Are You Responsible for the Violence in Mexico?


By: Jim Byrd

It now appears that, according to political wisdom, the following have had their status as victims modified to co-criminals: Rape victims share co-responsibility with their attackers for being desirous to their attackers; robbery victims share co-responsibility for possessing something worth taking; murder victims share co-responsibility for giving their killers cause to snuff them out; and all of Bernie Madoff’s bilked investors are co-criminals for having the audacity of handing over their money to him in the first place. The above victims’ statuses have been revised to be in alignment with our new Democrat-styled foreign policy. We (me and you), and the United States of America are responsible for Mexico’s violence, according to the Obama administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

While storming into Mexico this week, after traveling abroad and demonstrating a tactless display of solecism, Clinton has set her sights on embarrassing the United States within the confines of its own continent, just south of the border.

Clinton explained the causes of Mexico’s violence during her visit to Mexico this past week with the subsequent cognition: “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians. I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility.” Clinton then continued, in tandem with her mastery of cross-border tensions, to display her mastery of religion as well: The Our Lady of Gaudalupe, which appeared on the back of a peasant cloak in the early 1500′s, was lowered from its alter for Clinton to view. After admiring the image, Clinton asked, “Who painted it?” A quick retort by Msgr. Monroy–”God.”

Mexico blames their irrepressible crime on the United States because of its inability to halt weapons from being illegally brought across the border into Mexico. Mexico wants the United States to take responsibility and extinguish the root cause of their violent crime, while concurrently supporting the idea of an open border: Mexico continues to take offense at the border fence. Mexico needs the open borders to continue to abet their illegal immigration industry’s incursion into the United States. These statements coming from a third-world country that has perfected the art of political and martial corruption. It is interesting that neither Clinton nor her Mexican counterpart, Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa, mentioned the twelve thousand illegals that cross the Mexican border into the United States daily, the drugs that follow the same path, nor the violence the drugs incite on the U.S. side of the border. A very interesting devoid part of the exchange, indeed.

How are these guns being smuggled into Mexico? Perhaps they are following the same routes that the Mexican government makes available to the twelve thousand illegal aliens who cross the border into our country each day; perhaps it is simply a matter of mathematics: twelve thousand illegals cross north each day, two-thousand illegal guns cross south each day. How easy and unfair is that? How many of the twelve thousand illegals bring the drugs across a porous border that the U.S has spent hundreds, if not trillions of dollars, fighting? It’s mathematically unfair.

When Clinton uses the term “our” in reference to our (me, mine, you, us, and the United States) culpability in the drug and gun racket, the term “our” must be as carefully assayed as Bill Clinton’s statement under oath, “…it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Let us first define what the meaning of “ours” is. Does it mean me? I can assure you it does not; it does not mean conservative; it does not mean those who support immigration control; it does not mean those who support the border fence; and it certainly does not represent those who, unlike our Secretary of Homeland Security, want our immigration laws unabashedly enforced.

So who does “ours” mean? Does it mean you? It does if you support the Democrat Party; it means you if you supported the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill; it means you if you support sanctuary cities; it means you if you oppose the border fence; it means you if you are a drug user–which statistically would place you leaning left, and thus, a Democrat. So “ours”, according to this past election, would mean just over half of the United States, and not my half. If you fit the profile above, you are the one-half of this nation represented by Clinton’s “our”, not my half.

Logic: The most prosperous country in the world, with a two-thousand mile open border adjacent to a third-world country rife with corruption, crime, and abject poverty is a recipe for what? A never ending cycle of illegals crossing a non-existent border, some transporting drugs that fuel the “insatiable” demand for the drugs, while guns cross the border south to help propagate the production and exportation of said drugs, and around and around and around it will go until there is not a border to pierce with impunity. Phoenix, Arizona has the second highest kidnap for ransom rate in the world. Second only to–guess? Mexico City.

Until this two-thousand mile thoroughfare that serves as a border is as close to 100% sealed as it can possibly be; all non-citizens accounted for in this county- and if illegal, deported; and illegal ingress and egress brought to a negligible number; all the empty political rhetoric, hand wringing, threats, and political plans will never cause a cessation of the problems on either side of the border. As Mexico wails on about American guns illegally immigrating into their country, the cause and effect must be cross-examined: what came first, the chicken or the egg? The guns or the drugs? In this case the answer is not much of a riddle–the illegals and drugs are part of the history of the U.S. and Mexican border, yet gun-running of this magnitude is relatively new. Stop the drugs and its avenues, and the guns and its avenues stop–supply and demand—trickle up, Democrat style.

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.
Website:http://www.jimbyrd.com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.