This is the most politically explosive admission by the Mexican government in the past decade.  Even Fareed Zakaria realized what was being threatened and quickly attempted to redirect the conversation. Castaneda is openly admitting a willingness to promote drug trafficking.  Additionally, Jorge Castaneda is so proud of the threat, he even posted a video of the discussion on his own YouTube page.

Castaneda not only threatens to send drugs, he also threatens to flood the United States with illegal South Americans and openly admits Mexico could stop the border crossings if it wanted to, but instead chooses to use immigration as a weapon against the United States.

Castaneda recounts how during the Surge of 2014, the Obama Administration pressured Mexico:

When the first wave of unaccompanied minors came to the United States in July 2014, Mexico complied with the White House request to cooperate in stopping the flow of immigrants. The logic behind it was sound. The goal was to avoid sparking anti-immigrant hysteria in the United States precisely when immigration reform seemed set to prosper. By “hysteria,” Castaneda means provoking Americans who want a sane American immigration policy.

She has since been criticised for “spreading Russian propaganda” with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven branding her statements “strange”. He said: “Respect for the Swedish and Nordic model remains, we combine productivity with equality, good working conditions for employees with productive and efficient business and welfare that helps. There is a strong belief in that.”

In 2015, Sweden’s public sector was caught off guard as it received more than 160,000 asylum applications with a population of just 9.5million. The unparalleled growth sparked warnings the public services could not absorb the impact as the country has seen a surge in crime and violent incidents since the migrant crisis started. In February 2016, the National Criminal Investigation Service was forced to admit more than 50 areas were now labelled as “no-go zones” as sex crimes, attacks on police, drug dealing and children carrying weapons were common occurrences.

“The idea that we can now have open discussion of an assassination … this is terrifying for me that we see media people talking about the assassination of the President,” said Gainor, while talking about a recent media incident reported by Breitbart News:

Times columnist and author India Knight has called for the assassination of US President, Donald J Trump.

During a days-long invective against the newly inaugurated President on Twitter in which Knight called Mr Trump a “moron,” “mad,” “needy,” and an “arse,” among other things, before telling him to “shut up,” she mused, “The assassination is taking such a long time."

On Monday, Gainor continued, “And this is not the first time. British media people like to talk about assassinating the President.”

ABC’s David Muir claimed more than 1 million showed up to the Women’s March, and asked if Trump could hear their voices from the White House. President Trump responded, “I couldn’t hear them, but the crowds were large.” Turning the focus away from the Women’s March, Trump reminded Muir, “You’re going to have a large crowd on Friday, too, which is mostly pro-life people. You’re going to have a lot of people coming on Friday, and I will say this, and I didn’t realize this, but I was told, you will have a very large crowd of people.”

It will be “as large or larger — some people say it’s going to be larger, pro-life people,” he continued. Turning to Muir, the president added, “And they say the press doesn’t cover them.” Attempting to change the subject, Muir responded, “I don’t want to compare crowd sizes again —” but Trump interrupted, continuing to press him on the topic. “No,” he said, “Let me just say it; what they do say is that the press doesn’t cover them.”

The Khorramshahr medium-range ballistic missile flew 600 miles before exploding, in a failed test of a reentry vehicle, officials said. Iran defense minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said in September that Iran would start production of the missile.

UN resolution 2231 - put in place days after the Iran nuclear deal was signed - calls on the Islamic Republic not to conduct such tests. However, this is at least Iran's second such test since July. The resolution bars Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests for eight years and went into effect July 20, 2015. President Trump on Sunday spoke with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, a conversation in which the two "agreed on the importance of rigorously enforcing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and of addressing Iran’s destabilizing regional activities," the White House said in a statement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would address the Iran issue with Trump when the two leaders meet on February 15. "I will meet President Trump in Washington soon, and among the issues I will address, is the need to renew the sanctions against Iran," Netanyahu wrote on Facebook on Monday. "Sanctions against the ballistic missiles, and other sanctions against the terror, and re addressing the failed agreement on its nuclear capabilities.

"I know that this bothers not only Israel, and not only the US but other countries in the region. Iran's aggression should not be ignored."

The union’s new guidelines come just weeks after it emerged that a British woman in the process of ‘transitioning’ gender put her operation on hold to have a baby, the Mail on Sunday reports. 775,000 women give birth in Britain each year, yet there are no other known cases of people in the process of ‘transition’ becoming pregnant.

Despite this, the BMA demands the word ‘mothers’ be dropped from doctors’ vocabularies in relation to pregnancy because it’s offensive to transgender people, and in order to “celebrate diversity”. Members are advised against using ‘male-centric language’, an example of which is the instruction to use the term ‘family name’ instead of ‘surname’, the booklet noting that some linguists believe the latter word “may originate from sire-name, the name derived from one’s father”.

‘Christian name’ is another term the BMA say should be banished from doctors’ vocabularies, the guidelines stating that “to ask a Jewish or Muslim person their Christian name not only makes no sense, but is also highly disrespectful of their beliefs.” In a section of the booklet relating to race, doctors are warned that “difficulties can arise with expressions that use ‘black’ in a negative way, eg ‘black sheep’, or ‘black mark’.”

In an introduction to the booklet, BMA executive Dr Anthea Mowat said the new guidelines serve to “support and protect our colleagues and our patients”.

This weekend brings them another superb example of media-magnified shrieking about fascism, bleating about “white nationalists,” howling about “religious persecution,” false invocations of the Constitution, and theatrical sobbing on behalf of the Statue of Liberty.

For readers who want to wallow in the emotion, examples can be found in this handy dossier of hysteria compiled by the Washington Post. But clear-eyed adults prefer to examine plain facts about Trump’s executive order:

It is NOT a “Muslim ban.” You will search the Executive Order in vain for mentions of Islam, or any other religion.

The order is based on security reviews conducted by President Barack Obama’s deputies.

The moratorium is largely temporary.

Obama banned immigration from Iraq, and Carter banned it from Iran.

Trump’s refugee caps are comparable to Obama’s pre-2016 practices.

The Executive Order is legal.

This Executive Order is a security measure, not an arbitrary expression of supposed xenophobia.

The hysterical reaction to Trump’s order illustrates the very thing that worries advocates of strong immigration security: Americans’ security is the lowest priority, far below progressive ideology, crass political opportunism, and emotional theater.

We’re being effectively told by the theatrical class to tolerate a certain amount of Islamic terrorism because their feelings would be hurt by the tough measures we need protect ourselves from a tough enemy. But this time, President Trump is proving tough enough to push our security up into the top priority.

The statement stressed the importance of keeping the country safe and denied that the order amounts to a Muslim ban. But the tweets were a more direct response to criticism from Senators John McCain (Republican for Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (Republican for South Carolina), two outspoken Republicans.

“The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong - they are sadly weak on immigration,” Trump said. “The two ... Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.”

Earlier Sunday, in a joint statement, McCain and Graham said the executive order “sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."

Trump on Friday signed an executive order calling for a 90-day ban on nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries entering the United States. The order also includes a 120-day halt on admitting refugees and an indefinite pause on admitting refugees from Syria.

“First of all, I’m tired of one-percenters like Mark Zuckerberg and others lecturing us about who we are,” Clarke said. “I know who I am and most Americans know who they are. We are a sovereign nation. If you’re going to be a sovereign nation, you have to have borders and you have to protect those borders."

"Mark Zuckerberg has no idea of who’s coming into this country and what it takes to vet those individuals. I am a law enforcement officer in my 39th year. We do a lot of vetting of people. I’m tired of all the crocodile tears about the kids — the poor kids coming,” he added. “We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about able bodied grown men, fighting age that should be back in Syria, back in the Middle East, fighting for their country, coming over to the United States to spread jihad.”

With Rogoff, Stiglitz, Summers et al all calling for the end of cash - because only terrorists and drug-dealers need cash (nothing at all to do with totalitarian control over a nation's wealth) - we are not surprised that this proposal from the European Commission (sanctuary of statism) would appear...

Every time we turn around, it seems, there’s another major assault in the War on Cash. India is the most notable recent example – the embarrassing debacle a few weeks ago in which the government, overnight, “demonetized” its two largest denominations of cash, leaving an entire nation in chaos. But there have been so many smaller examples.

My team and I did some research on this and found some rather interesting data. It turns out that countries with higher denominations of cash actually have much lower crime rates, including rates of organized crime.

The research was simple; we looked at the World Economic Forum’s competitive rankings that assesses countries’ levels of organized crime, as well as the direct business costs of dealing with crime and violence.

Switzerland, with its 1,000 Swiss franc note (roughly $1,000 USD) has among the lowest levels of organized crime in the world according to the WEF. Ditto for Singapore, which has a 1,000 Singapore dollar note (about $700 USD). Japan’s highest denomination of currency is 10,000 yen, worth $88 today. Yet Japan also has extremely low crime rates.  Same for the United Arab Emirates, whose highest denomination is the 1,000 dirham ($272). 

If you examine countries with very low denominations of cash, the opposite holds true: crime rates, and in particular organized crime rates, are extremely high. Consider Venezuela, Nigeria, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Organized crime is prevalent. Yet each of these has a currency whose maximum denomination is less than $30. 

The same trend holds true when looking at corruption and tax evasion. 

Bottom line, the political and financial establishments want you to willingly get on board with the idea of abolishing, or at least reducing, cash. And they’re pumping out all sorts of propaganda to do it, trying to get people to equate crime and corruption with high denominations of cash. Simply put, the data doesn’t support their assertion. It’s just another hoax that will give them more power at the expense of your privacy and freedom.