OBAMA’S LA RAZA PROPAGANDA, CALCULATED TO CONJOB THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO YET ANOTHER “AMNESTY” LIKE THE ONE IN 1986, AFTER WHICH TENS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS POURED OVER OUR BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS, IS “BORDER SECURITY”… Even as he has turned “HOMELAND SECURITY” into Homeland Security = Pathway to Citizenship!
OBAMA, EVER THE HISPANDERER even as unemployment soars, particularly for Black America, as well as Mexican gang violence! The Mexican drug cartels haul back $30 billion in drug money every year. The F.B.I. state the Mex cartels operate out of 233 American cities. Los Angeles is the La Raza “THE RACE” Mex capital for drugs, welfare for illegals, and anchor baby birthing! Not a word on these facts out of Obama’s big GIVE’EM AMNESTY mouth!
Obama took 400 border guards OFF the border, then an additional 200, even as he was LYING about border security! Now he’s put back 1,200 (net gain of 600), but these guards are prohibited from doing anything that protects us from the Mexican invasion!
Both Obama and La Raza Pelosi (Pelosi has long hired illegals at her St. Helena, Napa winery) both vowed the wall against NARCOMEX would never be built. Obama has stopped the construction!
Obama has sabotaged E-VERIFY, put a LA RAZA PARTY PLAYER FOR OPEN BORDERS in as head of I.C.E., refused to enforce laws prohibiting the employment of illegals, ASSAULTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF ARIZONA, while refusing to legally challenge the rights of cities all over to be “sanctuary Mexican supremacy” zones!
Obama then declared he was putting $600 million on a three thousand border with NARCOMEX, even has the Mexicans are murdering double the number the Muslims are in the dictatorships we bankroll over there.
BUT IN AFGHANISTAN, LEAD BY A CORRUPT DRUG ADDICT, WHOSE BROTHER IS A DRUG DEALER, OBAMA FINDS $1.7 BILLION TO BUILD OFFICES!
YOU DECIDE IF BARACK OBAMA IS THE MOST HISPANDERING POLITICIAN EVER!
*
CNN RECENTLY REPORTED THAT THE NUMBER OF MEX GANG MEMBERS EXCEEDS ON MILLION!
Lou Dobbs Tonight
And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.
*
EVEN AS THE MEX DRUG CARTELS POUR OVER OUR BORDERS, OBAMA HAS TAKEN HUNDREDS MORE GUARD OFF SINCE SEPT 2009! AND THE OBAMA DECLARES “BORDER SECURITY” IS THE HALLMARK OF HIS PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP!
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009
And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.
*
US to spend $1.3 billion on Afghanistan bases
By Bill Van Auken
24 August 2010
The Pentagon is embarking on a major base construction effort in Afghanistan even as Obama administration and military officials are making it clear that the US “surge” will last well past the July 11 deadline for beginning a drawdown of US troops.
The Washington Post reported Monday that the US Congress is preparing to pass legislation providing “$1.3 billion in additional fiscal 2011 funds for multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan”. These funds would cover, in part, $100 million expansions for each of three major US air bases in different parts of the country.
These projects, the Post stated, are indicative of plans “to support increased US military operations well into the future.”
A notice seeking contractor bids placed on a US government web site last week maps out plans for the expansion of one of these US bases in Shindand, an airfield in western Afghanistan that had been used by the Soviet Army during its occupation of Afghanistan more than two decades ago.
The project is to include new runways, hangars, barracks, storage areas, a “weapons arming area” and other facilities. They are being built to accommodate the Special Operations troops used by Washington to carry out “targeted killings,” i.e., assassinations, which have become a key component of the US war. They will also house a unit operating pilotless drone aircraft for purposes of “Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance” as well as missile attacks.
The request for bids states that the contract will not be issued until January of next year and that the job itself will not be completed until at least a full year after that, i.e., January 2012, six months after the deadline set by President Barack Obama for the beginning of the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.
The House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee have already approved the $1.3 billion base construction package, which is awaiting only a vote by the full Senate.
This money does not include another $5.3 billion in allocations for the construction of new facilities for the Afghan security forces, the Post reports, citing a Pentagon news release stating that most of these “enduring facilities [are] scheduled for construction over the next three to four years.”
Also to be expanded with the $1.3 billion appropriation is Camp Dwyer, a Marine base and air field in Helmand province. A Pentagon document justifying the expenditure to Congress describes the facility as “a key hub” for special forces operations in southern Afghanistan, the scene of ongoing US offensives in both Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The base is to be expanded to accommodate more helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft for expanded attacks on Afghan villages.
The third facility set for a $100 million expansion is at Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan’s fourth-largest city and the capital of Balkh province in the north. The project, the Pentagon told Congress, was needed “in order to expand major logistical and combat support operations into the region.”
Meanwhile, other major US military facilities continue to expand exponentially. Among them is the Kandahar air base just outside the city of Kandahar, which is being targeted for a major military offensive.
Last month, Time magazine published a profile of the Kandahar facility, describing it as “a small Western city in the Taliban heartland” housing some 25,000 troops and contractors. With an average of “5,000-plus military and commercial takeoffs and landings a week,” Kandahar has become “the busiest military base in the world today,” according to the report. The base’s 10-mile security perimeter requires substantial forces to patrol. Armed opposition groups have staged repeated attacks, wounding scores of military and civilian personnel over the past year.
While President Obama insisted when announcing his plans for an Afghanistan “surge” that the US had no intentions of permanently occupying the country, the base construction proposals suggest the opposite. Plans are being implemented based on the assumption that US military forces will be fighting there for years if not decades to come. This protracted war is being waged not to defeat “terrorism” or promote democracy in Afghanistan, but to secure US hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital region of Central Asia.
Even as the latest polls indicate that at least 60 percent of the US population opposes the Afghanistan war and seven out of ten do not believe it can be won, top administration and military officials made a series of statements Monday all driving home the same message: do not expect any rapid withdrawal to begin with Obama’s supposed deadline in July 2011.
Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Indianapolis Monday, Vice President Joseph Biden stressed that the US war in Afghanistan is “only beginning with the right general and the right force.”
“We are not leaving in 2011,” Biden insisted. “We are beginning the transition.”
The top US commander in charge of training Afghan security forces spoke at a Pentagon briefing Monday, stressing that this “transition” is still a long way off. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell told reporters that it would take at least another year to recruit a sufficient number of Afghan soldiers and police.
The Associated Press commented: “Caldwell’s assessment is likely to help dim hopes among Democrats that the planned US withdrawal next year will be significant in size.”
The American general spelled out the immense difficulties confronting the US occupation as it attempts to set up a viable puppet Afghan force. The military newspaper Stars and Stripes quoted him as saying that the illiteracy rate among Afghan recruits is over 85 percent and the attrition rate among some units is well over 50 percent.
“We really don’t know where they go to, to be completely honest. It’s difficult to track over here,” said Caldwell. Many of these Afghan soldiers disappear shortly after completing 17 weeks of training.
Caldwell said that to bring the Afghan security forces up to a proposed head-count of 305,000, another 56,000 recruits were needed. But, because the desertion rate is so great, it would be necessary to put another 141,000 through training. He said that the target date for meeting this goal was October 2011.
Asked how this October 2011 goal squared with the July 2011 deadline set by Obama, Caldwell stressed that the Afghan forces would not be able to operate independently any time soon. “We have not even finished building the Afghan National Army or the police force or the air force, at this point,” he said. He added that for Afghan troops to operate on their own, “key enablers,” including logistics, maintenance, transportation, and intelligence units would have to be in place. “None of those organizations have been built and brought online,” he said.
The top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, gave an interview in Kabul to the BBC Monday stressing that the July 2011 deadline would not be a fundamental turning point. “That’s a date when a process begins—nothing more, nothing less,” said Petraeus. “It is not the date when the American forces begin an exodus and look for the exit and the light to turn off on the way out of the room.”
The general continued: “It’s a date when the process of transition of some tasks to some Afghanistan forces—in those areas where conditions allow it, and at a pace allowed by the conditions—that’s what begins then.”
Petraeus’ comments were the latest in a series of media appearances in which he emphasized that any US troop drawdown would depend on military “conditions on the ground.”
The general has coupled the clear warning that the Afghanistan “surge” will continue well after next July with claims of progress in the US war against the Afghan resistance. He told the BBC that “the momentum that the Taliban have established over the course of recent years has been reversed in many areas of the country.”
In the face of continuing high casualties, he added, “It gets harder before it gets easier.” Four US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Sunday and another four NATO troops, one of them reportedly American, were killed on Monday.
Petraeus’ feigned optimism notwithstanding, the crisis and contradictions confronting the US occupation appear to be deepening.
Over the weekend, Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated his order banning the operation of private security contractors inside the country, giving them four months to leave.
In an interview on ABC Television’s “This Week” program, Karzai charged that the contractors were destabilizing the country by “running a parallel security structure to the Afghan government.” He accused the contractors of “looting and stealing from the Afghan people” and “causing a lot of harassment to our civilians.”
The “surge” of private security contractors into the country has paralleled that of the US military. Contractors now outnumber US troops in Afghanistan.
Directed by US mercenaries, the security contractors employ as many 50,000 Afghans. They have been accused of killing Afghans with impunity as well as making payoffs to the Taliban and other armed anti-government groups to protect convoys bringing supplies to US forces from attack.
The Defense Department employs some 17,000 private security contractors in the country, a five-fold increase in their number since the beginning of 2009. The State Department employs thousands more.
Karzai said that he would exempt from his order those security contractors “providing protection to embassies and to aid organizations within their compounds and who escort diplomats or representatives of foreign governments in Afghanistan from place to place.” He himself is guarded by private mercenaries.
Last June, the State Department signed a $120 million contract with the notorious Blackwater group, now rebranded as Xe Services, to provide protection for its regional offices in Afghanistan, while the CIA signed a $100 million deal with the company to provide security at its Kabul station.
The firm earned international infamy after its mercenaries massacred 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007 in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.
The State Department announced Monday that it had reached an administrative settlement with Blackwater under which the company will pay a $42 million penalty for violating hundreds of export rules over the past seven years, including making illegal arms shipments to Afghanistan. Two former Blackwater mercenaries still face federal murder charges for killing two Afghans civilians. Several former company executives have been indicted on criminal charges.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
INVESTORS.com
Amnesty In Disguise
Posted 08/10/2010 06:51 PM ET
Border: After suing Arizona to assert federal supremacy over states on immigration, it turns out that ICE, Washington's immigration cop on the beat, isn't enforcing the law at all. This is amnesty by another name.
Oh, what a hullabaloo the Justice Department made last month over Arizona's SB 1070, arguing before a federal district judge that the law must be struck down because the federal government has "pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters."
Arizona's effort was depicted as some sort of secessionist usurpation of federal prerogatives, despite the fact that SB 1070 mirrored federal law.
Incredibly, Judge Susan Bolton, an appointee of President Clinton, agreed and issued an injunction on those grounds.
In practical terms, her decision means that Arizona's 15,000 lawmen could not help federal agents enforce the law on America's largest and most dangerous immigrant-smuggling corridor.
Now it's obvious why: The Justice Department isn't interested in enforcing the law.
Last week, 259 representatives of the union that represents 7,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents handed down a unanimous vote of "no confidence" in ICE leaders, whose policies keep them from doing their job.
Based on those policies, agents can no longer arrest illegal immigrants even if they announce their status on a sandwich board.
According to a June 29 memo from ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton, ICE must now "prioritize the apprehension and removal of aliens who only pose a threat to national security and/or public safety, such as criminals and terrorists."
Given that all police agencies look for such targets, such a premise is absurd. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, after all, was arrested by a traffic cop, not a fancy anti-terror strike force, in 1995.
And aside from wondering why terrorists are being released at all across a border they'll have no trouble recrossing, Morton's policy effectively means no one is looking for illegal immigrants once they make it past the Border Patrol.
This is taking pick-and-choose law enforcement to an extreme and runs counter to best police practices, such as James Q. Wilson's "broken window" theory of criminology. This holds that enforcement against minor crimes in an area helps prevent an escalation into more serious crime.
ICE's Morton claims the agency has limited resources, so it can deport only 400,000 illegal immigrants a year. From a government agency with a $2.6 billion detention and removal budget, that comes to about $6,500 per deportee, a de facto statement of government inefficiency and waste. And it affects only 4% of all illegal border-crossers.
*
Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration
By: Heather Mac Donald
OpEd Contributor
August 4, 2010
The real motivation for the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration statute was the only one not mentioned in the department's brief: The Obama administration has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country.
It is that policy alone which conflicts with SB 1070: Arizona wants to enforce the law; the Obama administration does not. Reasonable minds can differ on whether that conflict puts Arizona in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
But what is indisputable is that the failure of the federal government to openly acknowledge the real ground for its opposition to SB 1070 has rendered incoherent not just its own public arguments against the law, but the judicial ruling which largely rubber stamps those arguments as well.
The Arizona statute affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff's deputy to inquire into someone's immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.
Both the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in striking down most of SB 1070, couched their opposition to the statute exclusively in terms of its effect on legal, as opposed to illegal, aliens. SB 1070, Judge Bolton wrote, would impermissibly burden legal immigrants already in the country by subjecting them to unwarranted immigration checks.
There are two problems with this line of argument: First, it ignores the fact that Congress has already anticipated and approved precisely the sort of local immigration inquiries that Judge Bolton now finds unconstitutional. Second, the argument would make all immigration enforcement impossible.
In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary policies, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from working with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the "apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens."
In pursuance of that mandate, the federal government operates an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide just the sort of immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials that SB 1070 seeks.
It is therefore absurd to now claim, as Judge Bolton and the Obama Administration do, that such local inquiries conflict with the federal immigration scheme. It is even more absurd to argue that the risk that a legal alien will be questioned about his immigration status makes the alleged conflict unconstitutional.
Any immigration enforcement carries the possibility that a legal alien or U.S. citizen will be stopped and questioned. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people for questioning applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.)
If Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have revoked the 1952 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.
Such unpersuasive reasoning suggests that something else is going on. That something is the fact that SB 1070 would have put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of repeatedly telling Arizona's law enforcement officers that it is not interested in detaining or deporting the illegal aliens that they have encountered in the course of their duties; the law, in other words, would have exposed the administration's de facto amnesty policy.
And SB 1070 would have shown that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Even before it went into operation, the Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports.
Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department's brief or from Judge Bolton's opinion. Despite this studied avoidance, it's time to have a public debate about how much immigration enforcement this country wants and which enforcement policies--the administration's or Arizona's -- best represent the public will.
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and co-author of The
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/White-House-doesn_t-want-to-enforce-immigration-1007060-99891419.html#ixzz0w8gI2nha
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
FAIRUS.org
JUDICIALWATCH.org
ALIPAC.us
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”
*
“THE AMNESTY ALONE WILL BE THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 25 YEARS” Heritage Foundation
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year." (SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA ALONE ARE NOT UP TO $20 BILLION PER YEAR. WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN NEVADA, NOW 25% ILLEGAL, IS SOARING!)
*
FAIRUS.org
U.S. Taxpayers Spend $113 Billion Annually on Illegal Aliens
America has never been able to afford the costs of illegal immigration. With rising unemployment and skyrocketing deficits, federal and state lawmakers are now facing the results of failed policies. A new, groundbreaking report from FAIR, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, takes a comprehensive look at the estimated fiscal costs resulting from federal, state and local expenditures on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.
Expanding upon the series of state studies done in the past, FAIR has estimated the annual cost of illegal immigration to be $113 billion, with much of the cost — $84.2 billon — coming at the state and local level.
*
FAIRUS.org
The Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy
According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department.
By Ira Mehlman
Published on 12/07/2009
Townhall.com
The setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a “Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing. Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States.
Arguing the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”
Acknowledging that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.
“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight, she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”
If Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.
According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the same 894 miles.
The administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between 2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments, and won 63 percent fewer convictions.
While the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers willing to accept substandard wages.
In Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under “effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything, the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re printed on.
As Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy, they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.
As Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this administration is “Mission Aborted.”
*
Mexican drug gangs 'spread to every region of US'
Mexican heroin production is growing
Mexican drug gangs have expanded their activities in the US with heroin production doubling in 2008, the US justice department says in a report.
Despite US funding for the war on drugs, trade in marijuana, ecstasy and methamphetamine also grew, the National Drug Threat Assessment said.
The report found that Mexican groups were active in every region of the US.
Gangs were moving an estimated $40bn (£27bn) in cash back into Mexico across the border each year, it added.
Mexico has long been the main conduit for illicit drugs smuggled into the US but this report suggests that the efforts to halt the flow on both sides of the border have had only a limited impact, the BBC's Richard Lister reports from Washington.
In 2007 the US pledged $1.4bn (£0.9bn) over three years to fight the drugs cartels but the following year heroin production in Mexico rose from 17 to 38 metric tons.
This, the report says, led to lower heroin prices and more overdose deaths in the US.
Network growth
The report found that Mexican heroin was poised to take a "more significant share" of the market in US cities where South American heroin has traditionally dominated.
For Asian heroin, the US continued to be a secondary market, it said.
The assessment says that Mexican drug suppliers have increased their co-operation with American street and prison gangs to expand their distribution networks.
Speaking in Mexico City earlier this week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for more efforts to tackle the social issues such as poverty that fuel the drugs trade.
Mexico, which has some 50,000 troops engaged against the cartels, has suggested that American money and equipment has not arrived quickly enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment