After Osiel Cardenas Guillen was convicted for various drug-related crimes he was sentenced to serve twenty-five years and transferred to the top-security federal prison in Florence, Colorado. And how's this for irony? The original leader of the Gulf cartel that Osiel once controlled, Juan Garcia abrego, is also serving multiple life sentences there.

In August 2010, seventy-three migrants from Central and South America were making their way north through Mexico when members of Los Zetas intercepted them roughly 120 miles from the Texas border. They were taken to a farmhouse in a remote area near the town of San Fernando, bound and blindfolded, and summarily executed. One man from Ecuador played dead until the Zetas left and then escaped, which is the only reason we know what happened.

What we still don't know is exactly why Los Zetas committed one of the largest atrocities ever recorded in the drug war against so many innocent people. Did they want to recruit the immigrants? Use them as drug mules? Or were they just feeling extra sociopathic that day? To make matters worse, the Mexican government kept many details surrounding the massacre to themselves. Gee, might the murder of seventy-two innocent people make Calderon and his drug-war strategy look bad?

But the Zetas weren't done.

Almost one year later at least twelve men in several vehicles arrived at the luxury Casino Royale in Monterrey, Mexico. In less than three minutes, the men had set the entire casino on fire and left. There were varying reports that claimed the men started shooting, threw grenades, and yelled at people to leave. Even if the latter were true, many (if not all) of the emergency exits were locked, and fifty-two innocent people died-many from smoke inhalation in the bathrooms, where they had holed up trying to survive. Unlike the massacre of the seventy-two immigrants, we know why the perpetrators (believed to be Zetas) targeted the Casino Royale: the owner hadn't yet paid his monthly cuota, or "tax" to the cartel.

Typical Politician

Unfortunately, after labeling this a terrorist act, Calderon kept talking, eventually going on to partly blame the United States for the attack, citing our insatiable drug demand and lax gun laws as contributing factors. I guess by that logic we should blame Mexico every time a Hollywood star overdoses.

Between the chain-saw beheadings (remind anyone of Nicholas Berg's decapitation in Iraq?), the San Fernando massacre, the casino attack, and many other examples of innocents being targeted or killed, this whole mess is starting to sound a lot like . . . terrorism. In fact, President Calderon labeled the Casino Royale attack exactly that, calling it an "aberrant act of terror and barbarity." His national security spokesman, Alejandro Poire Romero, put it even more bluntly, stating, "an act of terrorism has been committed."

HEZBOLLAH IS HERE.

As a result of the Casino Royale attack there was a lot of debate about whether the U.S. government should label cartels as terrorist organizations. But who needs cartels to be terrorists when we have actual terrorists who are terrorists? Many experts are concerned that members of "traditional" terrorist groups, meaning Islamist fundamentalist groups like al-Qaeda, are entering the United States from Mexico in order to do bad things here. The group whose name has been popping up over and over again in that regard is Hezbollah.

In September 2010, the Tucson, Arizona, police department issued a confidential memo that became known to the public only when it was leaked by the hacker group LulzSec. The memo stated, ". . . obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah's presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations [DTO's] operating along the USMexico border." While the report said that no official connection had been made, the author cited two specific incidents: the arrest of Jameel Nasr in Tijuana, who was alleged to be tasked with establishing the Hezbollah network in Mexico and throughout South America, and the arrest of Jamal Yousef in New York City. Yousef owned a pretty decent weapons cache, including 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives, and antitank munitions. He told police that the weapons, which were being stored in Mexico, had been stolen from Iraq with the help of his cousin, who was a member of Hezbollah.

In another incident, from May 2011, a local news station in San Diego interviewed a former U.S. intelligence agent (his name and agency were never mentioned) who said, "We are looking at 15 or 20 years that Hezbollah has been setting up shop in Mexico." He also told the news station that Hezbollah is partnering with unidentified drug organizations, and that the group receives cartel cash and protection in exchange for Hezbollah expertise, "from money laundering to firearms training and explosives training."

That is certainly alarming, but many people may have overlooked another part of the statement: "If they really wanted to start blowing stuff up, they could do it . . . but the organization [Hezbollah] sees the U.S. as their 'cash cow,' with illegal drug and immigration operations . . . The money they are sending back to Lebanon is too important right now to jeopardize those operations."

That, to me, is a really important point to consider: cartels don't have a religious or political ideology unless you consider power and money to be religion. Terrorists, on the other hand, generally only have a religious or political ideology. To mix those two groups together is not as easy as it might seem given that cartels are interested in keeping Americans alive (and using their product), not killing millions of them or doing something that might force the border to be sealed off.

Here's a fun little fact that may surprise you: thousands of people associated in some way with Hezbollah are living here in the United States right now, and have been for quite some time.

What?!? How is that possible??? How can the FBI not know about this, or not have warned us in some way? Why haven't all the major news outlets been telling us about this terrorist threat?

Wait . . . it gets even better.

We are willingly giving these terrorists our money, which they are then sending back to their terrorist buddies in the Middle East. And when I say "our money," I'm not talking about government funding (although that wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility), I'm talking about the money of normal, everyday Americans.

You know all those fake designer-label purses, hats, and shoes you see being sold on sidewalks and out of street carts in major U.S. cities? There's a good chance that the proceeds from those items are going to Hezbollah. In an April 2008 raid on a Queens, New York, warehouse-the largest such raid in New York City history-police confiscated 75,000 pairs of fake Nike sneakers, 75,000 knockoff handbags, and 5,000 pieces of fake name-brand clothing. The street value of these products was estimated at $4.5 million. New York authorities strongly believed the proceeds from the sale of these goods were headed to Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.

So, we have strong evidence that Hezbollah has a significant number of members and associates in Mexico. We also have strong evidence that members and associates of Hezbollah (and perhaps other Islamist terrorist groups) have entered the United States from Mexico, either on their own or by using human smugglers who specialize in moving other-than-Mexicans, or "OTMs," across the border. None of that is good news, but it's important to remember that there's a big difference between members of terrorist groups who come here to raise money and members who come here to blow things up.

ADULT CONTENT.

What do you think might happen if a nuclear weapon went off in a U.S. city and it became clear that the bomb was brought in over the Mexican border with the help of a drug cartel? Do you think maybe that our lack of border security might lead the news every night? Do you think the president might give an address to the nation in which he says something about how the "debate over our border has gone on too long, it's time for action" before he sends the military to shut it down? Do you think a border fence might magically be erected in a year?

We've seen how this stuff works before: politicians generally don't act until Americans die or a close call is narrowly averted. Then, once they do, they overreact, or put knee-jerk policies into place that do nothing to solve the actual problem (yes, I'm looking at you, TSA, and your stupid three-ounces-of-liquid rule).

First, let's state the obvious: the acceptable number of terrorists who should be able to slip through the (often wide) border (in both our north and south), or be allowed to go undetected in our communities is zero. I am not at all trying to downplay the risk or pretend that it's not an issue. I'm simply trying to separate fact from conjecture and hyperbole so that we can focus on solving the actual problem. (You may have noticed that we haven't made much progress in that regard in a while.) So, here is the truth: there is no evidence that an operational member of a terrorist group-meaning someone toting a bomb, or actively planning to kill lots of Americans-has gotten into the United States via Mexico, yet. And that is great news. But, unlike a lot of politicians, I'm not someone who likes to wait until catastrophe strikes before deciding that something needs to be done. (I was playing bin Laden's words on my radio program years before 9/11, warning that we must take him seriously.) I know it's crazy, but I actually prefer to prepare for disaster and worst-case scenarios, rather than panic once they do occur.

A MATCH MADE IN HELL?.

We know Hezbollah is working along our southern border. We know the drug cartels are working there as well. So, that begs the question: Are they working together?

Anything's possible, but at least so far, the evidence is just not there to support it. And, as I said earlier, the cartels and terrorists keeping their distance from each other actually makes a lot of sense.

In October 2011 the weirdest assassination plot in years came to light and started a minor international crisis. Iranian officials were accused of plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States at a Washington, D.C., restaurant. Sounds typical enough for Iran, but the odd part was that they reportedly intended to use a Mexican drug cartel to pull it off.

The two men spearheading this plot were an Iranian-American used car salesmen and a reported member of the elite Iranian Quds Force. They thought they were meeting with a man in Mexico who was a member of a violent cartel (widely reported to be Los Zetas, but that was never confirmed by U.S. authorities) willing to accept $1.5 million for the job: to blow up the D.C. restaurant where the ambassador would be dining.

U.S. and Iranian officials immediately went into an uproar when the plot was publicly revealed, hurling accusations at each other at a record pace. But analysts and observers of both Iran and Mexico were left scratching their heads, and with very good reason. First of all, the two Iranian plotters never met with a real cartel member. They were actually dealing with a DEA informant who convinced them that he worked for a cartel. At no time did any real cartel members know anything about this plot, or have any involvement whatsoever. Then there's the matter of the sum offered. Remember, drug cartels are raking in billions of dollars every year. One and a half million dollars is literally pocket change to these guys: the equivalent of one lost drug load, or the monthly payment to bribe a handful of police officers. There is no way that any cartel in its right mind would risk that kind of exposure for what amounts to pennies in the drug trade. Ultimately, there was no true link between the Iranians and Los Zetas-or to any other Mexican cartel.

Our Own Worst Enemy

I recently spoke to Kent Lundgren, chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, and he made a great point: No one person or group (terrorist or not) who comes across our border poses an existential threat to America's future. Instead, that threat comes from the inside, from the complacency and corruption of those of us who are already here. Lundgren said: "The real threat that we should fear, one that can destroy the America we know, is corruption. Corruption is what makes possible drug trafficking on the scope we see in Mexico. When we think 'corruption' we tend to think of an officer accepting money to let a load of drugs go, or stealing money that he has seized or getting sexual favors in return for turning a blind eye to criminal activity.

"It is all that, of course-but we must expand our thought horizons. What of the politician who accepts campaign money to introduce a bill that makes things easier for the bad guys? Or a reporter who blows off a story? Or a prosecutor's secretary who misses a critical filing deadline in a case that forces it be dismissed? The list of vulnerabilities is long, and the cartels know each item on it.

"To a degree remarkable among the nations of the world, America operates on trust. Trust of each other and of our institutions. Erode and destroy that trust and we become no better than Mexico or Egypt. And that's exactly what the drug cartels and terror groups are counting on . . .

When we talk about a potential relationship between terrorists and cartels, we need to remember that, first and foremost, cartels are profit-maximizing businesses. They aim to minimize expenses and reduce risk as much as possible. They know that nothing would bring the wrath and full might of the U.S. government-including law enforcement and possibly the U.S. military-down on them faster and harder than aiding and abetting terrorists. Neither the cartels, nor the Mexican government for that matter, can afford the consequences that such an association would likely bring.

Of course, none of that changes the fact that our open border is responsible for clear cases of death and despair here in the United States. After all, the people who do have operational intentions and who have crossed the border in droves (and whom, for whatever idiotic reason, we don't seem to be too worried about) are the thousands of violent cartel members and human smugglers living and working in every corner of the United States.

ONE NATION, UNDER SIEGE.

One huge obstacle to examining the drug war clearly is the idea that it's all a "southwest border problem." There's a pretty good chance that most people in Montana, or Rhode Island, or Nebraska really aren't that concerned about what's happening in Mexico or along the border, or about the thousands of people being slaughtered in the name of illegal drugs every year.

Unfortunately, that just seems to be the new American way. If something isn't in our own little bubble, or in the bubbles of our friends and family members, we just don't have the time to really deal with it. And why should we? We work hard every day, get our kids to school on time, shop for groceries, get gas, and try to get some sleep. The problems in our orbits are our coworkers, traffic, food prices, gas prices and, of course, not getting enough sleep. What we don't spend much time worrying about is getting caught in machine-gun crossfire on our way to work, seeing decapitated bodies at the door to our kids' school, or having to avoid certain restaurants because cartel members on someone's hit list might be eating there that night.

But guess what: many people do have to worry about those things because of cartels. Right here, in America.

Yeah, But Is It Organic?

As a recovering alcoholic, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised about what people are willing to put in their bodies, but methamphetamine is really nasty stuff. The fundamental ingredient is ephedrine, which is found in some cold medicines (and is the reason why many kinds are now restricted). The ephedrine is mixed, or "cooked," with other ingredients like battery acid, drain cleaner, lantern fuel, and antifreeze. The process of heating this mixture is very dangerous (as you know if you've ever seen the show Breaking Bad), as the chemicals are volatile and can cause the entire lab-often an apartment or trailer-to explode. It also leaves behind a toxic mess: the production of one pound of meth creates five pounds of toxic waste.

According to the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels have a presence-either direct or by proxy, in over one thousand U.S. cities. Ninety percent of the illegal drugs consumed in this country come from our neighbor to the south. In 2009 (the latest year for which this data is available), drug overdoses and brain damage linked to long-term drug abuse killed an estimated 37,485 Americans. Meanwhile, cartels are co-opting thousands of gang members in our cities and communities to sell those same drugs on our streets. They're even making or growing those drugs well within our borders.

The precursor chemicals used to make methamphetamine were either outlawed or restricted in 2004 (which is why you have to go through everything but a body cavity search to buy a decongestant at a pharmacy these days), but the cartels don't follow our rules. They're able to get the raw chemicals from Asia and South America, and either make the meth in Mexican "superlabs" before bringing it across the border-or make it right here. One of the largest meth labs ever discovered in the United States was in Gwinnett County, Georgia-just outside Atlanta-and it was run by La Familia Michoacana.

Then there's the marijuana. Would it surprise you to know that Mexican drug cartels are growing marijuana plants in our taxpayer-funded national parks and forests? And out of the top ten states where they're doing it, only one (California) is along the southwest border. Marijuana "grows," as the plantations are called, have been discovered in North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, and Michigan, to name just a few states.

In February 2012, three Mexican nationals were each sentenced to ten years in federal prison for a marijuana-growing operation based in the sprawling, thickly wooded Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin. Typically, these grows contain thousands of plants, each one worth between $1,000 and $3,000, and the men working and guarding them are always armed, usually with automatic weapons. Sheriffs' deputies, hikers, and hunters have been shot at-and some deputies seriously wounded-in the process of searching for or stumbling upon these grows in the more remote areas of parks and forests.

If you were still in search of a reason to be personally outraged, there it is. Parks are where we take our families to go camping and hiking, and now we have to worry about finding pot plants and getting shot at? Why don't we hear more about this? More important, why isn't our government doing more to find these grows and put them out of business?

WHAT HAPPENS IN MEXICO DOESN'T STAY IN MEXICO Sometimes it's hard for people to get too worked up about something like marijuana grows, but actual bloodshed here on our streets is another matter entirely. So let's pull out the trump card: cartel members are killing and kidnapping people on U.S. soil.

This violence is usually referred to as "border violence spillover" and, like most things that have been given politically correct terms, it's controversial. How can violence be controversial? Well, because spillover violence is kind of like an image of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. You'll find a lot of people who will say you're crazy if you can't clearly see the image burned into the toast and you'll find just as many people who won't think twice before chowing down on the sandwich, thinking the other group off their collective rocker.

"There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been. That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been."

-Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security *

ADULT CONTENT.

What other act is defined in a similar manner? You got it, terrorism. Yet the U.S. government, at least so far, doesn't agree with calling Mexican cartels terrorist organizations.

The truth is that border spillover violence is a war of statistics versus anecdotal evidence, and, since no one can agree on whether or not it exists, no progress is being made on how to address violence in the United States related to the drug war. Can you believe there isn't even a standard definition of spillover violence? Here's the one that Homeland Security (alone) is currently using: [S]pillover violence entails deliberate, planned attacks by the cartels on U.S. assets, including civilian, military, or law enforcement officials, innocent U.S. citizens, or physical institutions such as government buildings, consulates, or businesses. This definition does not include trafficker on trafficker violence, whether perpetrated in Mexico or the U.S.

With some exceptions, the primary type of violence happening in Mexico right now is criminal-on-criminal. So wouldn't logic tell us that spillover violence would likely entail criminal-on-criminal violence happening here in the United States as well? Of course, but the Department of Homeland Security clearly says, This definition does not include trafficker-on-trafficker violence. In other words, if a drug cartel member beheads five rival drug cartel members in the middle of Dallas, DHS would not consider that to be "spillover violence." That only makes sense in Washington.

A Database with No Data

A Congressional Research Service report on spillover violence acknowledged that the government doesn't have exact stats on violence between cartel members in the United States. Seriously? So when cartel members kill each other we just mark it down as "jaywalking" and call it a day? I mean, honestly, what good is a violent-crime database when we can't even use it to give us stats on an important type of violent crime?

What about the official crime statistics instead; maybe they can shed some light on this.

One of the biggest fans of using violent crime statistics is DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. In fact, she used the ones found in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) database as justification for her oft-repeated statement that "the border is better now than it's ever been." She also says that overall violent crime is down across the southwest border by 30 percent. The problem with using the UCR database is that it's the classic example of "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." There are literally hundreds of ways in which statistics can be pulled: by city, by city population, by county, etc. If you look only at big border city crime statistics then Napolitano is right. Places like San Diego, El Paso, and Nogales (Arizona, not Mexico) are some of the safest places in the country. Mayors and some border sheriffs have no problem telling the media that reports about spillover are exaggerated. There's nothing to see here . . . move along.

Bullets Don't Need Passports