too optimistic and a little narrow in your view though.
I’m willing to bet we will see a complete 180 in Republican rhetoric about government. Now that Republicans run the show we will soon hear about the great things this government can do and how we need to make it more powerful. Just watch. They will pander whatever message their supporters want while stripping them of their liberties. The stupid won’t notice, they will cheer. This will be young and old cheering because the young have been duped by their elders.
That factoid about white men being the victims has been really vogue in media. It’s funny how this country can subjugate people of color for hundreds of years without feeling a thing, but the moment white people start hearing the truth about their actions there needs to be some big pity party for them. YOUNG people are killing themselves because nobody wants them, and when the system is rigged against you there’s nothing you can do about it. Older people, like you I presume, love to blame the victim though. Just so you can’t be held responsible for the world you’ve handed us. Don’t worry. Some young people will make communities for ourselves. The rest of you will be on your own. Hope you’ve treated your kids well.
And be careful with whose facts you’re using. Even the think-tanks are businesses who operate on profit motives, so their information is biased and should be noted.
Kelly’s first claim — drugs kill roughly 40,000 Americans each year — is accurate. It is also true that drugs have killed more than half a million Americans in the 15 years since 9/11.
The narcoterrorists are the same class of persons who invaded china and subjected the population there to opoids for te british empire. Methods have not changed, only the perps and the targets. America is a target for subjugation, robbery and invasion. Until the wall is up, it will not stop.
Seriously, barabbas, sometimes you should so spectacularly be ignored.
understood.
So much talent here that make the points better than myself.
But it does seem like there are forces looking to break up the US as breaking up the middle east, to in effect created a divisive fire so that dumb&dumber foreign policy ejits can come the the rescue to be needed and praised when these same dumb&dumbers are the cause of the problem of the invasion of America.
1/3 of those deaths are from drugs sold by American business.
What about the Pharmaceutical industry?
Basically they are flaunting the laws to try to control abuse by controlling and limiting distribution in areas where prescription abuse is obvious. 1/3 of those deaths are not.
Are saying Mexico is acting like the British in China and forcing the US government to allow drug sales?
If only Stanley Kubrick were alive to write, and direct a contemporary sequel to Dr. Strangelove that could be based upon Trump’s appointments of paranoid, compulsive lying, crack pot military men who see themselves as part of a U.S. junta. These are men whose mothers probably never loved them much and whose fathers were sadistic weirdos, or perhaps, alternatively should they have had adequate maternal love, they have an undescended testicle as did their idol Adolph Hitler.
If the U.S. elite were serious about eliminating narco-terrorism, and the horrifying impact that U.S. drug addiction has on Mexico, and Central America our political hacks that populate all of Washington, D.C. would legalize narcotics, and treat addiction like the health concern it is, not the criminal concern it is not, but then the prison-industrial complex would pitch a fit and yank the short leashes of the hack con artists that population Congress, and all the federal agencies to put a quick stop to something so cost effective, and sensible. U.S. narcotics laws have absolutely nothing to do with morality, or public health.
For many intents and purposes the borders are now about 100 miles wide. Including https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border-protections-100-mile-zone but even with that more expansive view Jon Kellys inflated narco terror victim counts are an efficacious if disingenuous means for underscoring Trumps emphasis on border security as our first line of defense against the threat from without (foreign) to Americas National Security so we might more effectively focus on the threat from within (domestic) or insider threats like Mattathaias Schwartz and Intercept discussion board users.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161224/08515836343/obama-pulls-cybercommand-control-nsa-changes-to-take-effect-whenever.shtml
President Obama, rushing through some last-minute presidential business before handing over the title to an aspiring plutocrat, has split up the nation’s cyberware command. This siloing prevents Cybercom from being run by the same military officer who oversees the NSA.
“While the dual-hat arrangement was once appropriate in order to enable a fledgling Cybercom to leverage NSA’s advanced capabilities and expertise, Cybercom has since matured” to the point where it needs its own leader, Obama said in a statement accompanying his signing of the 2017 defense authorization bill.
“The two organizations should have separate leaders who are able to devote themselves to each organization’s respective mission and responsibilities, but should continue to leverage the shared capabilities and synergies developed under the dual-hat arrangement,” Obama wrote.
People voted for Trump to get a President who would tell them whatever they wanted to hear. I expect Trump and his appointees to deliver. Truth has nothing to do with it.
Definitions of political machinery have always been fluid. They get re-defined as needed to serve the paranoid delusions and profit-models of those running the departments.
Why are all Muslims labeled radical terrorists when there’s a mass shooting perpetrated by someone from that community, but when a white kid shoots up a movie theater or a school, they don’t get labeled radical Christians or domestic terrorists? They get called “troubled youth” or “lone wolf gunman” which the second can be interpretted as cool and very American desperado-like. These labels are used by the powers that be to serve their business interests. US corporate imperialism only has the Middle East left to take over while keeping the homefront paranoid and divded. Islam doesn’t handle extreme consumerism as profitably as Christianity does so they are trying to make Christianity more acceptable in that part of the world. It’s tough to make women feel insecure about their looks and get them to buy into the bloated fashion industry when their religion frowns on that kind of ostentatious behavior. Christians are okay with it cuz they just pay a fee and say sorry once a week so it’s cool.
Ultimately, it’s just greedy people wanting to grab more and keep what they already have. They’re just smart enough to manipulate stupid people and get away with it.
It’s so funny to watch though. These comments sections are becoming more theatrical than the stories themselves!
“Trump continues to regularly contradict his own supposed views…”
He’s not even Pres and I’m tired of media and commentariat feigning surprise and wonderment at Trump’s statements.
Can we dispense with the ‘accountability’ and statement reconciliation tack?
Trump is a manipulator and uses words strung together to achieve an effect.
The question ought always to be; what is he lying about now? and why?
shorter: everything is a deal negotiation. Reality is to be scripted and I’m script editor!
to merchant: “your goods (or viewpoint) are overpriced and low quality!”
“ok, I’ll pay half what you’re asking, if you’ll throw in a dishwasher”
to nations: “I’ll build more nukes than you’ve ever imagined!”
“ok, I’ll cut my proposal (aka lie, aka negotiation position) to something less than my grotesquely overblown rhetoric suggested… ” if you’ll throw in some time share in (location to be named)
to deluded supporters: “I’ll throw her in jail!”
“ok, i don’t really mean it… but, I thought of doing it!”
Breathless press: “What does Trump mean?….
four fucking years of this shit.
So sad! (You can quote me.)
You ain’t kidding, though. Last I saw, the media (a la WaPo) was still trying to figure out how to handle the coverage of Trumps nattering tweets. I still think a crawl or a box (Today’s Lies/Do Not Pay Attention; this is BS) may do the trick.
My annoyance also comes from the WHPC and some idiot asking the President an inane question about something some stupid person/candidate said (“What do think, Mr Obama…?”) I swear, if I had one question to ask our President in a press conference or a surprise visit to a WH Press Briefing, I would have a list of serious questions.
Ah, that explains a lot … More CFR sponsored “straight” talk by sourcing WaPo.
CFR doesn’t train objective journalists. CFR looks up to Kissinger;
So in reality, Matt Schwartz writes (work-in-progress) for, as Frumkin put it, “the hawkish Washington foreign policy establishment, “.
not that i really expect trump to be much better, but that’s exactly right about clinton.
WTF is Photosymbiosis?
“WTF is Photosymbiosis?”
Ask -Mona-; she’s the hall monitor …
this is all ridiculous. kelly explicitly distinguishes between his usage of “narcoterrorism” and what is normally called terrorism. nail him for abusing the language, but don’t willfully misconstrue him
“…there’s 40,000 Americans that die every year from the drugs that move up through my part of the world, and into Bill’s [Adm. William Gortney, who was then head of Northern Command], and into our homeland — 40,000 people a year.
“You know, since 9/11, there’s — half a million people have died from narcoterrorism, as we call it in — down where I live — narcoterrorism. Five hundred thousand Americans have died. Very few have died from, you know, traditional terrorism, if you will, since 9/11.”
I was thinking along these lines.
Schwartz even corroborates the guy’s numbers and then runs off on a completely different tangent about traditional terrorism.
If he has an issue with using the word “terrorism” in “narcoterrorism” then that’s one thing but the guy isn’t spouting off random numbers as the title suggests.
“Schwartz even corroborates the guy’s numbers and then runs off on a completely different tangent about traditional terrorism.”
Muslim terrorism is Schwartz’ focus. It’s part of the Israel-before-America theme-park that is CFR.
Kelly is paranoid. All he sees are terrorists and an attack coming any second. He’s damaged. Unless it’s all bull and a power play for more funding and power. Meaning he’s amoral and damaged. Straight out of Dr Stranglove either way.
You guys are great! But it’s nothing I can’t read elsewhere. In this situation they are speaking to people who do not believe reports. More importantly, they are trying to bring people into the fold, people who are on the verge after years of government lying and deception.
I don’t see any media source getting to the core issues. For your consideration, I suggest a strategy be enacted to reveal the essence of what is happening while reporting what is happening.
The difference in numbers (500K vs 1K) is not the essence. The fact he didn’t define narcoterrorism’ points in the right direction. Normally we assume government officials (and would-be officials) have identical definitions (though politics handicaps this too.) This can no longer be assumed at any level.
Growing and sowing doubt in the citizenry strikes me as one of the main undercurrents of Kelly’s , more so than at other times.
They have the momentum now.
Slightly off topic but, you wanna know which deaths almost never get mentioned by anyone? Those caused by the FDA for taking too many years to approve pharmaceuticals, and driving up the time/cost of development. Or those who can’t afford what IS developed due to the insane cost, again due to regulation. Or how about the deaths caused by the FDA for refusing to pull drugs that are causing harm because they can’t face the fact that they screwed up in the first place.
Just mentioning that there are two sides (at least) to every story. Journalists who attempt to tackle complex subjects like this generally are doing nobody any favors.
The article above is about Kelly’s lies, not about the FDA. You’re more than “slightly off topic.”
“The article above is about Kelly’s lies”
How do you classify the 750 homicides in Chicago, so far, this year. Any drug-related terror/violence there?
Kelly states explicitly the term narcoteorrism is what we call it where I live.
Matty jumps the definition shark by quoting a low number of drug-terror classified killings; you know, real terrorism by Muslims.
Hey, feel free to use that leaky border to your advantage and pick up unregulated meds down in Mexico. And good luck with your results :)
Calling people that die of drugs “victims of narcoterrorism” is at worst some neologism or hyperbole intended for the drugs trade to be seen like an enemy as evil as terrorists, but even you yourself recognize that the numbers are correct. He clearly says that “traditional terrorism” kills very few. You’re wronger than him, which is a bad place to find yourself in.
We need a united REAL opposition to combat what is to come. We must move out of the Dem Party… & drag Bernie with us… here’s how: We created a petition to Bernie. Click here to sign: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-new-democratic-party?source=c.em.mt&r_by=13175233
The Democratic party is embarrassingly out of touch with the American public. We are calling on Sen. Bernie Sanders and his group “Our Revolution” to establish a new political party. If you agree, please sign and share.
We need a REAL strong opposition now.
I wish I could agree – and six weeks ago, I did.
Yesterday, Democracy Now! re-aired Bernie’s Philly speech from 11/28. It’s worth hearing again.
Bernie, in his new leadership role, has seemed to unequivocally state that he intends to bring change to the Dem Party. Since they have gone badly and shamefully astray in the past four decades, but were the party of the unions and underdog, there are hopes to recruit a new generation of Progressives. You have to look at the long game, sort of – today’s 20 yo will be old enough to run for POTUS in fifteen years.
I think it would take longer to establish a viable third party than to wait for the old/stale/neoliberal & Third Way Dems to retire and/or die off. As you said, we need opposition now. It cannot come soon enough.
We also need a far stronger, smarter, more representative, more diverse, and less corporate media presence and participation. I vividly remember PBO’s first press conference, when his first question was to Sam Stein @ HuffPo.
Carry on. Good luck.
This article is constructed around the same forced, obtuse quote abuse employed by the Vox/HuffPo/PolitiFact crowd. It is impossible for a reasonable, clear thinking person to interpret Kelly’s remarks as anything other than including the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the product of the drug trade. Kelley may be guilty of the rhetorical extrapolation so common in his universe, but he’s not unmoored from tangible truths or reality, as is not so subtly implied here. This piece is totally unconvincing and serves little purpose other than create a clickbate headline and to work the unthinkingly indignant into a lather. Do better.
2nd, it is a true broad generalisation. Who is the dummy asking “why the southern border poses such a large threat ?” is laughable and does mot live in america!! Dingdong!!
Sp: clickbait, i do the same. ;-)
It depends on how one defines “narcoterrorism” relative to the accuracy of figures quoted. This author is defining terrorism as those who kill based on ideology, however if narcoterrorism is defined as those killed from the illegal smuggling and selling of drugs from across the border then the 1,000 deaths this author described is a joke.
Just like the lying John Kelley, you don’t understand the definition of the word narcoterrorism. Had you read the article you’d know it- using money from the drug trade to fund terrorism. This isn’t a problem with Central and South America. I’d be more worried about neo Nazis cooking meth for sale.
” Had you read the article you’d know it- using money from the drug trade to fund terrorism. ”
I think that was what the author was going for … something Muslims do. It’s part of his CFR upbringing.
I guess it would depend on what your ideology is… Does capitalism count?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh1zvsTb9_U&t=8s