Saturday, June 5, 2021

THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS - ON, UNDER, OVER AND BY WATER HAULING BACK BILLIONS AND VOTING DEMOCRAT FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS AND NO WALL

 

El Chapo's alleged top money launderer extradited to face conspiracy charges in US

El Chapo’s alleged top money launderer has been extradited to the U.S. from Mexico in connection with an investigation into the Sinaloa Cartel’s finances and drug trafficking, according to the Department of Justice.

Juan Manuel Alvarez-Inzunza, 39, is accused of helping the cartel move hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits from cocaine and methamphetamine out of the U.S. and into Mexico.

He had been in Mexican custody since March 2016. U.S. Marshals flew him from Mexico City to San Diego Wednesday ahead of his arraignment the following morning, authorities said.

EL CHAPO'S WIFE ARRESTED ON DRUG TRAFFICKING CHARGES

"International drug kingpins and money launderers who profit by shipping narcotics into our community are not safe from prosecution," said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. "We will work with our international partners to bring them to justice wherever they reside."

Alvarez-Inzunza faces charges of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, conspiracy to distribute cocaine intended for importation, conspiracy to import cocaine and methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine.

Mexico’s Federal Police arrested Alvarez-Inzunza, who was nicknamed "King Midas," while he was vacationing in Oaxaca, outside the cartel’s territory and without his usual security, according to El Pais, a Spanish newspaper.

Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the Sinaloa Cartel’s longtime leader, was sentenced to life in federal prison in 2019 for his role atop the international drug-smuggling ring.

As Mexico’s most powerful drug lord, he ran a cartel responsible for smuggling mountains of cocaine and other drugs into the United States during his 25-year reign, prosecutors said in court papers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Under Guzman’s leadership, the Sinaloa cartel – one of the world’s largest drug trafficking organization – was responsible for multiple murders and smuggling mountains of cocaine and other drugs into the United States. Prosecutors also previously said his "army of sicarios," or "hit men," was under orders to kidnap, torture and kill anyone who got in his way.

WILL EUROPE FALL TO THE MUSLIMS? UNITED KINGDOM IS ALMOST THERE - The Islamification of large parts of England

THE MUSLIMS WILL DESTROY EUROPE AS THE MEXICANS ARE MEXIFORNIA AND THE REST OF AMERICA. IT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A QUEST FOR 'CHEAP' FOREIGN LABOR.

PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH.

The Islamification of large parts of England

In 1981–1982, for my junior year abroad, I attended Leeds University in Leeds, a city in Yorkshire, up in the north of England.  At the time, being there was tremendously satisfying because, while southern England was then a very international (and tourist-ridden) region, Leeds was still extremely British, as was the surrounding countryside.  By 2004, though, while in Florida, I met a woman from Leeds who told me that large parts of Yorkshire had come under Muslim control.  A new book reveals that, in the ensuing 17 years, it's only become worse.

Ed Husain, a former Muslim radical who is now a professor at Georgetown University, traveled across England to find out just how much Islamification has occurred in the country that provided the template for American liberties.  What Husain found is disheartening, especially in the north of England, where Islam took root while London ignored it.

Bradford, for example, is a former industrial hub about 25 minutes east of Leeds.  It was a quintessentially English manufacturing city during the Industrial Revolution.  Now, though, as Husain described to the Daily Mail, it's becoming a hard-line Islamic city:

In nearby Bradford, Ed was amazed by the lack of white English people in the city, and asked a Muslim taxi driver 'where they are'.

He was told they had all 'gone with the wind.'

According to the author, there were mosques 'on almost every corner', with Ed writing: 'Then there are houses that also serve as mosques and madrasas , banners affixed to their façades.'

[snip]

After visiting an Islamic bookstore he discovered works glorifying violent jihad by Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian godfather of Islamist terror and an acknowledged influence on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.   

He spoke to the director of a local theatre company dedicated to helping disabled children and those with special educational needs, Louise Denham, about how the communities could come together.

But she was pessimistic, and warned that Bradford could become 'an apartheid city' within 30 years.

She predicted: 'There'll be more pushback against diversity. We'll have parties like Nazi Germany organising against the immigrant and Muslim populations.' 

Ed concluded that while the community was physically in Britain, they are mentally living elsewhere.

And so it goes, according to Husain, in one formerly very British community after another.  Just as the French have ceded the banlieues around Paris to Muslims who fail to assimilate, and Sweden is struggling with the unassimilated Muslim community in Malmö, England has allowed large swaths of the country to become entirely Islamic.

England is a country that could once boast that it was last invaded in 1066.  After that, it repulsed the Spanish in 1588, Napoleon in the early 19th century, and Hitler during WWII.  Beginning in the 1990s, though, it willingly invited in a community that will soon overtake it in demographics and in fanatic vigor.  Ironically, the only other faith group that has some life in it in England is Catholicism, thanks to the central European immigrants who also came in the 1990s.  Henry VIII and Cromwell are rolling in their graves, but Mary Tudor is doing fist pumps in Heaven.

This story matters to me because it saddens me to see the country that was the cradle of American liberties (the Founders got their ideas from England, although they created a better system via the Constitution), and that had a rich and beautiful culture, slowly turn into a Pakistani backwater.  It also saddens me because my British friends are frightened.  Their communities are dangerous, and they are targets.

This should also frighten you because we are following in England's wake.  Biden's illegal and unconstitutional actions to erase the southern border and flood America, not just with illegal aliens from Latin America, but from a variety of countries, many of them Muslim, when combined with the Democrat party's aggressive efforts to create racial schisms in America, means we are also starting down the path to becoming a third-world apartheid country rather than a tolerant, pluralist, constitutional nation.

Image: Bradford Muslims holding a vigil for Qasem Soleimani.  YouTube screen grab.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.


UK: Over Half of Pakistani-Heritage Women Being in Cousin Marriages Raising Birth Defects, Deaths

white
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
3:13

A majority of marriages in Britain’s Pakistani community being between first cousins is wreaking a terrible toll on public health, with stillbirths, birth defects, and disabilities far higher than they would otherwise be.

In an article published by the Daily Mail, journalist Sue Reid described how an estimated 55 per cent of Pakistani-heritage couples are first cousins in so-called consanguineous marriages.

Not coincidentally, British Pakistanis account for an astonishing 33 per cent of birth defects in the country — far, far in excess of the proportion of births they account for overall, according to Reid.

Indeed, places in England with very large South Asian heritage populations, such as multicultural Bradford, appear to be paying a heavy price for the practice, with doctors in one study identifying some 140 different gene disorders among local youngsters, against only 20-30 among the general population.

Reid also highlighted the fact that stillbirths and infant deaths in the city are approaching double the national average, and many case studies of people with debilitating — and presumably costly, for Britain’s taxpayer-funded National Health Service — illnesses resulting from their parentage.

Breitbart London reported back in 2017 that in Redbridge, a multicultural borough in Britain’s hyper-diverse capital, almost one-in-five child deaths since 2008 were attributable to their parents being close relatives, with “chromosomal, genetic or congenital abnormalities” being a leading cause of death.

“The first duty of a Government is to protect its citizens from harm. There is a strong argument, down the road, for it to consider whether first-cousin unions should be outlawed in the same way as incest is,” suggested Nazir Afzal, a prosecutor turned pundit who the media has often turned to for comment on the topic of now-rarely covered majority-Muslim rape gangs in the past.

“We are tired of burying our babies,” suggested Afzal, whose own parents hail from Pakistan, adding that it is time “to follow the science and act to save lives” — although in truth it appears as though the problem is one of the Pakistani community’s own making, with the British government only culpable insofar as it has done nothing to prevent the Pakistani community from indulging its collective penchant for first cousin marriages, which are in modern times well outside the norm for the native population and socially discouraged.

Afzal, a practising Muslim, said that in his view the popularity of first cousin marriages among Pakistanis in Britain is down to greed, not religion.

‘They are arranged for material reasons, not because of religion. Families don’t want to risk their gold by allowing their child to marry an outsider,” he said.

“Some brothers betroth their boy or girl at birth to each other. Where is the choice of partner for their adult child?” he demanded.

Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

ntisemitic Incidents Reach Record High in the UK: Report

Pro-Palestinian activists and supporters burn an Israeli flag as they demonstrate in support of the Palestinian cause outside the Israeli Embassy in central London on May 22, 2021. (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP) (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images)
JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images
3:10

The number of antisemitic incidents in the UK has “surpassed anything we have seen before”, according to a leading Jewish charity.

The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 351 antisemitic incidents between May 8th and the 31st. This three-week figure is higher than in any month as a whole since records began, the Jewish charity said.

The previous record for antisemitic incidents in Britain was in July of 2014, when 317 were recorded. In both instances, the escalations were linked to increased tension between Israel and Palestinian terror group Hamas.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism told the Press Association that the incidents recorded in May included physical attacks on Jewish people, antisemitic placards and chants witnessed at political protests, social media posts, and threats against Jewish children at schools.

A spokesman for the organisation said: “None of these should be features of life in Britain in 2021, but they are for Jewish people.

“Ultimately, the blame lies with the racist perpetrators of these cowardly incidents. But some politicians, the media, social media companies and others have done their part in tolerating or even stoking the hate.

“It is vital that the police investigate incidents as they arise and bring offenders to justice.

“In a year defined by solidarity against racism worldwide, it is extraordinary how little support there is out there for Britain’s Jews. Racism against Jews just doesn’t seem to count.”

The CST said that the rise in antisemitic incidents is “utterly predictable and completely disgraceful”.

The British government’s communities secretary, Robert Jenrick, said last week that the escalating antisemitism in the UK is likely a result of radical Islamist cells in the country.

He said that the UK must be “alive” to the growing threat of Islamic antisemitism “because some of the themes we’ve seen in recent weeks are more than just casual antisemitism, or people who don’t understand what antisemitism is, and drift into it by accident”.

The government minister gave the example of a pro-Palestinian car protest in May, which saw members of the motorcade scream out on the streets of London: “F*** the Jews”, “F*** their mothers”, “F*** their daughters”, and “Rape their daughters”.

The Community Security Trust reported that in another case, a group of Jewish secondary school children were threatened by a man who said that he would assault them if they didn’t express support for Palestine.

“Tell your f****** mum and dad they are murderers and killing babies,” the man allegedly yelled at the children.

Last month also saw a resurgence in anti-Israel political rallies, with two major protests being staged in London.

Both rallies were attended by former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who was suspended from his own party over his alleged failures to meaningfully take on antisemitism within the left-wing party.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka

WHAT DOES 'GOOD CATHOLIC' JOE BIDEN SAY ABOUT THIS? - Federal Court Rejects Planned Parenthood Lawsuit Against ‘Sanctuary City’ for the Unborn in Texas

 

Federal Court Rejects Planned Parenthood Lawsuit Against ‘Sanctuary City’ for the Unborn in Texas

By Ashlianna Kreiner | June 4, 2021 | 4:18pm EDT

 
 
(Getty Images)
(Getty Images)

(CNS News) -- A lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood against the city of Lubbock, Texas, which had declared itself a “sanctuary city” for the unborn, was thrown out by a federal district judge who said he lacked the jurisdiction to rule on the case and would leave the matter to the “state courts” to decide.

“Because plaintiffs fail to show, as they must, that they have Article III standing to sue the city, the Court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction,” said Judge Wesley Hendrix in his June 1 ruling for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division.

The judge’s decision followed only weeks after the ordinance was passed by the Lubbock City Council, to make it a “sanctuary city for the unborn.”

(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)

As the ordinance reads,  “We declare Lubbock, Texas to be a Sanctuary City for the Unborn. Abortion at all times and at all stages of pregnancy is declared to be an act of murder, subject to the affirmative defenses described in Section D(3).”

“It shall be unlawful for any person to procure or perform an abortion of any type and at any stage of pregnancy in the City of Lubbock, Texas,” reads the ordinance, and,  “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly aid or abet an abortion that occurs in the City of Lubbock, Texas.”

“The Lubbock ordinance is enforced solely by private citizens, not state or local actors,” reported the Texas Tribune. Because of this “the judge said his rulings could not prevent private parties from filing civil lawsuits in state court.” 

(Getty Images)
(Screenshot)

Lubbock is not the first city to declare itself a “Sanctuary City” doe the unborn, but it is the largest and the first to have an active abortion clinic within the city.   

Mark Lee Dickson, director of the Right to Life of East Texas, anticipates further lawsuits. "We have said from the beginning that this ordinance is completely bulletproof from pre-enforcement lawsuits,” he said.

Pro-abortion advocate Andriana Pion, senior staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, speaking on behalf of herself and Planned Parenthood, said the “organization was disappointed the court did not hear the ‘substance’ of the lawsuit, and that people in Lubbock would be not be able to ‘access essential health care’ as a result.”


TV networks refuse to run 

pro-life ad


In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it would be taking up the first major abortion case in years, the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life advocacy group, announced it was launching a $2 million television ad campaign. But even though the ad the group produced does not contain any graphic footage, it has nonetheless been rejected by multiple television networks.

The ad starts out by noting that, after five decades of medical breakthroughs, "every age group has more opportunity to live — except one. The unborn still fall victim to outdated laws.” It continues, “Science tells us that at 15 weeks these babies have fully formed faces. They smile. They yawn. They feel pain. It's why European countries ban late-term abortions. In five decades, we've learned they are just like us. Isn't it time the law reflects the science?"

S.B.A. List has frequently pointed out that its ad is not a call to action or an attack on any politician, but simply "a response to news that the U.S. Supreme Court will review a Mississippi law limiting abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy" and a celebration of the miracles of modern medicine.

Be that as it may, CMT, owned by ViacomCBS, explained to the S.B.A. List that, though it sometimes takes "issue-based ads," theirs was just too controversial. "While we do accept political and issue-based ads on a case-by-case basis, issue-oriented ads that are designed for the purpose of presenting views or influencing legislation on issues that are controversial by general public consensus are unacceptable," CMT said, according to the Daily Wire.

The Daily Wire also reported that Crown Media, which owns Hallmark, informed the S.B.A. List it rejected the ad "because it does not meet the Hallmark Channel's criteria for the positive experience Hallmark aims to offer viewers.” Sure. Duckies and bunnies all the time is the hallmark of the Hallmark Channel.

CBS, channeling its inner CMT (or maybe CMT was channeling its inner CBS), told the S.B.A. List that "Issue-oriented advertisements that are designed for the purpose of presenting views or influencing legislation on issues that are controversial by general public consensus are unacceptable.” Really, CBS? What is “60 Minutes” if not an hour-long issue-oriented advertisement for progressive causes?

Some “pro-choice” groups are worried about the Court’s decision, though it likely won’t be rendered until 2022. Nancy Northup, the President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that "Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights.”

Note to Nancy: there is no threat to reproductive rights. Everyone has the right to reproduce. Everyone has the right not to, as well…by simply not engaging in the act that was specifically designed for procreation. Don’t want to get arrested for drunk driving? Don’t drive drunk.

Remarkably, restrictions on the wholesale slaughter of innocent life are “controversial” to so-called progressives and those who would aid and abet them. And still others are unwilling to potentially lose a few bucks in revenue by upsetting the “pro-choice” crowd, most of whom were not pro-choice as regards the government telling individuals to stay at home, wear masks in public, or get vaccinated.

Isn’t it interesting/tragic that pro-life messages are “controversial” and not conducive to a “positive experience” while we allow our cities to be burned and looted and our children to be abused and maimed?

Leftists are nothing if not frauds. Everything they do is for the purpose of presenting views and influencing legislation on controversial issues. That is their approach to education, news, “entertainment,” and everything else.

The rest of us must exercise our pro-choice rights by refusing to be intimidated by them.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.


FAST FOOD AMERICA - MODERN SLAVERS WHO OPENLY HIRE ILLEGALS - A California Bill Would Help Fast Food Workers and Hold Corporations Accountable

THERE IS A REASON WHY AMERICA'S BORDERS ARE WIDE OPEN. IT'S ALL ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED.

IN CALIFORNIA, YOU ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO FIND A SINGLE FAST FOOD OPERATION THAT HIRES ANYONE WHO IS NOT MEXICAN. LEGAL, OR NOT, NO NON-LA RAZA NEED APPLY.

A California Bill Would Help Fast Food Workers and Hold Corporations Accountable

These workers face low wages, lousy conditions, and a monopoly system that puts the squeeze on them.

In May, McDonald’s workers in 15 cities led strikes to demand a $15 company-wide minimum wage. Fast food workers make just $11.80 an hour or $24,540 a year working full-time, on average, making them some of the lowest-paid workers in America. In California, fast food workers are going a step further. Last month, workers rallied for the FAST Recovery Act, a California bill that would create a council of labor and business interests to set stronger wages and working conditions across the industry. It would also make fast food brands liable for labor violations at all their independently owned franchises.

By holding parent companies accountable and improving labor standards across the industry, this bill would change the nature of competition in fast food. As it stands, strict franchising contracts push franchisees to make profits by squeezing workers’ wages, benefits, hours, and safety, since many other business decisions are out of their control. Setting comprehensive, worker-informed, industrywide labor standards can especially benefit workers in highly fractured industries with low union density, such as fast food—so long as workers do not lose any labor rights in the process (which a sectoral bargaining proposal for New York gig workers threatens to do).

Fast food corporations exploit and abuse workers. California fast food workers are some of the lowest paid in the state, averaging $13.27 an hour. According to the SEIU, more than 70 percent of these workers are people of color. Scheduling can be unstable for working parents, and fast food workers experience exceptional levels of wage theft and other labor violations. Sexual harassment and racism are also rampant, according to worker surveys and Imelda Rosales, who has worked at McDonald’s in the Los Angeles area for 11 years. “So many fast-food workers are afraid to talk about issues in their stores because they are afraid of retaliation,” Rosales said through a translator. Indeed, one survey of female fast food workers found 70 percent suffered consequences for reporting harassment. As the main income provider for her four kids, there have been times when Rosales had to accept any shift McDonald’s offered, take a second job, and work 6 a.m. to midnight seven days a week to support her family.

To understand California’s approach to protecting fast food workers, it’s important to remember how the fast food business model works. Massive fast food chains such as McDonald’s or Domino’s pride themselves in their uniformity globally, but most major fast food chains do not own the bulk of their restaurant locations. Some 73 percent of fast-food workers are employed by franchised chains, meaning independent local business owners hire workers and run the restaurants.

Changes in antitrust law have allowed franchisors to enact tighter contractual control over their franchisees, bringing into question whether these businesses are truly independent. In a sample of franchise contracts examined by Open Markets Chief Economist Brian Callaci, 95 percent dictated what products franchisees could sell, 92 percent set their hours of operation, 83 percent gave franchisors power to withdraw funds directly from the franchisees’ bank account, and 56 percent set maximum and minimum prices. On average, food services franchises also buy 63 percent of their supplies from sources dictated by the parent company.

Under these conditions, Callaci’s research finds that franchisees rely on cutting labor costs to compete with one another. “By removing non-labor variables from the franchisee’s profit-maximizing choice set, vertical restraints compel franchisees to focus on minimizing labor costs and extracting labor effort for their profit margins,” Callaci writes. Indeed, economic studies show that franchised fast-food locations offer lower wages and have more labor violations than locations directly owned by the parent company.

The FAST Recovery Act would disrupt this dynamic. For one, it would hold franchisors liable for labor violations at all their franchisees, forcing the mothership to think twice when drafting contracts that incentivize squeezing workers.

The bill would also create a government-sanctioned council of business representatives and workers to set industry-wide standards for wages, benefits, safety, scheduling, and other working conditions. The council would update fast food workplace standards at least every three years and allow for temporary emergency standards, such as pandemic safety protocol. It would also host hearings every six months for workers to share stories and forbid retaliation by employers. In addition to getting higher pay and more stable hours, Rosales wants the bill to pass to hold employers accountable for sexual harassment and racism. “We could get respect on the job and protection from things like sexual harassment,” Rosales said. “We would have a place to go.”

New York state raised fast food workers’ minimum wage through a similar wage-setting board, and Seattle created a multi-stakeholder board that sets labor standards for domestic workers, including independent contractors. “Sectoral councils are really well suited for industries where unions have little or no density and the structure of the industry is heavily fragmented and makes traditional organizing difficult or impossible,” explains David Madland, senior adviser to the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress. Only 1.3 percent of all restaurant workers are union members, and even if one fast food location could manage to unionize, that wouldn’t prevent the franchise down the block from undercutting them on wages. “The sectoral council can help ensure that we have competition that’s based on productivity and improving the delivery of services, rather than on squeezing workers,” says Madland. 

It’s worth noting that not all industry standard-setting efforts are created equal. New York legislators recently introduced a sectoral bargaining proposal that, on paper, would allow delivery and ride-hailing gig workers to elect unions to negotiate with tech corporations, such as Uber and Instacart, for industrywide wages and benefits.

However, this proposal also requires gig workers to give up several rights, namely, their right to be classified as employees instead of independent contractors. Creating a legal carve out to permanently classify gig workers as contractors bars these workers from engaging in collective bargaining directly. The bill would also prevent workers from being paid for time spent looking for rides (undermining the value of any minimum wage unions may negotiate). The proposal also includes a no-strike clause and replaces existing state-level unemployment insurance with portable benefits that could be less generous, among many other issues raised by critics.

By contrast, the FAST Recovery Act in California does not preclude fast food workers from forming a union to bargain for benefits beyond the standards set by the sectoral council. The council also would not take away any existing workers’ protections and benefits. The bill has already been passed by the California Assembly Judiciary, Labor and Employment, and Appropriations Committees and awaits floor votes in the Assembly and Senate.

This piece originally appeared in Food & Power.