The texts are mind-boggling. One moment, the couple is cooing over how cute their twin daughters are and talking about Emma's enchiladas, the next their talking about whether Chapo's soldiers were slaughtered in a gunfight.
Having left everything behind in the panicked escape, Chapo then asks Emma to send him what he needs: sweats, underwear, some shirts & shoes, shampoo, after shave–and, yes, black mustache dye.
But there's more. Chapo wasn't only spying on Emma's phone. He had two side chicks (who look exactly like her by the way) and he was spying on their phones too. So guess what the FBI got their hands on? That's where we're headed after this quick break, it seems.
Oh forgot to mention: Emma, the wife, was so knee deep in Chapo's business that she would often hand her phone to her father who was one of Chapo's lieutenants. Chapo and the father used Emma's phones to plan major-league drug deals. Un. Be. Lievable.
Agustina is clearly shrewd. She knows Chapo's spying on her & complains about it to her friends. She tells one friend she "doesn't trust" the BlackBerries he's given her "because the bastard can locate them." She refers to him as an idiot. "I'm way smarter than him," she writes.
It bears repeating: Chapo ran what seems to be a substantial amount of his international drug business through the women he was involved with. We know this because he was spying on them and the FBI was able to leverage his paranoia into devastating evidence.
How freaking stupid a drug lord do you have to be to doing drug deals through your mistresses?
But El Chapo violated a whole lot of “Crime Boss 101” rules:
Never discuss criminal activity over the phone ever, and even if you have to, use prearranged codewords. Did he never watch Goodfellas or The Wire?
If you do business over the phone, use disposable burner phones and break them up and switch them out on a frequent basis.
Compartmentalize your professional and personal lives. If your wife doesn’t know jack about what you do, she can’t roll on you.
If you keep a mistress, keep her pampered and in the dark.
Never outsource your IT infrastructure. Hire smart, hungry kids, pay them super-well, and know where their families live to prevent them ever thinking of rolling on you.
Never record your own conversations.
Finally, to misquote Nietzsche: “Gaze not into the spyware, for the spyware also gazes into you.”
ELIZABETH WARREN 22%
BETO O’ROURKE 15
KAMALA HARRIS 14
JOE BIDEN 14
BERNIE SANDERS 11
UNSURE 9
OTHER 9
CORY BOOKER 3
JULIAN CASTRO 1
KRISTEN GILLIBRAND 1
So: Of their top five choices, all are straight, four are white millionaires, three are men, three will be over the age of 71 on January 20, 2021, two will be 78 or older, and none are Hispanic.
The outliers are Kamala Harris, 55, with a net worth of $3,310,537 (a neat trick for someone who has been continuously in government positions since 1990), and Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, 46, with an estimated worth of only $9 million. (Forbes wants us to know that his father-in-law, William Sanders, is probably only worth a mere $500 million. Also, as far as I can tell, William Sanders is not related to Bernie Sanders.)
The low ranking of Bernie Sanders may be a surprise to those who don’t follow every twist and turn of leftwing politics, but Kos deliberately drove out the Bernie Brigades in 2016 for the high crime of complaining about Hillary rigging the primary.
So too is the high standing of Warren, whose “Hey, I’m just a common person drinking beer” Instagram video drew such ridicule, surprising.
For all that Democrats swear up and down they’re the party of “people of color,” and the heavy influence of SJW “intersectionality” on the party’s rhetoric, four out of their top five Presidential candidates sure don’t show it.
Maybe the real driver of the Democratic Party isn’t intersectionality, but middle-aged feminists looking for the next Hillary. (And maybe the young feminists find O’Rourke “dreamy.”)
Or maybe I just don’t know enough about Daily Kos biases relative to the rest of the left in 2019. 2016 showed that lots of accepted wisdom about who shows up to vote for who in presidential election primaries was wrong.
Or maybe straw polls this far out are simply meaningless. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson were mopping up straw poll victories back in 2015…
For almost as long as I was using this blog, I’ve been using the free Akismet spam filter. Well, the free ride has finally ended, as they actually want $5 a month to use it now. I’m not complaining, as a man’s got to eat. But this is why I had several hundred WordPress moderate comment emails today.
Since my blog is currently a slightly-money-losing proposition, I have no desire to deepen my losses, so I just moved to the free Antispam Bee for this blog and Futuramen. Dwight is evidently paying the $5 a month for Akismet for his blog, so we can compare after a month or so and see if there’s a noticeable difference between the two.
Anyway, on the off-chance you submitted a blog comment after, say, 11:58 AM today, you might have to repost it.
And maybe somebody can explain why most of my comment spam seemed to come from an Omaha injury lawyer…
The state should use existing funding streams to permanently buy down local school property taxes until they’re abolished, along with Robin Hood. If enacted, the average Texan would eventually see a 40 percent cut in their total property tax bill.
The existing “Robin Hood” funding system — known formally as the Ch. 41 Wealth Redistribution Program — effectively allows lawmakers to overtax property-rich areas as a means of supplementing public education spending. The system is a relic of a Democrat-controlled legislature, but Republicans have since done little to fix it.
Not only is the system complex, but it has resulted in horrendous side effects.
Most notably, property taxpayers are being gouged. Since becoming law in 1993 under Democrat rule, a larger portion of the education-funding burden eventually shifted onto local property taxpayers.
Voters should automatically be given a voice on excessive property tax hikes.
State law does not currently require that all local governments obtain voter approval for tax hikes that exceed the state’s “rollback” limit. The “rollback” limit is essentially the percentage localities can increase property taxes on the existing tax base before voters have the option to challenge it.
While school districts are required to hold public elections on excessive tax hikes, cities, counties, and other localities are not. As a result, city and county officials habitually take advantage of taxpayers who have no effective remedy to stop them.
Under current law, taxpayers only have one option — a burdensome petition drive.
In both rural and urban areas, this onerous process requires that taxpayers collect an overwhelming number of voter signatures over a very short period of time — and hire lawyers to protect their validity — before a public vote on the proposed tax increase is triggered.
Politicians routinely instruct their staff to fight and discredit these efforts. They also spend taxpayer money on lawyers to resist holding public votes, forcing citizens to file expensive lawsuits.
Upon closer review, it becomes obvious that state laws pertaining to the citizen petition process were designed to thwart voters in favor of money-hungry governments. These petition requirements should be replaced with automatic elections.
Red-light cameras have been installed in cities across Texas and the nation under the pretense of promoting safe driving but, in reality, the automated devices are little more than another vehicle for municipalities to rob citizens of their money.
Photo enforced traffic citations violate drivers’ due process rights. Cities don’t have to prove who was driving the ticketed cars, and wrongly accused drivers aren’t able to fight charges in front of a jury trial.
While lawmakers talk tough on border security, little has been done to destroy a major magnet created nearly 15 years ago that entices illegal immigrants to the state: subsidized tuition to public universities.
Under the terms of a law passed in early 2001, illegal aliens are allowed to receive “in-state tuition” at the state’s public universities – the same discounted tuition rate offered to Texas residents — giving them a cheaper education than is available for U.S. citizens and legal residents from other states. That “cheaper” education comes from tax dollars paid by Texas taxpayers.
The “Inbred Redneck Freaks of JesusLand” liberal putdown is alive and well in “Republican” political consultant Rick Wilson, calling the border wall “a con for Donald Trump’s credulous rube ten-toothed base.” (Did anyone else recognize this guy’s name before cable news started putting him on after Trump took the Republican field by storm? I didn’t even have a tag for him before this post.)
Tucker Carlson lets him have it:
Remember when the left pretended to care about working for the downtrodden? That was before the downtrodden voted for Donald Trump.
In the last few days, Egyptian and UAE military officers visited the contested north Syrian town of Manbij. They toured the town and its outskirts, checked out the locations of US and Kurdish YPG militia positions, and took notes on how to deploy their own troops as replacements. On the diplomatic side, the White House is in continuous conversation with the UAE Crown Prince Sheikh Muhammed Bin Ziyad (MbZ) and Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh El-Sisi. The deal Trump is offering, is that they take over US positions in Manbij, where the Kurds have sought protection against a Turkish invasion, and American air cover will be assured against Russian, Syrian or Turkish attack.
As DEBKAfile has noted, the Egyptian president, during his four years in power, was the only Arab leader to consistently side with Bashar Assad against the insurgency against his regime. Assad may therefore accept the posting of Egyptian forces in Manbij so long as Syrian officers are attached to their units. The Syrian president would likely also favor a UAE military presence. Not only was the emirate the first Arab nation to reopen its embassy in Damascus after long years of Arab boycott, but unlike most of its Arab League colleagues, the UAE can well afford to contribute funding for the colossal reconstruction task needed for getting the war-devastated country on its feet.
Approval of the Egyptian-UAE forces to Manbij would kick off the stationing of mixed Arab forces in other parts of Syria, including the border with Iraq. If the Trump administration’s plans mature, then countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Algeria would send troops to push the Iranian military presence out of key areas where they have taken hold.
That sounds swell. So swell that I’m suspicious that Syrian, Turkish and Russian leaders will actually let it happen. (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
I would take this pronouncement with several grains of salt.
Even after Hajin falls, there are still large tracts of uninhabited land in Syria and Iraq the Islamic State hasn’t been cleared from. Just today, U.S. special forces conducted an operation near Kirkuk, Iraq that killed three Islamic State fighters who had reportedly been attacking the country’s electrical transmission infrastructure.
Let me take a stab at providing answers to these questions from the “we should declare victory in the War on Drugs and go home” perspective. The proposal is that most or perhaps all drugs be decriminalized, offered for sale, and taxed.
Rule #1. Can the person proposing the law state what they think the law will accomplish? This is intended to accomplish five specific things:
Remove the perceived need to militarization of the police forces, no-knock raids, asset forfeiture, controls on how much you can deposit at your bank, etc. It’s caustic for the Republic and it costs us a lot of money. It’s an anti-tyranny goal.
Improve the purity of the drugs on the market which will reduce overdose deaths. Food and Drug purity laws would apply and so the heroin that Joe Junkie buys at the local Alcohol Beverage and Drug Emporium wouldn’t be the equivalent of bathtub gin. His gin isn’t adulterated (like it was during the Prohibition days) and his smack shouldn’t be either.
Lower the price of drugs, by eliminating the risk premium that must exist to cover expected loss from seizure, arrest, etc.
Eliminate the massive profits that are flowing to drug cartels, which fund a bunch (admittedly not all) of the violence associated with illegal drug use.
Generate a tax revenue stream that can be targeted towards providing detox centers for drug users who want to fight their addiction.
Laws about theft, driving under the influence, etc would fully apply to junkies who commit these crimes, just as they do today. Peter, Aesop, and Bill are entirely correct that today these are not “victimless” crimes.
Rule #2. Can the person proposing the law state how likely the law is to accomplish the goal from Rule #1? Let’s break these down by the five points above.
No doubt some agencies will resist this – police unions, prison guard unions, the DEA, etc will rightly see the reduction of public funding as a threat to them. However, this is more of a hinderance to getting decriminalization passed in Congress than in implementation. In any case, I don’t see any fundamental disagreement between the two camps in this as a goal.
This seems a no-brainer, as the illegal drug market is replaced by a legal one. It will be safer for both sellers and users, and legalization will probably attract big corporations who know how to mass produce pure products. I’m not sure you’ll see Superbowl advertisements for “The Champagne of heroin” but I don’t think you need to for success here.
This seems like an absolute no-brainer. You are eliminating some very costly parts of the supply chain (machine guns, private armies, etc). Not sure how big this is but it sure isn’t zero.
We saw this with the end of Prohibition. Today’s Al Capones are drug king pins.
Tax money is notoriously fungible and is often diverted by politicians, but we see tax revenue streams from legal pot in places where it was legalized (e.g. Colorado).
I endorse this line of thinking. I cannot, however, endorse Borepatch’s heinous use of two spaces after periods in the computer era…
My own two cents (familiar to regular readers) is that federal drug prohibition is unconstitutional on Ninth and Tenth Amendment grounds, being neither necessary nor proper for the federal government to enforce, and thus should be left to the states. This is especially true of federal prohibition of growing marijuana for personal use, as only the warped, grossly expansive interpretation of the commerce clause endorsed in Wickard vs. Filburn would give the federal government standing to determine what can and can’t be grown on a person’s private property for their personal consumption. Elimination of federal prohibition would allow states to experiment with the right mix of policies for narcotics. Let Utah try total prohibition, Portland complete legalization and deregulation, Maryland decriminalization and drug treatment, and Pennsylvania state owned drug dispensaries, and see which aspects of which approaches work best. That’s what federalism and subsidiarity are for.
Anyway, there’s a lot more over there, and a lot of links to all sides of the debate, that are worth pursuing.
Welcome to the first LinkSwarm of 2019! If things seem a little thin, I worked most of the week and threw a New Year’s Eve gathering, so things are a little discombobulated right now. Hopefully next week I’ll be back in the groove faster than you can say “Antidisestablishmentarianism.”
The caucus of black New York state lawmakers runs a charity whose stated mission is to empower “African American and Latino youth through education and leadership initiatives” by “providing opportunity to higher education” — but it hasn’t given a single scholarship to needy youth in two years, according to a New York Post investigation.
The group collects money from companies like AT&T, the Real Estate Board of New York, Time Warner Cable and CableVision, telling them in promotional materials that they are “changing lives, one scholarship at a time.”
The group — called the Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, Inc. — instead spent $500,000 in the 2015 – 2016 fiscal year on items like food, limousines and rap music, the Post found.
The politicians refused to divulge the charity’s 2017 tax filing to the Post despite federal requirements that charities do so upon request.
Its main activity is holding and selling tickets to an elaborate party each year intended to raise money for its stated mission of providing scholarships for youth. But year after year, essentially all the money simply seems to go to festivities.
President Trump’s Iran sanctions are destroying their economy. “In the fallout, the Iranian rial has lost more than a quarter of its value against the dollar, sending the prices of food and other basic commodities soaring.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
EXPLOSIVE REPORT: Scott Israel's son and another student, sexually assaulted a boy after baseball practice. Israel’s son received 3 days suspension. The officer that handled the incident was Scot Peterson. https://t.co/LfJUWw5TCy
AKA “the resource officer who infamously failed to confront the Parkland shooter.”
“A California congressman is introducing articles of impeachment against President Trump on Thursday — the first day of the new Democratic majority in the House.” Because evidently they learned nothing from the Clinton impeachment…
I hope you appreciate my extreme laziness restraint in not putting a 2020 Presidential Race Roundup up until now.
Here’s the list of Democrats widely contemplated as be willing to climb into the clown car. I’ve divided them into two categories: Shiny Things and Old Warhorses.
Shiny Things
Losing Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams: Doubtful. Says she’s open to the idea but hasn’t made any moves to run. Hard to see national donors backing her over Kamala Harris’ more obviously viable campaign.
Creepy Porn lawyer Michael Avenatti: Out, much to the disappointment of conservative pundits nationwide.
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Acting like he’s running, despite no one knowing who he is. As a 36-year old gay white man, he only checks off one box in the Social Justice Warrior sweepstakes. He has twice Andrew Yang’s chance at being elected (2 x 0 = ___).
Former San Antonio Mayor and Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro: Probably running. Evidently he didn’t want to let Beto O’Rourke take the “can’t win statewide in Texas so might as well run nationally” sweepstakes by default. Has the advantage (unlike O’Rourke) of being an actual Hispanic, but hasn’t made much of a national impression (or even a statewide impression).
Maryland Representative John K. Delany: Definitely in. AKA “Who?” Announced in 2017. He’s competing for the same “rich old white guy with the blue collar Catholic background” niche as Joe Biden, assuming that niche even exists for Democrats in 2020. You may think the guy has zero traction, but he’s already raised nearly $5 million.
Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard: Running. As hard-left as Kamala Harris, except younger and prettier (not that any Democratic activist would admit that, even with a gun to their head). Doesn’t have Harris’ fundraising base or national media following. Sanders supporter in 2016, and she could be poised to pick up some Bernie Brigades if Sanders opts out.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: Leaning toward a run. Hard to see where he finds running room, with Kamala Harris sucking up all the California money. Thomas Bradley is the standard for Los Angeles mayors running for higher office: A series of stinging defeats. But Democrats could do worse, and almost certainly will.
Former Tallahassee Mayor and failed Florida Senate candidate Andrew Gillum: Probably not. Beto O’Rourke raised a zillion dollars to overperform and still lose in 2018, while Gillum raised far more modest sums to underperform to lose a winnable race.
California Senator Kamala Harris: Almost certainly in: Hasn’t announced yet, but is acting like a candidate and raising money. The Social Justice Warrior and New York Times (but I repeat myself) favorite.
Former Texas Representative and failed Senatorial candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke: Probably In. Hasn’t announced, but Ann Althouse thinks he’s running based on this video, and I don’t see any reason for him not to run, with high favorables, strong polling and having just received a zillion fawning national media profiles. The rules used to be that you couldn’t run for President if you lost your last race. But Hillary Clinton ignored that and won the nomination, and Richard Nixon won the presidency despite two high profile losses (the 1960 Presidential race and the 1962 California Governor’s race). And all sorts rules got thrown out with Trump’s election.
Incoming New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: Constitutionally ineligible to run, as she won’t turn 35 until October 13, 2024. Duh. Listed only for the sake of completeness.
Ohio Democratic Representative Tim Ryan: Probably running. Seen most recently getting pantsed by Nancy Pelosi. Basically Beto without the fake Hispanic name, the senate run, the huge fundraising, or the fawning media coverage. So not like Beto at all…
California Representative Eric Swalwell: Probably running. Why is anybody’s guess. Joking about nuking gun owners may attract media attention, but voting for an unknown white guy with 1980s hair doesn’t seem to be on the Democratic Party activist agenda these days.
Venture capitalist Andrew Yang: Running but no one cares. He’s only a multimillionaire, which won’t get it done as an unknown outsider.
Wildcard Random Celebrity: You know some Democratic consultants must be looking high and low for “the Democratic Donald Trump,” the celebrity outsider that comes in and takes a crowded field by storm. Who has the gravitas to pull it off? George Clooney or Brad Pitt, maybe. Other A-listers I can think of have too much baggage (Robert Downey Jr.’s drug convictions, Tom Cruise’s Scientology, Ben Affleck/Matt Damon backing #MeToo targets, etc.) to be serious contenders. Dwayne Johnson says he’s not running (and might be a Republican).
Wildcard Random Billionaire: No idea who that would be, except it’s not going be to Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates. (Have you seen those guys speak?) Tom Steyer, maybe. Given the effectiveness his financial backing has had thus far, he could top the John Connelly in 1980 campaign for most money spent for fewest delegates garnered record.
Old Warhorses
Some are old, and some are very old.
Former Vice President Joe Biden: Waffling. Biden has to think he could have taken Trump if he hadn’t left the field to Hillary. He seems to be laying the groundwork for a run. If elected, Biden would be 78 at his swearing-in ceremony.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Maybe. Says he’ll decide in the next couple of months. Can self-fund, but it’s hard to see how a guy less popular than Rudy Guilianni could do what he didn’t, and he’s sure to get dinged by Democrats for having been elected mayor as a Republican, no matter how nominal.
Outgoing California Governor Jerry Brown: Maybe. His aura smiles and never frowns. But that speculation is from 2017, and Brown would be 82 come inauguration day. Brown first ran for president in 1976 and ran an effective, underfunded insurgent campaign in 1992.
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown: Considering a run. A moderate from a swing state, Brown has the sort of resume Democrats used to consider for President, but these days he’s looking a lot more like the safe Old White Guy VP choice.
Pennsylvania Governor Senator Bob Casey, Jr.: Maybe. Hasn’t said yes or no. I could cut-and-paste most of the Sherrod Brown verbiage here. His primary appeal is geographic (Trump won Pennsylvania), which doesn’t seem to matter much to Democratic primary voters. [Corrected. – LP.]
Former First Lady, New York Senator and losing 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Probably not. She wasn’t even healthy enough to run effectively in 2016, how is she going to take the grind in 2020? So I don’t give much credence to reports she’ll run. Her absence has not made Democratic voting hearts grow fonder. If I had to guess, she’s secretly hoping that Democrats end up with a brokered convention and she emerges as the consensus compromise nominee without having to campaign.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo: Probably not. Says he’s not running. We know Cuomo lies, but his declaration, and the fact that so many Democratic-friendly media outlets that have previously given him a pass for his sleaze would attack him to boost other (likely non-male and non-white) contenders will probably keep him out.
New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio: All but out. Hasn’t announced he’s not running, but he barely even bothers to show up for his current job. Widely loathed with no national base and no notable fundraising prowess. Other than that he’s in good shape…
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Probably not. Young by warhorse standards, but she’s been a senator since 2009. Says she’s not running, and I don’t see voters crying out to vote for another female senator from New York…
Former Vice President Al Gore: No signs of a run, despite certain Democratic insiders openly pining for him.
Outgoing Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper: Probably in. Might be able to run as the “Pro Pot Candidate.” Unless that will be…
Washington Governor Jay Inslee: In. He’s running as the “all in on global warming” president, which I suspect has all the activist cachet of a Presbyterian sermon in a Democratic Party dominated by illegal alien activism and victimhood identity politics.
Virginia Senator and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Vice Presidential running mate Tim Kaine: Probably not. Veep picks used to be considered contenders, but Kaine didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Said he wasn’t running right after Trump’s surprise victory, and hasn’t said anything to change minds since.
Former Obama Secretary of State and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry: Considering running. I don’t see him getting much traction, but he’s rich enough (from marrying well) to self-fund. He and Biden would be the only candidates with notable foreign policy experience (disasterous though it was), but when has that mattered in a recent Democratic Presidential primary?
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar: Considering a run. A strong contender to snag some Clinton feminist cadres, having not made the many missteps Elizabeth Warren has, but it’s hard to see her gain much fundraising traction.
Former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe: leaning toward it. Personally I expect the public appetite for a figure so closely linked to the Clintons to be extremely limited in 2020, and I don’t see any running room for him if any of the higher profile Old White Guys run.
Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley: Considering a run. In the Senate since 2009. Can you be an old warhorse if no one knows who you are?
Former First Lady Michelle Obama: Out. Both she and her husband say she’s not running. For once we should probably take them at their word…
Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick: Out. Says he’s not running, and there’s already enough real and potential Massachusetts candidates in the race.
Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders: Probably running. Getting screwed by Hillary and talk of a “socialist wave” in 2018 (deluded though it was) must be steeling his resolve, even though he’s a year older than Joe Biden.
Talk show host Oprah Winfrey: Probably not running. She says she’s not: “In that political structure — all the non-truths, the bullsh*t, the crap, the nastiness, the backhanded backroom stuff that goes on — I feel like I could not exist. I would not be able to do it. It’s not a clean business. It would kill me.” Translation: I’m just too pure for your rough and tumble politics.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren: In. She’s announced she’s running. After years of self-inflicted wounds, I expect her to lose badly.
