Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Crime

Mexico faces challenges getting cartels under control as Trump threatens tariffs

Published

4 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Tony Payan, director of the Center for the United States and Mexico at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, previously told The Center Square that a significant reduction in opioid trafficking will remain a challenge for years to come. “I’ve never seen it get better at all, no matter what you try.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to hit Mexico with a 25% tariff unless it stops trafficking and illegal migration puts international trade at risk over problems that past leaders on both sides of the border couldn’t fix.

U.S. officials have pledged to work with their counterparts in Mexico for decades without a significant reduction in cartel drug smuggling, which has proven intractable for authorities in both Mexico and the U.S. Two cooperative agreements between the U.S. and Mexico have guided most of the joint work. The Mérida Initiative, from 2008 to 2021, and then Bicentennial Framework, from late 2021 to the present.

Both countries agreed to the Bicentennial Framework, which created a comprehensive, long-term approach to stop criminal groups that smuggle the illicit drugs and weapons. The illicit drugs come into the U.S. Cash and weapons flow back to Mexico.

Tony Payan, director of the Center for the United States and Mexico at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, previously told The Center Square that a significant reduction in opioid trafficking will remain a challenge for years to come.

“I’ve never seen it get better at all, no matter what you try. The Mérida Initiative in 2008, previous efforts at collaborating that were more improvised, and then the Bicentennial framework, which replaced the Mérida Initiative in 2021, and no results,” Payan said. “So drugs seem to obey their own logic. It has nothing to do with government efforts.”

Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s government largely focused on reducing violence rather than confronting cartels. President Claudia Sheinbaum, who took office last month, pointed the finger back at the U.S. on Tuesday.

In a letter to Trump, she said the incoming president must not be aware of efforts in Mexico. She said U.S. Customs and Border Patrol figures show a 75% reduction in encounters on the border between Mexico and the United States from December 2023 to November 2024.

“Half of those who arrive are through an appointment legally granted by the United States program called CBP One,” she said. “For these reasons, caravans of migrants no longer arrive at the border.”

Sheinbaum said the two counties need to work together to address the issues “that lead families to leave their places of origin out of necessity.”

“If a percentage of what the United States allocates to war is dedicated to building peace and development, the mobility of people will be fundamentally addressed,” she wrote.

Sheinbaum said lawmakers in Mexico are in the process of changing the constitution to declare the production, distribution and marketing of fentanyl and other synthetic drugs a serious crime without the right to bail.

She also said 70% of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from the U.S.

“We do not produce weapons, we do not consume synthetic drugs,” Sheinbaum said.

With the two countries on a collision course, consumers could pay the price. Tariffs could raise prices for U.S. consumers and slow economic growth. S&P Global, a credit-rating agency, reported that Trump’s proposed tariffs – a 10% across the board hike and up to 60% for China – could boost inflation by 1.8% and lower U.S. economic output by 1%, according to a post-election report.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Courageous Discourse

No Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears

Published on

By John Leake

Turning Point Spokesman: “No Exit Wound a Miracle”

Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet repeats extremely dubious claim purportedly made by “the surgeon who operated on Kirk.”

Monday Blaze Media (relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey) reported the following:

Turning Point USA spokesman and executive producer of the “Charlie Kirk Show” Andrew Kolvet revealed new details about the shooting that even doctors are calling a miracle. According to Kolvet, the surgeon who operated on Kirk claimed that the high-velocity bullet was powerful enough to kill multiple large animals — and “should have gone through” his body. But for some reason, Kirk’s body was able to stop it.

“I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie,” Kolvet wrote in a post on X.

“The fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know,” Kolvet continued, explaining that he had spoken with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.

“He said the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc,’” he recalled.

“But it didn’t go through. Charlie’s body stopped it,” he added.

When he mentioned to the doctor that there were “dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie” when he was shot, the doctor reportedly replied, “It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed.”

“His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel,” Kolvet recalls the doctor saying.

This is not a credible statement, and it raises a number of concerns.

It strikes me as very perplexing that a “surgeon operated on Kirk,” because in the video of the shooting, Charlie reacted with a decorticate posture—that is, an abnormal body posture characterized by flexion of the upper limbs—caused by severe trauma to the central nervous system. This indicates that the bullet either directly struck his cervical spinal cord, or the shock wave of the supersonic bullet passing near his spinal cord traumatized it.

A 150-grain, .30-06 bullet’s energy at 150 yards from the muzzle varies by ammunition, but a common hunting cartridge has an estimated value of approximately 1,800-2,000 foot-pounds (with the bullet traveling at about 2500 feet per second). In other words, the .30 caliber (.30 inch diameter) metal projectile struck his neck with sufficient kinetic energy to move a 2,000 pound mass a linear distance of one foot.

If the bullet that struck Charlie’s cervical spinal cord was a .30-06 fired from 150 yards away, it would have:

1). Severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly.

2). Passed through his neck.

Note that the cervical vertebrae are supported by strong muscles and have high compressive strength, but are far too delicate to stop a .30-06 bullet traveling at 2,500 feet per second.

If ALL of the kinetic energy of the bullet was absorbed by Charlie’s neck, it would have done spectacular trauma to his neck, as distinct from producing the clean bullet hole visible in the video footage that ruptured his Carotid artery.

Though I appreciate that some may find a supernatural explanation to be consoling, it seems to me that the investigation should not rest on the this explanation.

As I wrote a few weeks ago: If I were investigating the murder, I would consider the hypothesis that Charlie was shot with a weapon equipped with a suppressor and loaded with a subsonic cartridge to further reduce the sound. I have seen footage of someone firing a rifle with this setup, and the shot was amazingly quiet. The effective range of such a weapon is about 100 yards or less, and the shooter must be very skilled.

However, such a setup could fire a subsonic projectile that would penetrate a human neck without passing through it. In this scenario, the actual assassin (firing the suppressed rifle) hypothetically coordinated the timing of his shot with someone else firing a normal (supersonic and loud) rifle cartridge into the air at the same time to create a distraction or red herring.

In a functioning society in which the people trust their authorities—including their medical examiners—it would be easy to discover what happened and to disclose at least a preliminary report that would satisfy most reasonable people. The trouble our Republic is facing now is that so many of us no longer trust our federal and state authorities to tell us the truth.

For example, we have strong grounds for suspecting that medical examiners are not diligently investigating (with the proper analytic methods) unexpected, fatal cardiac arrests in young people to determine if they were caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

Share

Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Quebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation

Published on

By Nicolas Gagnon

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released new Leger polling showing that half of Quebecers say the most effective way to reduce gun crime is to crack down on illegal gun smuggling from the United States, not a federal gun ban and confiscation.

“Law enforcement experts say the best way to make Canada safer is to stop illegal gun smuggling and Quebecers say exactly the same thing,” said Nicolas Gagnon, CTF Quebec Director. “It makes no sense to pour hundreds of millions into a confiscation that only takes guns from lawfully licensed gun owners.”

In 2020, the federal government launched its policy to confiscate thousands of so-called “assault-style” firearms from licensed gun owners. Ottawa recently announced a pilot project in Cape Breton to start taking firearms from individual owners.

The Leger poll asked Quebecers what they think is the most effective way to reduce gun crime. Results of the poll show:

  • 51 per cent say introducing tougher measures to stop the illegal smuggling of guns into Canada from the United States
  • 37 per cent say banning the sale and ownership of many different makes and models of guns along with a government buyback program
  • Six per cent say neither of these options
  • Seven per cent do not know

The results of the polls arrived as recorded remarks from Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree made headlines in September.

In a leaked audio recording, the minister suggested the confiscation program is being pushed in part because of voters in Quebec, while also expressing doubt that local police services have the resources to enforce it.

Police organizations have long warned Ottawa’s confiscation program is misguided. The RCMP union says it “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

The program was first estimated to cost $200 million. Just providing compensation for the banned guns, not including administrative costs, could cost up to $756 million, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan have both publicly said that they would not cooperate with Ottawa’s gun ban. Premier François Legault has stayed silent on this issue.

“Quebecers have been clear: the real problem is illegal gun smuggling, not law-abiding firearms owners,” said Gagnon. “The police have also made it clear the gun confiscation will waste money that could be used to stop criminals from committing gun crimes.

“Legault needs to stand up for Quebec taxpayers and refuse to help implement Ottawa’s costly and ineffective confiscation scheme. The federal government needs to drop this plan and focus its resources on intercepting illegal guns at the border: that’s how you actually make communities safer.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X