Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona

[dr. mabuse]

*

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Green Light

Mexico enacted a controversial law on Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging government-financed treatment for drug dependency free of charge.

The law sets out maximum “personal use” amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution; the law goes into effect on Friday.

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory — although no penalties for noncompliance are specified.

Mexican authorities said the change only recognized the longstanding practice here of not prosecuting people caught with small amounts of drugs.

The maximum amount of marijuana considered to be for “personal use” under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four marijuana cigarettes. Other limits are half a gram of cocaine, 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams of LSD.

Under those circumstances.....my cousins would have went for their prescribed oxycodene drug treatment and then returned home to the lab to indulged in cross pollinated herbs and/or other substances ground into some Good Shit.....actually that is exactly what they did.

If they were still around and there was legal personal limit, they would still want something just a bit more and a little different than the legal limit.

Seems to be working well.

Your sarcasm is spot on.

Originally Posted by dr. mabuse

I say this respectfully without any baiting, yet many assumptions are made here.

Just some random thoughts, MOO, YMMV.

1. You'll find many interesting (!?) opinions around here from people out-of-their field on mental health topics, but let's try to enjoy it anyway, YMMV.

2. As a psychology student, you may have run across traits that are common to criminals and addicts. I recall it was impulse control and/or poor situational awareness and/or low self esteem. IMO, this is what drives the problem on both sides of the equation.

3. Just because Uncle Sam and company get involved doesn't fix the problem. It often enough makes it worse I think. Far too many variables.

4. LSD-25 trips are affected by "set" and "setting". A pleasant person in the room wearing a white lab coat assures nothing during a trip. MOO, a counselor that thinks they can completely control set and setting should find something else to do for a living. A little more study on LSD may be helpful.

5. Taking drugs out of the line-up from the drug companies? I don't believe that given the substantial $$$ at stake here, they would simply walk away. How exactly would you "take" them out of their line-up? How is that done?

6. As far as carrying out a plan, logistically speaking only, if we would cut loose the people that know how to deal with criminals in an aggressive fashion, that may help. I thought the Phoenix program worked. That's what I was told. Yes, I know, the yes-but monkeys out there will say that there are substantial legal/other issues with that type of action. I agree. I'm just sayin'.

The other side of the equation, how do you restore a healthy self esteem in people, especially those that don't want to get better.

That's the tough one. Feel free to PM me and let's take this discussion to the back of the house.

Take care.

Just some non-educated observation....

Most of the people I know or have known that have destroyed their lives with drugs have several things in common.

1. They rarely if ever received a spanking during childhood.
2. Their parents were either helicopters or non-participating
3. They spent most summers idly at the local pool, the shopping mall or the arcade
4. They were not required to work.
5. They had no hobbies besides the pool, the mall or the arcade


and when I look at the spoon fed f-ups my Oldest Daughter went to school with, they have those very same similarities.

[dr. mabuse]

*

[CombatMuffin]

Hop the fence trying to cross illegally, You should be hit with belt fed freaking FURY. No exceptions.

I also support the use of force to repel certain illegal activities entering one's country/state, but one has to be careful of excessive use of force which can lead to mistakes with heavy political consequences.

Has anyone been able to find more news on this subject? I've been looking for an update specifically on the cartel observation posts but have not been able to find anything more recent than mid-june.

Perhaps someone from Arizona has come across more recent news articles/broadcasts which I may have missed?

[GratefulCitizen]

Is Arizona actually being invaded?

Nudging the meme...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._now_when.html

In today's America, the federal government can choose to ignore a constitutional responsibility at its whim, even when it results in citizens and states being left vulnerable to foreign invasion. Adding insult to injury, the Feds impound taxes from the injured citizens for the express purpose of providing this contractual protection.

In the matter of securing our borders and dealing with illegal aliens, we have an interesting twist. Washington has long acted beyond the powers granted to it by merely assigning itself additional authority. In this instance, however, the officials in Washington are effectively waiving authority, refusing to do what they are obligated to do per the U.S. Constitution.

Yet inside "The Matrix," where the powers that be in Washington make it up as they go along, the elite ruling class and their media lackeys insist that securing our border is the strict responsibility of the federal government.

According to Eric Holder's Justice Department and U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, whether or not they do so adequately has no bearing on the matter. Regardless of the details within their respective lawsuit and rulings, the bottom line is that Washington maintains that states are powerless to take actions necessary to defend themselves, and so it is.

Someone needs to convince me that this is what the Constitution actually says.

Indeed, the U.S. government's mandate to "provide for the common defense" -- a phrase located in the Constitution's Preamble as well as Article I, Section 8 -- makes clear that the Feds bear a primary responsibility to protect us from foreign sources. Article IV, Section 4 dictates even more succinctly, "The United States ... shall protect each of them [the states] against Invasion[.]"

Obviously, the United States is not fulfilling this obligation. That is no secret. The question at hand is -- are states denied the right to defend themselves?

At least there are still a number of state attorneys general who believe so. In response to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his so-called Justice Department's suit against Arizona SB1070, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed a brief on behalf of nine states in support of Arizona's actions.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution specifies what individual states are prohibited from doing: making treaties, coining money, etc. In this section, we find the document's clause most directly pertaining to the issue: "No State shall, without the consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Though states are not at war in the classic or technical sense, they are clearly being invaded. Regardless of whether or not we consider them "at War," it would be difficult to reason that this clause prohibits a state from defending itself.

Note the use of the different forms of the word "invade" in these various passages. Surely, they must be interpreted in the same manner.

If the Feds, on one hand, maintain their authority to secure the border and prohibit illegal immigration is granted by Article IV's guarantee to "protect against invasion," then Article I makes clear that it is not their sole domain to do so. Here, states are granted the same power when "actually invaded."

Further, just how exactly shall we interpret being "invaded," or "in imminent danger" for that matter, and who shall make that determination? Most assuredly, citizens in states along our southern border (and in some states and cities, well beyond the border) have a far different opinion from Washington's.

In sum, it seems that Article I, Section 10 must explicitly provide states the right to act on their own behalf when they are being invaded, or else it does not prohibit them from doing so. The clause would be irrelevant in circumstances other than an official state of war, thus no prohibition otherwise.

This effectively leaves the federal government attempting to convince us that states are not to defend themselves while waiting indefinitely for Washington to determine if they are in "imminent danger."

If we are to accept the current federal government's interpretation on this matter, then federalism is indeed dead. If Washington is to routinely defy the contract which empowers it, where does that leave the states? If this is not a constitutional crises, then what shall we call it?

The federal government has been on a roll for decades, routinely usurping proper authority and effectively running roughshod over the entities (the states) that created it in the first place. However, there is one important component they lack. Now, more than ever, they do not have the people on their side. Poll after poll indicates that they are governing against our will.

Washington has drastically overreached, leaving itself vulnerable to a power shift, perhaps more so than at any other time in our nation's history.

Present circumstances facilitate the opportunity for states to boldly assert their powers. A substantial majority of citizens are solidly behind them on one issue after another, none more so than the issues of securing our borders and illegal immigration.

Just as Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature have thrown down the gauntlet, so it is time for the next state to step forward and take the matter to the next level. We are living in times which demand bold action. The people are not only ready for it, but they thirst for it.

This is a unique point in history. The time to force the issue of states' rights is now. State leaders have an opportunity to move this debate onto the national stage unlike ever before. Forget all the wishy-washy political calculations and analysis. Such things have long since become secondary.

Besides, not only is a state protecting itself the right thing to do, not only is it constitutional, but right now, it is a winner electorally.

[incarcerated]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...War-In-US.aspx

Media Miss Cartels' War In U.S.

OPINION
Posted 06:58 PM ET
Media: As Mexico's drug war and Arizona's bid to defend itself take center stage, the growth of cartels in Los Angeles is another leg of the story. But to know about it you need to read Spanish.

Los Angeles and its suburbs are in grave danger of becoming outposts for Mexican drug- and immigrant-smuggling cartels, according to local law enforcement officials.

"We have detected the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas," Alvin Jackson, head of the Narcotics Division of the L.A. Police Department, said in a recent interview. "They are operating on a middle and street level."

In Mexico, the Gulf and Zeta gangs are among the most violent, known for beheading opponents, setting off car bombs and shooting up border cities from Tijuana to Matamoros. In L.A., they've set up "distribution centers" not just in the slums, but also the San Fernando Valley and on the well-heeled Westside near Santa Monica.

Five other Mexican cartels — Sinaloa, Beltran-Levya, La Familia, Arellano Felix and Carillo Fuentes — also operate in L.A. They're busy recruiting gangs to carry on the same mayhem they're engaged in south of the border, Jackson said.

Steven Martinez, who heads the FBI in Los Angeles, agreed with Jackson's observations.

You'd think this would be news that merits front-page coverage in, say, the city's newspaper of record, the Los Angeles Times. But it's not. Jackson's and Martinez's assessments were reported in La Opinion, a Spanish-language daily that has no English translation.

It's not that the Times doesn't cover the cartel war in detail from Mexico. But when it comes to what's going on in Joe Friday's precincts, something that might have some relevance to its readers, the paper is derelict.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Times' near-monopoly on news in a one-newspaper town. Or maybe it's the paper's historically cozy relationship with the city's political machine, which panders to the Latino vote.

As illegal immigrants inundate the city and cartels come in behind them, the City Council declares L.A. a sanctuary city and wastes time boycotting Arizona for trying to beat back the same problems.

This is going to create serious problems down the road. L.A. District Attorney Steven Cooley told the Washington (not the L.A.) Times that gangs and drug traffickers may create gang- and cartel-controlled city governments.

It's already evident, he said, along the 710 Freeway towards the Port of Long Beach — a corridor that encompasses illegal-immigrant-majority towns such as Bell, the city whose officials were caught feathering their nests with million-dollar salary packages. The 710, by the way, has seen actual cartel shootings.

"If I was a drug dealer, and I didn't want to be interfered with, I'd move to a city where I could exploit dysfunctional city governments, corrupt the police or be left alone in a neighborhood where people are not as active in monitoring their communities," Cooley said.

Already in Cudahy, just south of Bell, Cooley says the FBI is investigating cartel-linked corruption as part of 30 ongoing corruption probes. No wonder even Mexico's president is complaining about U.S. official corruption going uninvestigated.

Meanwhile, even Hollywood is more aware of the cartel problem in Los Angeles. Locally produced TV shows such as "NCIS: Los Angeles" are incorporating cartel infiltration in city government into their L.A.-based story lines.

But at the Times, protecting the political establishment and its priorities means the growing power of the cartels will go unreported. It's a sad state of affairs when Angelenos have to rely on the ethnic press or newspapers based 3,000 miles away.

It's also ironic. Over the weekend, the Times reported that Mexican newspapers are not reporting drug-war news out of well-founded fear of retribution from cartels.

The Times seems to be practicing the same kind of self-censorship on its turf — not out of fear of gangs so much as a reluctance to cross a political establishment that is invested in unchecked illegal immigration.

[ZonieDiver]

Pinal County, AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu continues his battle against drug/immigrant smugglers (as well as the Obama administration and, it seems, his own county board of supervisors) in trying to prevent "look-outs" in the AZ desert:

http://www.kpho.com/immigration/25021842/detail.html

CBS 5 in Phoenix sent these two intrepid reporters out to the same area, it seems, to check out the story. There was a news video that was shown last night, but all I could find was this "slide show"! When the male part of the team "runs into" the "immigrant" - well, from the video and the sound, I am sure he had to change pants. Just an innocent immigrant on top of a 2500 ft peak with a cell phone and spare battery...

http://www.kpho.com/slideshow/news/25092429/detail.html

It seems there is even a name for the place... "Cartel Cave"! I think these people living in the area are pretty well fed up!

http://www.kpho.com/slideshow/news/25050864/detail.html

Move along... nothing to see here....

[ZonieDiver]

I found the video. It took them forever to post it. At about 3:35 I think the male reporter pees his pants.

It's the one called "Drug Cartel Caves"!

http://www.kpho.com/local-video/index.html

[PSM]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I found the video. It took them forever to post it. At about 3:35 I think the male reporter pees his pants.

It's the one called "Drug Cartel Caves"!

http://www.kpho.com/local-video/index.html

I find this either suspicious or stupid.

What News Director is going to send two unescorted and, perhaps, unarmed reporters out on a story in an area where Sheriff's Deputies have been shot and killed? Plus, while he is just going back to see if they missed anything, he stumbles on a Mexican who speaks English.

I worked at channels 11 and 4 in Tucson in the early 70's (in production, not news) and, at that time, even though there was little to no violence, the reporters did not cover the illegal immigration story (in the desert) unless accompanied by the Border Patrol. In the workplace, they were cleared hot.

BTW, Tammy would be tasty pickins as a hostage or...

Pat

[Richard]

Pretty funny 'news' clip - thanks for the chuckle.

Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

Here’s a little grave digging into old posts.

Some of this thread dealt with whether a governor could declare an invasion to deal with southern border problems.
We’re about to find out where that path leads.


https://www.rga.org/republican-gover...-self-defense/

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/..._1.24.2024.pdf