Romney’s High School Pranks Troubling to Media – Operation: Defect from the Obvious Issues, Attack Fairly Squeaky Clean Romney for 1960’s Behavior

Compare: Barack Obama High School Photo's - image Magnificent Bastard do com

To: a decade before


Mitt Romney High School - from the website: classwareexists.com


Analysis

The Washington Post ran with a story yesterday regarding presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, the story headline: “Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents” insinuates there must be something critically wrong with Romney, after all, over forty years ago, he played pranks and was “mean” to his classmates. The Post goes further and hauls out some of Mitt Romney’s high school classmates, all of whom are Democrats and one of which happened to work for the Obama campaign in 2008. The gist: Romney and a group of classmates got together and cut another classmates hair!

Let’s put this into context. In the 1960’s, which one assumes may have been the time period, there was a shift in men’s (or boys more to the point, at 16 or 17) style – some held onto the more conservative short hair, while others, let their hair grow to new lengths. It was a sign of the times, rebellion, where those whose hair was a tad too long were booted from schools, and on the female side, should one not wear a bra, or if one’s skirt was too long, or one had sandals on one’s feet, one faced suspension. No kidding, public schools had dress codes too – and pranks were played, some of them would be considered criminal offenses today, however, that was then. A time when stealing a hubcap off a neighbor’s car would land one in “juvenile dentition” – Juvenile dentition was a separate facility, a jail if one will, where students, whose crimes were, by today’s standards, much ado about nothing, placed on in an educational setting with bars – for a time determined by the courts. Needless to say, the graduation rate was high, students were especially careful not to cross lines, and those that did, suffered the consequences of suspension, or worse. Those that were sent to Juvenile Hall or a young girl who was “in the family way”, were shunned by fellow students as somehow not proper.

So, Romney was a joker, probably the class clown, and most likely applauded by fellow students, who may have been sitting on the sidelines – yet 40 some odd years later, those same students are now full of remorse and politically correct. ABC News, for instance, in interviewing one of the former classmates, focuses on the “bullying aspect”, and also the fact that the young man with “long hair” may have been “gay”/ Of course, that goes towards the times – when in the 1960’s, “gay” meant happy, and well, it was a lifestyle that was not “talked about” by anyone, including those who were still in the “closet”. The long-hair again, was seen as an anomaly, born out of the rebellion of “doing one’s own thing” in that era. Family and friends of those who opted to grow their hair were referred to as “girls” – especially by siblings and parents who were beside themselves with what was considered behavior out of the “norm”.

Romney immediately apologized for something that he did as a youth. That appeases no-one, as the press has finally found something with which to malign Mitt Romney! Even though it appears that some of those that interviewed for the story were not actually witness to the incident. According to the dailycaller.com, there are “cracks in the Washington Post Story on Romney’s Pranks”. No-one is surprised, and frankly those in the demo (not the elite, touchy-feely, media), or baby-boomers, are not particularly “bothered” by a prank of that nature, having endured and or instigated pranks that make Romney’s look “amateurish” by comparison.

Example of cultural change: Pranks such as stuffing a black garden snake (harmless) into a victims mouth (mostly a girl that may have been one of those “rebellious” types), mostly to see that person a) fear the snake and b) gag on the snake and scream bloody murder – horrible! Today, those 13 to 18 year old boys would be in court, possibly incarcerated, for what was at the time, a mind-numbing stupid prank. Retaliation, it should be noted, also occurred – it was the natural order of things, being picked on- or picking on someone. Yes, it was not “nice” and yes, it probably left scars on those whose psyche was so fragile that they could not withstand being an “outsider” or even the random “victim” might still suffer from a fear of snakes. However, times have changed: Today, if one hugs one’s classmate, one might be considered a sexual predator – expelled, if one calls someone a name, one may be a “bully” expelled. The pendulum has swung in extremes, and the Post has decided, as it could not come up with anything else that Romney had done in 60 years, that perhaps painting him as a disturbing bully, with testimony by individuals who were not even there (that’s the cracks in the Washington Post Story – hearsay) might somehow help the President’s reelection efforts.

Of course, that’s when reading the Presidents’ book becomes a problem – Barack Obama is a decade younger, therefore, the “revolution” occurred after he was in High School, were his norm was smoking dope and skipping school – one can also hazard to guess as that time, the dropout rate among classmates in Hawaii and on the mainland was starting to increase. In 1960, the dropout rate was at 27% (including inner city, as well as rural and farm communities), and in 2008, the last year complete statistics were compiled, the drop-out rate was 30.1% - There appears to be a trend here, where, the counter-culture of the 1960’s, those long-haired, bra-eschewing, sandal clad rebels, who were picked on while in secondary schools, have turned the present day education experience into an anything goes, weather it is distracting other students, or walking out of class – and there are simply – no repercussions. Unless of course, a student tries to hug someone – then the alarms go off.

In reality, it does not matter if as a 16 or 18 year old Romney played a few pranks, or for that matter, if a 16 to 18 year old Barack Obama smoked a few blunts, or skipped some classes – it matters not, what matters is their behavior in their 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and yes, 60’s – it matter’s what political philosophy the candidate may have, it matters how that candidate voted, what the successes or failures that candidate has experienced, and how well prepared that candidate is to get the United States out of a big mess, one that has to do with job growth and the health of our economy. That’s where the comparisons should be made, but somehow, the Post and similar outlets are more concerned with Barack Obama coming out of the closet in “personal support for gay marriage”, while having no intention to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act” In other words, although he’s personally (suddenly on a par with Mitt Romney for “flip-flopping”) changed his mind about “Gay Marriage” so that he he’s regained some “cool” with the Post Editorial Crew, and members of MSNBC’s late-night slate, he plans on doing – nothing.

Now there’s a story – President Supports Gay Marriage personally, but…..
For all my gay friends and acquaintances, that means – nothing. Especially those living in states outside of the five that offer marriage to GBLT community – a civil union bill would be nice, something that would protect these couples inheritance rights, or the right to visit a partner in a hospital – making everything equal (and this is my opinion) would require every couple to enter into a civil union, and those of religious bent, to have a traditional Church, Synagogue or Mosque, or what-have –you – wedding, complete with a certificate from the Church, etc. – that would be too simple, satisfy everyone’s needs, and give everyone the same rights – yet it is never an option – because, Gay Marriage would no longer be a political football.

For Democrats who must campaign on that issue, in all but five states, it means a great deal.

It’s also something one will see swept under the rug, as fast as furious (oops) as any major White House Scandal. In all it will be interesting to see if any of the incumbent Democrats fighting for their life in the coming months, call on the President to help with their campaigns. One might hazard to guess as this point; he may receive the 2008 George Bush Treatment.

Why? Just like the abortion issue, the Gay Marriage Issue will never be solved, because they make political points, a political football if one will – social issues, are ripe for the pickings of political parties, to point out the faults of the opposing team – and these issues? American’s are not entirely divided on these issues – which is always a danger when one puts themselves out in favor or not in favor, of one or the other.

So, Obama’s supporters in the Press deflect, surely the geeky Romney must have something in his past, something, anything that would make him less appealing than the President? The President who now owns an economy that is in dire straits, has more government intervention in individuals’ lives than at any time in history, and now is moving to the social issues, that will end up being more of an albatross than a help. The President’s state by state approval rating as it stands (Gallup) for 2010 and 2011 is little changed, he has just above a 50% approval in ten states, and that is not a statistic that is helped by the economy, sudden revelations of a personal nature, and/or calling out 40 year old “hi-jinks” committed by one Mitt Romney.

The Civil-Drug War in Mexico Escalates: 18 Decapitated in 2nd Largest City Ahead of July 1st Presidential Election - The Logic of Border Control

The Drug War Continues - Decapitations preferred method of execution - image from veracityvoice: The Unreported War In Mexico - January 2011


The body count in the Mexican Drug Cartel/Civil wars has been building in the past weeks, with the latest “revenge” casualties being 18 bodies found decapitated in Mexico’s second largest city – Guadalajara . The act of decapitation has become increasingly common in the nation, with what had been a “border war” escalating and moving into areas previously thought safe for Mexico’s citizens and tourists alike. That is no longer the case – the blog www.borderlandbeat.com has compiled an excellent history of the conflict, as well as updated news on the nation’s politics and continued civil war. (A must read.)

The violence has escalated during the Presidential election year - Mexico will vote for a new President in July, 2012. The leading candidate is Pena Nieto, of the Revolutionary Party (PRI), who together with his soap opera star wife, make up the most “charming” and appealing team, leading by 20 points in recent polls. (San Francisco Chronicle). However, it appears to be an election based on popularity rather than issues, at the moment. Pena Neito's Revolutionary Party had held power in Mexico for decades, and most recently lost the Presidency to Vicente Fox and Calderon, both of whom were able to control the cartels. However, the Modern Socialist PRI Party appears poised to retake the nation – with the nation’s most popular couple.

How all that would play into the civil war that is taking place remains to be seen – although, in for decades the drug trade existed between Mexico and the U.S. borders, it was not to the extent that it is today. Either atrocities were hushed by the ruling party, or they simply did not occur – the later being more likely. Therefore, logic dictates that should the party regain total power, and the leading contender be more stuff than fluff, one might see an actual decline in the violence, against its citizens, elected officials, journalists, and police.

In effect, the nation is in chaos, and it is spilling over the border into the U.S. – no matter how much money U.S. taxpayers throw at Mexico in a ridiculous “War on Drugs”. Ridiculous only in the sense that the other side appears to be winning, and there is no structure in place to prevent those cartel members or drug runners from easy access to the United States. It will be up to the President of the United States, as well as the newly elected Mexican President in July, to come to some sort of agreement as to the necessity of Mexico to deal with its own problems, and the necessity of the U.S. to man the border, and shut it down. Perhaps the U.S. should take lessons from Mexico, where they have effectively shut down their southern border with Guatemala – using tactics on those attempting to cross over through Mexico to the U.S. that would be considered extortion.

Additionally, Mexico does have a ruling class, or elite class that enjoys a lifestyle equal to those considered Elitists American’s, while there is no middle class to speak of, and a plethora of peasants whose past options included either working in the U.S. or working with and for the drug cartels. However, that particular party that ruled, at least had the appearance of keeping the violence under control – can the United States, however, rely on this happening again? Or is it, more to the point, the duty and right of the U.S. to actually do something about the border (talk is cheap and has been for decades), cutting off access to anyone who cannot legally enter the country? The scenario is doubtful, regardless of the party in power here in the U.S., as either no one has the chutzpah or the cajones to get the job done. Fear of alienating a voting bloc and big business trumps the health, wealth and safety of the very people they vow to protect – the American Citizen. One realistic solution would be to cut off the drug supply routes – cut off the cartels, the cash and let Mexico gain its independence from the United States of America. Again, political pandering will take that option off the table and as 25 lives lost in a week, turn into hundreds and thousands, on either side of the border will those in power still support the "do nothing" policy that continues to exist?

Mass Political Roundup: Warren’s Cherokee Nation continues to Haunt, Kerry Bemoans Loss of Luger, Mass. 6th Up for Grabs, Neal’s(D-MA1) Tax Rules

Lizzie Warren with Barack Obama - worked in Administration - image mediatedotcom


Elizabeth Warren, College Professor, Obama Team Member and Candidate against one Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), has, from any reasonable point of view, no way out of the ever growing saga, of her deceptive application as a student and Harvard Professor noting she is a minority due to her American-Indian Heritage. The latest ditty from Red State, speaks to the fact that her ancestor was indeed close to the Cherokee nation, however, on the “side holding the gun”. The more we learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more ridiculous a candidate she becomes – the question to the DNC – “What were you thinking?” It is apparent that one can run for office, be a friend to the President, and well, fudge one’s resume a bit – apparently the lack of vetting from that side of the aisle remains non-existent.

In an upset that was broadcast last night, the Indiana Primary saw 80 year old moderate to the left of center Republican Senator, Richard Lugar’s loss to a conservative, Tea Party, Club for Growth and RSC backed Richard Murdock – or - term limits imposed by the ballot box. This has Massachusetts Senior Senator John Kerry in a state of Depression - as he “laments Republican Richard Lugar’s Departure-from the Senate” (Boston Globe) – To those citizens of Indiana – obviously you made the correct choice – therein lays the proof.

There may be trouble in “River City” for Massachusetts Congressional Candidate John Tierney in the 6th District – this according to political pundit, Stuart Rothenberg. The Massachusetts House Seats now number nine, of nine, one might consider one completely safe – baring a strong and charismatic, well connected candidate for the 1st District, now owned by Democrat Richard Neal. Neal, now in the Massachuestts 1st District, is surrounded by the maximum progressive population in the state, and although there are pockets of conservatives living within the confines of the 1st, there are more “Cher” minded individuals – that is not to say he is not without competition, from inside his party. According to the Springfield RepublicanNeal faces two contenders on the Democrat Side, and no Republican has emerged as of March 14th.

There are, however, Republican candidates running in other, less gerrymandered districts, one with a particular disadvantage is a Kennedy running in the newly drawn 4th, drawn into such Conservative enclaves that Barney Frank got up and retired. That district may also be up for grabs, as anyone who lives inside Massachusetts understands the Kennedy brand is not what it once was – See Scott Brown (R-MA) enough said.

Finally, from Bloomberg News, U.S. Citizens living outside the borders, and considered ex-patriots (or ex-pats), are finding banking overseas to be non-existent. This due to new regulations put in place by Massachusetts’ Tax Man, Richard Neal (D-MA1), who crafted the Foreign Compliance Act, which essentially bars American’s from banking with overseas firms, and if they do, they pay a 30% tax.

Although one would think that this was aimed strictly at millionaires, and billionaires, who have escaped the U.S. for tax purposes, (or businesses ventures), it also affects other expats who maybe overseas working for contractors, limiting their choice of banking options. Additionally, according to Bloomberg, some of those “Millionaires” have opted to give up their U.S. Citizenship, in order to “evade” paying the 30% rate on return of investment – meaning, the U.S. government will receive zero dollars. The “Tax the Rich” plan looks great on Progressive paper, and also works well at Campus Rally’s, but when push comes to shove, if the targeted Millionaire becomes a citizen of “name another country”, the tax no longer exists. Just look at the state by state exodus to avoid hefty taxes within the U.S. and one gets the drift. Neal’s conservative moniker is: “Nancy Pelosi’s and Ireland’s Tax Man on the Hill”(from pre-2010 Republican House Takeover, a must read originally published on Brietbarts’s Big Government.) Neal is worth watching, although projected to be in the Congress longer than Bob Byrd.

Santorum’s Email Endorsement of Romney, Lost in the Text – No Less Powerful – Headlines Can Be Deceiving.

The email endorsement of Mitt Romney by former rival Rick Santorum was found in the end of an email written to supporter – so well-crafted as to be, by some who might be continuing to warm to Mitt Romney, completely missed – that would be this blogger. It goes without saying, therein lays the danger of taking opinion pieces as “news” – even if the piece contains evidence contrary to a headline. In fact, that has been by and because of editorial boards who either eschew blogs, or embrace the first blog they come across and print without follow-up.

The fact that the endorsement came in the 13th paragraph, is being touted by the media as somehow “tepid” , not as rousing as it should be perhaps. (Wall Street Journal). The preamble to the endorsement was more of a “why one should support Mitt Romney”, and that was very clear – the differences, the similarities, were all spelled out rather clearly – and Santorum’s case for Romney, was crafted to insure that supporters and non-supporters understood his backing the former Massachusetts Senator, who has a reputation for slash and burn campaigns (for lack of a better euphemism). The point, Santorum was being careful in his wording, and that was in order to bring those conservatives who might otherwise be considering other options, into a frame of mind where Romney becomes more appealing to those who would, once again, be holding their noses as they vote, and that they will.

The least ardent of the Romney supporters, or those who would have preferred any other candidate, when faced with a choice between Romney and Obama, will not stay home from the polls, nor will they vote for Obama (that is a fantasy of the media and most probably the Obama Campaign), they will come out and vote for the economy, against the Health Care Program crafted by a Democrat controlled Legislature, against the waste and the scandals and the stories that the media fails to report, or does so on page 83, if at all – and they will vote for Mitt Romney. This is, indeed, Romney’s opportunity to lead the nation forward, both economically and in some semblance of unity. The only problems Romney might face in a quest to unite the nation politically, would be the extreme left – those progressive in the vein of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company. That said Romney has experience dealing with the lot of them – having done so in Massachusetts. It’s knowing when to hold them and when to fold them – and when to fight.

Therefore, although missing an endorsement (obvious when read a third time), the point and theme were constant – Romney is ok, he’s going to best Obama and we are going to help him accomplish this task – and put our fiscal house in order. In adding to that, one might also consider our national “emotional house” which is in dire straits, and needs a boost. Romney may not be the most charismatic politician, nor the most seasoned, but he does exude confidence, and a careful approach to issues that is to be respected, not ridiculed, and therefore, will make a fine leader – not a bit like Bush (as the Campaign and the media attempt to make that comparison), rather a lot like Romney. This blogger is more than comfortable with Romney as the GOP candidate and the clear alternative to President Obama and the policies of the current administration.

Press Jumps the Gun on Santorum Endorsement of Romney – Uses Email to Supporters – See Text – Endorsement No, Warming Yes

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney post Debate - image: Catholicvote.org

From the Allentown Morning Call, a Reuters News Piece entitled: “Republican Santorum endorses Romney for president” speaks to an email sent to Santorum supporters yesterday, noting that the email endorsed former Massachusetts Governor and GOP Frontrunner and presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney – it did not, necessarily or formally. The text of the email is shown below with an obvious “warming” to the candidacy of Mitt Romney for President, but no formal endorsement. That said, in closing Rick Santorum does not he has an announcement coming soon – that may be the formal endorsement.

Text of email:

On Friday, Governor Romney came to Pittsburgh for an over-hour long one-on-one meeting. The conversation was candid, collegial and focused on the issues that you helped me give voice to during our campaign; because I believe they are essential ingredients to not only winning this fall, but turning our country around.
While the issue of my endorsement did not come up, I certainly have heard from many of you who have weighed in on whether or not I should issue a formal endorsement. Thank you for your counsel, it has been most helpful. However, I felt that it was completely impossible for me to even consider an endorsement until after a meeting to discuss issues critical to those of us who often feel our voices are not heard by the establishment: social conservatives, tea-party supporters, lower and middle income working families.
Clearly without the overwhelming support from you all, I never would have won 11 states and over 3 million votes, and we would not have won more counties than all the other candidates combined. I can assure you that even though I am no longer a candidate for president, I will still continue to fight every day for our shared values - the values that made America the greatest country in the history of the world.
During our meeting I felt a deep responsibility to assess Governor Romney's commitment to addressing the issues most important to conservatives, as well his commitment to ensuring our appropriate representation in a Romney administration.
The family and its foundational role in America's economic success, a central point of our campaign, was discussed at length. I was impressed with the Governor's deep understanding of this connection and his commitment to economic policies that preserve and strengthen families. He clearly understands that having pro-family initiatives are not only the morally and economically right thing to do, but that the family is the basic building block of our society and must be preserved.
I also shared with Governor Romney my belief that we cannot restore America as the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen until we return America to being a manufacturing superpower. He listened very carefully to my advice on this matter, and while our policy prescriptions differed, he clearly expressed his desire to create more opportunities for those that are feeling left behind in this economy.
As it is often said, "personnel is policy." I strongly encouraged Governor Romney as he builds out his campaign staff and advisors that he add more conservative leaders as an integral part of his team. And you can be sure that I will work with the Governor to help him in this task to ensure he has a strong team that will support him in his conservative policy initiatives.
Of course we talked about what it would take to win this election. As you know I started almost every speech with the phrase that this was the most important election since the election of 1860 and four more years of President Obama is simply not an option. As I contemplated what further steps I will take, that reality weighed heavy on me. The America we know is being fundamentally changed to look more like a European socialist state than the land of opportunity our founding fathers established.
Freedom and personal responsibility are being replaced with big government dependency. The greatest and most productive workers in the world are being hamstrung by excessive regulations making it impossible to compete. Our healthcare system had been socialized, and the worth of each life dictated by some government bureaucrat. Our allies are insulted while our enemies are appeased. And our religious beliefs and freedom have come under attack.
What is even more troubling is what a second term of an Obama administration could bring. President Obama's admission to the Russians that he will have more flexibility in a second term can only be translated to "if you thought I was liberal in the first four years you haven't seen anything yet!"
The primary campaign certainly made it clear that Governor Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree: the need for lower taxes, smaller government, and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am also comfortable with Governor Romney on foreign policy matters, and we share the belief that we can never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. And while I had concerns about Governor Romney making a case as a candidate about fighting against Obamacare, I have no doubt if elected he will work with a Republican Congress to repeal it and replace it with a bottom up, patient, not government, driven system.
Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime.
My conversation with Governor Romney was very productive, but I intend to keep lines of communication open with him and his campaign. I hope to ensure that the values that made America that shining city on the hill are illuminated brightly by our party and our candidates thus ensuring not just a victory, but a mandate for conservative governance.
Karen and I know firsthand how difficult the campaign trail can be particularly as governor Romney faces relentless attacks from the democrats. We have been praying for him and his family and will continue to do so in the weeks and months ahead.
Thank you again for all you have done for us, and I look forward to working together to defeat President Obama this fall and to protect faith, family, freedom and opportunity in America.
With Gratitude,

Rick Santorum
P.S. As promised, very soon we will be making another big announcement, and I will be asking you to once again join forces with me to keep up the fight, together. Stay tuned.

The above email to supporters of Rick Santorum shows his political and diplomatic acumen, taking the time to explain some of the “similarities” between him and Mitt Romney on issues such as family and foreign policy, as well as an acceptable agreement on his number one issue – increasing manufacturing and production within the United States. However, the formal “therefore I endorse Mitt Romney” does not appear in the original text. Santorum is one of the most honest, straight-forward politician’s in recent history – and clearly understands that moving to the center for a great majority of his supporters may take some time. That said, when given the option between voting for Obama and an unnamed Republican (or opposition candidate), there is a clear preference for the Massachusetts Governor among Republican voters. It is clear that the established media is “jumping the gun” and has, as is the par, done little to no “fact checking” prior to taking a wire, blog, or other internet source as “solid news.” – One can write almost anything and have it taken as “fact” rather than, in the case of this blog, “opinion”. It should be noted therefore, in anyone’s article that “in the opinion of Reuters, the email suggests that Santorum may be on the verge of endorsing Mitt Romney for President”, in order for this piece to be credible. That’s the opinion of this blog.

Planning a Trip to Mexico? Beheadings, Hangings, and Drug Violence Rampant Across Country

Scenes from the Mexican Border Towns - image The Blaze.com

Boston Globe Reports on a shootout in Mexico City where 5 people were killed, and notes it may have been related “to drug trafficking, but some parts of Mexico City have seen violence by drug gangs and organized crime, though the capital city is less affected than some other cities. More than 47,500 people have died in violence linked to Mexico's war on drugs nationwide since December 2006”. More than probable, over by the border, twenty three bodies were found, nine of them hung (from a bridge) and another 14 found decapitated (Stars and Stripes). There appears to be a resemblance to the types of violence in Mexico today to that of the Iraqi conflict. Most notably Fallujah, where contractors were hung from a bridge, and the “revenge” decapitations of British citizens and American citizens. Journalism is the most high risk occupation in Mexico, right up there with rival gangs (or cartels).
Borderland Beat latest reports on the decapitations note that the recent deaths were the result of a drug cartel leader’s anger with a local mayor in a power struggle, the following were actions that the “cartel leader” took credit:

On March 26 when they appeared in the border city seven human heads under a narco manta declaring responsibility being El Chapo.
On April 17, 14 dismembered bodies in an abandoned van behind the City Hall, where plastic tarps were left over corpses, attributing the killing also the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel.
On April 24, the Tamaulipas attorney, Victor Almanza concluded that there is no evidence that the killings were by the criminal group of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and stressed that the display of the 14 bodies only intended to generate terror, and panic.
Meanwhile, Mayor Benjamin Galvan and together with the Public Safety Director, Alfonso Olvera Ledezma, read a statement which said together that the Sinaloa cartel does not operate in Nuevo Laredo.
The next day, April 25, in response to the above, a car bomb exploded outside the premises of the Ministry of Public Security in Nuevo Laredo.

(Border Beat)

One has to ask themselves, if a vacation is planned, would one want to cross the border into Mexico? The violence is so widespread (see Borderland Beat archives, and or UK papers that documents resort area violence), is it no wonder that Mexican nationals may be entering the U.S. – Perhaps they should be asking for political asylum. Also, one should question the U.S. Governments’ response to the Arizona State law on Illegal Immigration –Arizona and other bordering states have seen an increase in crime as those members of drug cartels have crossed the border on business, and while in the U.S. illegally (drug running, gun running), take time to murder American citizens (among other less deadly crimes).

Apparently, the war directly on the U.S. Mexican border is worth looking at, those attempting to get into the country to avoid the violence, might be allowed a visa or some sort of “pass” especially if they are fleeing for their lives, and finally, the border should be secured, militarily. It appears to be a case of national security.