The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is increasingly becoming as vital to national peace and security as ICE. I am not without my libertarian sympathies, and disapprove of the DEA’s harassing dispensaries of marijuana (which I think should be legal). But much as ICE largely targets only the worst criminal aliens, the DEA largely targets only the most vile elements of the drug trade. Right now, that means stamping out the production and distribution of heroin and various opioids such as fentanyl. And, although the implication is not usually spelled out, that means resisting Open Borders.
Overdoses, remember, are the number one cause of death for Americans under the age of fifty—and this plague disproportionately affects whites. While the “opioid crisis” is talked about regularly, and (appropriately) with great gravitas by the Mainstream Media [The Poison We Pick, By Andrew Sullivan, NYMag, February 20, 2018], they rarely talk about the footsoldiers leading the counter-attack—namely the DEA.
With an annual budget of only two billion dollars, and about 10,000 employees, the DEA is a small agency. ICE, which is not considered big either, has twice as many employees and nearly four times as much money. But DEA still a force to be reckoned with. This July, in the Bronx, agents seized about 55 pounds of heroin and fentanyl. (Pictured right)To give you a sense of just how much that is, consider that the amount of heroin that typically leads to overdose is 200 to 500 milligrams (it varies widely because of the different tolerances among users, and the differing levels of purity of street heroin). If we split the difference and put the average overdose amount at 350 milligrams, then one pound of heroin contains a total of 1,296 average overdoses. 55 pounds contains a total of 71,280 average overdoses—enough to kill every resident of Bismarck, North Dakota. With that seizure came five arrests.
The defendants are: Luis Guzman-Rojas, Matias Rosario-Ramon, Anthony Polanco, Willy De La Cruz, and Pedro Sandoval.
Those names struck me as curiously similar to the names of drug pushers in another DEA action from July: Midence Oqueli Martinez Turcios, Arnaldo Urbina Soto, Carlos Fernando Urbina Soto, and Miguel Angel Urbina Soto.
It's quite simple: Some political relatives are more equal than others.
Agenda-driven journalists love to exploit familial dysfunction when a prominent politician is conservative and his or her kinfolk espouse liberal views. When a vengeful offspring, sibling, cousin or distant relation wants to wreak havoc, instant fame and adoration are just a tweet or call away. The media schadenfreude over such bloody bloodline battles is thicker than California wildfire smoke.
By contrast, relatives who openly challenge powerful Democrats are dismissed as gadflies and publicity hounds. Remember when Barack Obama's half-brother Malik criticized his younger sibling over his coddling of corrupt Hillary Clinton, support for gay marriage and inattention to Kenya and his family overseas?
Left-wing Vox responded by calling Malik a "somewhat scammy opportunist." A GQ writer decried "the inherent seediness of on-screen family dysfunction," declared that "Malik has nothing to do with anything," and condemned the "nonsensical stunt." The Huffington Post was befuddled that Donald Trump invited Malik to the third presidential debate "for no reason at all."
And Slate wrote: "Ugh."
By contrast, the anti-Trump media's favorite political family feuder this week was Dr. David Glosser, [Facebook ] a retired neuropsychologist and outspoken liberal. On Monday, he penned a seething attack for Politico on his staunch conservative nephew, White House senior advisor Stephen Miller. An emotion-laden Glosser vented:
The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is increasingly becoming as vital to national peace and security as ICE. I am not without my libertarian sympathies, and disapprove of the DEA’s harassing dispensaries of marijuana (which I think should be legal). But much as ICE largely targets only the worst criminal aliens, the DEA largely targets only the most vile elements of the drug trade. Right now, that means stamping out the production and distribution of heroin and various opioids such as fentanyl. And, although the implication is not usually spelled out, that means resisting Open Borders.
Overdoses, remember, are the number one cause of death for Americans under the age of fifty—and this plague disproportionately affects whites. While the “opioid crisis” is talked about regularly, and (appropriately) with great gravitas by the Mainstream Media [The Poison We Pick, By Andrew Sullivan, NYMag, February 20, 2018], they rarely talk about the footsoldiers leading the counter-attack—namely the DEA.
With an annual budget of only two billion dollars, and about 10,000 employees, the DEA is a small agency. ICE, which is not considered big either, has twice as many employees and nearly four times as much money. But DEA still a force to be reckoned with. This July, in the Bronx, agents seized about 55 pounds of heroin and fentanyl. (Pictured right)To give you a sense of just how much that is, consider that the amount of heroin that typically leads to overdose is 200 to 500 milligrams (it varies widely because of the different tolerances among users, and the differing levels of purity of street heroin). If we split the difference and put the average overdose amount at 350 milligrams, then one pound of heroin contains a total of 1,296 average overdoses. 55 pounds contains a total of 71,280 average overdoses—enough to kill every resident of Bismarck, North Dakota. With that seizure came five arrests.
The defendants are: Luis Guzman-Rojas, Matias Rosario-Ramon, Anthony Polanco, Willy De La Cruz, and Pedro Sandoval.
Those names struck me as curiously similar to the names of drug pushers in another DEA action from July: Midence Oqueli Martinez Turcios, Arnaldo Urbina Soto, Carlos Fernando Urbina Soto, and Miguel Angel Urbina Soto.
It's quite simple: Some political relatives are more equal than others.
Agenda-driven journalists love to exploit familial dysfunction when a prominent politician is conservative and his or her kinfolk espouse liberal views. When a vengeful offspring, sibling, cousin or distant relation wants to wreak havoc, instant fame and adoration are just a tweet or call away. The media schadenfreude over such bloody bloodline battles is thicker than California wildfire smoke.
By contrast, relatives who openly challenge powerful Democrats are dismissed as gadflies and publicity hounds. Remember when Barack Obama's half-brother Malik criticized his younger sibling over his coddling of corrupt Hillary Clinton, support for gay marriage and inattention to Kenya and his family overseas?
Left-wing Vox responded by calling Malik a "somewhat scammy opportunist." A GQ writer decried "the inherent seediness of on-screen family dysfunction," declared that "Malik has nothing to do with anything," and condemned the "nonsensical stunt." The Huffington Post was befuddled that Donald Trump invited Malik to the third presidential debate "for no reason at all."
And Slate wrote: "Ugh."
By contrast, the anti-Trump media's favorite political family feuder this week was Dr. David Glosser, [Facebook ] a retired neuropsychologist and outspoken liberal. On Monday, he penned a seething attack for Politico on his staunch conservative nephew, White House senior advisor Stephen Miller. An emotion-laden Glosser vented:
Vimeo CEO Anjali Sud, daughter of Indian immigrants, is the latest corporate Cultural Marxist to deny InfoWars’ Alex Jones the traditional Anglo-Saxon freedom of speech [Alex Jones flees to Vimeo, is immediately banned there as well, by Zack Ford, Think Progress, August 13, 2018). But it’s vital to note that this latest example of tech totalitarianism has nothing to do with Jones’ conspiracy theories—and everything to do with Jones’ belated emphasis to immigration patriotism. Bottom line: our Ruling Class is simply desperate to repress awareness of their Election of A New People until it’s too late.
The war on Alex Jones has been incredible to watch, with CNN dedicating multiple months to attack a humble Texan who started out doing a public access TV show in Austin in the late 1990s and ended up playing a major role in the 2016 election, hosting a 30-minute interview with then-candidate Donald Trump before the primaries began. [Donald Trump just did a big interview with a famous conspiracy theorist and was asked about impeaching Obama, by Colin Campbell, Business Insider, December 2, 2015]
Jones explored the official account of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting and in February of this year called Parkland School student turned gun control crusader David Hogg a “crisis actor.” Supposedly this is not what got him de-platformed from Facebook, Apple, Disqus, Spotify, and YouTube, but rather violations of "hate speech" codes. [YouTube, Facebook, and Apple’s ban on Alex Jones, explained | And why some on the right are calling it “collusion.”, By Jane Coaston, Vox, August 6, 2018]
Earlier by Allan Wall: Forget Supposed Russian Meddling—Why Is Flagrant Mexican Meddling Ignored By Our Political Class?
Anyone who has glanced at a newspaper in the last two years knows Russian meddling is a big issue for the Never Trumpers. Globalist neocon Max Boot—who announced that “The Republican Party is dead” in the LA Times, May 8, 2016 and quit the party the day after Donald Trump won [I left the Republican Party. Now I want Democrats to take over, by Max Boot, Washington Post, July 4, 2018] has flatly stated that Trump needed the Russians to win.
While the intelligence agencies are silent on the impact of Russia’s attack, outside experts who have examined the Kremlin campaign—which included stealing and sharing Democratic Party emails, spreading propaganda online and hacking state voter rolls—have concluded that it did affect an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, writes in his recent book, “Messing with the Enemy,” that “Russia absolutely influenced the U.S. presidential election,” especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump’s winning margin was less than 1 percent in each state.
[Without the Russians, Trump Wouldn’t Have Won, The Washington Post, July 24, 2018.]
Of course, we ought to stop any foreign meddling in our elections. But it’s funny how concerned today’s Leftists now are about Russian intervention. Back in the 1980s, the “Lion of the Senate,” Sen. Ted Kennedy, tried to collaborate with the Russians to prevent Reagan’s re-election. It never hurt his standing in the Democratic Party or in the Mainstream Media [Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures To Russia To Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election , by Kevin Mooney, The Daily Signal, December 14, 2016].
Oh, that’s right. The Russians were commies back then. The Democrats were never this hysterical about them at the height of the Cold War, or during the Vietnam or Korean wars, or during the Ames, Hanssen or Walker spy scandals.
The real effect of Russian meddling on the 2016 election is way overblown. Leftist Russian scholar Stephen Cohen, in a YouTube appearance with Boot, called it “low level stuff.” ["You are Criminalizing Diplomacy", July 30, 2018] The Russians didn’t create the divisions in our deeply-divided country.
