Mexican Cartels Get Grenades Cheap
For roughly $6.50 US, or about 80 pesos, according to Borderland Beat.
And sorry Brady people, they're coming from central America, not the U.S.
The information Commander Valiente has released matches that of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives which reported that most of the grenades used by drug cartels in Nuevo Leon originate from Central America, not from U.S. weapon trafficking.
And some of them are making their way north of the border, as well.
Bill Newell, regional director for Arizona and New Mexico A.T.F., said there are indications that several of the explosives seized in the State were acquired through connections with corrupt officials in Guatemala, Belize and El Salvador.
An interesting side note, one of the metrics our intel guys used to gauge how successful our efforts at interdicting bad guy supplies were was the price of AKs.
Looks like the Mexicans aren't having much success at controlling their southern border.
This Is Probably Wildly Inappropriate
...but I'm going to say it anyway.
Fannie Mae champion Barney Frank's boyfriend spent yesterday heckling Frank's opponent, Sean Beilat. (h/t Insty)
Aside from the whole 'stand by your man' aspect of it (apologies to Patsy Cline), I can see why James Ready supports Barney Frank.
Frank has done a wonderful job of bending the American taxpayers over. Ready is the only person in America who gets to bend Frank over.
WA Ferries Pull Seattle Weekly Over Pic of Murray
Via Hit & Run, we learn that the Washington state ferry system has removed copies of the current issue of the Seattle Weekly, which features a less than flattering picture of WA Senator Patty "Proud of My Pork" Murray on the cover.
According to a ferry spokesdroid, "We decided to pull it because we thought it was denigrating to women. It was not in keeping with what we want our customers to have to view. I thought it forwarded a disrespectful attitude toward a public figure."
The fact that over a fifth of the ferry system's capital expeditures are paid for with federal dollars, and Murray chairs the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, had nothing to do with it.
It was not in keeping with what we want our customers to have to view.
I'm quite sure you don't want your (heavily subsidized) customers to view an unflattering portrayal of your sugarmama.
I thought it forwarded a disrespectful attitude toward a public figure.
Now, I can't say for sure, but I'm reasonably certain, given the usual leanings of the staff of the Weekly, that at least once during the period 2001 through 2008, they featured a cover that was plenty 'disrespectful' of President George W. Bush. And the ferry folks didn't pull those issues off the racks.
VFW Dissolves PAC
Via BlackFive: seems COM-VFW has ordered the dissolution of VFW-PAC.
Now, I'm not a member of either the VFW or the Legion, but here's my take on the whole thing, from 'net discussions I've seen, and dusting off things I studied in PoliSci class back at UCD.
VFW set up the PAC to give money (if you're not giving money, you don't, I think, need to be a PAC) to candidates who voted (in the case of incumbents) or advocated (in the case of non-incumbents) in favor of the VFW on things of interest/importance to the VFW. Now generally, almost any interest group will tend to favor incumbents, for the simple reasons that incumbents have had more opportunity to cast actual votes in ways the group favors, and they have control over the money right now. This may be even more important this year (as opposed to other election years) since Congress hasn't gotten off their lazy asses and passed next year's budget, thus making the taking of fiscal revenge by ousted legislators post-Nov 3rd a very real possibility.
But anyway, you've got these incumbent politicians, who have voted the VFW's way in the past, and you've got VFW-PAC, who gives out endorsements to politicians who have voted VFW's way in the past. Absent any other guidance from the VFW leadership, or the membership at large, the VFW-PAC did what it has always done: endorse politicians who have voted VFW's way in the past.
The problem is, this year isn't normal. And a lot of those incumbent politicians are senior Democrats, leaders in Congress who are looked upon very, very unfavorably, by vets/retirees who are the VFW's members/constituency, but also but much of the nation as a whole. Thus resulting in backlash, both from the general public, but most importantly, I'm sure, from VFW members.
One thing I can't confirm, but I can speculate about: many of those same Democrats were very vocal in opposition to GW Bush (who is generally looked upon favorably by military personnel), the war in Iraq, and especially the Surge. These servicemembers, understandably, see these Dems are having not supported them when they were in harm's way. This leads me to wonder if any influx of new members to the VFW from veterans of the GWOT, especially Iraq, played any role in the backlash to business-as-usual from the PAC.