TYR Tactical

NRA TV – Dom Raso Discusses Our Vulnerable Border

In this installmemt, veteran US Navy SEAL and NRATV Commentator Dom Raso discusses how the policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other enabler politicians have left our southern border unprotected, creating an opportunity for ISIS to work with the Mexican cartels to smuggle a nuclear device into America. “If we refuse to even utter the words ‘radical Islamic terror,’ then, through our own inaction, we are enabling the slaughter of innocent people,” Raso says.

“Nowhere is this issue more apparent than at our southern border.” To highlight his point, Raso references an article in Dabiq, ISIS’ magazine, that details a scenario where ISIS uses its billions of dollars to acquire a nuke through corrupt Pakistani officials and pays the cartels to sneak it in through the southern border into America. Speaking about politicians, Raso pulls no punches when talking about how they have comprised the safety of the American people: “all these politicians care about is what their friends in the international community think of them, the same international community that has been utterly devastated by ISIS.”

Check out the full article at www.nratv.com/series/commentators/episode/commentators-season-6-episode-19-how-isis-could-get-a-nuke-across-our-border.

Tags: ,

52 Responses to “NRA TV – Dom Raso Discusses Our Vulnerable Border”

  1. Eddie says:

    Step 1. Fill a bucket with liquid Uranium. Step 2. Attach rope to Bucket. Step 3. Swing bucket above your head and around you for up to 11 hours. Step 4. Smuggle finished product across heavily armed US Border Patrol disguised as Hillary Clinton (No questions asked). Step 5. Call to Prayer from the nuclear ashes of America. Step 6. Tell the NSA handcuffing me at this moment that this was clearly satire.

  2. ThisIsWrong says:

    Your biggest mistake is your adminstration supporting them, dear Americans. Vote Trump, he will put an end to this.

    • Chuck says:

      And then put us against the wall.

      • Chuck says:

        What kind of choice is it when you have Trotsky on the left and Mussolini on the right?

        • Eddie says:

          The choice is between being a Sheep of the mainstream Media and Believing in what you hear from a Man’s Mouth. Whether that’s a hard decision for you to make or not is entirely up to you. Just remember 94% of America doesn’t feel like a trust fall right now.

          • Chuck says:

            Could you extrapolate on that in any meaningful way beside using euphemisms such as “sheep” and “trust fall”? How does 94% of America feel?

            I guess just fuck the constitution if it serves your purposes, right? The pussy running for the Rs doesn’t even have the decency to serve, and somehow he’s going to save the country, right?

            And the crony running for the Ds will disregard every fundamental of the republic to achieve collectivism.

            Doesn’t seem like a choice to me, Eddy.

            • Dev says:

              It’s a catch-22. The USA is a country that is way too used to being the world’s hegemon (not exactly a bad thing, mind) yet it wants to increasingly be isolated. You can’t have it both ways.

              Hillary Clinton may be a serial liar and distrustful person and that’s putting it lightly, yet she’s at least a seasoned politician that knows how the wheels of bureaucracy and governance actually works.

              Yes, the foreign policy mess created by the Obama administration (the “reset button with Sergei Lavrov, the now seemingly one-sided nuclear nonproliferation treaties with Russia, screwing up Georgia, Eastern Ukraine and the “red line” in Syria) is partially her fault but maybe she’d at least know how to clean up the mess she created. Being a Clinton, at least you’d know what you are getting voting for her.

              Donald Trump? All I can say is, look at what happen in places like Greece, Philippines etc when populists and demagogues that promise you the world results in.

              Isolationism and simple solutions are not the answer to complicated problems.

              • Bill says:

                Well said. She’s a politician, but a politician is what it takes to run a political system. He’s a…thing that definitely doesn’t speak to our better angels and is best suited playing a caricature on the idiot box.

                He gives me that same feeling I think I had in elementary school during the Cuban missile crisis and learning to duck and cover. She is the least worst choice, otherwise I think in a couple years we’ll be eating rat on a stick over a fire made in a hubcap.

            • Stu says:

              You have your choice between a cronyist, corrupt, modern day version of Marie Antoinette and a pompous, loudmouth, who is so far away from from his party (the backstabber that turned their back on Virginia when we needed them the most for the last state govenor election), that Trump might as well be a third party candidate.

              The only reason I am voting for Trump is because I have to. If both parties had any common sense, and actually gave a fuck about America, shit like what’s on the ballot wouldn’t be on the ballot. They would’ve been given the finger and told to fuck off.

              Instead, one of our most sacred rights of democracy has been turned into a motherfucking, bullshit reality show.

              All the politicians should be fired.

            • Logan Crooks says:

              Fucking thank you Chuck. Our only option is Gary Johnson. But Jim Webb would’ve been the best.

    • TM says:

      The only reason I’d want to Trump to win is morbid curiosity. The same reason why I click on a link to a beheading video when someone sends it to me.

      Doesn’t matter, we all know who’s winning. Whatever, I’m buying P-Mags like they’re Apple stock. Come November 9th I’m selling them for 10 times what they’re worth, and then I’m buying some beach front property in Mexico and hanging out with Jesse Ventura for the next eight years. Later suckers.

  3. Dev says:

    I’d be more worried about Saudi Arabia acquiring them, actually.


    • Eddie says:

      I’m a tad bit more concerned that Iran already has them, has hidden/moved missiles away from nuclear testing sites and development facilities in violation of the Iran Nuclear Deal (Also deploying S-300 and S-400 SAM launchers newly acquired around those secret facilities), and now has around 1.7 Billion to finance their underground program to develop them even further. I just hope Israel can hang onto theirs if she gets elected. The KSA acquiring them would be reactionary to maintain an edge in their Cold War with Iran. Have to eliminate the need by taking down Iran. As for Pakistan, Maybe give India a pass on reducing their arsenal on them. Just saying.

      • Dev says:

        Not sure where you’ve read that Iran has already acquired nukes, having the Saudis acquiring them really isn’t the solution to a problem that may or may not already exist.

        Considering a large percentage of the Saudi youth are unemployed, the al-Saud family entering an unholy alliance with the ultraconservative Wahabbis for legitimacy since “inheriting” Arabia from the British, an overbloated civil service addicted on oil and high oil prices, and a potential inheritance battle between the Crown Prince and the King’s own son looming, I wouldn’t say that the Kingdom of Saud having nukes is a good idea.

        In contrast and comparison, Iran’s constant struggle between the secular and religious governance of the country looks like a bed of stability.

        Also, i’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that the world’s largest (parliamentary) democracy in India is a worse nuclear weapons steward than an unstable military dictatorship which deals with religious militants without fear of blowback in Pakistan is a better idea.

        • Eddie says:

          The thought they don’t have any weaponized forms of nuclear missiles sounds pretty ignorant to me, whether they would be a very effective means or not is another issue. But still most likely a dirty bomb capable of a disaster at any rate.

          The part of Pakistan and India wasn’t serious, because preventing Nuclear war is to knock out the programs of who shouldn’t have them. Also eliminating the need to have them. Pakistan-India-China all have them for the reason of the Kashmir disputes. But I agree with you for the most part on Saudi Arabia though I said that obtaining them would be reactionary and not that it would be a good thing. Eliminate the need and they will not waste their money. However, no situation like Iran’s connotes any stability, especially while funding civil wars and terror groups across the continent.

          Just know the Clintons had an interesting resolution to India’s Nukes in the form of, “Oh okay you’re cool.”

          • Dev says:

            I think Iran should be given the benefit of doubt. At the end of the day, P5+1 together with the relevant agencies have deemed Iran and its nuclear program “finished”. As much as Obama’s foreign policy failings are to be blamed, it is not him alone that decided that Iran should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program as part of the compromise. Perhaps this is the best outcome. See:


            Although Saudi Arabia can be (slightly) forgiven for feeling a little neglected with the way the USA gave concessions to their great enemy Iran, them being a key ally in the War on Terrorism and all that, perhaps this compromise is the best outcome out of a shitty situation.

            With regards to my statement of Iran being more “stable” compared to Saudi Arabia, ask yourself this: when was the last time a Shiite terror groups truly threatened the world (or western world) outside of the middle east? While the “big boys” like Hiz’bullah has been active, they do not really operate outside of places like Lebanon, Syria and now vs Daesh in Iraq. Contrast this with Sunni extremists that are present from Africa (Boko Haram, AQIM for example) to SEA (Abu Sayyaf, MILF), to the various middle eastern outfits, to the Caucasus and Central Asia, to Europe. There are just too many to list, even if narrowing down to just the various Al Qaeda franchises in the Middle East.

            Right now the world has a bigger problem with India or China having nukes. Rather, big picture wise Sunni extremism is getting out of hand. Shiites seem happy to just concentrate and limit their hate and extremism to the Middle East, but the Sunnis seem to have other ideas. Anyways, China obtaining nuclear weapons during the Cold War was more for their own benefit rather than being part of an East vs West kind of thing, considering they did point them in both directions towards the US and Russia.

            • Eddie says:

              Okay, My personal Rule #1. Never give a fanatical nation who worships an oppressive religious Supreme Leader that also chants “DEATH TO AMERICA.” The benefit if the doubt. They have ALREADY violated sections of the agreement as you may find in the reports of empty facilities from independent observers and UN observers.

              I have to disagree in the case of Israel and Brazil, and the failed State of Yemen (For a buffer zone) as a whole. You mentioned Propping up of Assad in Syria and being in Iraq, but it is having much larger implications like allowing Russia to get more deeply involved and also influencing politics of Iraq towards Iran’s interests.

              All I know for certain is the Soviets doomed with world when they got these things into Asia in the first place. What a time to be alive, the Iron Curtain has rusted away and behind it is leftover nuclear technology that will always be “Good Enough”. We’ll never be able to rest easy it seems.

              However unrealistic it would be to have ISIS obtain anything like a nuclear device, they sure do have crude chemical weapons. That should be a concern to get smuggled.

              We could go on, but I want to keep this civil as we are on the same page in that we want a denuclearized world.

              • Dev says:

                I was born in 1991, and I myself can’t believe the state of the world we live in today considering the Berlin Wall fell before I was born.

                What a time to be alive indeed. So much for the peace dividend eh?

                Seeing news headlines with reports of Bear bomber sightings in the skies of Scandinavia and alleged submarine patrols in the Baltic sea, to the landgrabs in South China Sea to narcoterrorists behadings in South America, you’d think we’re back in the 70s and 80s.

                What a time to be alive.

  4. Matt says:

    The “field expedient enrichment process” described above, is missing a few steps before #1 and between #3 and #4, omitted, presumably, due to clearance issues

  5. Mick says:

    I like how he points out the real issues, like the fact that the president refuses to say RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM directly allows ISIS and cartels to smuggle in nuclear weapons!

    • Eddie says:

      I blame Ted Cruz for starting that. Lmao

      • ThatBlueFalcon says:

        Yeah, that whole argument is tinfoil and chemtrail-level stupid. Is a vulnerable border a threat? Absolutely. Does the Mexican cartel stand to profit from a nuclear wasteland filled with dead people who can’t buy drugs because they’re dead? Not at all.

  6. JB says:

    “creating an opportunity for ISIS to work with the Mexican cartels to smuggle a nuclear device into America”

    baahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha … deep breath … aaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  7. VICTOR BRAVO says:

    Not just the US but the whole planet is pretty much “broken” right now, the US just gets to swing the biggest hammer, if it is a choice between more of the same only ten times worse then vote for Hillary! If you want a game changer (good or bad) then go Trump! Either way, around the planet the average guy on the street is absolutely sick of what is being dished up to him by corrupt, incompetent politicians, their politicized standing armies, Law Enforcers and Media slaves / propagandists! Hillary will give us war with Russia way before Trump does, then again that’s good for our industry.

  8. Daswatch Shesaid says:

    “What difference at this point does it make?”

  9. Trajan says:

    Why is the NRA talking about this? This has nothing to do with the 2A.

    • SamHill says:

      They don’t want Hillary to win because she is anti-gun, obviously.

      My 2cents is that we should have secured our Southern border with a small fraction of the money we sent to Iran.

  10. JOE says:

    i think that the cartel leaders want to keep themselves and their “organisations” off the JSOC/CIA drone/kill list.
    i would be surprised if they actually would cooperate with any form of jihad movement and risk having four-tube nvg guys sneaking into their luxury compounds at night..
    what would they have to gain on that..

    • JB says:

      Exactly. The cartels are multi-Billion dollar per year businessmen, first and foremost, ISIL was/is well funded from their oil and other revenue streams, but they ain’t cartel rich.

      The cartels have nothing to gain and everything to lose. It would never happen.

      • Bill says:

        Yup, people need to stop listening to SoF in general and SEALs in particular. Passing a selection doesn’t confer some special knowledge on shit, case in point.

  11. Vince says:

    I hate to say this but the NRA is hypocritical in its approach. California has been left behind to fend for itself with little to no assistance from the NRA to counter the disarming of the populous of a major border state by an agenda driven group of politicians that seek to subject their constituents and conscript them to government dependence. The NRA has all but abandoned California and continues to ask for money to keep themselves employed. Time to step up NRA and fight the battle before you, not the hypothetical one used as propaganda to incite the people who’s wallets you pray on.

    • Jeremy says:

      After leaving Washington out to dry on I-594, I have little to no faith or respect for the NRA. They talk a big talk, that’s about it.


  12. Darkhorse says:

    omg! omg!

  13. Darkhorse says:

    Or there’s another COA in which, ISIS slips plutonium into all of the maple syrup factories in Canada and it all ends up on grocery store shelves in America. Once the syrup proliferates into the U.S., ISIS quickly starts buying maple syrup by the truckload. No pesky regs like with fertilizer!! Keep an eye on WHO is buying maple syrup!! It could be ISIS!!

    • Bill says:

      In all seriousness, the northern border is far more porous than the southern, and IIRC one of the 9/11 crew came in through Bar Harbor, Maine.

      • Joel says:

        I hear you man, Maine or not, the place has a villainous jihadirka aura to it, I don’t know why but I’ve been suspicious since the first time I heard somebody up there say Bah Hahba.

  14. Bill says:

    We’ve turned into a nation with a collective memory of about 30 seconds:
    The southern border has been a conflict zone since the 1600s, including the time in was somewhere around Colorado. I imagine that the ghosts of Black Jack Pershing, long dead Texas Rangers and mid 1900’s Border Patrol Agents like Bill Jordan think we’re a bunch of pussies, and not the kind you grab.

  15. TominVA says:

    I caved and gave the four minutes of my life to this video and…what exactly is this supposed to be?

    The world’s going to hell in a hand basket, politicians are to blame, and…what?

    It doesn’t tell me who to vote for, doesn’t tell me what gun to buy, doesn’t tell me anything. Who is the target audience for this and what are they supposed to get out of it?

    And yes, I know our politics are a mess, but news flash: they always have been. I think in the year 2016, most Americans understand there are evil doers in the world. Is the message that nothing is being done to defend us or that not enough is being done?

  16. Frtizthedog says:

    You will not survive here
    You’re not a wolf and this is land of wolves now.