My son got this from a teacher, who got it via e-mail. Pretty impressive for a law student! Enjoy!
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU, and abortion clinics. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, Katie Couric and Rosie O'Donnell...
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you CBS, NBC, CNBC and Hollywood ..
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks, and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks American made cars and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem and "In God We Trust" where it belongs. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda with you.
We Texans love y'all, but we'll have to take action since "Barry" Barrack Obama won the presidency over John McCain.
We'll miss you, too.
Texas has given all those complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the campaign route, the folks from Texas are considering taking matters into our own hands.
Here is our solution:
#1: Elect Barrack Obama President of the United States. (All 49 States.)
#2: George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic of Texas.
So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?
1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. (We will control the Space Industry.)
2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.
3. Defense Industry. (We have over 65% of it.) The term "Don't mess with Texas" will take on a whole new meaning.
4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.
5. Natural Gas - Again we have all we need and it's too bad about those northern states. John Kerry will figure a way to keep them warm.
6. Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in the production of computer chips and communications: Small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, , Dallas Semi- conductor, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, etc, etc. The list goes on and on and on.
7. Health Centers - We have the largest research centers for Cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world and other large health planning centers.
8. We have enough colleges to keep us going: UT Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women's University. Ivy grows better in the south, anyway.
9. We've a ready supply of workers. (Just open the Border when we need some more.)
10. We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.
11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army, but since every body down here has at least six rifles and a big pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours, if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas Rangers.
12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and let's not forget seafood from the Gulf. And everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. We don't need any food.
13. You will need a passport and visa to enter our borders this will be enforced!
This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need or don't have.
Now as to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only Mr. Kerry will be able to drive around in his 9 mile per gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.
You won't have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off all of your communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Kerry has predicted Global Warming, you will not need any gas.
#6
Unemployment is only 8%; considerably lower than many left and right coasts. Industry friendly environment. Warm climate for the most part. Sensible population--not looney crazy moonbats or least they have minimal impact.
At the top of Impromptus today, I have an item on that health-care stunt that Obama and his people pulled: They had a bunch of docs, and medical students, at the White House, for a little pep talk (or something) from the president. Some of the people were cloddish enough to show up in suits and dresses. They had been asked to wear white coats. No problem, though: The Obama people simply passed out white coats for the inappropriately attired to wear. The pictures would be prettier that way: All those white-coated docs, listening to their president wax wise on medicine.
As I say in my column, I don't mind a little Deaverism -- goes with the territory, of politics and even of governance. But I also say, What would you have done, if you had been at the White House? Would you have put on the white coat, so that Obama could have his pretty pictures, or would you have said, "Actually, that's what I wear when I'm working, not when I'm visiting the White House to hear the president"?
A doctor reader of ours responds,
I would never have gone in the first place. The people who attended were obviously signing up to be stage props: They would probably have dressed as clowns or Napoleon or Captain Jack Sparrow if asked.
Hard to know why any self-respecting physician would sign up to glorify the (very bad) plans of a man who has a manifest distaste for our profession. Maybe I should have attended wearing a necklace of tonsils that I had removed for ill-gotten profits.
#1
OK, there are a bunch of people from the health profession who show up at the Rose Garden without proper attire. I go to a wedding, I dress according to the people hosting the event, I would imagine as much for a visit to the White House to meet the President, and they forgot their lab coats as directed to wear? And its not that the makup corp had a handful but many extra lab coats available. Could it be that many of them attended as successful representatives and not as props on purpose? I would feel disrespected to show up and be made to wear the same costume as the people who try to sell toothpaste and chewing gum on TV instead of my own accomplishments.
The other side of the coin, did the producer(s) think that if the attendees were not in costume viewers would doubt they were in the medical field? And what does that say? Imagine, dedicating yourself to the medical profession and in honor of a lifetime of work highlighted by a personal invite to the Rose Garden turned into a stereotyped cut-out.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously envisioned the states serving as laboratories, trying "novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." And on health care, that's just what they've done.
Like participants in a national science fair, state governments have tested variants on most of the major components of the health-care reform plans currently being considered in Congress. The results have been dramatically increased premiums in the individual market, spiraling public health-care costs, and reduced access to care. In other words: The reforms have failed.
New York is exhibit A. In 1993, the state prohibited insurers from declining to cover individuals with pre-existing health conditions ("guaranteed issue"). New York also required insurers to charge those enrolled in their plans the same premium, regardless of health status, age or sex ("community rating"). The goal was to reduce the number of uninsured by making health insurance more accessible, particularly to those who don't have employer-provided insurance.
It hasn't worked out very well, according to a Manhattan Institute study released last month by Stephen T. Parente, a professor of finance at the University of Minnesota and Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center. In 1994, there were just under 752,000 individuals enrolled in individual insurance plans, or about 4.7% of the nonelderly population. This put New York roughly in line with the rest of the U.S. Today, that percentage has dropped to just 0.2% of the state's nonelderly. In contrast, between 1994 and 2007, the total number of people insured in the individual market across the U.S. rose to 5.5% from 4.5%.
The decline in the number of people enrolled in individual insurance plans, the authors say, is "attributable largely to a steep increase in premiums" because of the state's regulations. Messrs. Parente and Bragdon estimate that repeal of community rating and guaranteed issue could reduce the price of individual coverage by 42%.
New York's experience with guaranteed issue and community rating is not unique. In 1996, similar reforms in Washington state preceded massive premium spikes in the individual market. Some premiums increased as much as 78% in the first three years of the reformsor 10 times medical inflationaccording to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Services Research in 1999. Other results included a 25% drop in enrollment in the individual market, and a reduction in services offered. Within four years, for example, none of the state's major carriers offered individual insurance plans that included maternity coverage.
A 2008 analysis by Kaiser Permanente's Patricia Lynch published by Health Affairs noted that in addition to Washington and New York, the individual insurance markets in Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont "deteriorated" after the enactment of guaranteed issue. Individual insurance became significantly more expensive and there was no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.
Supporters of federal health-care reform argue that the problems associated with these regulations can be addressed with the addition of an individual mandate, which is part of every ObamaCare bill in Congress. This would require every individual to purchase health insurance.
Guaranteed issue alone, the argument goes, results in slightly more expensive premiums, which drives healthier individuals out of the risk pool, which in turn further drives up premiums. The end result is that many healthy people opt out, leaving a small pool of sick individuals with very high premiums. An individual mandate, however, would spread those premium costs across a larger, healthier population, thus keeping premium costs down.
The experience of Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate in 2007, suggests otherwise. Health-insurance premiums in the Bay State have risen significantly faster than the national average, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health foundation. At an average of $13,788, the state's family plans are now the nation's most expensive. Meanwhile, insurance companies are planning additional double-digit hikes, "prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers" according to the Boston Globe.
And health-care costs have continued to grow rapidly. According to a Rand Corporation study this year, the growth now exceeds state GDP by 8%. The Boston Globe recently reported that state health-insurance commissioners are now worried that medical spending could push both employers and patients into bankruptcy, and may even threaten the system's continued existence.
Meanwhile, survey data from the Massachusetts Medical Society indicate that the state's primary-care providers are being squeezed. Family doctors report taking fewer new patients and increases in wait time.
Reform measures in other states have proven to be expensive duds. Maine's 2003 reform plan, Dirigo Health, included a government insurance option resembling the public option included in the House health-care bill. This public plan, "DirigoChoice," was supposed to expand care to all 128,000 of Maine's uninsured by 2009. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2007 uninsured rate remained roughly 10%essentially unchanged. DirigoChoice's individual insurance premiums increased by 74% over its first four yearsto $499 a month from $287 a monthaccording to an analysis of Dirigo data by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. The cost of DirigoHealth to taxpayers so far has been $155 million.
Tennessee's plan for universal coverage, dubbed TennCare, fared even worse in the 1990s. The goal of the state-run public insurance plan was to expand coverage to the uninsured by reducing waste. But the costs of expanding coverage quickly ballooned. In 2005, facing bankruptcy, the state was forced to cut 170,000 individuals from its insurance rolls.
Despite these state-level failures, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing forward a slate of similar reforms. Unlike most high-school science fair participants, they seem unaware that the point of doing experiments is to identify what actually works. Instead, they've identified what doesn'tand decided to do it again.
If its true, as reported, that the question of the CIAs drone strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan is bolstering support for the so-called counterterrorism option in the Obama administrations Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy, then tomorrows meeting at the White House looks, from the attendance sheet, like itll debate precisely that issue. Heres the just-released list of scheduled participants:
Vice President Biden
Secretary of State Clinton
Secretary of Defense Gates
Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent US Representative to the United Nations
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command
General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)
Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence
CIA Director Leon Panetta
Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)
Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)
General James Jones, National Security Advisor
Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor
John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
Brennan, one of Obamas most important advisers, wasnt in last weeks meeting; neither was Donilon or Rice.
#1
Obama has now said publicly he wont reduce force levels. That seems incompatible with a pure CT approach. I think the question now is the mix of approaches - how much COIN do you do, vs how much CT.
I suspect the two ambassadors wil support Clinton and Holbrooke, encouraging continued COIN emphasis, whatever the force level. I dont know where Rice or Brennan stand, Im particularly curious about the latter. he knows a helluva lot more about CT than the Veep does, and I think he is pretty respected by POTUS.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's ranking Republican, Kit Bond, R-MO, calls into The Cable to give some insider details on the Afghanistan strategy briefing he attended at the White House just now.
The meeting was heavy on strategy, light on specifics, and generally had a positive and bipartisan tone, Bond reports. His main takeaway was that Obama pledged not to return to a counterterrorism approach, where troops "shoot and then fall back to the base," Bond said.
Obama told the lawmakers that "nobody on his team was proposing that," Bond reported, which lawmakers took to mean that the president was leaning toward a strategy heavily focused on counterinsurgency, which is of course more manpower intensive.
And though Obama didn't reveal whether or not he will approve Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for up to 40,000 more troops, the president did talk about the need for Congress to quickly approve additional funding quickly if and when more troops are sent over there.
"If he provides more troops, we are going to need more resources," was the message the White House was sending, according to Bond, who interpreted that to mean another supplemental funding bill could be in the offing.
#3
ION PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > AFGHAN TALIBAN SAY THEY POSE NO THREAT TO THE WEST. However. will still fight the US-NATO as long as the latter refuse to leave Afghanistan = AFPAK.
* SAME > HAIKIMULLAH MEHSUD FINALLY SURFACES [ + REHMAN MALIK]. MSM-Net Reports of their demise are seemingly premature.
ZOMBIES LIVE, + aren't gonna take it anymore!
D *** NG IT, M-A-S-H > PR US ARMY GENERAL > "This is a PRESS CONFERENCE - THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS"!
El Baradei has a backbone? Who knew...
Even after Iran had been caught trying to conceal its nuclear facility near Qom, the head of the United Nations nuclear inspectors attempted to play down this deception. Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei said this week, should have informed the International Atomic Energy Agency earlier. But there was no concrete proof that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons, he insisted. If the UN believes that, it will believe anything.
Dr ElBaradei is probably the main reason why Iran reckoned it had little to lose by its violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At every stage, the Egyptian head of the IAEA has attempted to overlook Tehrans repeated breaches of its treaty obligations, to play down its nuclear research programme and to pour cold water on the warnings from America and Israel. He has acted as though he were Irans political shield: even his nuclear experts have concluded from global intelligence sources that Tehran may have the knowhow to make an atomic bomb and has worked on the military technology to produce and deliver such a weapon. But Dr ElBaradei has kept silent. Confrontational politics, apparently, is not his style.
#3
At every stage, the Egyptian head of the IAEA has attempted to overlook Tehran's repeated breaches of its treaty obligations
El Baradei is useless. Look at all the damage he caused in Iraq--and I still think Saddam not only believed and stated he had WMD's, he did. Where they were moved I don't know, but I'd like to shove them up an Egyptian *ss.
#4
In fact, look at all the nuclear proliferation that has gone on during El Baradei's watch. Real effective with North Korea, Libya, Syria, Burma and now Venezuela. He should be tried for war crimes!
You would not know it if you follow the pro-Assad blogs and the chipper news emanating from Damascus, and you certainly would not know it if you listen to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad himself or see the expediency by which his recent foreign travels have all had a secret economic component seeking foreign investments and aid. The truth is that the Syrian economy is flapping like a dying butterfly.
Between US sanctions, a severe drought in an agrarian-based economy, sustained terror that has caused the migration of over 1 million Iraqis to Syria, political risks promoting "resistance" instead of cooperation, dwindling oil revenues, an alarming increase in Syrian population and a determined new Israeli government, Assad is being squeezed like a Syrian olive for its oil.
Very few people grasp the reality Assad faces now that he has systematically destroyed whatever he inherited from his father through ill-advised policies. Some Middle East analysts are aware of the economic pressure Assad is under, but the extent of the harm his policies have caused the Syrian treasury is largely unknown.
AS IMPORTANT to the piling problems on Assad's shoulders is the latest challenge Iran was confronted with during the G-20 summit last week, regarding the discovery of its secret enrichment plant in Qom. Assad suddenly finds himself burdened by outside forces over which he has no control. Even his most potent tool of terror seems to have gone stale in the face of the overwhelming pressure Iran is facing for its actions.
If Iran catches cold, Assad will sneeze uncontrollably. No other nation provides Syria with the political clout Iran does; not even Turkey's short-lived friendliness, about to expire with the expected ruling party's defeat - an eventuality that the latest Turkish municipal elections show is not far afield.
As such, the pressure mounting on Assad via Iran is yielding far better results for Syrians and the West than the embrace of "dialogue." Assad is about to give under the pressure, and we should, as John Lennon once said, let it be.
As hard-pressed as he is, his illegitimate regime will try to extract some quick concessions in the hope that he continues to rule a country ravaged by structural fault lines Ba'athism decreed to monopolize power. Syrians must hope that the country's 45-year slumber is about to end with the demise of those who knocked the country out.
There is no such thing as a "reformed" violent man or a "reformed" oppressor. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's New York circus tent display, unraveling speeches, and deep satisfaction - quite visible on his face - with how the Lockerbie tragedy ended bear witness to this truth. He may not resort to terror himself, but Libya, through oppression and ignorance, is a breeding ground for a hopeless future generation. I can recite the names of Israeli Nobel Prize winners, but can you imagine one Nobel laureate under the rule of Gaddafi or Assad?
WERE THE international community to alleviate the pressure on Assad today, all we would be doing is resetting the clock for the bomb to explode at a later time. No matter the political arguments made in favor of a Middle East dictatorship, or "stability" as some have the audacity to call it, our moral compass as humans is to help Syrians deliver their country to their people, to introduce governance, accountability and coexistence.
Hate-spewing stability is not the answer to a region already flooded with exclusionary ideologies - which is what the West will be reinforcing if it embraces Assad when history is presenting us with a gift for a permanent and positive change.
Just imagine a Lebanon where Hizbullah's power base could no longer rely on Iran and Syria to provide the incendiary Nasrallah with muscle-flexing, gun-toting missions. Imagine Hamas, looking for Assad in Damascus, finding instead accountable politicians and being forced to become the new PLO's bride or be chastized as a Muslim divorcee. Imagine Israel, for the first time, helping the Syrian and Iraqi democracies without the specter of terror shadowing its successes.
As Orly Halpern wrote in the Jewish Daily Forward, "normalized relations between the countries [Israel and Iraq] are being discussed unofficially." So will relations between Syria and Israel once we establish our own peaceful democracy aided by a willing West.
Will all this come at a price? Certainly. Are we willing to burden ourselves today for a better future for our children? We Syrians are. Our hope is that the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government are, as well.
The writer comes from a prominent Syrian family who emigrated to Lebanon after it clashed with the Ba'ath party. Ghadry, along with other in-country activists, started the Reform Party of Syria (RPS) whose goals are to rebuild the country on the principles of economic and political reforms that will usher in democracy. In 2007, Ghadry, by invitation, addressed the Knesset in support of the vision of RPS.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
not even Turkey's short-lived friendliness, about to expire with the expected ruling party's defeat - an eventuality that the latest Turkish municipal elections show is not far afield.
Good news, if true. Anybody know anything about this prediction?
An excerpt from NRO's interview with former House speaker Newt Gingrich:
If power in America continues to move away from the people, Gingrich says that the country risks "actually eliminating the uniqueness that has made America an exceptional nation. You begin drift into a world where nothing is stable."
"The modern Left is essentially proto-totalitarian," says Gingrich. President Obama, he says, is "an authentic representative of the intelligentsia. I think he likes Reveille for Radicals for a reason; he likes William Ayers for a reason. He didn't notice 20 years of sermons for a reason."
But is Obama that different from liberals like George McGovern? "Oh, yeah," says Gingrich. "My sense is with McGovern, unequivocally, that he was a man from a different world. McGovern was a man who had grown up in pre-World War II America. And he grew up in South Dakota. Obama really grew up in the world of the modern American intelligentsia -- he is a person of the left. The minute you accept that, you understand almost everything."
Obama, Gingrich adds, "is a radical in the sense that the victory of those values would mean the end of American civilization as we know it." President Reagan, in contrast, he says, "was a radical within the American tradition. He was almost like the Jacksonian uprising against the establishment. Reagan represented a fundamental break with the dominant system of government for the last 60 years. He didn't quite pull it off. He managed to defeat the Soviet Empire and managed to renew the energy of entrepreneurial America, but he did not in fact change the underlying crisis."
In 2008, Americans, says Gingrich, "were voting for the end of Bush. They were voting to have no taxes raised on anybody making under $250,000 and they were voting for a tax cut for 95 percent of the American people. Go back and read what Obama campaigned on. This is a con job on the scale of Madoff." . . .
Looking to Afghanistan, Gingrich says "the real underlying challenge is that this is a much bigger problem than people understand. You can pull out of Afghanistan, and then what? You want to pull out of Pakistan? Fine. And then what? We pulled out of Somalia, and now we have pirates. You think these guys are going away? Or, do you think that this will become a bigger problem? It's like dealing with Iran. The last few weeks have been worse than Chamberlain. This is Baldwin in 1935, just willfully blind because he didn't want to tell the British people the truth because it would offend them."
From early 2009, but well worth a read.
An Interview by Felix Struening
Danish integration problems with Muslims became public worldwide in 2006 when the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Exactly two years later riots broke out again because of the reprint of the Mohammed cartoons by all major Danish newspapers.
Currently 70% of the prison population in the Copenhagen youth prison consists of young man of Muslim heritage. Is this recent violence and general violent tendency among Muslims solely coincidental, or is there a direct connection?
In February 2009, Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist published a book entitled Among criminal Muslims. A psychologists experience from Copenhagen. In his book, Nicolai Sennels shares a psychological perspective of this Muslim Culture, its relationship to anger, handling emotions and its religion. He based his research on hundreds of hours of therapy with 150 young Muslims in the Copenhagen youth jail. EuropeNews interviewed the author about his book and its consequences on integration of Muslims in Europe.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/07/2009 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Their culture is disfunctional. The solution is to kill the culture.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/07/2009 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've have been getting that drift over the last 30-40 years...might have had something to do with the bombing in Scotland, Spain, car burnings in Paris, shooting the Pope, 9/11, Lockerbie, Marine Corp baracks bombing in Lebanon, murders and beheadings in various locations, and other terror plots in the U.S. and other parts of the world that have been interrupted. Jihadi is a disease of this religion. But then I might be a little biased in my view.
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.
You would not know it if you follow the pro-Assad blogs and the chipper news emanating from Damascus, and you certainly would not know it if you listen to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad himself or see the expediency by which his recent foreign travels have all had a secret economic component seeking foreign investments and aid. The truth is that the Syrian economy is flapping like a dying butterfly.
