Postworthy

It now appears that, according to political wisdom, the following
have had their status as victims modified to co-criminals: Rape victims
share co-responsibility with their attackers for being desirous to
their attackers; robbery victims share co-responsibility for possessing
something worth taking; murder victims share co-responsibility for
giving their killers cause to snuff them out; and all of Bernie
Madoff’s bilked investors are co-criminals for having the audacity of
handing over their money to him in the first place.  The above victims’
statuses have been revised to be in alignment with our new
Democrat-styled foreign policy. We (me and you), and the United States
of America are responsible for Mexico’s violence, according to the
Obama administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

While storming into Mexico this week, after traveling abroad and
demonstrating a tactless display of solecism, Clinton has set her
sights on embarrassing the United States within the confines of its own
continent, just south of the border.

Clinton explained the causes of Mexico’s violence during her visit to Mexico this past week with the subsequent cognition:  "Our
insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability
to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to
arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and
civilians. I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility." Clinton then continued, in tandem with her mastery of cross-border tensions, to display her mastery of religion as well: The Our Lady of Gaudalupe,
which appeared on the back of a peasant cloak in the early 1500’s, was
lowered from its alter for Clinton to view. After admiring the image,
Clinton asked, "Who painted it?" A quick retort by Msgr. Monroy–"God."

Mexico blames their irrepressible crime on the
United States because of its inability to halt weapons from being
illegally brought across the border into Mexico. Mexico wants the
United States to take responsibility and extinguish the root cause of
their violent crime, while concurrently supporting the idea of an open
border: Mexico continues to take offense at the border fence.  Mexico
needs the open borders to continue to abet their illegal immigration
industry’s incursion into the United States. These statements coming
from a third-world country that has perfected the art of political and
martial corruption. It is interesting that neither Clinton nor her
Mexican counterpart, Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa, mentioned the
twelve thousand illegals that cross the Mexican border into the United
States daily, the drugs that follow the same path, nor the violence the
drugs incite on the U.S. side of the border. A very interesting devoid
part of the exchange, indeed.

How are these guns being smuggled into Mexico?
Perhaps they are following the same routes that the Mexican government
makes available to the twelve thousand illegal aliens who cross the
border into our country each day; perhaps it is simply a matter of
mathematics: twelve thousand illegals cross north each day,
two-thousand illegal guns cross south each day. How easy and unfair is
that? How many of the twelve thousand illegals bring the drugs across a
porous border that the U.S has spent hundreds, if not trillions of
dollars, fighting?  It’s mathematically unfair.

When Clinton uses the term "our" in reference to
our (me, mine, you, us, and the United States) culpability in the drug
and gun racket, the term "our" must be as carefully assayed as  Bill
Clinton’s statement under oath, "…it depends on what the meaning of
"is" is.

Let us first define what the meaning of "ours" is.
Does it mean me? I can assure you it does not; it does not mean
conservative; it does not mean those who support immigration control;
it does not mean those who support the border fence; and it certainly
does not represent those who, unlike our Secretary of Homeland
Security, want our immigration laws unabashedly enforced.

So who does "ours" mean? Does it mean you?: It
does if you support the Democrat Party; it means you if you supported
the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill; it means you if you support
sanctuary cities; it means you if you oppose the border fence; it means
you if you are a drug user–which statistically would place you leaning
left, and thus, a Democrat. So "ours", according to this past election,
would mean just over half of the United States, and not my half. If you
fit the profile above, you are the one-half of this nation represented
by Clinton’s "our", not my half.

Logic: The most prosperous country in the world,
with a two-thousand mile open border adjacent to a third-world country
rife with corruption, crime, and abject poverty is a recipe for what? A
never ending cycle of illegals crossing a non-existent border, some
transporting drugs that fuel the "insatiable" demand for the drugs,
while guns cross the border south to help propagate the production and
exportation of said drugs, and around and around and around it will go
until there is not a border to pierce with impunity. Phoenix, Arizona
has the second highest kidnap for ransom rate in the world. Second only
to–guess? Mexico City.

Until this two-thousand mile thoroughfare that
serves as a border is as close to 100% sealed as it can possibly be;
all non-citizens accounted for in this county- and if illegal,
deported; and illegal ingress and egress brought to a negligible
number; all the empty political rhetoric, hand wringing, threats, and
political plans will never cause a cessation of the problems on either
side of the border. As Mexico wails on about American guns illegally
immigrating into their country, the cause and effect must be
cross-examined: what came first, the chicken or the egg? The guns or
the drugs? In this case the answer is not much of a riddle–the
illegals and drugs are part of the history of the U.S. and Mexican
border, yet gun-running of this magnitude is relatively new. Stop the
drugs and its avenues, and the guns and its avenues stop–supply and
demand—trickle up, Democrat style.