To see a map, click here. To read Rantburg reports on Wednesday's ruling on Mexican Army jurisdiction in human rights cases, click here, here, here and here. This is big. Mexico is in all but a civil war pitting the narco-terrorists against the government. Both sides get nasty in a civil war. The Mexican Supreme Court, in engaging in lawfare (and in being cute in trying to walk it back) is trying to disarm the government and military. We can see how this will end if left unchallenged. The question: which justices on the Mexican Supreme Court could be 'influenced' by the narco-gangs?
By Chris Covert
As the first of the effects of last Tuesday's Mexican Supreme Court decision are felt throughout Mexico, the Mexican military establishment is warning that its troops may be forced back into the barracks unless clear rules are established for its deployment against organized crime.
The July 12th decision that human rights cases involving soldiers and marines must be tried in civilian courts, not military has prompted some senior military to publicly voice their concerns about the applicability of the new law.
Last Thursday, the president of the Supreme Court, Juan Silva Meza, said that the new law is not mandatory, but merely present guidelines for courts at all levels to deal with human rights complaints involving the military.
It is becoming clear the military community is not buying into Silva Meza's contention that soldiers and sailors will be not dragged into court over potentially hundreds of unfiled, dismissed and new court cases dating as far back as the late 1960s, and have hinted that newly deployed troops in places such as Piedra Negras, Coahuila, Chihuahua state and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, may be returned to the barracks.
The newly deployed troops represent a considerable payout mandated by the Chamber of Deputies which expanded the Mexican Army by 18 rifle battalions to deal with the organized crime problem, mainly in the area of drug trafficking. To read the Rantburg report on the newly formed rifle units, click here
According to an article published in Monday'sMilenio, senior military officials within the army and navy have been dispatched to the Mexican senate to lobby for new changes in the new national security law which currently languishes in the legislative process.
Part of the reason the law has not been passed was the temper tantrum thrown by the Mexican and international left this past spring which included two peace marches and two well-timed reports on human rights in Mexico by both the US State Department and Human Rights Watch.
For example, in an article published on the leftist weekly Proceso Sunday claimed that the new national security law was a done deal save for the activities of Javier Sicilia and his allies in the Mexican independent and international left.
Throughout the past spring Sicilia publicly and loudly railed against the national security law, calling for the army to be returned to the barracks and, absurdly, for citizens to sign a pact on non-violence.
It is unknown as of the date of this article if any of the leaders of the main drug cartels have been signatories to the pact on non-violence. To read a summary of the activities of Javier Sicilia, click here
It should be noted the the drug cartels and Mexican organized crime are responsible for as many as 90 percent of the murders in Mexico since 2006.
The new national security law has been in the process since last fall. One of the central changes proposed for the law has to do with Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice.
President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa wanted to split three types of crimes committed by military personnel from being under Article 57: rape, torture and disappearances, and place them firmly within the purview of civil courts.
Forced disappearances such as the one involving the case that brought the new decision, Radilla Pacheco, are the main issue with human rights cases in Mexico before 2006. Most if not all of those involve the Dirty War between 1968 nd 1982, in which as many as 1,200 individuals during that tie disappeared while under military custody.
In such cases brought before civilian cases, the usually response for judges has been to refer the plaintiff to the military agency, which effectively dismissed the case.
That was then.
According to another article in Monday's Milenion, since 2005, a human rights department has been in place in all three military agencies, army, air forces and marines, to deal with human rights cases; investigation and recommendation for prosecution or dismissal.
Since 1933, when oral trials becamee de rigueur in Mexican jurisprudence, they have also become a feature of military jurisprudence since 2005 as well.
As the author of the article, Javier Oliva Posada, pointed out, all proceedings concerning military personnel and human rights are now open forums in which anyone can walk in and give testimony, or simply witness military justice system in action.
Oliva Posada is a professor of Political and Social Sciences of Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico in Distrito Federal.
Under such an open forum,it is hard to cover for military personnel. The Mexican left calls it impunity when covering for an errant soldier or sailor takes place, when cases are dismissed.
But proof of those charges are the extreme exception in less than two percent of all cases the military deals with, according to statistics provided by the Mexican Army's Direccion General de Derechos Humanos (Human rights Directorate).
Charges of impunity by he left simply have no basis of fact and are politically motivated.
Said Posada: "In London, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) classifies Mexico as a country experiencing an armed conflict not of rebellion, that is, an armed confrontation that has no political arguments or program no longer claimed by either party, but has a very high dose of violence.
In this context, human rights can be used as a ploy to seek to contain the actions of the Mexican military with the possibility of being involved in a lengthy and complex litigation."
Oliva Posada also pointed out that since 2005, just over 250 military personnel have been charged, and convicted of violating civilian human rights in some way.
h/t Gates of Vienna
...The spending path that Congress has chosen for the last half-century is unsustainable and will end up with economic collapse but little or nothing can be done about it unless I'm grossly wrong about the American people. Americans who detest our country and those who love our country are hell-bent, wittingly or unwittingly, on destroying it.
...Everyone who receives government largesse and special favors deems his needs as vital, deserving, proper and in the national interest. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a politician to honor and obey our Constitution and in the process commit political suicide. What's even worse for our nation is that voters ousting a politician who'd refuse to bring, say, aid to higher education back to his constituents is perfectly rational. If, for example, he's a Virginia politician and doesn't bring higher education grants back to his constituents, it doesn't mean Virginian taxpayers will pay a lower income tax. All that it means is that Marylanders will get the money instead. Once legalized theft begins, it pays for everyone to participate. Those who don't will be losers.
#2
Graphics seem easier to grasp for me than narratives. Here is a graph of the Federal income and outgo: Graphic of Federal Income/Outgo
For those eager to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is not just older citizens who benefit from this system. You can get both Social Security benefits and military retirement. Generally, there is no reduction of Social Security benefits because of your military retirement benefits. Youll get your full Social Security benefit based on your earnings. There are 9.4 million military veterans receiving Social Security benefits, which means that almost one out of every four adult Social Security beneficiaries has served in the United States military. In addition, veterans and their families make up almost 40 percent of the adult Social Security beneficiary population. Policymakers are particularly interested in military veterans and their families and have provided them with benefits through several government programs, including Social Security credits, home loan guarantees, and compensation and pension payments through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Paying taxes on Social Security income goes on after benefits begin. Likewise, Medicare is not exactly an entitlement. Working citizens paid for Social Security all their working life. Paying continues on after retirement which Walter Williams did not mention. Retirees pay a significant amount for Medicare every month after benefits begin. They also pay a significant amount every month for a Medicare Supplemental policy. Moreover, if you work after retirement, you are taxed on income like everyone else and you are taxed up to 13% additional for an additional self-employment tax.
It would seem that our politicians in D.C. ought to see the gravity of the problem and be able to do something about it. Quit playing politics and trying to gain some party advantage. Do something for the country for a change. It is like so many other issues in Washington, politicians sense elections coming up and they don't want to do anything that will offend any constituent group rather than do the right thing for the country. A good start would be for our politicians to live by the same rules and laws that we have to--no special perks.
#3
It would seem that our politicians in D.C. ought to see the gravity of the problem and be able to do something about it. Quit playing politics and trying to gain some party advantage.
That's why the Trunks should play Obama's tax increase demand against him. Since the two biggest growths in the federal budget are SS and Medicare, then the revenue source of those programs should be increased accordingly. When the man insists, then offer up increases in the payroll deductions already in place. Make him choke on his own intransigence. It's not the rich bloating those expense of those programs, so they shouldn't be the source of rescuing them. Of course, the worker who'll see a big bite come out of their take home will finally feel the consequences of rhetoric over reality and maybe actually pay attention.
#4
The House is currently debating Cut, Cap, and Balance on C-SPAN1. A vote will occur around 7:00 p.m. It may pass the House but it will not pass the Senate, and if it did, Obama said he will veto it. It is largely symbolic but it will give the Pubs things to talk about in the run-up to the 2012 election.
I've heard people on Fox say the Pubs are losing the debt limit debate to Obama. They say the polls say the Pubs are looking intransigent and uncompromising. I'm not so sure the polls have it right--just a gut feeling.
#5
...when it all comes crashing down, the debate will be over and the reality will bite. Polls are crap to run a country by. It's called leadership. The current so called leaders are just driving the vehicle off the cliff. If real consequences to this embezzlement of the American people were in their view, you'd bet they'd be talking different.
#6
"It would seem that our politicians in D.C. ought to see the gravity of the problem and be able to do something about it."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, John - best laugh I've had all day.
Oh, wait - you were serious?
Posted by: Barbara ||
07/19/2011 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
IMO many Amers only seemingly appear to "do nothing" [sheeple] because, being the oft-criticized "puritanical/moral-ethical/ conservative society" they are, they want to give those in errant another chance to do good - UNFORTUNATELY, SOME ONLY CARE ABOUT CONTINUING THEIR ABUSE, CORRUPTION, + EXPLOITATION, ETC. WHILE PRETENDING THAT THEY AREN'T.
"EVIL NEVER STOPS", as the saying goes, UNTIL GOOD DECIDES TO THROW CAUTION + COURTESIES TO THE WIND + TAKE A STAND.
The Govt. has the tech ability to
> READ YOUR PRIVATE EMAILS, to include so-called "SNAIL MAIL", ENCLOSED OR NOT.
> MANIPULATE, ADD OR DELETE, or otherwise CHANGE YOUR EMAIL MESSAGES/TEXTS.
> KNOW MOST OR ALL OF WHAT YOUR HIDING UNDERNEATH YOUR CLOTHES ANDOR IN YOUR PERSONAL BAGS.
> CAN EAVESDROP ON YOUR PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS, BE IT VIA CELL PHONE OR IN ORAL AMONG FRIENDS.
All while you are doing it, in real or current "now" time, + WIDOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT, ETC. The best you'll get at this time is a 911-related public warning e.g. "This Area is under 24-hour Security Monitoring" WHERE THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO FIND OUT EXACTLY OR SPECIFICALLY WHAT "MONITORING" MEANS.
All this hoopla about formally regulating the Net is just fluff-n-bluff Govt. PCorrectness-Deniability to CYA what they are ALREADY DOING + HAD BEEN DOING FOR MANY YEARS + DECADES, TO MINIMIZE THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY LITIGATION OR MASS COMPENSATION THAT MAY BE UNILATERALLY PAID OUT BY THE GOVT FOR VIOLATING YOUR RIGHTS.
Until these I/E-regulations are formally passed, YOU COULD BE TREATED LIKE A CRAZY/INSANE PERSON, WHEN IN REALITY THE GOVT IS RUNNING SCARED BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG.
The above being said, since the Govt wants to read + know ANY EACH + ALL DETAILS of your Personal + Group communications, etc, + WIDOUT YOU BEING ANGRY ABOUT IT, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO SHOW THE MAINSTREAM THEIR INTERNAL GOVT. COMMUNICATIONS THEMSELVES WIDOUT GETTING ANGRY IT???
And widout asking you to vote on it just like you weren't asked to vote for OWG-NWO + "Globalism", or even "Regionalism", "Trans-" or "Continentalism, etc. where AMERS ARE SUBJECT TO AYSMMETRICALLY/UNILATER OBEYING THE MANDATES, DIRECTIVES, POLICIES + PROTOCOLS OF LEADERS + GOVTS BEYONG THE NATIONAL OR STATE LEVEL.
Once again, Virgina, we learn why the Martians attacked Earth in "MARS ATTACKS" in SPACE GOVT-MANDATED "POLICE ACTION" AGZ RADICAL EARTHICAN PLANET/GLOBAL NATIONALISTS-SEPARATISTS, + why we never give up our Gun Rights, etc. to the US Govt or any Govt., + why both the Declaration of Independence + the US Constitution does not forbid our forced overthrow of our own Govt.
#8
> KNOW MOST OR ALL OF WHAT YOUR HIDING UNDERNEATH YOUR CLOTHES ANDOR IN YOUR PERSONAL BAGS.
> CAN EAVESDROP ON YOUR PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS, BE IT VIA CELL PHONE OR IN ORAL AMONG FRIENDS.
No way. Mom passed some years back
Posted by: S ||
07/19/2011 23:21 Comments ||
Top||
h/t Instapundit
...The debt-ceiling cage match is the culmination of the Democrats' 75-year-long fight to establish a voting bloc of dependents under the false flags of "compassion" and "social justice." It's sapped our strength, created a welfare mentality and, if unchecked, will reduce us to a nation of aging, resentful beggars with eyes cast permanently toward Washington.
#1
On the radio last night, amidst the "Trunks are evil; Obama is reasonable" news, was this little tidbit:
49% of those polled do not want to raise the debt ceiling.
Now that's a groundswell!
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/19/2011 5:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
IMF and Moodys either keep raising the debt ceiling or don't have one! I am waiting for my credit card from MOODYS no limit I will be buying surplus silos with live functioning munitions in them, anyone have a spare aircraft carrier sitting around? Everyone in the United States will be getting that new credit card from the rating agencies, live it up!
#3
It's not a question of if it's going to collapse, it's one of when it's going to collapse. The Trunks will have the best bid on 'I told you so' as they're all lined up for their turn at the rope.
#4
The feds now borrow 43 cents of every dollar they spend. Under Obama, outlays have soared to nearly a quarter of GDP (the historical average is just under 20 percent) -- and once ObamaCare starts to fully kick in around 2014, it will only rise.
The use the O'Bumble metaphor, Obama has driven the Yugo, the electric car, or the golf cart off the cliff; it has crashed at the bottom, and it is now in flames and burning.
#6
IIRC CNN AM repor on calls in Washington for POTUS BAMMER + GOP-DEMS to just fergit about the formal Debt Ceiling, or any Debt Ceiling limit for that matter, + just "spend, spend, spend" as pertinent.
Greece-style under 1.60x insolvency, versus Japan-style 2.26x insolvency.
D *** NG IT, AMERICA = AMERIKA IS A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR HYPERPOWER - CLEARLY WE NEED 3X OR GREATER INSOLVENCY JUST BECAUSE WE CAN! ITS OUR RIGHT!
Espec iff NASA-JPL wants to start deep space exploration during a long-lasting, US-World Debt, Economic Crisis = "Peak Everything".
The Democratic Party, as we have known it for the past 70 years, is now in its last days.
Yes, the House Republicans may raise the debt ceiling for a mix of spending cuts and revenue raisers. Yes, Barack Obama may win the 2012 presidential contest. Yes, bureaucrats and judges will continue to impose new and costly regulations on the economy.
But it doesn't matter. The long-term trends are almost all bad news for the left wing of the party.
This week's fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the Democratic Party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies. Every vital element of the Democrats' coalition -- unions, government workers, government contractors, "entitlement" consumers -- requires constant increases in payments, grants and consulting contracts. Without those payments, they don't sign checks to re-elect Democrats.
Like it or not, Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev: a man forced to preside over the demise of a political system he desperately wants to save.
Democrat champions in the punditocracy confidently predict that the future of the world's oldest political party is bright. But in fact, the coalition that is the modern Democratic Party is doomed. Every pillar upholding its heavy roof is crumbling. Interesting OpEd from Forbes. Explains why the dhimocrats are so trying to force their will on the public. They know they are doomed unless they make themselves indispensable and force everyone to rely on them.
#1
Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev:
Marxist, socialist, redistributionist, regardless. Far closer to the mark. At least FDR had to twist and wiggle trying to fit his acts within the Constitution, Obama really doesn't care a hoot about the Constitution other than being a sacred social relic to force people to obey him.
I would argue that FDR was the first US President who did not feel constrained by the Constitution. He and Hoover both had the same approach to the Great Depression. What they did differed mainly in degree, and that was because Hoover did consider the Constitution to act as an outer limit on government power.
#3
they are doomed unless they make themselves indispensable and force everyone to rely on them.
That is what happened in Minnesota. It turned out the only reason we needed government was to issue liquor licences and fishing permits.
One sad example was the sale of Miller beer: They needed to file for a permit to do business in the state, and pay a fee. Miller did all that, but the gov employees did not process the application before the shutdown. Therefore Miller still can not replenish any sales outlet in the state.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/19/2011 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The entire enterprise is corrupt as sin.
Absolutely zero redeeming qualities with that party.
#5
All things being equal, I think the author of the article is correct given that public money is the glue holding the Democratic party together and the money is running out. I don't see the party going down without a fight so the question becomes, how will they fight?
It's pretty obvious that their current strategy, i.e. the 0Bama strategy, is to curry as much favor as possible with their constituents via government largess while demonizing the opposition using class warfare rhetoric. We've already seen this for some time now and it's proven relatively effective for the Democrats up to a point.
Will they be able to sustain it? As things currently stand, that seems unlikely. Or at least once can hope.
#6
What is worrisome is who will replace the Dhimmis? The libs are set to fail not just in US but in Europe and the collapse makes us ripe for a "new" system--monetary and otherwise. Any dictator that seems to calm the chaos will be heralded as the Messiah.....
#8
I suspect the Democrats will move to a more centrist, less Marxist, and less anti-American model. More like they were before the baby-boomers. I suspect they'll remain corrupt, but hide it a bit better.
#9
RJ: I understood that at the first meeting after the atom bomb was dropped, the Japanese held a strategy meeting where the general feeling was that they'd have to negotiate something, but OF COURSE they'd be able to keep Korea.
Posted by: Barbara ||
07/19/2011 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
...how will they fight?
Look no further than our present Dictator in Chief for the answer: lie constantly, blame everyone else for every problem and depend on the leftist media to loudly trumpet that your lies are, in fact, truth. The percentage of low-information voters & tax eaters in the population will guarantee the utility of that paradigm for another generation.
Even the inevitible crash will be blamed on anyone but the Democrats who precipitated it (see e.g., the recent housing bubble / bust for a likely outcome).
Fact is we're stuck with a no-growth, high-tax, ultra-regulated nation and not even the coming economic devastation will dislodge those who've driven us here.
[Dawn] IN an interesting reversal, the liberals and secularists of post-'Arab Spring' Egypt seem to be veering towards supporting the continued oversight of the army on the country's affairs.
The situation, though causing consternation on the face of it, is perfectly simple. If elections are held in September as planned, or even a year later, there is a good likelihood that the Moslem Brüderbund may come to power. At stake is the future constitution of Egypt: the secularists and the Islamists have, obviously, differing expectations.
Egypt is currently governed by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces which is talking about a transition to democracy (with special consideration for the military, its interests and institutions).
In the referendum held on March 19, just over 77 per cent of the voters approved a package of constitutional reforms that included the holding of parliamentary elections and the election of 100 members of parliament that would form a constituent assembly mandated to formulate the country's new constitution within six months. Another referendum is to decide whether that constitution will be approved or rejected.
All this is very right and proper, and functioning exactly as it should under the ideals dictated by the theory of democracy.
Here's the rub, though: the March 'yes' vote was backed by the Moslem Brüderbund and the majority of other Egyptian Islamists; most secularists, it seems, including the majority of leftists and liberals were the ones to vote 'no' in that referendum.
According to news reports by various organizations, they want army rule to continue for long enough to allow their political wings to regroup. Currently, they stand fragmented, cut off from Egyptian society on the lam and even irrelevant, according to some.
Their reservations about the Moslem Brüderbund are not difficult to understand, and indeed may even hold parallels for some of us in Pakistain. After decades of political marginalisation since the early '50s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser spearheaded a coup to overthrow the government of King Farouk, political parties and activities have been banned in Egypt. The coup was in fact supported by the Moslem Brüderbund.
Had elections been held in 1952 as scheduled it was feared that the secular-leaning Mustafa al-Nahas, the head of the secular-liberal Wafd Party, would have won operative majority. The Wafd Party was at that time considered the most popular political party in Egypt. As the BBC's Middle East analyst Omar Ashour observed in an article last week, the Moslem Brüderbund sided with the army at that time for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons.
"The Brotherhood's leaders thought that this would give them an advantage in a political sphere free of strong actors. That, of course, was an enormous miscalculation," he writes. "By 1954, Nasser and his clique dominated the army and had ousted pro-democracy officers, marginalised the liberals and then heavily suppressed his former allies, the Moslem Brüderbund. The brutal crackdown significantly diminished the local networks of the Brotherhood until the mid-1970s. But it never destroyed them. [... ]
"Very limited political space was granted to Islamists and liberals alike by successive Egyptian presidents.
"But the Brotherhood countered this by becoming active in universities and syndicates throughout Egypt, recruiting young people, building coalitions and, eventually, abandoning and de-legitimising political violence. Alongside this, the organization provided a wide variety of social services.
"Their success is down to organizational hard work and impressive dedication. They are in many ways a textbook example of how to survive and prosper in highly unfavourable political conditions."
And so, we have a situation where people inclined towards liberalism -- who otherwise would have been considered the defenders of democracy -- apparently have reservations about the holding of fair elections.
With their organizational infrastructure in disarray after decades of being marginalised, as dinosaurs lacking factors that Islamist groups have on their side, do they fear that the majority of the electorate -- 55 million, of whom at least 34 per cent are illiterate -- might say 'yes' to a referendum on an Islamist-leaning constitution? It would appear so.
The parallel to Pakistain is rather obvious, although of course the analogy does not fit exactly. The people likely reading this text -- English-speaking, therefore likely to be of certain middle- and upper-class backgrounds, with exposure to the idea of secularism as delineated from ir-religiousness -- would have cause to shiver.
Was it not the Jamaatud Dawa, the palatable face of the banned Lashkar-i-Taiba, that led a number of efforts of reconstruction after the Kashmire earthquake of 2005 and other humanitarian efforts too? Is there not a long-standing argument that parents send their children to madressahs not because of ideological affiliations but because of the poverty of the state educational system, the prospect of some literacy, food and the distant dream of a future? Was the Taliban takeover of Swat ...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat... not initially supported by the region's general population, because the Taliban offered in part, a speedy justice system that the area glaringly lacked?
Meanwhile, ...back at the precinct house, Sergeant Maloney wasn't buying it. It was just too pat. It smelled phony... so near across the border, we see that the US -- after having waged war against the Taliban for a decade -- is making an effort to bring the latter to the negotiating table.
The question, then, is that when does a terrorist/militant force become a legitimate, whether right-wing or left-wing, political force? There is the case of the Sinn Fein, after all.
The logical answer to that would be that any ideological group is a legitimate political force as long as it operates in the political arena and according to the rules of politics. And these rules require that the group bring voters on its side through debate etc, not through violent or coercive means. Politics the world over is a dirty game, but nowhere is it acceptable to argue from a point of vantage behind the barrel of a gun. The Moslem Brüderbund, the Sinn Fein, a host of others, gave up their guns to become political actors, regardless of whether they were radical or not. The Taliban, however, have consistently refused to turn take that route. Perhaps we should be thankful that they are not asking for themselves to be voted into power.
As long as any group is defined as cut-thoat, at least one can take refuge in the excuse that their will was forced upon society, rather than voted in.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/19/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MEMRI.ORG > THE EGYPTIAN PROTESTS: A SECOND REVOLUTION - NOW AGZ THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ARMED FORCES, + its Chief Gen. Muhammad Hussein Tantami.
* SAME > EGYPTIAN SOCIOLOGIST SA'D AL-DIN IBRAHIM: THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION MIGHT GIVE RISE TO A NEW NAPOLEON.
I'm personally still thinking about Osama's missing son + so-called "Crown Prince" HAMZA.
#3
When i read the title i thourght of African dictators,Pak Army,China,Russia,Burma,North Korea,Cuba,Iran,Syria and Saudi Arabia off the the top of my head.
#6
AlanC, I agree but I would also go further and say the fact that the US founders fought for their own liberty had a lot to do with it. When someone else does your fighting you don't really own, you owe, and that creates a different mindset.
#7
RJ, you are correct up to a point. First, the fact that they DIDN'T fight speaks volumes. Second, there have been way too many revolutionaries that fought (see Castro, et al) and proceeded to dictatorial rule anyway.
No, not even the French could implement the promise of the "freedom philosophy" despite being the home of many of the philosophers. There's no way around it, we lucked out big time.
Now we watch as Zero as the culmination of the disaster that started with Hoover & FDR tear it all down.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Democratic Party, as we have known it for the past 70 years, is now in its last days.
...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat...
