On Democrat's Treasonous Foreign and Domestic Policy Positions for Mexico and Ukraine

 Democrats tend to take a treasonous, foreign based view of select international political issues based on ignorance and error in historical judgment. They are pro-war for Ukraine and like to dump billions and billions to fight Russia and are unwilling to defend U.S. borders against illegal migration. Democrats prefer war with Russia to peace, and that is simply bad for the U.S.A. and most of the nations of the planet. Therefore I had an opportunity to briefly reply to those issues…

Mexicans were never a majority of the population in the area that is today the American west- those were native Americans and one can’t simply erase them from history. Mexicans governed or owned but hadn’t settled the American west much.

AI- “• The Entire Cession: Excluding Texas, the total non-Indian Mexican population across the entire territory (modern California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado) was only around 75,000 to 100,000 people, with the vast majority concentrated in New Mexico.

• Vast swaths of the Great Basin, the Mojave, and the Mountain West had zero Mexican presence and were entirely controlled by sovereign Indigenous nations like the Comanche, Navajo, Apache, and Ute.” Native Americans numbered up to 200,000.

“The geographic distribution across modern-day U.S. states broke down as follows:

1. New Mexico (The Vast Majority)

• Estimated Population: ~60,000 to 70,000

• Details: This was the cultural and demographic heart of Mexico’s northern frontier. Centuries of Spanish and Mexican settlement meant there were established towns, farms, and deep-rooted communities concentrated along the Rio Grande Valley (including Santa Fe and Albuquerque).

2. California

• Estimated Population: ~7,000 to 10,000

• Details: Known as Californios, this population was settled primarily along the southern and central coast in pueblos (towns) like Los Angeles, San Diego, Monterey, and San Jose, as well as on massive ranchos.

3. Texas (Already Partitioned)

• Estimated Population: ~4,000 to 5,000

• Details: While Texas had already declared independence in 1836 and was annexed by the U.S. in 1845, the Mexican population (Tejanos) remained largely concentrated in South Texas, particularly along the Rio Grande (e.g., Laredo) and in San Antonio.

4. Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada (Virtually None)

• Estimated Population: Fewer than a few hundred combined.

• Details: In 1848, these regions had almost no permanent Mexican settlers.

• Arizona: A few hundred Mexican soldiers and settlers lived in the extreme south, primarily around the presidio (fort) of Tucson.

• Colorado: A tiny handful of families lived in the absolute southern edge (the San Luis Valley).

• Utah & Nevada: There were essentially zero permanent Mexican inhabitants. These areas were entirely controlled by Indigenous nations, with the exception of temporary travelers using the Old Spanish Trail.”

Gary- The 1849 California Gold Rush brought in 100,000 Americans so California became very non-Mexican quickly. I don’t regard it as a good comparison to Russia and its origin as Kievan Rus circa 975 AD. Only later did the Russian capital move farther north to Moscow.

The Treaty of Hidalgo occurred because Mexico had gained independence through war from Spain in 1821 and Texas got independence from Mexico in 1836. The U.S. recognized that in 1845 and so Mexico severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. President Polk tried to buy the soon to be annexed areas for 30 million. Mexican soldiers killed 16 U.S. Army troopers north of the Rio Grande in 1846 and the war continued until finally U.S. Grant firing artillery from a 2nd story building and Robert E. Lee (working for WInslow Scott) neared Mexico City. The Treaty of Hidalgo ended the war- Mexico got 15 million dollars and in 1849 the California Gold Rush brought a flood of Americans to the west.

Just Say No to USMCA Extension Requested by Canada

 The tri-lateral trade agreement formerly known as N.A.F.T.A. that was changed a little and rechristened USMCA is up for annual review in two weeks. Canada has asked that the 16 year agreement be extended for another 16 years. If the Trump administration just says no to that, the treaty would expire in ten years. In my opinion that is what should occur.

Permanent foreign treaties in regard to trade are suspect generally, as conditions change sometimes pro, sometimes con in regard to advantage in trade. Canada, Mexico or The U.S.A. can quit the treaty with a six month in advance written notice. Taking the middle course seems reasonable. In ten years political leadership might discern if the treaty actually has done any good.

If the treaty is to be extended soon- and that seems rash, the administration should require that Canadians and Mexicans adopt a second amendment style law allowing their citizens the basic right to keep and bear arms in order to form well organized militias. Those repressive legal absences of gun ownership rights cause too much criminal organization to flourish in the wake of the asymmetry between criminal gang political and social hegemony over gunless citizens of Mexico. Canada continues to have too many vestiges of royalty and seems unfriendly to U.S. democracy now and then. Recently Canada has joined with Germany to promote war in Ukraine against Russia and that is directly harmful to U.S. and global trade interests. The only stable solution for ending the war and promoting a return of Russia to normal world diplomatic and trade relations is for Russia to own Ukraine east of the Dnepro River.

Bureaucrats sometimes need meaningful work. Because of Canada’s weird Euro based political ideas it may not be good to have a trade agreement generally with it, and instead utilize traditional methods of determining what should or should not cross the border in either direction, and reducing the free trade agreement to one with Mexico;if Mexico allows liberal gun ownership laws to grow letting the citizens take back their towns from drug cartel pragmatic power incrementally.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9prr3w9nlo

Mexico was Corrupted by The Lack of a Second Amendment-Pro Gun Ownership and Well Armed Militias

There is such a vast asymmetric concentration of small arms between criminal gangs, drug cartels and ordinary Mexican citizens that I believe it is a primary cause for Mexican migration north into the United States rather than proud development of Mexico for Mexicans. Just a percent or two of ordinary Mexicans are buy and keep a weapon in the home. Weapons sales (firearms) occur at just one or two military bases and months of permitting are required before a sale is allowed to proceed. Gun ownership is a strong democratic tool for social equality. Lacking that, those with guns and sundry thugs rise hegemonically.

Mexico also lacks anything equivalent to The Posse Comitatus Act that "makes it a felony to use the federal military (including the Army and Air Force) to execute civilian laws or perform domestic policing"-Gemini. The Mexican Constitution allows the military for policing. Civilians are very third rate behind government and criminals in providing for security.

Mexicans have no ability to form a militia with armed citizens to defend themselves against home invasions or a cartel taking over their town. Often police forces with guns are bought and paid for by the deep pockets of cartels. Wages in Mexico are notoriously low and who could expect them not to be with pervasive mob influence in the economy. Being powerless in regard to practical home and community defenses, Mexicans often opt to risk dangerous northern border migrations to the U.S.A. than try to sort out the corrupt political, lack of security situation in their own country.

The lack of a strong second amendment comparable to that of the U.S.A. is the best explanation for why Mexico is perennially functioning in an ad hoc structure to best serve criminal drug cartels producing and distributing toxic pleasure dope for the U.S.A. and the world, and why Mexicans leave to seek better earnings elsewhere. Mexico initially restricted firearms ownerships to stabilize the society in an era before criminal drug cartels existed and society was more disposed towards violent and even Marxist revolution. That stagnation has been the fetid pool promoting the growth of toxic pond scum corrupting the entire society of Mexico.

Mexico's Lack of Civilian Guns Shifted Gun Power to Cartels and Criminal Gangs

 Only 1 to 3% of civilian Mexicans own guns. Fundamentally guns can only be kept in the home. There is just one or two gun stores in Mexico and those are on military bases. It takes months to buy a gun with extensive background checks- so there are few guns outside those owned by military, police and private security with permits. There are also several million illegal weapons owned by organized crime, drug cartels etc.

When there is such a vast asymmetric difference between regular Mexican gun ownership and those owned by criminals the political situation is bound to be rather lawless or dominated by surreptitious criminal structures. When criminals and citizens know that there isn’t even a vague equality in weapons ownership social circumstances become tilted to favor the axis of evil.

Mexicans leave their country to invest their lives abroad instead of building up their own nation that is dominated by criminals. For Mexico to ever be squared away so the citizenry can stand up against criminal gangs and corrupt law enforcement fellow travellers, liberal gun laws would need to be implemented.

Reorienting U.S. Economy To material Production instead of the Losing Policy Abroad

 President Trump has no easy task. The nation after Reagan moved toward shifting production overseas with the end of Cold War 1.0. The nation moved toward being a service and finance economy running federal budget and trade deficits as a permanent paradigm. That of course couldn’t last and as the President has tried to recover the national production ability with tariffs feathers have been ruffled for those invested in America losing on all fronts. I wonder though if the huge trade problem with China could be offset by some kind of reciprocal investment and development in Mexico instead of China?

Mexico is a close neighbor and needs to become even more productive to keep its younger workers home. It would be easier to share production with Mexico and the nation on things like manufacture of aircraft instead of China. Not an economist myself, it is something I wonder about.

Even creating dental labs in Mexico instead of China would return denture production closer to home and lower transportation costs. The administration could research the issue and perhaps build a fresh water making desalinating salt-water security canal along the entire Mexican border using solar power for pumping water uphill to Deming New Mexico for trickling downhill east and west.