IN Mexico, our Monuments shows government' corruption

[Rafael Norma]

@EPN in the Potomac

http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz

After Reading and hearing some of the opinions said about Enrique Peña Nieto’s visit to the United States of Amnesia and Canada, we can only ask ourselves “what weed did they smoke, those who “filter information” over ”the impact” taken over @EPN’s tour in Washington?


The only note that was published by The Washington Post, on front pages, was the way that the @FelipeCalderon’s war is drowned , entitled, “Calderón finishes his six-year drug war at stalemate”.

The photography shown on front pages is Calderon, and not anyone from Peña, Only on the wen site of the Washington Post it’s posible to find a Peña’s Photo, but what stands overall, it’s the insane increase on homicides in Mexico on the last six years, from 8,000 in 2007 to more than 27,000 in 2011.

There is also a gallery with pictures of what have been the six years of battles with the demons of the still president, which makes it clear just how bad is the situation in Mexico. Finally, there is a chronology of Calderon's war.
The New York Times also published a text in a section dedicated to informa about America, dated in Querétaro, México, with a Obama’s picture with Peña Nieto, another one about the companies instaled recently in Querétaro and as in the Post case, refering more to the challenges that Mexico is dealing than any Peña’s qualifications


In other media, both the United States as The Huffington Post or Canada and The National Post, received more attention the note on the Narco-Miss Sinaloa, than the Peña's visit to Washington or Ottawa.


On the radio the situation is worse for Peña and Mexico. In the radio that makes sensible and responsible National Public Radio and some private channels such as CBS Radio, attention also focused on Calderon's war, its effects and the fact that, for most Americans, Mexico is a concern, either by the effects of war or migration.

On National Public Radio, the public radio network in the U.S., information on Peña's visit to Washington was part of the information on the "Achieve Act", the (late) GOP response to the Obama’s "Dream Act" and the Democrats in Congress that didn’t pass due to the lack of Republican support.

To be continued...

 

[Rafael Norma]

...

One of the things that NPR highlighted, but hiden in Mexico, is that no Republican in the House, met with Peña and they control the House of Representatives. It is clear that the Republicans got the message of the polls in early November, but are not willing to answer it in terms that are favorable to Mexico or Peña.

Academic analysts also didn’t express much hope in what Pena could accomplish. The Center for International Policy, for example, through its Program for the Americas (CIPA) published on the eve of the visit of Peña an analysis that casts doubt on all the alleged progress in Ciudad Juarez over the past two years and warns of a new wave of violence against women in that city.

In all cases, rather than celebrate or even greet the visit, the U.S. media point some potential challenges to be faced by Peña, but it can be seen that there aren’t conditions, to-for example-the problem of migration. I think Peña and his team should have clear that, at least until you know specifically what will your government do with the challenges it faces, the interest in the U.S. will continue to be focused on Calderon's war, and its effects will continue, regardless of the December 2 change its name of the Federal Preventive Police or that Miguel Angel Osorio Chong believes that he will receive the powers he had, at the time, Don Jesus Reyes Heroles in Interior Secretariat.


And It will remain like that, at least, until sensitive reductions in the death toll and in violence ocurring in many cities, are recorded, which CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED only or primarily, with police work or military operations. Taking that into account, there won’t be major investments U.S. that magically "rescue us.” It is necessary to accept that Mexico will have to solve their own problems.

Or Peña gives a change of course in matters of combating drug trafficking, respect for human rights and, above all, on tax reform or, to the extent that things get worse in Mexico, it will worsen the perception that we have in the U.S. and that will make it harder to have an immigration reform.

The same can be said about the visit to Canada. To think that Canada will ask for visas before you change the current situation in Mexico is childish. It's not just a matter of visas, is more complex than that. It involves issues such as respect for human rights in Mexico, after all, one of the reasons that led Canada to impose visas, were the abuses in applications for political asylum, even if they were true or not, that occured in a context of systematic violation of human rights in Mexico.

And worse still, how can Mexico expect to join with the United States and Canada, if Mexico itself is not integrated? Differentiated integration that made posible the Free Trade Agreement in 1990, is exhausted, and can not give anymore, not least because while effectively Mexico could benefit from increased transportation costs from China to America (the thesis that the Economist argued in the number dedicated this week to Mexico), that depends on what happens in Mexico in terms of public safety and public and private investment.

Something the government of Carlos Salinas did not understand at the time was just that although geography and shorter distances between Mexico and the United States help, China ended up moving to Mexico because, unlike Mexico-made ​​for all 1980 and so far huge investments to build large industrial parks that make pale maquila zones of the border between Mexico and the U.S., in addition to all, must operate in conditions of war.

The team Peña requires more imagination and stop thinking that just repeat in Mexico a mantra about the success of the visit from her boss when, strictly speaking, was nothing more than a courtesy.

Something the government of Carlos Salinas did not understand at the time was just that although geography and shorter distances between Mexico and the United States help, China ended up moving to Mexico because, unlike Mexico-made ​​for all 1980 and so far huge investments to build large industrial parks that make pale maquila zones of the border between Mexico and the U.S., in addition to all, must operate in conditions of war.

The team Peña requires more imagination and stop thinking that just repeating in Mexico a mantra about the success of the visit from her boss when, strictly speaking, was nothing more than a courtesy visit.

Published byr Rodolfo Soriano-Núñez en 18:33
Tags: 2012, Barack Obama, Enrique Peña Nieto, Felipe Calderón, Guerra contra el narcotráfico, Miguel Angel Osorio Chong, México, Rodolfo Soriano Núñez

 

[Rafael Norma]

Christmas Present from @FelipeCaldeRON to all Mexicans! Congratulations!

El regalo Navideño de @FelipeCaldeRON pa' todos los Mexicanos... FELICIDADES FELIPE!
http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz

 

[Rafael Norma]

See you later, Alligator!

The joy of all achievements….

Please never come ever again:

 

[Cruella]

The Cartels are so brutal, do you think there is an infiltration of Islamic terrorists involved?

 

[Rafael Norma]

The Cartels are so brutal, do you think there is an infiltration of Islamic terrorists involved?

I honestly do not know

 

[Rafael Norma]

Forbidden to make a fool of yourself
Prohibido hacerse pendejo

http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz

 

[Rafael Norma]

Twelve years ago, when @VicenteFoxQue was an elected President of #Mexico, he established his offices in Lomas de Chapultepec, @delegacionMH breaking the law, and using the house lended by the then owner of BANAMEX, Roberto Hernádnez

The adminsitrator for that borough, @AusDenRuthen from the same political party , turned his eyes to the other side

Now @EPN does the same thing, using an heliport established in that zone, breaking the law again

 

[Rafael Norma]

Six years ago, a lot of Mexicans voted against a goat inside a glass
menagerie, @lopezobrador_ http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz
that it was a real menace to all our institutions…

…but we

didn’t have an idea what would @FelipeCalderon mean to our Republic

He chosed the drug traffickers as a scapegoat for all our troubles without considering they have been infiltrated in our army, our police and our government. :

…what a pity now we are feeling for those U. S. Citizens who dare to learn from our expresident.

 

[Rafael Norma]

The taboo & $acred cow for the @GOP/@EPN/@pridehoy/FoxNews/@Televisa:

http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz

 

[Rafael Norma]

Something better than to kill yourself

@Un_Tal_Cioran: it's not worthwhile to kill yourself: you always do it too late

http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz @jorgeramosnews
By Jorge Ramos Ávalos

(December 9 th., 2012).- War is a failure. It demonstrates that all else has failed. It's the sad confirmation that brute force beats the intelligence.. So the only thing left is to kill yourself. Colombia has nearly five decades living well. Enough. We must concentrate on peace and look for something better than comitting suicide

Colombia should not be distracted from his search for peace. Its border dispute with Nicaragua should not be an excuse to close the case until political heyday. A peaceful Colombia will, with no doubt, be a strong and consistent Colombia friom the outsider.


It was a very courageous decision from the government of President Juan Manuel Santos to start peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Norway and Cuba. The easiest thing would have been to continue attacking the FARC, as did the governments that preceded it. But that strategy has two major problems: one, it would have ended with the guerrillas and, two, postpone the conflict and violence for several more years.

I've heard all the arguments to continue the war: that the FARC are terrorists who are killing and kidnapping, it is unbearable to hear them speak from Cuba, living in the drug business and they will not leave, they would come to a political normalcy without punishment and with impunity, and that alone is a military strategy to buy time, ground and international reputation. All this may be true. But still we must go for peace in Colombia in 2013.

Two greatest leaders of peace in the world, former South African President Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, pushed for the negotiation, not by the extension of the war. Mandela may have started an armed revolution after leaving prison. But instead opted to negotiate with the racist government that jailed him for 27 years. And he won. South Africa abolished racismo, became a democracy and Mandela became president with votes, not bullets.

The Dalai Lama, who was forced out of Tibet in 1959 by the Chinese army, is still confident in the strategy of non-violence to regain their nation. Recently, in a tweet to his more than five million followers, the Dalai Lama endorsed this philosophy: "History clearly shows us that violence can not solve our problems."
Colombia, even if it hurts a lot [of nasty people], is following the example of these two Nobel Peace prizes. War is the simplest because it has a certain result: more death. But the Colombian government wants the hardest: a lasting peace.



Peace-lets repeat the belief -is done with our enemies, not with our friends. Nor is the argument that you can end the FARC guerrillas by force. If that were possible, many presidents have done already. Although significantly reduced the number of fighters with the old strategy of "democratic security", it would be virtually impossible to exterminate them completely.
In this age of global terrorism, just a warrior with a bomb on a plane or in a mall to reject the absurd idea that the government can kill every member of the FARC by force. And most shocking and unfair it may seem, I prefer to see an integrated guerrilla civil society putting a new law in Congress that placing a car bomb in northern Bogota. That's smart.

War is what most set back to Colombia. As the world moves connecting new markets and technologies, Colombians still stuck with a half-century old war. It is impossible to look ahead with confidence when you are being shot in the back.

I know There is an ethical impediment to continue peace talks. With the terrorists you do not negotiate, says the mantra of free nations. If the United States does not negotiate with Al Qaeda, why the Colombian government is negotiating with the FARC? Before this it suffices to say that the government of Juan Manuel Santos could not miss the opportunity to negotiate with a group willing to lay down their arms and has established a unilateral ceasefire until January.

Colombia loss of thousands of square kilometers of territorial waters to Nicaragua, as recently has decided without appeal the International Court of the Hague -has eroded President Santos’ popularity and his vision for the country. But that international conflict (which will run for years) should not be used to derail the peace talks. They are two separate issues. Do not mix them. The pursuit of peace is not only a project of the President. It is also the aspiration of millions of Colombians.

The Word kills bullet. Why Colombians will continue killing each other when there is a chance to talk? In the end, the best argument for peace negotiations is that, if negotiations do not work, there will be time later for war. Long time.

Twitter: @jorgeramosnews

 

[Rafael Norma]

A donde irán las golondrinas viajeras, braguetas persignadas azules?

 

[Rafael Norma]

​

Like the crazy monk:​

​

Nobody knew it,​

Nobody knows,​

Nobody will never know​

In Limbo​

​

http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz​

​

​

​

​

​

​

written by Jorge Alcocer V.​

​

​

​

(December 11.th, ).- Politics is like nature; afraid of vaccum; Politics is like nature, afraid of the vacuum I heard that phrase many years ago and comes into my mind with the course of investigations and appropriations for the violence that occurred on the 1st. December in Mexico City.​

​

From the 70 arrested, 14 will go to trial; in social networks and in this newspaper it has been documented incompetence and abuse of the acting members of the law enforcement agencies, federal and local both in the containment and response of offenders, a few meters from the gates of San Lazaro, as before [/ I] vandalism and looting occurred in the Historical Center, in the Alameda, in Juarez and Reforma avenues .​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is evidence that in the ranks of the riot and Federal Police were, infiltrated and tolerated, people in plain clothes, identified with a black glove, both senior members of security forces have been silent. Marcelo Ebrard spoke, the same day of the incident, about the "provocative actions" sharing signals with Manuel Mondragón, in charge of the Office of the federal Public Security Secretariat.​

​

On Friday of last week, Manuel Mondragón denied any responsibility for the actions of the Federal Police and the capital's police-preventive-riot police stating he took over the first minute of federal forces on 1o. December, leaving vacant the post which he had vested in the government of Mexico City, said he participated in design, but not in the implementation of the police operation. (Interview with Carmen Aristegui in News MVS). ​

​

In short, by inexperience, haste or improvisation-or all three together-in one day that should be anticipated, from weeks prior, a high-risk public safety of the capital of Mexico remained in limbo. Recall that the security fence around San Lazaro was installed from the previous weekend, in a very large perimeter. Faced with complaints from residents concerned and diverse voices criticisms made against this deployment, spokesmen transition team of President-elect asked to reduce the area under shelter, what happened, placing containment fences a few feet from the gates of the Palace Legislature. [/ B]​

​

In limbo caused by the relief of the senior command, nobody acted to prevent the arrival to San Lázaro of organized groups that marched from the early hours of the morning showing, openly, shopping carts with petrol bombs, firecrackers, portable acetylene tanks and other tools for the attack. Assaults against police began an early hour.​

I arrived shortly before 7 am at San Lazaro, a side street, I could see and hear the explosions of firecrackers, the flames caused by the explosions of Molotov cocktails. Formed on the sidewalk in a row for review, I saw a man come running, I supposed he was from the Presidential Security forces, who gave the sreaming order to let them go inside immediately. I asked what was wrong, and they answered me "The barriers are broken, come inside!". ​

​

​

It was not only a vaccum of command, but something far more serious: demonstrating the absence of a contingency plan, and training police to prevent and control the actions of anonymous groups, ready and willing to deal with police violence and acts of barbarism and looting against public facilities and commercial establishments. [/ B] [/ I]​

​

While social networks had circulated pictures and videos that show the performance of the police, arresting and beating, without rhyme or reason, to anybody who crossed the passage, his superiors still haven’t shown the videos that the security cameras of Mexico City’s government, installed in areas that suffered vandalism. We do not know if the 14 people listed are responsible for such acts, what we do know is that there were many more participants in acts of vandalism and looting.​

​

Rather than continue to speculate about sinister conspiracies to harm this or that politician, it is urgent that the authorities give their explanation of the facts and say what will be done to remedy, at once, the obvious lack of police training.​

​

 

[Rafael Norma]

¡Jódete, #Mexico!
Fuck you, #Mexico!

http://tinyurl.com/cko2hxz

 

[Rafael Norma]

Too Big to Indict​

Published: December 11, 2012 5 Comments
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

It is a dark day for the rule of law. Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. They also have not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions.
Related
DealBook: HSBC to Pay $1.92 Billion to Settle Money Laundering Charges (December 11, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (5) »
Clearly, the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail. When prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished. The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost.
In the HSBC case, prosecutors may want the public to focus on the $1.92 billion settlement, which includes forfeiture of $1.26 billion and other penalties, as well as requirements to improve its internal controls and submit to the oversight of an outside monitor for the next five years. But even large financial settlements are small compared with the size of international major banks. More important, once criminal sanctions are considered off limits, penalties and forfeitures become just another cost of doing business, a risk factor to consider on the road to profits.
There is no doubt that the wrongdoing at HSBC was serious and pervasive. Several foreign banks have been fined in recent years for flouting United States sanctions against transferring money through American subsidiaries on behalf of clients in countries like Iran, Sudan and Cuba. HSBC’s actions were even more egregious. According to several law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry, prosecutors found that, for years, HSBC had also moved tainted money from Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to terrorist groups.
Those findings echo those of a Congressional report, issued in July, which said that between 2001 and 2010, HSBC exposed the American “financial system to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.” Prosecutors and Congressional investigators were also alarmed by indications that senior HSBC officials might have been complicit in the illegal activity and that the bank did not tighten its lax controls against money laundering even after repeated urgings from federal officials.
Yet government officials will argue that it is counterproductive to levy punishment so severe that a bank could be destroyed in the process. That may be true as far as it goes. But if banks operating at the center of the global economy cannot be held fully accountable, the solution is to reduce their size by breaking them up and restricting their activities — not shield them and their leaders from prosecution for illegal activities.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/opinion/hsbc-too-big-to-indict.html?hp&_r=0