Medium.com on the El Chapo revolt

I reported my views on the El Chapo revolt that happened a couple months ago and am just now reading Medium.com's take on it.  By the way, in case you haven't figured it out yet, Medium.com is a reference to the magazine's centrist liberal lean.  In other words, not crazy liberalism; not leftism.  I actually like about 60% of what I have read there which is pretty high given that I only like about 80% of what I read in the so called conservative press outlets.  My point of saying this is that I don't think centrist libs are all crazy/all harmful.  Not even close.  It's the violent minority left that is punching above its weight and demanding to be called by special, ridiculous pronouns, etc.

In any case, Medium's account provides more of the details behind the armed response to the kidnapping of El Chapo's son and I think they are instructive.  But wait, El Chapo is the criminal so his son wasn't "kidnapped" but rather "apprehended and detained".  Yeah well whatever.  You say tomato if you like but I know for a fact that big government is the most corrupt, most amoral, most murderous criminal cartel on the planet.  I know big government makes money from drug running, gun running, influence pedaling, creating wars under false pretenses that kill millions under color of national security.  I know that big government guns its own citizens down and then covers it up on a regular basis anytime they can get away with it.  I know big government plants evidence and knowingly falsely imprisons people as a matter of convenience. 

An unbiased intelligent person who ignores the propaganda will realize that big governments are no better than criminal cartels; they just have better/more active public relations programs.  At least with the cartel it's pretty clear how to avoid trouble with them: just avoid them.  Stay away from them.  Don't take drugs.  If you do that they will mostly 99.9% of the time) leave you alone.  Stay out of their business and they ignore you.  Drug cartels do not think they own you.  They just make it clear that you do not own them.  It's not that simple with big government which actually thinks it owns people.  It monitors their behavior and fines people for violations.  It taxes people without any say on how the $$ gets spent.  It debases the currency which is a tax on every user; a taxation without representation for sure.  Big government negatively affects me faaaaaar more than any drug cartel.  If I had to choose one over the other, I'd probably go with the cartel that minds its own fucking business until you fuck with it.

In Mexico, the government completely underestimated the counterforce that was lurking just below the surface.  The drug cartels didn't suddenly just build their capacity to fight; they had machine gun trucks ready to go in stored locations.  They had sophisticated military style engagement plans and they clearly had adopted the tactic of asymmetrical warfare. 

They openly drove in trucks with mounted machine guns, blockaded streets flashing their Kalashnikovs and burned trucks unleashing plumes of smoke like it was a scene in Syria. They took control of the strategic points in the metro area, shut down the airport, roads, and government buildings and exchanged fire with security forces for hours, leaving at least eight people dead.— Ioan Grillo, Time Magazine

There were videos and transcripts of cartel members radioing the government forces and demanding them to give up El Chapo’s son or their families would be murdered. And there were reports that members of the military had their family members taken hostage. Eventually, the government forces decided to release Ovidio in order to avoid more bloodshed.

The article concludes that the government gave up their kidnap victim in order to save lives.  But it doesn't state the truth which is that government doesn't give a shit about anyone but itself.  Anything that happened that day was out of fear of losing the lives of government people.  The lives of the drug cartel and the lives of the people in the city never factored into the equation.  So it looks like the drug cartel learned from old Chris Dorner.  He broadened the war to include the families and loved ones of those who were doing the shooting.  It was the credible threat that families and loved ones would die that put one man, Chris Dorner, in the position of making the entire LAPD live in fear and loathing for weeks of time before they finally tracked him down in an all out manhunt.  But he was only one guy.  If he were 50 or 100 or 1000 then government would be hamstrung.

At the end of the day, the government got handed its ass in a public way and, having accomplished its mission, the drug cartel forces again retreated to obscurity.  After the global debt Ponzi collapses we will see things like this unfold in cities across the USA.  People whose family is picked up and put in camps for protesting, etc. will have only one way out: vigilante attacks by the people's militia.

Everything seems pretty OK in most of the USA today but it's time to start considering which side you will fall on once the shit hits the fan because it will be black and white, not grey.  As GW Bush said in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Online money laundering now at Walmart.com soon

The criminals are jumping the shark by overtly using public sell through websites like Amazon, ebay and now even walmart.com to launder money.  They used to use web sites nobody every heard of before.  The sites were public in nature but had no visiblity to the public.  IF you went to these sites all the prices would be 100x-10000x the normal cost.  The goal was to allow an anonymous way to have someone with a lot of money to launder to do so in a way that could be explained away as legit.  They would sell a real product and deliver it.  The "buyer" would send in money.  This would generate fake sales for the seller who needed the inflated numbers to make up for the fact that sacks of illegal cash needed to be accounted for and taxes paid on lest jail time be risked for tax evasion.

First it was only these private web stores and then Amazon and Ebay and now they are using walmart.com as well.  As you can see from the link, hurry and buy your $15 automotive tachometer for only 5 grand because there is only 1 left!!

When these transactions occur, some of the money has to be going to walmart.  And that means walmart (and amazon and everyone else) must know this is happening but do not want it to stop because its revenue to them.  And that makes them all complicit in laundering criminal money.  Mark my words, lots of people already know about this but are saying nothing for now.  But sooner or later someone will talk and you will see Amazon and Walmart and Ebay people all thrown under the bus for conspiracy to money laundering.

Rats leaving the sinking liberal ship?

How often do you see politicians not only disagreeing with party leadership but actually changing parties in order to escape their madness? It's a 4 sigma event at the very least.  But the libs are so over the top batshit crazy in hate with Trump that they appear to be oblivious to what those around them are saying and thinking.

In this recent case, its Rep Jeff Van Drew, a known moderate dem, who is running away literally in the political analog to having one's hair on fire.  We have to understand, it's not just one man affected here.  He has a whole staff who has been following him, for no small part because he's a dem.  Do all those people just walk away from him now or do they "turn GOP" as well?  Do all those dems who voted him in just walk away as well, or do they all quietly agree with this guy and think what he's doing is extremely gutsy, brave and principled?

At the end of the day, only an idiot strongly affiliates with one political party or the other.  Those "parties" don't care about the people.  They only care to stay in power.  Heck, maybe that's all Van Drew is doing with this switch.  Maybe he thinks the dems are off the rail so badly that the GOP will sweep the presidency, senate AND house in 2020.

I think most of the GOPs are not conservative.  Most are liberals.   Tax, spend, make un-keepable promises, fight endless foreign wars of aggression, in love with the control state, etc.  So it is a joke to sign up with one party or the next.  If you have to back a politician do it for what the person in question demonstrates are his/her real values.  Talk is cheap and it's even negative interest bearing if you are a politician.

Desperate liberals are going to get themselves in trouble

I read Yahoo Finance now and again and of late I have been seeing a certain type of clickbait ad that essentially implies this person or that is a homo even though they are not.  The main give away is the use of the word "partner".  For example I give you the defamatory little crapfest below.  Michael Strahan is married to a woman and has a ton of children.  He's not married to a "partner"; he has a wife.

Now let's not confuse this with the fact that some men and women who live together refer to their "other" as a partner, not because they are gay but because they are not married.  But if a man is actually married under the only true and correct definition of the word as one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) then neither he nor anyone else should refer to the woman in the relationship as "his partner" because marriage is a huge step above partnership.

But these desperate ads go one step further.  They trick weak minded people into clicking on the link (and racking up money for the clickbait company) by double-implying that the celebrity is gay by adding the picture of another man who has essentially nothing to do with the person whose reputation is being sullied.  People with nothing better to do with their time click the link to go check out the circus sideshow of a big old NFL pro football star and his Asian soy boy toy.

It would be great for the victim if everyone who saw the ad clicked on it because they would immediately realize that the person in the picture isn't gay.  But 90% of the people don't click and so they just end up with an image in their head.  And the image suggests "big old gay black football star is not ashamed of his homo-ness".

I wonder how much longer until the brunts of these clickbait ads decide to sue for defamation.  After all, while conservative people don't care if gay people exist, they damned sure don't want to be ribbed by their friends, etc. about being gay.