[X] Stephen Paddock spent over 3000 rounds of ammunition from 27 AR-15s with bump stocks. The math doesn't add up. ROF was from an M246, not a bump stock.
People trying to make sense of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting was YouTube’s reason for systematically suppressing content that doesn’t push the "authoritative" establishment news narratives. https://t.co/glBqRGtD1J
Stephen Paddock, 64, lost more than $1.5 million gambling in the months leading up to the massacre. The brilliant, semi-divorced, retired accountant high roller who, while on anti-anxiety meds, collected a bunch of guns and bump stocks, found a hotel room overlooking a country music festival after checking out several other mass murder opportunities around the country, and went to town. Oddly enough, his father was an FBI-wanted psychopath, while he and his brother collected child p0rn.
#3
Meanwhile Vegas bird. You were not there, nor was I. However I didn't flunk 3rd grade math 11 years in a row. Your life must suck.
Over 3000 rounds… from 27 AR-15’s” in ten minutes: False. Paddock fired 1,058 rounds total (1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles with bump stocks, 8 from two AR-10-style rifles, plus one suicide shot). He had 24 firearms in the two hotel suites, not 27 AR-15s—14 were AR-15-style (12–13 fitted with bump stocks), plus 8 AR-10s, one bolt-action, and one revolver. He only used about 15 of them.
• “Drop a gun after each 30-round mag… reload each of the 27 AR’s at least four times”: False. Many rifles had 100-round drum magazines. He fired in bursts of 80–100 rounds, with natural pauses while swapping pre-staged rifles (he had multiple set up on bipods/tripods) or reloading. The entire attack lasted ~10–11 minutes with interruptions—not continuous fire requiring impossible reload gymnastics.
• “Non-stop stream… fire rate much higher than a bumpstock AR-15… like an M240 machine gun”: Misleading. Audio/video analysis showed bursts consistent with bump stocks (which can reach ~400–900 rounds per minute by harnessing recoil to reset the trigger automatically). Some 10-second clips hit ~90 rounds, which matches documented bump-stock performance. An M240 is a true belt-fed machine gun (~700–1,000 rpm sustained); bump stocks mimic rapid semi-auto fire but still require the shooter to maintain forward pressure. There were audible pauses in the gunfire, not one endless stream.
• “Investigative photos… only show 50 spent shells”: False. Crime-scene documentation lists ~1,050 expended .223/5.56 casings and 8 .308 casings in the room. Released photos and the LVMPD report show hundreds of casings scattered across the floor.
Rolled over from yesterday to continue the discussion.
[ZeroHedge] This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could redefine one of the most fundamental questions in American law: Who is a citizen of the United States?
Does birth on U.S. soil automatically confer citizenship, even when the parents owe allegiance to a foreign nation?
Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, along with several others, have filed a Friend of the Court brief urging the Court to take a fresh look at that question. At issue are two cases, State of Washington v. Trump and Barbara v. Trump, challenging President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
What interest do Second Amendment rights organizations have in asking the Court to review a case that on its face deals with immigration and the practice of so-called birthright citizenship?
The answer is simple and goes to the heart of who, precisely, constitutes a nation. A nation is defined by those who pledge loyalty to it, not by those who briefly cross its borders for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship by birth. Citizenship must reflect genuine allegiance and lasting connection, or it becomes little more than an administrative label, stripped of substance. And the rights uniquely reserved for citizens, especially the right to keep and bear arms, gradually lose the constitutional footing needed to sustain and protect them.
The Trump executive order simply reaffirms a principle that was once widely understood but has been steadily obscured: citizenship is not an accident of geography, but a solemn bond of allegiance. It directs federal agencies not to treat as U.S. citizens those born here to parents who are neither American citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This policy aligns precisely with the text and original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” That second phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is not a throwaway clause. It was deliberately inserted to exclude from automatic citizenship those who owe allegiance to another country.
Opponents of the Executive Order rely on the assumption that any person born on U.S. soil, apart from two narrow exceptions, is automatically an American citizen. A reexamination of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and its framers’ words shows that this assumption rests on shaky constitutional ground.
When Congress debated the amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard explained it “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens… but will include every other class of persons.” Senator Lyman Trumbull clarified that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Their intent was clear: the amendment was meant to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, not to create a perpetual magnet for illegal immigration or birth tourism.
Over the decades, that original understanding was gradually eroded by administrative habit and judicial drift. Judicial decisions and administrative practices have treated children born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents, including those here illegally or temporarily, as automatic U.S. citizens. That practice, unsupported by statute or constitutional text, has profound consequences.
The consequences extend far beyond immigration. Citizenship is the gateway to full political rights, responsibilities, and constitutional protections. Among these, the Second Amendment stands uniquely tied to the concept of citizenship. The Founders viewed the right to keep and bear arms as inseparable from the duties and privileges of free citizens, individuals who shared in the responsibility of defending their communities and preserving liberty.
When citizenship is detached from allegiance, the political understanding of “the people” who possess this right becomes blurred. Courts and policymakers then face pressure to reinterpret the Second Amendment in ways that weaken it for everyone. As Gun Owners of America has warned in its amicus brief, the Second Amendment does not erode all at once. It erodes gradually, as the definition of the political community itself is reshaped.
This is why the question before the Court is not merely about immigration policy. It is about the integrity of citizenship itself and the constitutional structure that depends on it.
It was the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt which expanded citizenship to include virtually anyone born here, and it is President Trump who wants to return us to our historical roots. When FDR redefined who is a citizen, he imbued them with the constitutional rights that belong only to citizens, including the Second Amendment. However, if illegal aliens have Second Amendment Rights given to them without any duty of allegiance, those rights for all of us can be expected to be quite weak indeed.
Restoring citizenship to its constitutional foundation does not require invention. It requires adherence to the text, history, and original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, not FDR and the federal agencies, possesses the authority to establish rules for naturalization. The American people, not executive policy, must determine who joins the political community.
President Trump’s executive order does not change the Constitution; it enforces it. It honors the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment framers and restores clarity to our national identity. The Court should overturn the misguided lower-court rulings, and restore the full meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Stacking these two articles, courtesy of Skidmark, to further inform this interesting conversation:
[FoxNews] More than 1,000 companies in China openly market services to help clients give birth on American soil, author Peter Schweizer claims
Chinese nationals are using birthright citizenship to secure U.S. citizenship for their children at what one expert calls an "industrial scale," raising concerns about national security and the long-term impact on American institutions.
"It's industrial scale," author Peter Schweizer said Wednesday on "Jesse Watters Primetime."
"The Chinese Communist Party, about 12, 13 years ago, started explaining to the Chinese elite in the People's Daily, in official publications, 'Hey, guess what? Your kids can get U.S. citizenship if you do this,' and a massive industry was born."
Schweizer, author of "Invisible Coup," said more than 1,000 companies in China are openly marketing services that help wealthy clients travel to the United States, give birth on American soil and secure U.S. citizenship for their children — often for fees as high as $80,000.
Related: MIKE DAVIS: Sanity must be restored to birthright citizenship
[FoxNews] Leftists have argued wrongly that the question before the Court was settled a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Chinese parents in that case were legal permanent residents of the United States, and the Court held that their children were entitled to citizenship. The case had nothing to do with temporary visitors to the United States, nor did it have anything to do with children born to illegal immigrants.
#3
He's already been there and left before the ACLU Bitch Lawyer started
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/01/2026 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"It was deliberately inserted to exclude from automatic citizenship those who owe allegiance to another country."
If this interpretation were true, this would also exclude children of parents who are not U.S. citizens but lawful residents, as we were when one of our daughters was born in the U.S. At this time, we of course owed allegiance to a foreign nation (Germany).
She of course is a U.S. citizen. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" isn't "Subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof"
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/01/2026 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
isn't "Subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof"
That is the question, of course. As we have seen with slavery, a national income tax, and Prohibition, the judicial understanding of the words in the Constitution can change over time.
#7
^ It just takes the ideological oiliness to determine what the meaning of "is" is and penumbras of emanations. KBJ is just an imbecile, and will base whatever on "feelings". The other two dimwits (Paul Blart - Mall Cop, and Wise Latina) aren't much better
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/01/2026 18:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
But you can't smuggle in a word that simply isn't there and makes no sense.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply can't be construed to mean "Subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof".
Had the framers of the 14A meant that, they could have added that word. Throughout most of the 19th century, becoming a U.S. citizen typically required a minimum of 5 years of residency, based on the Naturalization Act of 1802. Do you think the framers wanted to exclude ALL children of those immigrants before they became U.S. citizens?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/01/2026 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Do you think Illegal Immigration (without vetting at Ellis Island, et al) was a big issue then? Or dual citizenships?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/01/2026 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No, but this is besides the (legal) point. The U.S. born child of an illegal immigrant on U.S. soil would be as much subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. as the U.S. born child of a legal (non citizen) immigrant would be.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/01/2026 19:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
and given a nice parting gift on the deportation of their illegal parents (I have no sympathy for the parents). It was never an invitation for anchor babies. The jurisdiction is based on whether they even TRIED to immigrate legally, IMNSHO, first. Jumping the border cancels all warranties and implied contracts, consumer beware.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/01/2026 19:44 Comments ||
Top||
#12
BTW - I have met/known Illegals who jumped the border. I liked them personally, but they spit on the lawful immigration process, diminishing an important American standard
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/01/2026 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Past bedtime here. If possible I'd like to continue this tomorrow.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/01/2026 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
But I had to watch Artemis. A little bit of EC tech included...
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/01/2026 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/01/2026 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Artemis. A little bit of EC tech included...
How exciting! Heartiest congratulations, European Conservative! I have no doubt it was not your tech that gave a faulty temperature reading this afternoon.
#19
Where is the consistency? Children born of Americans who are military stationed overseas or diplomats, are they citizens of the country they were born in? Or are they citizens of the bloodline of the parents? Are the children of diplomats in America, Americans or that of the home country of the diplomat?
#20
Thanks tw! (And not the malfunctioning toilet either...). I'll comment later.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/02/2026 7:46 Comments ||
Top||
#21
All right, I'll try to make a few points.
I followed the Supreme Court proceedings, and my daughter followed them even more closely.
The money quote is from Roberts: "It's a new world, but the same Constitution." So, I think that when the 14th Amendment of 1868 says, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," this remains valid even if the world changes. I understand Frank G. well. Illegal immigration wasn't an issue in 1868, so the 14th Amendment may no longer address the problem of birthright citizenship properly. That may be true, but what can you do?
There are three options:
Option 1: Prove that the framers intended to exclude the children of illegal immigrants (or foreigners in general).
Option 2: Prove that the framers would have excluded the children of illegal immigrants had they known about the problem.
Option 3: Change the 14th Amendment the proper way.
Given the current political situation, option 3 seems impossible.
Option 2 is an uphill battle and not without its own risks. Think about the Second Amendment. Would you argue that the framers might have worded the Second Amendment differently had they known about the trouble automatic guns could cause in the future?
Option 1 seems best, but I don't think it will work. Reinterpreting "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to "not owing allegiance to anybody else" is difficult, as it would change the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" as it has been understood since 1868. Why was the exception for diplomats made? They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but everyone else in the U.S. is—and this includes illegal aliens. "Not owing allegiance to anybody else" would mean that even children of parents who both have green cards would not qualify. The status of children with one parent who is a legal resident but not a U.S. citizen would also be put into doubt. The 14th Amendment has never been understood this way, as proven by Wong Kim Ark.
As I followed the proceedings, I thought Sauer's best point was the one about "domiciled." The word doesn't appear in the 14A, but it does in Wong Kim Ark. Could the court let Wong Kim Ark stand because his parents were domiciled in the U.S. when he was born? But what does "domiciled" mean? The current government defines it as "legal residence with the intent to stay." However, it would be difficult to prove this at the time of a child's birth. My wife and I were legal residents of the U.S. (with German passports), but did we intend to stay forever? I can't answer that question, and as a matter of fact, we didn't stay. I thought the court could give the government a way out by striking down the executive order while giving the government the opportunity to rephrase it more clearly. However, I think Coney Barrett closed that door with her questions about slaves, who clearly did not intend to stay in a country to which they were brought in chains.
Sauer also messed up the issue with Native Americans. He must have known Gorsuch would bring this up. Kavanaugh stressed the continuity of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Congress, so I doubt he was won over.
I think the Court will strike down the EO. You'll find a different way to deal with the problem.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/02/2026 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I've always preferred the "Starship Trooper" approach to granting citizenship. If that isn't possible then I'd welcome the opportunity to remove citizenship from "those who are no longer our countrymen" TWANLOC and deport them. Neither will transpire but either would suit me at this point.
#23
Something similar. We all are born residents, either American or legal foreigner (with papers) by blood. At the age of 21, you pass a citizenship test and enroll in the militia and thus become a citizen. Your choice. Those who join the armed forces before 21, may apply one year after entering service with good behavior.
Found guilty of a class one felony and you revert to resident.
Those who do not meet the classification of resident or citizen are to be classified as outlaws.
Children born of Americans who are military stationed overseas or diplomats, are they citizens of the country they were born in? Or are they citizens of the bloodline of the parents?
Children born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens will always be U.S. citizens regardless where they were born. They can ALSO be citizens of the country they were born in if that country has ius solis.
I don't understand the question of consistency. Children of diplomats will never (automatically) be citizens of the (foreign) country they were born in. This makes a lot of sense because the hosting country doesn't have jurisdiction over those parents and their children. Giving them citizenship would assume jurisdiction over them. You can't declare the child of an U.S. ambassador to North Korea a North Korean citizen.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/02/2026 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court regarding birthright citizenship, the Trump administration noted the prevalence of “birth tourism,” or the action of an expecting foreign national traveling to the United States with the intention of giving birth to their child on American soil, granting them US citizenship.
Kayleigh McEnany said on Fox News as the Supreme Court was in session, “There are more than 500 firms in China that facilitate people coming from the Chinese Communist Party to give birth here in the United States. Obama enabled this through loopholes dating back to 2009, and what that could mean is 1 million new voters by 2030. Imagine that, Communist Party voters.”
Over the years, a number of companies across the US and its territories have catered to mothers from countries such as Russia and China. Recent reports have revealed companies operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory in the Pacific.
The more so since China still intends to replace America as world hegemon, by war after undermining our culture and our economy. Prosperous Communist Chinese are buying their children Canadian citizenship or sending their pregnant wives and daughters here to give birth without any intention of them living here until it’s time for them to make use of university options at native rather than foreigner prices. But the Chinese army and spy services must be thinking of the opportunity to insert fifth columnists who are American citizens when the time comes.
We see the prototype in Al Qaeda in Yemen’s Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born here while his father was here for grad school on a Fulbright scholarship. The family moved back to Yemen when he was seven, then he was sent back to America for university. When President Obama had him killed in Yemen in 2011, there were those who argued it was extrajudicial murder because of his citizenship rather than a straightforward act of war because he was directing a terror organization that was actively waging jihad in America and the West.
#26
Amending the Constitution is a long, hard process. The Founding Fathers made it that way to prevent the country from veering wildly back and forth on issues like birthright citizenship. The fever must pass and the hard work must be done by determined people to gather an overwhelming consensus. And if you think birthright citizenship is a difficult issue, try abortion.
The last time someone tried to amend the Constitution was back in the 1970s and 1980s with The Equal Rights Amendment and that effort failed.
Ideally, the Fourteenth Amendment needs clarification and revisions but, in today's polarized America, it ain't gonna happen. Democrats will do anything to get power and keep it, whether it's good for the country or not, and they need unlimited immigration to maintain their grip on power. They need an unlimited stream of ignorant, illiterate voters from the Third World because educated people with skin in the game will not vote for them. Democrats won't stop until America is an overcrowded Third World socialist police state and elections are a thing of the past.
We can only hope that squishy Justices like Roberts can find their way through the ambiguity to realize that people who came here illegally have no right to claim citizenship for their babies. In fact, illegal aliens should be considered hostile foreign invaders with no rights except for a plane ticket back to their country of origin.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/02/2026 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#27
In fact, illegal aliens should be considered hostile foreign invaders with no rights except for a plane ticket back to their country of origin.
#28
I like the 'foreign invaders' idea. A little bit like the 1942 invasion of - New York.
Well, not exactly the same thing...
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/02/2026 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#29
"Restoring Meaning To American Citizenship"
Looks like we will need a cull.
There is no meaning in being an American. I deal with people everyday that do not speak my language, do not look my forefathers that spilt their blood for the country, they have names I cannot pronounce or spell. They have traditions like genital mutilations, inbreeding, and rape that is so foreign to me. They have all the pagan religions, it is so bad that I hear more about pagan holidays than I ever hear about Easter.
Americana is nostalgia. It's yesterday news. What we have today is hell. Low vibration, feral, and trash.
#30
Children born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens will always be U.S. citizens regardless where they were born.
When we were expats in Europe, we were told that it only took one American citizen parent to bequeath American citizenship to a child born abroad (excluding those born on US military bases or other designated external American enclaves who count as born on American soil). But the child of such a child citizen had to have a second American citizen parent or be born on American soil in order to retain citizenship in the next generation. In other words, nothing like the Volksdeutsch who were in Russia for centuries before being welcomed back to Germany, or the Israeli thing for Jews as hereditary birthright citizens beyond the single generation settled abroad.
In other words, European Conservative, your American daughter would need to either marry an American-born American citizen or give birth in America to fulfill the current conditions for her children.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on operations on March 31, 2026.
[ColonelCassad] "The American adversary was subjected to precision military strikes that inflicted heavy human and material losses on both its own and allied forces. In the UAE, the strike killed 521 American officers and soldiers, as well as 21 Ukrainian service members. The US Army Command and Support Center outside Al Minhad Air Base was also destroyed by precision missiles, killing and wounding more than 200 commanders and officers.
In Saudi Arabia, 200 enemy combat aircraft were killed and wounded at Al Kharj Air Base (Prince Sultan Air Base). In Bahrain, a drone precision-strike targeted a meeting place for Fifth Fleet commanders outside their main base (Juffair Naval Base), destroying the meeting place, causing direct hits, and triggering a massive evacuation operation for the wounded.
This brings the total number of documented casualties to 942, including Both killed and wounded (521 American soldiers and officers + 21 Ukrainians in the UAE + 200 commanders and officers in the command center + 200 crew members), as well as unspecified deaths and injuries during the operation in Bahrain."
It is worth noting that Ukraine initially denied its losses, but an obituary for one of the officers killed by Iran has already surfaced. The US, understandably, is also hiding its losses.
Posted by: badanov ||
04/02/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1765 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Let’s assume that elements in our government and specifically our intelligence community don’t like Donald Trump. Seems like I’d would be hard for him yo keep the lid on a mass casualty situation in that circumstance.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/02/2026 6:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Director Radcliffe appears to be bringing a long overdue change to the Agency.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has pulled out the hoariest of boomer liberal tropes, asking what the money spent on war could buy if redirected to welfare programs. Examples include "For less than three weeks of war, or $35 billion, we could run a nationwide pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds," and "For $75 million, about an hour’s worth of war, we could provide three books free to every child in America who is living under the poverty line." Ah yes, we could fund so many Minneapolis daycares and "Quality Learing" centers.
I don’t know how our campaign against the mullahs will turn out, but it has real bombs being dropped on real targets with people really dying. In contrast, the sorts of programs Kristof promotes as better recipients of taxpayer money tend to be more ephemeral in their results — and that’s assuming that the recipients even exist. To cite a few examples that even a New York Times columnist ought to have heard of, there is the Somali daycare piracy, the California wildlife bridge to nowhere, the California high-speed rail debacle, and the embarrassing spectacle of cities spending endlessly to end homelessness while not even reducing it.
Kristof and his ilk never seem outraged at these wasted and stolen billions. They might mildly tsk-tsk, but there is no visceral rage toward those who plunder billions that were supposedly for helping children. Yet if lefties really believe that government programs are the key to a wonderfully better society and world, shouldn’t they be furious at those running them into the ground or robbing them?
UNDERMINING THE LEFT’S ASSUMPTIONS
Instead of raging over being betrayed, liberals tend to circle the wagons around mismanagement and fraud. Partisanship? Sure — no one wants to be seen running down their own side or giving aid and comfort to political opponents. And because the Democratic political and cultural ecosystem is hugely subsidized by government money, liberals are more likely to benefit personally and politically from government inefficiency and fraud.
#1
Examples include "For less than three weeks of war, or $35 billion, we could run a nationwide pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds," and "For $75 million, about an hour’s worth of war, we could provide three books free to every child in America who is living under the poverty line."
So, indoctrination tools for the vulnerable masses. Pet those bunnies.
What about mental health and housing treatments for the destitute, unhoused and unhinged in the blue havens?
[RedState] I think it's tough to be a leader in Iran right now.
You might be eliminated by the U.S. and Israel. Or you might get whacked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), if they think you are being too soft in response to the military action against them and are for making a deal.
Then, too, you don't know the truth of what they're saying from one minute to the next.
President Donald Trump said the Iranian president wanted a ceasefire, but Trump wanted them to open up the Strait of Hormuz first. The Iranian president is Masoud Pezeshkian. Iran is now denying that it asked for a ceasefire. But it also previously denied it was negotiating when it clearly is.
Now Pezeshkian has issued a "letter to the American people." Hello, festival of political gaslighting and trying to manipulate the American people.
You can't get past the third paragraph without realizing he's full of it.
Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war...The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries...For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts.
Yeah, just forget about those hostages, the hundreds of Americans killed by Iran's terror proxies, even the threats/plots to kill President Donald Trump. Forget about the "Death to America" chants. Forget how they're now attacking their own Gulf neighbors who did not attack them, hitting civilian infrastructure. This is just shameless.
Posted by: Besoeker ||
04/02/2026 01:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1762 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
