Wednesday, November 28, 2018

OPIOID AMERICA: A Nation Slowly Dies A Death

Opioid Nation



by Barry Meier
Random House, 223 pp., $27.00

Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company That Addicted America

by Beth Macy
Little, Brown, 376 pp., $28.00

American Overdose: The Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts

by Chris McGreal
PublicAffairs, 316 pp., $27.00
Jerome Sessini/Magnum Photos
A man who has just taken heroin, Philadelphia, April 2018
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, up from some 64,000 the previous year and 52,000 the year before that—a staggering increase with no end in sight. Most involved opioids.
A few definitions are in order. The term opioid is now used to include opiates, which are derivatives of the opium poppy, and opioids, which originally referred only to synthesized drugs that act in the same way as opiates do. Opium, the sap from the poppy, has been used throughout the world for thousands of years to treat pain and shortness of breath, suppress cough and diarrhea, and, maybe most often, simply for its tranquilizing effect. The active constituent of opium, morphine, was not identified until 1806. Soon a variety of morphine tinctures became readily available without any social opprobrium, used, in some accounts, to combat the travails and boredom of Victorian women. (Thomas Jefferson was also an enthusiast of laudanum, one of the morphine tinctures.) Heroin, a stronger opiate made from morphine, entered the market later in the nineteenth century. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that synthetic or partially synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone (Percocet), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and hydromorphone (Dilaudid), were developed.
In 1996 a new form of oxycodone called OxyContin came on the market, and three recent books—Beth Macy’s Dopesick, Chris McGreal’s American Overdose, and Barry Meier’s Pain Killer—blame the opioid epidemic almost entirely on its maker, Purdue Pharma. OxyContin is formulated to be released more slowly and therefore lasts longer. The company claimed that the drug’s slow release would make it less addictive than ordinary oxycodone, since the initial euphoria—the high—would be muted. Based on this theory and little else, the FDA permitted OxyContin to contain twice the usual dose of oxycodone and carry on the label this statement: “Delayed absorption, as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.” (The FDAofficial who oversaw OxyContin’s approval later got a plum job at Purdue Pharma.)
The company launched an extraordinarily aggressive and successful marketing campaign to convince physicians that they had the holy grail of a nonaddictive opioid. It sent hundreds of sales representatives to doctors’ offices to tout OxyContin, and offered doctors dinners and trips to meetings at luxury resorts. And it paid more than five thousand doctors, pharmacists, and nurses to train as speakers to tour the country promoting OxyContin. But like all opioids, OxyContin is addictive. And soon enough, users found that they could crush the pills or dissolve the coating, then snort the drug like cocaine or inject it like heroin. Each pill would then become essentially an instantaneous double dose of oxycodone.
OxyContin almost immediately became a blockbuster—that is, a prescription drug with annual sales of more than $1 billion. It was widely used not just by those for whom the prescriptions were written, but by their relatives and friends. The pills were also sold or stolen or otherwise diverted to street use. In addition, “pill mills” sprang up, where unethical physicians wrote innumerable prescriptions for OxyContin and refilled them automatically without ever seeing the patient. McGreal describes “one of the most productive pill mills in the country,” which operated in the small town of Williamson, West Virginia—known locally as “Pilliamson.” The town, he says, “was awash in pills,” and people came by car and bus to line up at the clinic and cooperating drugstores. “Investigators calculated that in 2009 alone, the clinic pulled in $4.6 million in a town with a population of little more than three thousand people.”
It’s impossible to know how many new prescriptions were obtained in each of these ways, but one way or another, OxyContin addiction grew into an epidemic. The epicenter was central Appalachia, and its victims were mainly white people in small, economically depressed coal-mining communities in southern West Virginia and parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia.1
The three books that focus on Purdue Pharma are in a sense the same book. Barry Meier first published Pain Killer in 2003. The new edition (released by a different publisher) is much the same, with some updating and re-arrangements. The two new books, Dopesick and American Overdose, cover the same story as it unfolded in the same region of the country. Both Macy and McGreal refer to the 2003 edition of Meier’s book (but not the new edition, probably because they could not have known of it at the time their books were written). All three books are gripping and well written, with detailed accounts, one after another (perhaps too many), of families decimated by the epidemic. And they all tell the story of Art Van Zee, a physician in southwestern Virginia, who in 2000 became aware of the growing epidemic of OxyContin there and tried heroically to get Purdue Pharma and the FDA to take responsibility for it.
Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family that founded it are very hard to defend. By aggressively marketing OxyContin, even after they knew it was being widely abused, the family became enormously wealthy. But the FDA was also guilty. It permitted OxyContin to be sold as a relatively nonaddictive opioid without good evidence to support that claim, and it should have been obvious that the pills might be crushed or dissolved to make them even more addictive. Van Zee, along with Beth Davies, a nun who ran the local substance abuse clinic, saw Lee County, Virginia, blanketed with OxyContin prescriptions and watched the deaths mount, particularly among young people. They informed Purdue, which simply stonewalled. Over the following year, Van Zee devoted himself completely to the cause, meeting with company and FDAofficials and testifying before a Senate committee, trying to get Purdue to reformulate the drug or even withdraw it from the market.
In 2007 Purdue pled guilty to criminal charges of fraudulently marketing OxyContin and settled for $600 million in fines and penalties. Three executives pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and were sentenced to four hundred hours of community service and lesser fines. The company’s fine was trivial in comparison with its profits from OxyContin. In fact, almost every other major pharmaceutical company has had to settle both civil and criminal charges of fraudulent marketing for much more (the record settlement is now GlaxoSmithKline’s $3 billion, for a variety of violations, including falsely promoting drugs and failing to report safety data). These kinds of fines are just the cost of doing business. And so it was for Purdue Pharma, although the fraudulent marketing stopped and a warning was added to the label.
The problem with these three books, and it’s a big one, is that they treat the Purdue story as though it were the whole story of the opioid epidemic. But OxyContin did not give rise to opioid addiction, although it jump-started the current epidemic. Heroin has been a common street drug ever since it was banned in 1924. Morphine has also been widely abused.
Nor would taking OxyContin off the market end the epidemic. The overwhelming majority of opioid deaths are caused not by OxyContin but by combinations of fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine, often brought in from China via Mexican cartels, and frequently taken along with benzodiazepines (such as Valium or Xanax) and alcohol. These drugs are cheaper and stronger, particularly fentanyl. Fentanyl was first synthesized in 1960, and soon became widely used as an anesthetic and powerful painkiller. It is legally manufactured and highly effective when used appropriately, often for short medical procedures such as colonoscopies. The illicit production and street use is relatively new, but it is now the main cause of most opioid-related deaths (nearly 90 percent in Massachusetts).
The steady increase in opioid deaths after OxyContin came on the market has been supplanted by a much faster increase starting around 2013, when heroin and fentanyl use increased dramatically. We now have two epidemics—the overuse of prescription drugs and the much more deadly and now largely unrelated epidemic of street drugs. By concentrating on the first, we are closing the barn door after the horse is long gone.
Efforts to deal with the epidemic have been all over the map—literally. Possession of illegal drugs (and legal drugs illicitly used) is still a federal crime, and prisons are still full of people whose only crime was that. But many states, counties, and cities have begun to regard opioid addiction as a public health issue, not a police issue. They are opening centers in which people who seek help are shifted to less powerful opioids like methadone and buprenorphine (Subutex)—a method known as “medication-assisted treatment,” or MAT. Naloxone (Narcan), the antidote for an opioid overdose, is now sold over the counter in almost all states. If used immediately, it can prevent an otherwise inevitable death from a drug overdose. And drug courts, which may drop criminal charges in return for an agreement to submit to treatment and monitoring, are becoming more common.
Nan Goldin/Marian Goodman Gallery
Nan Goldin: Withdrawal/Quicksand, Berlin/NY, February 2016, 2016
Most controversial are facilities called “safe injection sites,” or SIFs, where drug users can come to use drugs without fear of arrest. The staff provides clean needles to reduce the risk of HIV and hepatitis C infections, and is prepared to resuscitate addicts who overdose. This approach is called “harm reduction.” The problem is that addicts must still buy drugs illegally, and it’s almost impossible to know exactly what is in them.
In a recent New York Times Op-Ed, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, came down hard on SIFs. He warned that “it is a federal felony to maintain any location for the purpose of facilitating illicit drug use,” and that “cities and counties should expect the Department of Justice to meet the opening of any injection site with swift and aggressive action.” He was referring to plans to operate SIFs in San Francisco, New York City, and Seattle, and similar options now being considered by Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Later in the same article, however, he softened, saying we should “help drug users get treatment and aggressively prosecute criminals who supply the deadly poison,” suggesting that perhaps he doesn’t believe simple possession is so bad, after all.
But the proposed solutions to this epidemic range from the extreme of “lock ’em up” to “drug abuse is no less a disease than cancer or diabetes” and should therefore be met with the same solicitude. Ryan Hampton exemplifies the latter view in his angry book, American Fix. A former drug user himself and now an impassioned advocate and activist, he insists that drug abuse should be regarded like other diseases. He doesn’t acknowledge that for most users there was a moment of choice in becoming addicted that is not the case for people with cancer or diabetes. After receiving Dilaudid for a painful ankle, Hampton decided to ask for more, and then more. I think one can make the argument for sympathy with drug users and for understanding how the quest for drugs ceases to be under their control without claiming an analogy to diseases like cancer or diabetes.
Hampton paints a vivid picture of the downward spiral of addiction. When he “leveled up to IV heroin,” he explains, “it was cheaper than pills, easier to get hold of, and a quarter the cost. More important, nobody was tracking us in a database.”
Where Hampton is at his best is in his exposure of the profiteering and corruption in the burgeoning addiction industry—what he calls “the treatment industry swamp.” In the swamp, he found
lack of effective treatment, exorbitant costs, and ridiculous twenty-eight-day vacations disguised as medical help, fed by patient brokers who run a completely legal, high-end human trafficking cartel to push tens of thousands of patients through the broken system.
He was referring to the panoply of treatment centers, both residential and outpatient, and detox facilities, where users are supposed to be weaned from drugs before entering “sober living houses.” As in so much of American medicine, even nonprofit insurers like Medicaid outsource the actual delivery of care to for-profit companies that charge whatever the market will bear. According to Hampton, “one of the most expensive treatment centers in America, Passages Malibu, costs more than $60,000 per month.” Costs are settled by a crazy quilt of payers, including state and local governments, Medicaid, other federal programs, private insurers, and often by desperate families. Not surprisingly, only a minority of users are ever treated.
In 2017 the Aspen Institute’s Health Strategy Group, led by two former secretaries of health and human services, Tommy Thompson and Kathleen Sebelius, and consisting of twenty-four members from various health-related fields (I am among them), met for three days to examine the opioid epidemic. The deliberations were preceded by four presentations by experts in the field. In the final broad and comprehensive report, the group made a strong case for decriminalizing drug addiction and instead regarding it as a public health issue. Among the five major recommendations was a call for more research into nearly all aspects of the epidemic. It’s startling how little we know, given the immensity of the problem and the media attention it receives.2
We need to know, for instance, how effective opioids are for different kinds of pain, including long-term treatment for chronic pain. We need to know how opioids compare in effectiveness and side effects with acetaminophen (which can cause liver failure) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen (which can cause gastrointestinal bleeding). We need to know how the death rate in the opioid epidemic compares with the rate of use. We know the death rate is soaring, but does that mean the rate of use is, too, or is it simply a result of the lethality of the drug mixtures obtained on the street? We need to know how much diversion there is now from legitimate treatment to abuse. That includes diversion of methadone and buprenorphine, which are also opioids and can be sold on the street or added to the user’s illicit intake. According to Macy, “Buprenorphine is the third-most-diverted opioid in the country, after oxycodone and hydrocodone.”
We need to know how many addicts want to quit, since most don’t seek treatment. Why don’t they? And finally, we need to know the best approach to treatment. There is concern, for example, that detox might be dangerous, because the first dose after a relapse can be deadly if the user is no longer tolerant to the drug’s effects. Is providing methadone or buprenorphine indefinitely, even for life, the best treatment among bad choices? There is plenty of speculation about all of these questions, and suggestive findings about some of them, but little solid evidence.
We also need to remember an essential and crucial fact: opioids do have a legitimate purpose, and it’s an enormously important one. They treat severe pain, often when no other treatment is effective. Patients suffering from cancer are sometimes completely dependent on opioids for relief, as are some patients with other forms of severe pain. As the authors of the books acknowledge, pain was systematically undertreated throughout most of the twentieth century. After centuries of free and easy use of opioids, there was a sudden reaction in the United States at the start of the twentieth century, which had much to do with anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly animus toward Chinese immigrants who were widely assumed to be opium addicts. (It also paralleled the growing reaction against alcohol that resulted in Prohibition.) The 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act imposed strict regulations on the use of opioids; they had to be prescribed by physicians, and then only for patients not already taking them. Prohibition lasted for only thirteen years, but the dread of opioid addiction stayed with us until the 1980s and caused cruel suffering for generations of patients.
Even in hospitals where cancer patients lay dying in agony, opioids were administered reluctantly, in small doses, and at infrequent intervals. When I was in training in a teaching hospital in the 1960s, there was an awful ritual to it. The drugs were administered according to a pro re nata (prn) regimen (ostensibly “as needed”) that required the patient to wait out a four-hour interval, no matter how severe the pain, and then request the next dose. Those who badly wanted the drug had to keep track of the time and have the strength and endurance to summon a nurse if one was nearby. Patients were sometimes inhibited in asking for the next dose by a desire to please the medical staff and not be a nuisance, or by their own belief that taking morphine was somehow wrong or reflected weakness. The extent to which nurses and physicians shared the common fears of addiction influenced their readiness to respond. Desperate patients would count the minutes toward the end of the interval, hoping they could flag down a nurse. Many doctors and nurses interpreted the anxiety and clock-watching as a sign of growing addiction, not inadequate pain relief. These patients were labeled “drug-seeking” and often punished for it by being denied the very help they needed.
During the 1980s there was a welcome change in that attitude, partly due to the hospice movement that had begun in the United Kingdom. The prn system became more flexible, or was eliminated altogether. There was a realization that because pain is entirely subjective, there is no way to measure or verify it, and even patients with the same condition could differ in their experience of pain. Instead of having to flag down nurses, patients were asked at shorter intervals whether they needed pain relief, and how much. In 2001 the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations proclaimed pain the fifth vital sign, to be assessed in every patient, along with heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, and blood pressure. Although the motivation for this move was laudable, it presented problems, since, unlike the other four vital signs, pain can’t be objectively quantified.
The authors of the books under review recognize the history of inadequate treatment of pain throughout most of the twentieth century, but they don’t give it its due. They concentrate instead on the reaction of the 1980s, which they consider excessive and an underlying cause of the opioid epidemic. In 1982 I wrote an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, which began, “Few things a doctor does are more important than relieving pain.” I still believe that. I ended with these words: “Pain is soul-destroying. No patients should have to endure intense pain unnecessarily. The quality of mercy is essential to the practice of medicine; here, of all places, it should not be strained.”
The opioid epidemic, while horrifying, is still outweighed by alcohol deaths, which are also increasing, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Hampton writes, “If my first drug of choice came with a prescription, the second one, alcohol, was culturally embedded and used to celebrate at every turn of events.” In 2016, when there were 64,000 deaths in the US from the drug epidemic, there were 90,000 from alcohol (including accidents and homicides caused by inebriated people, as well as direct effects, mainly cirrhosis of the liver). Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause 480,000 deaths a year. I do not intend to minimize the opioid epidemic. Far from it. What I want to underscore is the differences in these three epidemics. Alcohol and cigarettes have no medical or practical uses of any kind. Yet we permit their use if regulated. In contrast, opioids do have medical uses, and they are important.
The opioid epidemic is usually seen as a supply problem. If we can interdict the supply of prescription opioids, the thinking goes, we can stanch the epidemic. But that is unlikely to work for two reasons. First, as I pointed out, this is no longer mainly an epidemic of prescription drugs but of street drugs. And second, it creates an onerous obstacle for doctors and outpatients who require pain treatment. More and more, they have to satisfy regulations expressly designed to restrict access to prescription opioids. Some make sense. For example, it’s reasonable to monitor opioid prescriptions to detect pill mills. It’s also reasonable to flag users who “doctor-shop,” that is, see several doctors at once to try to get multiple doses of opioids.
But other requirements are meant simply to inconvenience both doctors and patients until they give up. For example, in Massachusetts doctors must limit their first-time opioid prescriptions to seven days. That can be more than an inconvenience for ill patients in pain. Macy quotes a letter from a friend with severe back pain from scoliosis. “‘My life is not less important than that of an addict,’ my friend wrote,…explaining that her new practitioner requires her to submit to pill counts, lower-dose prescriptions, and more frequent visits for refills, which increase her out-of-pocket expense.” Even more serious is a new shortage of opioids for injection in cancer centers.
For physicians, who are already weighed down by innumerable bureaucratic requirements, these restrictions present one more hoop to jump through, and many simply won’t do it. Instead, they’ll send the patient away with some Advil and hope it does the trick, even though they know it probably won’t. The regulations are having their intended effect. In Massachusetts, opioid prescribing has decreased by 30 percent. Meanwhile, the epidemic of street drugs continues apace. McGreal raises the possibility that reducing access to prescription opioids might feed the demand for heroin. Macy quotes an addiction specialist who laments that “our wacky culture can’t seem to do anything in a nuanced way.”
I believe the modern opioid epidemic is now more a demand problem than a supply problem. Three years ago, the Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton published an explosive paper about the surprising rise in mortality, starting at the turn of this century, among middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women. The increase was greater in women than in men. They found three main causes: drug and alcohol overdoses, suicide, and alcohol-associated liver disease. They later called these “deaths of despair,” because they were most common among workers in tenuous jobs, with only a high school education or less, who were struggling to stay afloat in isolated regions of the country. Dragged down by these deaths, in the past three years overall life expectancy in the United States has started to drop.
It’s not hard to see reasons for the despair. Most working-class Americans have not benefited from our booming economy, the fruits of which have gone almost entirely to the richest 10 percent. For the bottom half of the population, income has scarcely budged since the 1970s, while expenses for necessities like housing, health care, education, and child care have skyrocketed. In Appalachia, where the opioid epidemic first took hold, many coal miners were unemployed and would probably remain so. People expected they wouldn’t live as well as their parents had, and had little hope for their children. It is true that African-Americans still have higher overall mortality rates than whites, but that gap is closing rapidly for people under the age of sixty-five, particularly for women. By 2027, white women will have higher mortality rates than African-American women. Mortality for African-American men is falling even faster than for African-American women; it is projected to be equal to that of white men by 2030. But the epidemic has extended to all parts of the country and to all ethnic groups, so it’s unclear how the effects will be distributed in the future.
By the middle of this decade, the grotesque inequality in this country began to get the attention it deserves. And the growing awareness of that inequality fed the populist passion that, when twisted and distorted, produced the election of Donald J. Trump. It’s probably not coincidental, then, that the opioid epidemic got its second wind at about that time. It certainly marks the time when the opioids of choice changed from prescription drugs to the witches’ brew of street drugs. Did the epidemic explode because people were becoming aware that the American Dream was no longer theirs to dream?
As long as this country tolerates the chasm between the rich and the poor, and fails even to pretend to provide for the most basic needs of our citizens, such as health care, education, and child care, some people will want to use drugs to escape. This increasingly seems to me not a legal or medical problem, nor even a public health problem. It’s a political problem. We need a government dedicated to policies that will narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and ensure basic services for everyone. To end the epidemic of deaths of despair, we need to target the sources of the despair.


he Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with foreign labor. That process spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.


OPIOID AMERICA: CHINA AND MEXICO PARTNER TO ADDICT AMERICA

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-opioid-war-on-america-chin

 OPIOID MURDERS BY BIG PHARMA


“While drug distributors have paid a total of $400 million in fines over the past 10 years, their combined revenue during this same period was over $5 trillion.”

“Opioids have ravaged families and devastated communities across the country. Encouraging their open use undermines the rule of law and will do nothing to quell their continued abuse, let alone the problems underlying mass addiction.”

Hayward: Fentanyl Is the Real Chemical Weapon Attack at the U.S. Border



Firefighters assess the health of a 35-year-old man who overdosed on heroin in Manchester, in the northeastern US state of New Hampshire
AFP/Don EMMERT
 176
6:19

The left is shrieking about President Donald Trump committing “war crimes” at the border by using tear gas to disperse a mob of violent migrants, while the media try very hard to keep anyone from remembering the sainted Barack Obama repeatedly did the same thing. All of these hysterics are curiously silent about thereal chemical weapons attack perpetrated at the U.S. border: the fentanyl epidemic.

Fentanyl is a powerful and deadly synthetic drug often mixed with other street drugs to make them more potent. It is largely manufactured in China and pushed across the porous southern border into the United States by Central and South American gangs. It kills tens of thousands of Americans every year.
Fentanyl is incredibly dangerous because of its potency, the poor quality control of the labs that make it, its tendency to induce respiratory failure, and its resistance to the emergency antidotes carried by first responders. Its potency makes it highly portable and its ever-changing formula makes it difficult for law enforcement to detect.
The Centers for Disease Control counted 72,000 overdose deaths last year. Fentanyl is believed to have played a role in nearly half of them nationwide, with much higher percentages in hot spots like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Ohio. The CDC releaseda study in March that found fentanyl and similar synthetics are driving the increase in overdose deaths. The death rate from synthetics “more than doubled,” while overdose deaths from prescription opioids rose by 10.6 percent.
Media coverage and government policy for the opioid crisis is heavily focused on prescription drugs and their deep-pocketed, settlement-prone manufacturers and distributors, but the difference between a 10.6 percent increase in mortality rates and a surge of over 100 percent is stark. Fentanyl is by far the worst killer, followed by two other increasingly popular street drugs, cocaine and heroin, whose mortality rates increased by 52.4 percent and 19.5 percent respectively. Fentanyl passed other opioids as the most common cause of overdose deaths in 2016, and possibly even before that, since the exact type of drug involved in an OD is not always recorded on death certificates.
This is not just an American problem. Fentanyl was fingered as the primary culprit behind a 29 percent rise in overdose deaths in the United Kingdom last year. While fentanyl is seen as a relatively small part of the continental European illegal drug market, it still managed to kill at least 250 people there over the past two years, and there could be more uncounted deaths because European gangs have a habit of selling fentanyl disguised as prescription pain medication or heroin.
Fentanyl is so dangerous because it gets mixed into everything else by ambitious street dealers looking to juice up their products with a cheap and powerful additive. When a federal raid in October seized about 25 pounds of fentanyl from a drug ring in Lawrence, Massachusetts, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling remarked it was enough fentanyl to “kill half the state.” The Ohio Attorney General figured 20 pounds of fentanyl seized in June could have caused four million fatalities. When state troopers bagged 118 pounds of fentanyl in May, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration calculated it was enough to kill over 26 million people.
“Fentanyl has taken over as the drug that is killing people here. When we go to a death scene and you still see the needle in the arm, we know it was fentanyl because it works that quick,” Madison County coroner Stephen Nonn said on Monday of the record-setting carnage in St. Louis.
Fentanyl is held responsible for a stunning 95 percent of the overdose deaths in St. Louis. “There really is no pure heroin in St. Louis anymore,” Brandon Costerison of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse remarked. “We don’t know if folks are intentionally knowing that this is adulterated, or if it’s a lack of quality control on dealers contaminating stimulants with a very, very potent opioid.”
Few militarized chemical weapons could claim to be more lethal, pound for pound, and none of them have been deployed against civilian populations on the scale of fentanyl. The worst chemical weapons attack in Syria killed 1,500 people at most. The chemical attacksthat drew U.S. military action against the Syrian regime under President Trump killed several dozen civilians each. Fentanyl beats the Syrian dictatorship’s total nerve gas body count almost every week. A suitcase full of fentanyl is every bit as dangerous as the fabled “suitcase nukes” terrorists have thankfully failed to develop so far. Batches of heroin laced with too much fentanyl detonate like bombs and fill emergency rooms with corpses harvested from just a few city blocks.
“Even when you think you’re doing better, all it takes is one bad batch of fentanyl in any state and you’re going to have deaths,” Vermont health commissioner Mark Levine toldthe New York Times in August.
“The penetration of fentanyl into more heroin markets may explain recent increases in overdose deaths among older, urban black Americans; those who used heroin before the recent changes to the drug supply might be unprepared for the strength of the new mixtures,” the Times speculated, quoting experts who also feared a coming wave of deaths in the West from fentanyl mixed with black tar heroin.
Politicians and reporters paint the opioid crisis as a singular tragedy that began unfolding around the turn of the millennium, but addiction experts view it as three fairly distinct “waves,” beginning with a decade-long prescription drug abuse crisis that began subsiding in 2010, followed by a spike in heroin deaths until 2013, when fentanyl took over as the Grim Reaper. No one would argue that prescription opioids and heroin have ceased to be a problem, but fentanyl and its fellow synthetics are the big killers right now.
Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review pictures the fentanyl crisis as a chemical weapons attack carried out by Chinese labs and drug cartel distributors against American civilians. He finds it no coincidence that the deadly third wave of the opioid crisis began after President Barack Obama’s “child migrant” surge of 2013-2015 swept gangs like MS-13 across the border and created the distribution network for fentanyl. He warns that loose immigration policy and prison reforms that could release a swarm of imprisoned dealers back onto the streets will only make the situation worse.
Is there a scrap of empirical evidence to prove this analysis wrong? On the contrary, skeptics keep catching government agencies manufacturing statistics to conceal the true lethality of imported street drugs and keep the focus on pharmaceuticals. Drug deaths are climbing despite enormous reductions in the prescription of opioids at the very painful expense of people who truly need them to combat chronic illness.
The spectacle of open-borders extremists portraying the use of tear gas to disperse riots at the border as “chemical warfare” is utterly grotesque when the real weapon of mass destruction is flowing north into American cities. Perhaps our friends on the left could take a moment away from their theatrical support of illegal aliens and spare a little of their vaunted compassion for the countless U.S. citizens murdered by fentanyl.

A NATION DIES OF OPIOID ADDICTION

AMERICAN BIG PHARMA, RED CHINA and NARCOMEX PARTNER FOR THE BIG BUCKS

“The drug epidemic is the product of capitalism and the policies of the capitalist parties, both Democrats and Republicans. There is, first of all, the role of the pharmaceutical companies, which have amassed huge profits from the deceptive marketing of opioid pain killers, which they claimed were not addictive. Prescriptions for opioids such as Percocet, Oxycontin and Vicodin skyrocketed from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 259 million in 2012. What are the numbers and profits now?

STARING IN THE FACE of AMERICA’S UNRAVELING and the ROAD TO REVOLUTION

It will more likely come on the heels of economic dislocation and dwindling wealth to redistribute.”
 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” -- Karen McQuillan  THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

"The kind of people needed for violent change these days are living in off-the-grid rural compounds, or the “gangster paradise” where the businesses of drugs, guns, and prostitution are much more lucrative than “transforming” America along Cuban lines." BRUCE THORNTON

There can be no resolution to any social problem confronting the population in the United States and internationally outside of a frontal assault on the wealth of the financial elite. 

 The political system is controlled by this social layer, which uses a portion of its economic plunder to bribe politicians and government officials, whether Democratic or Republican.


Every CEO in every company sees the business opportunity: Will I earn higher profits by replacing my American staff with cheaper H-1B workers? The answer is an obvious yes.
The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with foreign labor. That process spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.


PRINCETON REPORT:

American middle-class is addicted, poor, jobless and suicidal…. Thank the corrupt government for surrendering our borders to 40 million looting Mexicans and then handing the bills to middle America?


OPIOID MURDERS BY BIG PHARMA

“While drug distributors have paid a total of $400 million in fines over the past 10 years, their combined revenue during this same period was over $5 trillion.”

“Opioids have ravaged families and devastated communities across the country. Encouraging their open use undermines the rule of law and will do nothing to quell their continued abuse, let alone the problems underlying mass addiction.”


ANN COULTER - TRUMP'S PRETEND WALL AS THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS IN AMERICA SURGES

"At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Trump have failed to secure significant funds for a border wall and infrastructure at the southern border for the second consecutive year thus far. In August, Trump signed a massive $716 billion military budget — a boon for Defense Department contractors — that did not include a penny for his border wall."


Ann Coulter: Trump’s Great Wall Becomes Trump’s Great Stall




Coulter
6:15

For those of us who were ecstatic the night Donald Trump was elected president, who watch election night videos over and over again, it used to be easy to defend him against the charge that he is just a BS-ing con man who would say anything to get elected.
It’s getting harder.
Trump was our last chance. But he’s spent two years not building the wall, not deporting illegals — “INCREDIBLE KIDS!” — and not ending the anchor baby scam.
Within 10 seconds of Trump’s leaving office, there will be no evidence that he was ever president. Laws will be changed, executive orders rescinded, treaties re-written and courts packed.
Trump will leave no legacy at all. Only a wall is forever.
We had no choice. No one else was promising to save America.
“On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology, including above- and below-ground sensors, that’s the tunnels. Remember that: above and below. Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels …” –Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump
But then he signed a spending bill expressly prohibiting him from building any part of the wall.
“I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again.” — President Trump, after signing a spending bill that blocked any funding for a wall.
Today, eight months later, Trump is about to sign another spending bill that will give him no money for the wall.
Anyone want to bet me that he won’t?
So much for the world’s greatest negotiator.
Donald Trump is the commander in chief. He doesn’t need Congress’ approval to defend the nation’s borders.
But as long as his excuse for not building the wall is that Congress hasn’t appropriated money for it, why on earth would he sign a spending bill that doesn’t give it to him?
There is no tomorrow on this. Republicans are about to lose the House. It’s now or never.
We didn’t need someone to tell us how hard it is to get anything done in Washington. We knew that.
That’s why we hired a builder. We didn’t care what Trump’s position on the lira was. We didn’t care about Syria. We were just looking for the best contractor we could find so we would finally get a wall.
If we were talking about a golf course in Scotland, I think Trump could figure out how to get it done.
But instead of winning, we’re getting whining. We’re told it’s Congress’ fault for not giving Trump money to build the wall! The ACLU will sue! A judge will stop him! Blame Paul Ryan! (Possible Trump epitaph: Chuck wouldn’t let me!)
President Reagan bombed Libya in retaliation for two U.S. serviceman being killed by a bomb in a West Berlin discotheque — TWO!
But Trump thinks he needs the preapproval of Congress, the ACLU and a district court judge in Hawaii to do something about tens of thousands of Americans being killed every year by illegal alien heroin dealers, drunk drivers and straight-up murderers.
Reagan invaded Grenada because the country was becoming a Soviet client state. No Grenadian threatened to touch a hair on any American’s head. One wonders what Reagan’s reaction would have been to someone telling him, YOU CAN’T DO THAT! THE ACLU WILL SUE!
If Reagan had Trump’s advisers, we’d be speaking Russian.
The ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the other anti-American groups opposing Trump on immigration were the very same groups that opposed Reagan. They would have been happy if the U.S.S.R. had nuked this country.
Sadly for them, Reagan kept his promises, and we won the Cold War. So now the back-up plan is to destroy our country by flooding it with the Third World.
We needed Reagan and got P.T. Barnum instead.
Evidently, Trump knew he could bomb an innocent country based on false information about the Syrian government using nerve gas in April 2018. (Actual reason: Ivanka cried.) No less than the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons spent months testing the bodies allegedly killed by nerve gas. Conclusion: No nerve gas.
But we’re supposed to believe that Trump doesn’t realize that he’s also allowed to defend the citizens of this country. Does he know he’s president?
Even if noted constitutional law scholar Jared Kushner has convinced Trump that he needs congressional approval before he’s allowed to repel invaders at our border — but doesn’t need Congress to bomb an innocent country because Ivanka cried — the president could order the troops to invade Mexico and build the wall 10 yards in.
But all we get are bombastic tweets and useless half-measures. The conservative media have been excitedly reporting that Obama put illegal alien kids in cages too! Obama used tear gas on the invaders too!
Yes, exactly — and none of that worked. That’s why we voted for the guy who promised to build a wall.
Unlike the president, we knew that the deluge of poor people flooding our country would never stop until we had an impenetrable border.
And whatever happened to that executive order on anchor babies? Is Trump “trying” to sign that, too? Maybe he got writer’s cramp.
Trump also promised to deport illegals — even the ones Democrats have given cute names to.
“We’re always talking about ‘Dreamers’ for other people. I want the children that are growing up in the United States to be dreamers also. They’re not dreaming right now.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump
“The executive order (on “Dreamers”) gets rescinded.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump
Is it Paul Ryan’s fault that Trump did a 180 on “Dreamers,” called them “INCREDIBLE KIDS” and tried to give them amnesty?
Every day that Trump does not keep his promises on immigration, thousands of immigrants turn 18 and start block voting for the Democrats, while thousands of traditional Americans die off.
Florida and Texas are about five years away from turning solid blue. Trump was our last chance. After this, the country is never going to elect a Republican president again.
So the next time you watch one of those election night videos, remember: If Trump doesn’t keep his immigration promises, Hillary might as well have won.
Trump will leave no legacy whatsoever. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

llegal Immigration Under Trump On Track to Hit Highest Level in a Decade




Customs and Border Protection found 76 people crammed into a truck attempting to immigrate to the US. The driver has been arrested.
CBP/news release
 776
3:12

Illegal immigration at the United States-Mexico border is expected to hit the highest level in a decade next year, as border-crossings surged to record levels last month.
Last month, illegal immigration at the southern border soared to the highest level for a single month since April 2014, marking the most southwest border crossings since President Trump was elected in 2016 on a platform to reduce immigration to the country.
The record illegal immigration outpaced projections from Princeton Researcher Steven Kopits, who
 expected about 31,575 border crossings last month. The actual border crossings exceeded those expectations by almost 40 percent.
The southwest border numbers, according to Kopits’ research, indicate that Fiscal Year 2019 will see the highest level of illegal immigration at the southern border in more than a decade.
In total, Kopits projects that there will be more than 600,000 border crossings next year — a level of illegal immigration that the country has not seen since Fiscal Year 2008 when total southwest border apprehensions exceeded 705,000.

(Princeton Policy Research)
October 2018 saw nearly 51,000 illegal aliens apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border with family unit crossings almost doubling what they were in October 2016, under President Obama. More than 23,000 family units crossed the southern border last month, compared to about 13,100 crossing in October 2016.
Last month’s illegal immigration totals at the southern border were so high that not since 2007 has the country seen this much illegal immigration in October. In October 2007, there were about 51,300 southwest border crossers.
The October 2018, illegal immigration levels are almost exactly double what southwest border crossings were this same month last year, when 25,488 apprehensions occurred.
Despite claims by the Trump administration that they have effectively curbed illegal immigration, southwest border crossings are back at Obama-era levels.
In Fiscal Year 2018, the country saw nearly 400,000 southwest border apprehensions. This is similar to the illegal immigration levels that occurred under Obama, where there were about 331,000 southwest border apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2015 and about 356,000 in Fiscal Year 2012.
Mass illegal immigration to the country under Trump has kept wage growth slow and minuscule across the board, though particular blue-collar sectors of the economy have seen higher wages for American workers as the labor market tightens.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Trump have failed to secure significant funds for a border wall and infrastructure at the southern border for the second consecutive year thus far. In August, Trump signed a massive $716 billion military budget — a boon for Defense Department contractors — that did not include a penny for his border wall.
DHS has been left to deal with surging illegal immigration by reinforcing border fences with razor wire, far from the “big beautiful wall” to which the president has consistently referred, and through help from the U.S. military.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Exclusive–Kris Kobach: DHS Must Enlist Police in Midst of Caravan, Border Wall Needs to Be Funded Immediately

US troops and border patrol agents rushed to a border crossing between San Diego, California and Tijuana, Mexico to stop hundreds of migrants trying to clamber over border fences
AFP/Sandy Huffaker
 187
2:58












Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach says in the midst of a caravan of 7,000 to 10,000 Central American migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, the Republican-controlled Congress should immediately fund a border wall and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must enlist police to aid U.S. Border Patrol.

During an interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Sunday, Kobach — who is being petitioned to lead DHS — said that the Trump administration, in dealing with a caravan of migrants at the southern border, must enlist state and police to beef up manpower and demand the Republican-controlled Congress fund a border wall.
Kobach said:
Back in 1996, we had a really excellent statute passed by Congress which was called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act … Congress also said that the Secretary of Homeland Security … has the authority to give state and local police the powers, privileges, and duties of ICE officers and Border Patrol officers if there is a mass influx of aliens, either at a border, a land border, or a sea border. [Emphasis added]
Congress thought ahead 22 years ago and envisioned that something like this might happen and lo and behold, it’s happening before our very eyes. I think it’s time for the Department of Homeland Security to use this power because having spoken with ICE and Border Patrol agents … they’re saying they are overwhelmed, they need help, they need manpower down there. And this ability to enlist local and state law enforcement to help is exactly what Congress put into place 22 years and I think we should be using it. [Emphasis added]
Kobach said that rather than focusing on “pet projects” of particular congressmen, the Republican-controlled House and Senate should be spending their last weeks in the majority funding Trump’s proposed border wall.
“If there is anything that should be at the top of the list to do, while Republicans control both houses, it should be pushing along the effort to build the wall,” Kobach said.
“Whether it be funding, whether it be any legislation that is necessary to strengthen our border in addition to the wall, Kobach continued. “It has to be done right now. That is the number one promise that Donald Trump made and that is the number one thing that pro-Trump legislators in Congress are associated with, that we robustly enforce our laws, that should be at the top of the list.”
Listen to Kobach’s full interview here:
DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has overseen enormous illegal immigration influxes at the southern border, as Breitbart News recently noted, where last month saw the most southwest border crossings in a single month since April 2014.
At the same time, the Trump administration has failed to effectively lobby the Republican-controlled Congress to fund a wall, more Border Patrol, and more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to deal with the illegal immigration influx.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


Jorge Ramos: US Has Responsibility to ‘Absorb’ Caravan Migrants







jorge-ramos-fox-news
Fox News
1:39















Univision anchor Jorge Ramos said on Monday that America has a responsibility to “easily absorb” the caravan migrants and claimed it can do so “without significant economic consequences.”

“It’s not an invasion. The U.S. can easily absorb these refugees without significant economic consequences. Many countries in the world help the 65 M people who are displaced,” Ramos claimed in an Instagram post. “And the most powerful nation in history also has responsibilities. We simply have to do our share.”

As Breitbart News has been pointing out, most of the migrants interviewed by mainstream outlets like NBC News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and CBS News have admitted that they are coming to America primarily for economic reasons and thus not eligible for asylum. After interviewing numerous migrants in the caravan, CBS Evening News recently pointed out: “Most tell us they are fleeing extreme poverty, but that’s not a condition for asylum or refugee status in the U.S.”
Even migrants Ramos–who was given a platform on Fox News on multiple occasions to promote his pro-migrant activism–interviewed for his Facebook Watch program admitted that they are going to the United States for economic reasons.
On Monday, San Diego Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott also noted that “the vast majority of those, from what we call the northern triangle, they are economic migrants.”
“They don’t meet the qualifications to get asylum here,” Scott said.









legal Immigration Under Trump On Track to Hit Highest Level in a Decade



Customs and Border Protection found 76 people crammed into a truck attempting to immigrate to the US. The driver has been arrested.
CBP/news release
   776
3:12


Illegal immigration at the United States-Mexico border is expected to hit the highest level in a decade next year, as border-crossings surged to record levels last month.

Last month, illegal immigration at the southern border soared to the highest level for a single month since April 2014, marking the most southwest border crossings since President Trump was elected in 2016 on a platform to reduce immigration to the country.
The record illegal immigration outpaced projections from Princeton Researcher Steven Kopits, who
 expected about 31,575 border crossings last month. The actual border crossings exceeded those expectations by almost 40 percent.
The southwest border numbers, according to Kopits’ research, indicate that Fiscal Year 2019 will see the highest level of illegal immigration at the southern border in more than a decade.
In total, Kopits projects that there will be more than 600,000 border crossings next year — a level of illegal immigration that the country has not seen since Fiscal Year 2008 when total southwest border apprehensions exceeded 705,000.

(Princeton Policy Research)
October 2018 saw nearly 51,000 illegal aliens apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border with family unit crossings almost doubling what they were in October 2016, under President Obama. More than 23,000 family units crossed the southern border last month, compared to about 13,100 crossing in October 2016.
Last month’s illegal immigration totals at the southern border were so high that not since 2007 has the country seen this much illegal immigration in October. In October 2007, there were about 51,300 southwest border crossers.
The October 2018, illegal immigration levels are almost exactly double what southwest border crossings were this same month last year, when 25,488 apprehensions occurred.
Despite claims by the Trump administration that they have effectively curbed illegal immigration, southwest border crossings are back at Obama-era levels.
In Fiscal Year 2018, the country saw nearly 400,000 southwest border apprehensions. This is similar to the illegal immigration levels that occurred under Obama, where there were about 331,000 southwest border apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2015 and about 356,000 in Fiscal Year 2012.
Mass illegal immigration to the country under Trump has kept wage growth slow and minuscule across the board, though particular blue-collar sectors of the economy have seen higher wages for American workers as the labor market tightens.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Trump have failed to secure significant funds for a border wall and infrastructure at the southern border for the second consecutive year thus far. In August, Trump signed a massive $716 billion military budget — a boon for Defense Department contractors — that did not include a penny for his border wall.
DHS has been left to deal with surging illegal immigration by reinforcing border fences with razor wire, far from the “big beautiful wall” to which the president has consistently referred, and through help from the U.S. military.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


Mexican Cartel Murders Beloved Musicians After Road Rage Incident










Murdered Musicians Main
Breitbart Border / Cartel Chronicles
    1
2:42

RIO BRAVO, Tamaulipas — The Gulf Cartel once again sparked outrage throughout the border cities of Tamaulipas after kidnapping and murdering two popular musicians over an apparent road rage incident. Unofficial accounts indicate the murders were the result of a roadside fistfight where one musician bested a cartel member.
The fatal kidnapping took place over the weekend when musicians from the local band “Nortenos de Rio Bravo” finished a performance in Rio Bravo. Two of the musicians were kidnapped by a team of gunmen. Their bodies were found hours later by authorities. Cartel gunmen tried to derail the search for the musicians by throwing road spikes in front of police vehicles.
The kidnapping and murders sparked outrage in Rio Bravo, leading the Tamaulipas state government to offer a large cash reward for information leading to the capture of those involved. The two musicians, 26-year-old Cuitlahuac Ruiz and 25-year-old Elias Hernandez, were part of a local group that sought to revive local traditional music. Police say the band had no ties to criminal activity and they did not perform lyrics glorifying organized crime. Ruiz also worked as an elementary school teacher, while Hernandez served as a manager in a local company.
Authorities found the bodies inside a gray truck along a highway between Reynosa and Rio Bravo. Cartel gunmen left a poster board trying to claim the murders were related to organized crime, however, Breitbart News consulted with various sources who say the message was a diversionary tactic. The working theory is that the gunmen are trying to misdirect blame by linking the deaths to a turf war between rival factions of the Gulf Cartel.
Law enforcement sources say the musicians got into a traffic accident with a cartel member, leading to a scuffle where one of the musicians physically bested the criminal until armed reinforcements arrived–killing the victor. Cartel members took the body and kidnapped the second musician from the roadside.
Editor’s Note: Breitbart Texas traveled to the Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León to recruit citizen journalists willing to risk their lives and expose the cartels silencing their communities.  The writers would face certain death at the hands of the various cartels that operate in those areas including the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas if a pseudonym were not used. Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles are published in both English and in their original Spanish. This article was written by “A.C. Del Angel” and “J.A. Espinoza” from Tamaulipas. 


MEXICO'S BIGGEST EXPORTS TO U.S. ARE POVERTY, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR WELFARE, CRIMINALS, HEROIN AND UNREGISTERED DEMOCRAT VOTERS.


RAPE, MURDER, MOLESTATION and then go vote DEMOCRAT FOR MORE!
HOW MANY INVADING ILLEGAL CRIMINALS WERE DEPORTED?
TRUMP SEEKS DEAL WITH MEXICO TO AVERT INVASION


Agreement is aptly named “Remain in Mexico.”


For several months the human tsunami of thousands of individuals heading north from Central America, through Mexico and ultimately to the United States, has captured headlines and the attention of the media and politicians in both the U.S. and Mexico.
While the “caravan of migrants,” as it has come to be known, appears to emanate from Central America, there is a great potential that citizens of countries from outside the Western Hemisphere, including so-called “Special Interest Countries” -- that is to say, countries that have a nexus with terrorism -- may also have embedded themselves within the caravan along with individuals who have criminal histories and aliens who may have been previously deported from the United States.
I addressed the potential for terrorists to see in the caravan an opportunity to gain entry into the United States in my article, "The Impending Alien Invasion."
It is also worth considering that under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1326 an alien who is deported from the United States and then reenters the country without first being granted lawful authority to return is committing a felony that may carry a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.
When President Trump issued a proclamation that would deny aliens who entered the United States without inspection the right to file an application for asylum, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a Temporary Restraining Order to block the implementation of that proclamation. As I noted in my recent article, the judge was ignoring the Constitution, the 9/11 Commission Report and common sense.
Of late, polls conducted in the United States have shown that within the last month more Americans have come to consider illegal immigration to be the issue of greatest concern confronting America. 
On November 22, 2018 (Thanksgiving Day) I participated in a segment on the Fox News program Fox & Friendsthat focused on this very issue. 
Poll: Americans now see immigration as top issue facing US 
Nov. 22, 2018 - Reaction from retired INS Senior Special Agent Michael Cutler; Republican strategist Peter Lumaj and former Florida congressional candidate Noelle Nikpour
It is my opinion, and one shared by the other participants in that Fox News segment, that Americans’ heightened concerns about illegal immigration are directly related to that caravan approaching the U.S./Mexican border.
President Trump, who made illegal immigration the centerpiece of his successful campaign for the Presidency, has responded to the threats and potential threats posed by the caravan if the members of that caravan ultimately succeeded in entering the United States and vanishing into communities across the United States. Trump ordered members of the U.S. military to the U.S./Mexican border to begin erecting barriers and to support the efforts of the beleaguered U.S. Border Patrol.
Unlike previous administrations that have refused to secure that dangerous and highly porous border that enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States without inspection, and tons of narcotics to be smuggled into the U.S., it has been clear from the outset that President Trump was determined not to permit this invasion of our borders and our nation. This, even despite Congress not funding the border wall that he has wanted to erect.
Meanwhile, as the talking heads and members of the mainstream media speculated as to what will ultimately happen, it would appear that Donald Trump, the “Deal Maker in Chief” has cut a deal with incoming Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his administration. On November 24, 2018 the Chicago Tribunepublished a report that had initially run in the Washington Post, “Deal with Mexico would make asylum seekers wait outside U.S. border: Mexican officials.”
This excerpt from the newspaper report explains how President Trump may have convinced the Mexicans to cooperate:
Alarmed by Trump's deployment of U.S. military forces to California, Arizona and Texas, and his threats to close busy border crossings, Mexican officials were further determined to take action after migrants traveling as part of a caravan forced their way onto Mexican soil last month, pushing past police blockades at the border with Guatemala.
For the first time, a president of the United States has begun the process of negotiating an agreement with Mexico that could prove to be a true immigration “game changer.”
Under the agreement, presuming it is finalized, aliens who want to pursue asylum applications in the United States would have to wait in Mexico until their applications could be filed and processed, turning chaos into a more orderly system.
For decades aliens and their smugglers had come to count on chaos along the U.S./Mexican border that would enable them to run our nation’s borders and use the claim of “credible fear” as a “Plan B” if they were caught by the U.S. Border Patrol. If they were not caught by the Border Patrol they would simply head to towns and cities across the United States and not bother filing an application for asylum.
Additionally, aliens who filed applications for asylum at ports of entry were often paroled into the United States where they also disappeared into communities across our nation as did aliens who were apprehended by the Border Patrol and served with Notices to Appear (NTAs). Frustrated Border Patrol agents came to call those “Notices to Disappear!”
If final arrangements can be made with Mexico, the United States will impose an orderly system that will give Customs and Border Inspectors and others who will be assigned to adjudicate applications for asylum the time to imbue the system with a bit more integrity.
While it won’t eliminate fraud in the system, it will represent a major step to help combat fraud. As more aliens come to realize that they will have to wait in Mexico and that their applications will be more thoroughly scrutinized, it is likely that more aliens will be deterred from filing fraud-laden applications. As the number of applications fall, the ability to more thoroughly scrutinize the applications that are filed will increase.
This will certainly enhance U.S. national security because, as I noted in my extensive article, "Immigration Fraud- Lies That Kill," visa fraud and immigration fraud were identified by the 9/11 Commission as the key methods of terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.
There are many reasons why, for the first time, the government of Mexico would agree to work cooperatively with the United States over an extremely serious immigration-related issue. It is likely, of course that President Trump was not just posturing when he said he would cut off aid to Mexico and other countries who permit the United States to be invaded by illegal aliens.
Additionally, as the newspaper article I cited above noted:
According to outlines of the plan, known as Remain in Mexico, asylum applicants at the border will have to stay in Mexico while their cases are processed, potentially ending the system, which Trump decries as "catch and release," that has generally allowed those seeking refuge to wait on safer U.S. soil.

"For now, we have agreed to this policy of Remain in Mexico," said Olga Sánchez Cordero, Mexico's incoming interior minister, the top domestic policy official for López Obrador, who takes office Dec. 1. In an interview with The Washington Post, she called it a "short-term solution."

"The medium- and long-term solution is that people don't migrate," Sánchez Cordero said. "Mexico has open arms and everything, but imagine one caravan after another after another. That would also be a problem for us."
In other words, Mexico is being flooded with citizens from Central America that are stirring anger and animosity among Mexican citizens who are far less tolerant of the intrusion of these aliens into their country. It would appear that the government of Mexico is motivated to end the flood of illegal aliens who are seeking to use Mexico as a stepping stone to the United States.
While the U.S. mainstream media accuses any Americans who oppose illegal immigration of being bigots and racists, Mexicans who are also members of the Latino ethnic community, share the same concerns that Americans have about the dangers and difficulties that illegal immigration creates.
Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who has led the charge against the Trump administration efforts to restore integrity to the immigration system, was quoted in the article as stating, "The Administration ought to concentrate on providing a fair and lawful asylum process in the U.S. rather than inventing more and more ways to try to short-circuit it.”
Here is something Mr. Gelernt should consider: the United States has had the most generous immigration system in the world and continues to do so. When you consider how many applications for asylum are denied because of fraud or because the aliens themselves fail to go forward with the process, it is apparent that the majority of these aliens have been using bogus claims of “credible fear” as an (illegal) alternative to the lawful visa process to gain entry into the United States. This makes a mockery of our immigration system and imposes dangers and hardships on America and Americans.
There is nothing “fair or lawful” about asylum fraud or illegal immigration.


MEXICO DECLARES WAR ON THE UNITED STATES
 THE INVASION:
“The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.” Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno
"Mexican president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free medical in the United States."

"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed ranting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."

COST to AMERICANS of the LA RAZA MEXICAN OCCUPATION in CALIFORNIA ALONE: $2,370 per legal.
All that “cheap” labor is staggeringly expensive!
"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein.

Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S WAR ON AMERICA’S LEGAL WORKERS, BORDERS AND LAWS as they build the LA RAZA welfare state on our backs.

One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM


"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.



http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/assault-on-american-worker-college-grad.html



Should We Invade Mexico?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/07/05/should-we-invade-mexico-n2497140?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
  
One fact a lot of Americans forget is that our country is located right up against a socialist failed state that is promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one. And the Mexicans, having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just chose to keep digging by electing a new leftist presidente who wants to surrender to the cartels and who thinks that Mexicans have some sort of hitherto unknown “human right” to sneak into the United States and demographically reconquer it. There’s a Spanish phrase that describes his ideology, and one of the words is toro.

Mexico is already a failed state, crippled by a poisoned, stratified culture and a corrupt government that have somehow managed to turn a nation so blessed with resources and hardworking people into such a basket case that millions of its citizens see their best option as putting themselves in the hands of gangsters to cross a burning desert to get cut-rate jobs in el Norte. It is a country dominated by bloody drug/human trafficking cartels that like to circulate videos of their members carving up living people. They hang mutilated corpses from overpasses and hijack busloads of citizens to rape and slaughter for fun. Whole police agencies are owned by the cartels. Political candidates live in fear of murder. The people are scared. And this chaos will inevitably grow and spread north.

The gangs are already here, importing the meth and fentanyl that are slaughtering tens of thousands of Americans a year after coming across the border the Democrats refuse to defend. Let’s not even think about the other foreigners, like Islamic terrorists, who might exploit this vulnerability. “Abolish ICE,” the liberals screech, yet what they really mean is “Erase that line on the map.” But that line is all that is keeping the bloodshed in Mexico at bay for now. You can stand on US soil, look south, and see places where the rates of killing dwarf those of the Middle Eastern killing fields you see on TV.

The chaos in Mexico will spill over the theoretical border. It is just a matter of time. Normal Americans know it. As my book upcoming book Militant Normals explains, the establishment willfully ignoring their legitimate concerns about border security is a big part of why Normals are getting militant. The Democrats, and the GOP donor class stooges, have a vested interest in ignoring the issue, and they will insure that both the political class and the hack media will continue to play ostrich. Already there are Americans, on American soil, living near the border who cannot venture outside at night on their own property for fear of being murdered because of foreigners invading out territory. This is intolerable for any sovereign country. Yet there is a huge liberal constituency, abetted by GOPe fellow travelers, not merely willing to tolerate the invasion but who actively want to increase the flow.

When the 125-million-man criminal conspiracy that is Mexico falls apart completely, as it will, we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Watch the flood of illegals become a tsunami, a real refugee crisis instead of today’s fake one. Watch the criminal gangs and pathologies of the Third World socialist culture they bring along turn our country into Mexico II: Gringo BoogalooAnd importing a huge mass of foreigners, loyal to a foreign country and potentially susceptible to the reconquista de Aztlan rhetoric of leftists, both among them and among our treacherous liberal elite, would create a cauldron for brewing up violent civil upheaval right here at home.

So, what do we do? We defend ourselves, obviously. But how?

Should we be reactive? Should we continue the fake defense of our border we’re pretending to conduct today? Or should we seriously defend ourselves by building a wall and truly guarding it, and by deporting all illegals we catch inside. But would that even be enough when Mexico collapses?

It’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?

Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.

Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).

One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.

This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio Sam.
The second is Operation Mexican Freedom, a much more ambitious campaign that would recognize what liberals already think – that Mexico and America are one country. Our forces would conquer the nation by driving all the way south, perhaps with an amphibious landing at Veracruz for old times sake and because the Marines would insist, then seal the Mexican-Guatemalan border. We would annex the whole country, making it a colony like Puerto Rico (A dozen new senators from Old Mexico? Nogracias). We would kill every terrorist drug gang member and take or torch everything they own, while simultaneously deporting every illegal from the US-Canada border to the Mexican-Guatemalan border.
Of course, that would take up pretty much our entire military and certainly spark some sort of endless guerilla conflict. We would be stuck in another bloody, expensive fight to make a Third World country cease sucking despite itself. It would make the Iraq War seem cheap. But, on the plus side, Bill Kristol and his bombs away pals would probably be excited.
Oh, in both cases the Europeans would be outraged, which is a powerful argument for these options.
Still, no. Invading Mexico is a bad idea. It would convert the problems of Mexico, created and perpetuated by Mexicans, into our problems. We tried that in the Middle East. It doesn’t work. Making Mexico better for Mexicans is not worth the life of one First Infantry Division grenadier.
But the consequences in America are our problem, and we must solve it. That brings us to the third option – Forward Defense. Think Syria in Sinaloa. We secure the border, with a wall of concrete and a wall of troops, perhaps imposing a no-fly/no-sail zone (excepting our surveillance and attack aircraft), and then conduct operations inside Mexico using special operations forces combined with airpower to target and eliminate the cartels. We would also identify friendly local Mexican police and military officials and support their counter-cartel operations outside of our relationship with the central government – they would be the face of the fight. We would channel Hernán Cortés and, in essence, we would allow friendly Mexican allies, with our substantial direct and indirect support, to create our buffer zone for us.
This avoids the problem of buying Mexico’s problems and making them ours. It’s somewhat deniable; everyone could save face by denying the Yankees have intervened. But the cartels would not just sit there and take it. They would target Americans and probably do so inside the United States. Yet that’s going to happen anyway eventually. This course of action risks the lowest number of US casualties, but perhaps the highest number of Mexican losses.
So no, we should not invade Mexico. There are no good military options, and none are necessary or wise today, but we may eventually have to choose between bad options. Mexico is failing more and more every day. We are not yet at the point of a military solution, but anyone who says that day can never come is lying to himself and to you. We need a wall, but more than that, we need the commitment to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent. The issue is very clear, and we need to be very, very clear about it when we are campaigning in November. Border security. Period.
Are we going to prioritize the interests of liberals who want to replace our militant Normal voters with pliable foreigners and establishment stooges who want to please rich donors by importing countless cheap foreign laborers, or are we going to prioritize the economic security and the physical safety of American citizens by securing our border no matter what it takes?
Come on, open borders mafia, let’s have that discussion. Bueno suerte with that at the ballot box.

One new Mexican president. Dozens of new reasons to build the wall.

 


In Mexico, it is often impolite to tell someone "No."  If you want to spare someone's feelings, many people say "Maybe."
Everyone knows that means "No."
Mexico stopped worrying about American feelings long ago.  Among the fashionable public officials and academics, scorn has been the ruling emotion for decades.  We see that more recently in the last week's elections.
Pretending otherwise is just too much work in Mexico today.  The new president declares he is a socialist, but he will be hard pressed to show how his new socialist policies are at all different from the old socialist policies that govern so many parts of Mexican life.  That's what we said about Venezuela, come to think of it.
Those who predict that their "Fill in Blank" Latin American country has finally bottomed out and is now turning around are often, even invariably, wrong.
But at least admitting they are socialists has the added benefit of sticking a finger in the eye of their terrible neighbors to the north – who everyone knows ruined Mexico by stealing a good chunk of the country in 1848.
Anyone who reads the daily papers in Mexico is reminded of that 157-year-old treaty every day: for most of the country, the national slogan and curse remains "Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States."  We can even hear it today from Mexican nationals and their descendants in the U.S. who glorify La Raza at the expense of their adopted country.
Oh, and by the way, Americans are still waiting for any kind of public display of support for those who died on 9-11.  Mexicans largely ignored it, when they were not supporting it behind closed doors at their local universities.
The truly troubling pronouncements out of Mexico City are even easier to find.  The newly elected president, Andrés López-Obrador, was gleeful during the election when he told his compadres they should all move to America, illegally.  His encouragement along with his pro-poverty policies will set the stage for another tsunami of illegal immigration.
Then members of López-Obrador's Cabinet-in-waiting started talking about the war on drug cartels, and why should Mexico do America's dirty work?
The first statement does not need much interpretation, other than the obvious but often ignored: the new president of Mexico is encouraging his countrymen to invade the United States.  Not with guns and soldiers, but with campesinos and huaraches.
It's a bitter and hostile act that we should treat as such.
The new talk about amnesty for drug-dealers is even crazier.  This is just an admission of what anyone who cares to already knows: Mexico is run by a collection of drug cartels and other violent outlaws.  This collection of criminals has killed thousands of public officials, policemen, and reporters – all in the name of preserving a criminal status quo that no one even feels like pretending does not exist anymore.  They even write songs glorifying them.
They get what they want when they want it.
That is why we cannot build the Coulter-Trump Border Wall fast enough, tall enough, and proudly enough.
In addition to writing scintillating bestsellers about black violence in America, good ol' Colin Flaherty also covered Mexico for several newspapers and radio stations in San Diego, back in the day.

How to Humanely Reduce Unlawful Immigration and Shut Down Open-Borders Democrats



Today's lesson on morality and human rights comes from the probable (according to polls) next president of our crime-infested and corrupt neighbor to the south (emphases added):
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States[,] ...declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans.
"[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these unwanted, by their own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to serve as Mexico's social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.
Did you know that "chutzpah" is the same in Hebrew and Spanish?  On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on a large cohort of Democrats, who share his view:
The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.
Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say "the," they mean "all."  Today, it's "family separations"; tomorrow, who knows?  But whatever the Dems'démagogie du jour, most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally, eliminated.  The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream.  But not only can the former be done.  It can be done using methods already tried and proven.
First, yes, we need a wall.  If the tooth-and-nail opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel's wall.  Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:
The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.
One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed to the decrease.  But there can be no doubt that the wall was the primary, and a major, factor.
So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful immigration.  But there is one more thing government can do.
Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee, in 1948, to elucidate:
When the writer's dad got off the boat, he did not simply disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll streets paved with gold and buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  First, he had to stop here:
In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around South Street.  On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant Landing Depot[.] ... [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island facility on January 2, 1892 ... because immigrants were known to carry diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.
The key word in the above quote is "isolated," as in no physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.
Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox.  Today, the dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.  In both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign immigration.  And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland U.S. lawfully.
The writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis Island was still there, repurposed as a museum.  So how about making so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate families?
On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is.  Alcatraz Island is not.  What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to that of Mexico and Central America?  The specific location is less important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.
Or even tents, as the Navy is already planning:
The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border[.] ...
[T]he draft document ... also says that a Navy base in California could house up to a further 47,000 people.
Problem solved...almost.  It's a good plan, but with one major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S.  Again, the locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the mainland.  There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233 million for six months (so $466 billion per year); one company has a $162-million contract "to fly immigrant children to shelters across the United States."
There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution.  It's staring the Navy right in the face.
Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or "mothball," fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts of the country, including California.
Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000 sailors.  But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight deck.  Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed thousands of people.
America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned ships.  Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the mainland?  Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all over the country.
Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country farthest from the U.S.
Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually mention, preferably publicly, that American sailors lived on those same ships, for much longer, and make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done nothing for America and who have no legal right even to be here.
Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of America they can see from the deck of a ship before being transported on a slow boat back to their home countries, and unlawful immigration will drop.  Like a rock.

Gene Schwimmer is a New York- and New Jersey-licensed real estate broker and author of The Christian State.

PAUL KRUGMAN

The disintegration of California, a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/04/paul-krugman-look-at-california-under.html

 

Mexico: Lopez-Obrador's bizarre statement

 

Down in Mexico, the voters are getting ready to cast a ballot in the next two weeks.  In other words, the rhetoric is getting a little crazy.
Andrés Manuel López-Obrador's latest rant is about as crazy as it gets:
This is what AMLO said:
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans.  "And soon, very soon – after the victory of our movement – we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
He then declared it as "a human right we will defend," eluniversal.com reports.  While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner.
Now, let's analyze what he said.
First, how would any of this help Mexico?  My serious Mexican friends tell me they'd rather find prosperity and jobs in their country.  Telling people to go north is another way of saying that AMLO's policies will not help Mexico keep Mexicans.  Believe it or not, most Mexicans would rather stay home, or at least that's what they tell me.
Second, is AMLO proposing to change Mexico's rigid immigration laws?  Is he going to open Mexico's southern border and allow people in?  How does AMLO define a "migrant"?
Third, does he believe that the U.S. is just going to sit back and watch Mexicans cross the border?
The bad news is that AMLO's remarks are irresponsible and not helpful.  The good news is that he may be getting desperate, sensing that Mr. Anaya is gaining on him.
PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!

Billions of dollars are sucked out of America from Mexico’s looting!


1) Mexico ended legal immigration 100 years ago, except for Spanish blood.
2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation but pays the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their subjects to invade the USA. The expands territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish language, and culture and genotypes, while earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as Foreign Remittance Income.

DEATH OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS AND THE STAGGERING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE ON AMERICAN BACKS.

The man likely to be the next president of Mexico just called for mass migration to the US



I don't think this fellow and Donald Trump are going to get along very well, do you?
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.
“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.
While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner. 
Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.
The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.
Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.
To be sure, AMLO is only saying out loud what every other Mexican president believed in his heart; that America is Mexico's "social safety net" and that it's up to the US taxpayer to take care of Mexico's unemployable, destitute millions.
Unsaid by AMLO is the implication of a mass migration of Mexicans to the US. The not-so-secret dream of every Mexican government that illegals flooding into America will eventually allow for a "return" of California and much of the American southwest to Mexico. 
What makes this socialist different, however, 

is his novel argument that entering the US 

illegally is actually a "human right." That's an 

opinion we could have a lot of fun with. One 

would assume if it was a "human right" to 

illegally enter the US, that it would then be a 

human right to enter Mexico - or any other 

country, for that matter.

Of course, AMLO is  just pushing leftist buttons by proclaiming this brand spanking new human right. He can't be serious, can he? It hardly matters. Trump will, I'm sure, have something to say about a mass migration of Mexicans to the US and if this socialist nutjob actually believes he can encourage that kind of invasion and not suffer any consequences, he doesn't know our president.

Mexican Judge Denies Bond for Cartel Boss Wanted in Texas

















El Mora Arrest
Breitbart Border / Cartel Chronicles
      22
2:45


MONTERREY, Nuevo Leon – A Mexican federal judge has ruled against the release of a recently captured cartel boss. The man is wanted by U.S. authorities in connection to a high-profile cartel-execution near Dallas.

In a court hearing, a federal judge in Monterrey ruled against releasing Luis Lauro “La Mora or La China” Ramirez Bautista. He ordered that he be held without bond until further hearings. Officials removed the wanted drug boss to the Cadereyta state prison. As Breitbart News first reported in an exclusive article, detectives with the Nuevo Leon’s State Investigations Agency arrested Ramirez Bautista at a checkpoint after the wanted drug lord left a bar near the Barrio Antiguo neighborhood in Monterrey.
Prior to his arrest, Ramirez Bautista allegedly attempted to run over a law enforcement official at the checkpoint and then resisted the arrest. During the arrest, authorities seized a.38o caliber handgun carried by the wanted drug lord.
The man known as La Mora is a key boss with a criminal organization that once belonged to the Beltran Leyva Cartel but has since branched off and become independent and highly dangerous. Under orders from his boss Rodolfo “El Gato” Villarreal, Ramirez Bautista is believed to have played a role in helping mastermind the 2013 murder of Gulf Cartel attorney Juan Jesus Guerrero Chapa. As Breitbart News reported, Guerrero Chapa was gunned down in the ritzy Dallas suburb of Southlake after a long-term surveillance operation. The murder was personal in nature since Ramirez Bautista’s boss El Gato blamed Guerrero Chapa for the murder of his father.
Ramirez Bautista is wanted by U.S. authorities in the ongoing case against Villarreal and federal authorities had added him to a most wanted list of fugitive cartel bosses in the Texas border region.

The ruling by the judge denying bond for Ramirez Bautista comes as a surprise since in recent months, as Breitbart News has reported, federal judges in Mexico have been releasing an alarming number of cartel bosses by ruling their arrests as illegal or alleging some other bureaucratic error. The man known as La Mora had been arrested in 2017. However, a Mexican federal judge ruled at the time that the raid that led to his capture was illegal and ordered his release.
Soon after the most recent arrest, gunmen from El Gato’s criminal organization murdered 34-year-old Santiago Aaron Urbina Arellano. This man managed Bar Ambria, where Ramirez Bautista visited prior to his arrest. It is believed that the gunmen targeted the bar manager suspecting that he may have tipped off law enforcement.
Editor’s Note: Breitbart Texas traveled to the Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León to recruit citizen journalists willing to risk their lives and expose the cartels silencing their communities.  The writers would face certain death at the hands of the various cartels that operate in those areas including the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas if a pseudonym were not used. Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles are published in both English and in their original Spanish. This article was written by Tony Aranda from Nuevo Leon. 

Mexican Presidents Deny 

They Took Bribes from El 

Chapo














Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto seduced voters six years ago with his movie-star looks and promises of sweeping reform, but leaves office as the most unpopular president in Mexican history, according to some polls
AFP
      98
3:02


Two former Mexican presidents publicly denied taking bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel. The statements came after the legal defense for Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera made contrary claims this week.

The drug lord is facing several money laundering and drug trafficking charges at a federal trial in New York. In his opening statement, defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman spoke of bribes “including the very top, the current president of Mexico and the former.”
Soon after the statements became public, Mexico’s government issued a statement denying the allegations. Eduardo Sanchez, the spokesman for current Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said the statements were false and “defamatory.”

Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon took to social media to personally deny the allegations, claiming that neither El Chapo or the Sinaloa Cartel paid him bribes.

Under Guzman’s leadership, the Sinaloa Cartel became the largest drug trafficking organization in the world with influence in every major U.S. city.
The allegations against Pena Nieto are not new. In 2016, Breitbart News reported on an investigation by Mexican journalists which revealed how Juarez Cartel operators funneled money into the 2012 presidential campaign. The investigation was carried out by Mexican award-winning journalist Carmen Aristegui and her team. The subsequent scandal became known as “Monexgate” for the cash cards that were given out during Peña Nieto’s campaign. The allegations against Pena Nieto went largely unreported by U.S. news outlets.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com. 
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.


HIGHLY GRAPHIC!

IMAGES OF AMERICA UNDER LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION… gruesome!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/10/america-la-raza-mexicos-wide-open.html

 

BEHEADINGS LONG U.S. OPEN BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX: The La Raza Heroin Cartels Take the Border and Leave Heads


HIGHLY GRAPHIC VIDEO!
LA RAZA DRUG CARTELS CUT OUT HEART OF LIVING MAN.

MARK LEVIN:
‘THERE IS A BIG, UGLY SIDE TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

NARCOMEX DRUG CARTELS OCCUPY 

TEXAS



MCALLEN, Texas -- The capture of three top Mexican drug cartel bosses on the U.S. side of the Texas border helps to illustrate the irony of how even narco's seek refuge from the violence in Mexico.


LOS ANGELES – GATEWAY FOR THE LA RAZA MEX DRUG CARTELS

NARCOMEX in LA RAZA-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES – Western gateway for the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS and MEXICO’S SECOND LARGEST CITY.


Federal agents raided Q.T Fashion and numerous other businesses in the downtown fashion district Wednesday, cracking down on a scheme that cartels are increasingly relying on to get their profits — from drug sales, kidnappings and other illegal activities — back to Mexico, authorities said.

Nine people were arrested in raids targeting 75 locations, and $90 million was seized — $70 million in cash. In one condo, agents found $35 million stuffed in banker boxes. At a mansion in Bel-Air, they discovered $10 million in duffel bags.

"Los Angeles has become the epicenter of narco-dollar money laundering with couriers regularly bringing duffel bags and suitcases full of cash to many businesses," said Robert E. Dugdale, the assistant U.S. attorney in charge of federal criminal prosecutions in Los Angeles.



SHOCKING IMAGES OF CARTELS ON U.S. BORDERS:
“Heroin is not produced in the United States. Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.” Michael Cutler …..FrontPageMag.com

Another 3,300 Caravan 

Migrants Arrive in Tijuana, 

Says Mexico













TIJUANA, MEXICO - NOVEMBER 17: Members of the migrant caravan walk to the official border crossing to turn in requests for political asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border on November 17, 2018 in Tijuana, Mexico. Parts of the caravan have been arriving to Tijuana at the U.S. border, after traveling more …
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images
     5,014
3:35

Nearly 3,300 additional Central American caravan migrants arrived at the Mexican northern border city of Tijuana on Saturday, authorities in Mexico stated.

Approximately 3,292 migrants are expected to arrive in the border city of Tijuana today according to the El Instituto Nacional de Migración known as INM according to local media reports. These are in addition to those previously reported arrivals.
The migrant caravan with approximately 3,300 migrants was expected to arrive in Tijuana this morning according to the Mexican government agency tasked with tracking human migration (INM). The caravan reportedly traveled north through the state of Sinaloa yesterday toward the northern border state of Sonora. The group took nearly the same route as previous caravan groups, officials stated.
According to the INM, there are a total of 2,779 migrants in Tijuana not including Saturday’s 3292 scheduled arrivals. There are an additional 657 in the city of Mexicali which borders the U.S. city of Calexico, California. Another group of migrants in the central Mexican state of Queretaro consists of 3,036 migrants. All these migrants are part of the original group that crossed into Mexico approximately one month ago which then consisted of 9,664 — a majority from the country of Honduras.
The Honduran ambassador to Mexico, Alden Rivera has been monitoring the caravan’s travels through Mexico and said that approximately 5,500 were from his country. He advised that several of his countrymen were suffering from respiratory infections. The ambassador announced that a mobile consulate would be set up in order to provide official documents at no cost and to ensure that Mexican authorities were providing proper humanitarian aid.
Ambassador Rivera said, “We do not have an economy that allows us (to provide aid) … it sounds somewhat irresponsible because they are Hondurans, and, in the end, we should take charge and be responsible for Hondurans anywhere in the world,” he explained.
Rivera said he will monitor authorities in Mexico and the United States to ensure that due process for his countrymen is respected as required in the country they eventually decide to stay in. He also called on his countrymen to respect the laws of Mexico and the United States in order to have a great possibility of obtaining asylum or refugee status.
Breitbart Texas reported on the movement of this migrant caravan which involved transportation provided by buses being escorted by state and federal police. Breitbart Texas has also reported that Mexican citizens began protesting the migrant caravan’s arrival in Tijuana. These protests turned violent, leading law enforcement to separate the migrants from the demonstrators.
Local law enforcement sources said many in the caravan are reporting that they were not told when they left central America that they would be encountering problems in crossing into the United States. This was also reported by local media outlet El Universal.
Robert Arce is a retired Phoenix Police detective with extensive experience working Mexican organized crime and street gangs. Arce has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, and recently completed a three-year assignment in Monterrey, Mexico, working out of the Consulate for the United States Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program, where he was the Regional Program Manager for Northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas.) You can follow him on Twitter. He can be reached at robertrarce@gmail.com

PELOSI’S OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE CHEAP LABOR

The Mexican Army made two seizures in Ensenada on August 17 (1,036 pounds of meth, heroin, and fentanyl) and August 18 (1,653 pounds of meth, fentanyl, and marijuana).

The Mexican Army discovered an active drug lab on August 25 in Tecate and seized four tons of methamphetamine.

The Mexican Federal Police seized 350 pounds of methamphetamine in an active drug lab in Tijuana on August 26.
The Mexican Federal Police seized 20,000 fentanyl pills in an active lab in Mexicali on September 10.

The Mexican Federal Police seized 550 pounds of methamphetamine in Tijuana on September 12.

The Mexican Army seized 1,055 pounds of methamphetamine near the Arizona border on September 14.

Importing caravan and other refugees costs US taxpayers $8.8 billion, or $80,000 a head




As the caravan camps out in self-induced misery in Tijuana, and the left calls for the entry of more refugees (and asylees) into the U.S., a new report from the Federation for Immigration Reform shows that such imports don't come cheap.
According to the Washington Examiner:
The Federation for American Immigration Reform Monday put the five-year price tag at $8.8 billion in federal and state costs, or nearly $80,000 per refugee. There are some 18 federal and state programs refugees can tap for financial help, including food stamps, child care, public housing and school loans.
On a yearly average, it is $1.8 billion, or $15,900 per refugee.  Included in that are enormous refugee resettlement costs such as $867 million in welfare, housing assistance and education.
For the advocates of bigger government, that's a good thing, given the growing numbers of bureaucrats needed to "service" such clients.  More clients, more costs; more costs, more bureaucrats.  What's more, half of these refugees and asylees (the terms are used interchangeably in the report because refugees come from their home countries, while asylees apply from the U.S.) stay on Medicaid for five years or more, meaning their incomes stay low, either based on their low skill levels and inability to assimilate or because they have high health care costs and keep their incomes low to ensure a free ride.
The Democrats want more of this.  Here's one report calling for it from lefty Quartz just today.
3. Widen the scope of those who qualify for asylum
Nazario says the US also needs to focus on the asylum seekers who are most at risk of violence in their home countries.  In June, then-attorney-general Jeff Sessions said that immigration judges would no longer be able to consider domestic violence or gang violence as general grounds for asylum, reversing an Obama-era precedent.  Sessions described domestic abuse and violence as "personal crimes."  This "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of domestic violence, harkening back to an era when rape and partner abuse were viewed as private matters as well as of the brutality and scope of gang violence," said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
It's the usual lefty solution of throwing taxpayer money at a problem instead of going to the root of the problem, which is the problems in the refugees' home countries, as well as the benefit disparity between what's on offer in home countries and first countries of refuge and the vast banquet of benefits available to U.S. refugees and asylees inside the U.S.
Seriously, we could cut the cost in half by handing each refugee a stack of $40,000 in bills in exchange for his staying out of the U.S., which shows just how bad the whole situation is.
President Trump has cut the vast numbers of refugees admitted to the U.S. sharply, but that move has just brought more fury from the left, which sees these refugees and asylees, dependent as they are on government services and unlikely to change that situation, as major sources of new Democrat votes.
Eighty thousand bucks could also do a lot of good in these refugees' home countries or wherever their first countries of refuge are.  Pity it won't get there, given the Democrats' insistence on importing more and more of this poverty – and inability to succeed in the U.S. as their means of virtue-signaling.  It makes no sense.  And the report's conclusion, that the U.S. should step up helping refugees in their home countries and first countries of asylum, makes a lot of sense.