2010: More civilians killed in one Mexican town than in all of Afghanistan

View Comments (27)

• I just did a little goggling, juggling, googlpediaing, whatever wikiuping you want to call it, and found this little fact.

  In 2010 alone there were an estimated 15,273 people killed in the Mexican drug wars. Some of those killed were cartel members in territory disputes but the vast majority were innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with the cartels or their drugs.

  Compare that to the fact that 7109 coalition forces have been killed in Iraq and Afganistan since 2003.

  • Every time a Mexican cartel member/innocent citizen dies, a libtard/prog/dumdo-crat open boarder advocate loses 10,000 more brain cells.

    • Since none of them have ever had 10,000 brain cells I would have to say you are wrong.

• "Lucy you got some explaining to do".

  • splainin'

• Looking south to the future embraced by voters in California, Arizona and Texas. Democrats and other liberals, including many Republicans, must see Mexico as the Great Society they want for themselves, or else they wouldn't have encouraged so many criminals to break American law and live here.

  The media don't see anything wrong here, killing is boring unless it has something to do with the American military trying to save an entire population from being enslaved by a cruel ideology, then it amuses the liberal media very much.

• The situation in Mexico is deplorable. All the stories especially about the women dissappearing is heartbreaking. The situation in Mexico will not change until the people of Mexico demand their government to do their job and to stop protecting the narcos.

• I know several people who work in Juarez, almost all of them are scared sh___less to go to work, the rest are just stupid.

  But never fear, by hook or by crook, we'll yet disarm our citizens so they too are helpless peasants like the run of the mill Mexicans:

  http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/death_in_the_desert_project_gu.html

• I found a conservative site that I responded to. The left or right has no solution, as they both maintain and uphold the archaic doctrine of immunity for corrupt acts they or their associates may commit. Ours is the 11th amendment. I will just paste my response to a politico in India, griping about the same "sovereign rule" that makes our democracy a moot fallacy.

  http://cplash.com/post/63-YEARS-OF-OLIGARCHY--SOVEREIGN-IMMUNITY-RESTS-ON-TWO-PRINCIPLES677.html

  I found your article, and I find that it is similar to my views, though I am inexperienced with Hinduism. I am in the USA, and have learned that we are not the example of democracy our government tells us we are.There is a movement called the “conservativepartyusa.com.” http://www.conservativepartyusa.com It is another shill endeavor to capture conservatives into supporting them under the guise that they have a solution. However, the facts show that they are as baseless as any other status quo organization who feeds off of ignorance.

  Not one of these tenets mentions the obstacle in the way of change!
  UNDER “PLANKS”

  PREAMBLEFully Agreed!

  OFFICIAL PLATFORM
  (Your premise is flawed and not conservative.)
  “The U.S. Government shall use all legal means under current Federal Law(s) to protect…” The U.S. Government is not human! It is an entity and cannot think for itself! Under the First Amendment, the “people” have a right to petition for redress of grievance.

  You are promoting a “conservative party” that is weak and unable to make a difference from the status quo of turning a blind eye allowing the U.S. Government” to use “legal means” to “protect…”

  “To protect:” Well, this is an idea that sounds good, but it also displays your ignorance of facts that reveal you are wasting time believing in fairy tails. Oh I’m sure you will attract like minded individuals to blindly do what “feels good or right.” You see, the U.S. Supreme court does not hide the fact that the U.S. Government has “no duty to protect” people from harm that may come to them. This is upheld in Deshaney v. Winnebago by Gonzalez v. Castle Rock 2004. If the Court does not hide this, then how come you don’t know this? If you don’t know what to attack, then how can you take the position of commander and leader to influence people without knowledge of who or what to attack?

  Repeal Health Care Reform Bill of 2010I can’t argue with that. If it wasn’t for my honorable service in the Navy, I would not have the V.A. benefits for medical for life, a “government program.” I pay a lot in taxes as a self employed contractor, and have anxiety about my future. Other countries such as Norway, or Canada and Britain (my birthplace) remove anxiety about healthcare, and they too pay high taxes.

  I have no comment on the following topics your organization promotes, because there is nothing under the current law that will interfere with opposition to your/our desires in conservative government, as lont as the 11th amendment exists! i.e. Comprehensive Health Care Solutions; Adopt a Fiscally Responsible Monetary Policy; Promote Economic Prosperity; America should adopt measures to help revive and sustain economic vitality; The United States must adopt a comprehensive Energy Policy; Enact Reciprocal Trade Laws; End Automatic Congressional Cost of Living Increases; Require a Balanced Budget; U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the Land.

  However, I can comment on the next topic!U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the Land!Again, rhetoric that suggests your views are flawed with fallacy and confusion. The document may be the “…law of the land, but it is not law to protect the people from evil government. On the contrary, it protects the government from the people. Prior to 1795, there was a bill of rights that worked to hold our government accountable to the people. When this happens, officials face scrutiny of their policy and personal gain in government. Sometimes this policy and gain borderlines criminal activity.

  In order to end “scrutiny” of officials that can lead to public humiliation, officials found that the King of England had logic to wielding “Sovereign Power.”Prior to 1795 citizens who were abused by officials masking power under the color of law were being sued by citizens. The officials were losing these cases under the power of the bill of rights, and were overturning this abuse, at the expense of the agenda and policy of corrupt officials. At that time, most of these suits arose around “war debt contracts” under the Continental Congress, whom certain officials signed were attempting to breach them under the loophole of a defunct corporation when the “Continental Congress” was disbanded to form the USA. At that time, under the Pennsylvania Bankruptcy act of 1775, indefinite prison sentences and physical disfigurement were a punishment for failing to pay debts.Congress and officials were being denied perks that past centuries of rulers had enjoyed under “Sovereign Power” of despots. Read the Declaration of Independence. Finally, a case came up in the Supreme Court. It was Chisholm v. Georgia, a breach of contract for war debts against Georgia who claimed, “Sovereign Immunity” as a defense. Interestingly enough, James Wilson was then a Supreme Court Justice. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence early on. He was asked by Jefferson and Madison the “frame” the Constitution and to sell it to members of the Continental Congress by explaining the merits of the Constitution in debate.In Chisholm, the “framer” and “author” of Article III of the constitution; James Wilson was a Supreme Court Justice that did not have to rely upon interpretation of the document, as Justices do now. So Wilson took the opportunity to explain and place in CONCRETE the basis for the Constitution arising from the grievances codified in the Declaration of Independence. Probably best explained as a “…right inestimable and formidable to tyrants only.” This right that the King used to enrage a helpless populace in the new world, resulted in the death of humans in revolution. It was not “tea tax,” “quartering of troops,” “judicial tyranny,” “mock trials;” it was the basis for this tyranny, and that was “despotism.” Despotism is “Sovereign Power.” If you can comprehend this, then the USA will have a chance to demonstrate the intent of our forefathers. If not, then nothing will change, except the beneficiaries of the perks of ruling seemingly masochistic idiots, who for several hundred years cannot formulate these facts that I mention, that point to a bloodless freedom for men seeking liberty, an inalienable right!James Wilson, in his great decision, put in concrete these words, “To the Constitution the word sovereign is totally unknown.” Then how can the Supreme Court claim “Sovereign Immunity” for officials when they are sued for violating federal and state statutes? See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, or Stump v. Sparkman that reveal United States policy to cultivate corruption by protecting officials who are caught abusing power under color of law. The court, in those cases reveal that the 11th amendment to the Constitution gives them that “formidable and inestimable right of tyrants.” I personally would have never known this, but I filed a civil right lawsuit against corrupt officials protecting an arrested criminal who victimized my wife and I, and other community members, who had gained favor of officials by political contributions. The county claimed that they had a right to violate our bill of rights under the 11th amendment and that we could do nothing about it!Was it any coincidence that the 11th amendment was introduced to congress for ratification 2 days after the Chisholm decision? They seemingly covertly took 5 years to convince congress to immune themselves and all officials from liability for corruption. I do not recall any scholarly teachings on this history of our country. Why is that? I do know that there is a National Education Association that establishes curriculum for educating citizens in the United States. Are they also hiding information to preserve immunities? They hid this history that basically establishes the fact the officials have the same “Sovereign Power” of King George III who was fired by the United States, only because of his “Sovereign Power.”“U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the Land;” That is an ignorant statement, and you expect to lead people with this tripe propaganda? It is not true! The bill of rights, though still in the Constitution, was rendered powerless by the 11th amendment. On its face, you cannot discern my claim. However, read the case law I provide. Learn about James Wilson and Chisholm v. Georgia. Learn about the current bars to a “United States Code Title 42 Section 1983, 1985” Jury Trial demand! With the internet, this news is getting out. Because of this, Federal Courts across the land are violating due process, and rule of law, using decree by sovereign power to illegally dispose of citizens who are dissident by treating them as “adversaries” (see FBI propaganda http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law giving an illusion that the facts I claim do not exist). Why are they violating civil rights in the Federal Courts? Our government is out of hand and these cases are becoming more prevalent. Dismissing civil right abuse claims by willfully and illegally misconstruing them individually; casts a false light of frivolous claims that the public will not question. It is a Laissez-Faire situation that desperately needs public scrutiny and review.I have formulated my opinion that this clandestine nature of disposing of meritorious civil right cases is a built in protection for the “doctrine of immunity” that stems from the 13th century, framed by the Legal Scholar, Bartolus, to offer explanation for Papal and Despot tyranny for the torture and condemnation of heretics, as a “divine right” where the means justify the ends. A handful of great leaders have been murdered for exposing this abuse. Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. are a few of them who attempted to end “sovereign power” which only serves a purpose of excusing human right abuse. Gandhi was the only person to succeed at this, when his activism removed the United Kingdom from India. Martin Luther King Jr. was executed before the issue of Sovereign Power was able to be a platform. The doctrine of immunity, maxima par en parem non habet jurisdictionem, is the cause of every revolution that ever existed. The revolution utterly destroys it, and a new government is formed by the blood of people who believed that their sacrifice would enable their offspring to be free from abuse, a worthy cause. Nevertheless, within a decade, the Doctrine is returned under the greed and self preservation of bureaucrats, who display that in reality, they have abandoned humanity, and are the supreme evil that democracy cries to end!

  • In the time it took me to read your rant 4 civilians were murdered in Juarez.

    • I feel so bad. I had to laugh but it was so tragic because you are probably right.

  • What? Say that again.

    • No, once was enough.

      • More than enough this could seriously be cure for insomniacs.

  • I gave you a thumbs up because I was bored and you made me laugh.

    • I don't remember if I gave him an up or down, I was asleep by the end of his rant and may have clicked on either one.

  • I will add this too: What the hell does your rambling nonsense have to do with violence in Juarez?

  • Looks like April 20 came early again.

  • In your first paragraph you say we are a "democracy", which is wrong so the rest of your rant is irrelevant. America is not a democracy, we are a Republic. Two completely different ideas, with completely different views on how our country should be run.

    • Who's this Preventmurder guy? His post is ridiculously long and ranty. I fell asleep before I could read half of it! I with you whiskeyriver, I hate democracies, I want my Republic back!

    • A republic. now in new and improved banana flavor!

• The power brokers that have us fighting in some shithole on the other side of the world know exactly what's going on in Mexico, it's all part of their plan. We'll probably know it when it's too late to do anything about it. (cynicism intended)

• Maybe we should bring some of those predator drones flying over Pakistan home and fly them over Mexico. All we get from our relationship with Mexico is the importation of drugs, increased poverty due to drugs, and a pregnancy or two from spring break. We are nation building on the other side of the world yet just feet from our border drug cartels run wild. We really need to wake up, fix our own damn problems, and spend a little less time on the other side of the world. I'm not saying don't kick the snot out of terrorists, you know no one else will do it, I'm saying an improved Mexico means an improved America so lets go improve them a little.

• This article must be a lie since we all know Mexico has gun control and Afghanistan does not.

  Anyway, when parts of Arizona has signs put up warning people not to go there because of Mexican gangs and human trafficking, yeah, I think there might be a border problem.

  It helped put things in perspective last week when a retired ATF guy said he wouldn't go to Mexico now without an armed escort from the Marines.

• How about Barry,Biden and Janet star in "The Three Amigos! Deux"? Here is a quote from the first movie that could easily be used in this one;
  Mexican girl: Which one do you like?
  Carmen: I like the one that's not so smart.
  Mexican girl: Which one is that?