The Book Will Help You And The World Wake Up

Please read John Ackerman's article below. Washington turns a blind eye to its corrupt, cartel-run NAFTA trading partner.

Mexico is massacring its citizens and nobody seems to have noticed

Three Amigos Summit the perfect time to hold President Enrique Peña Nieto accountable for human rights violations

Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto, left, with U.S. President Barack Obama, center, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Manila, last year. The Three Amigos are meeting in Ottawa this week.  (Susan Walsh / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)  

By John M. Ackerman

Mon., June 27, 2016

This time it is impossible to look the other way. The Mexican government is normally adept at managing public opinion so the responsibility for the violence and human rights violations ripping apart the country falls on the shoulders of local officials or organized crime groups. But on June 19th that narrative was broken under the heavy weight of the facts.

The press originally reported a “clash between teachers and police” in the town of Nochixtlán in the southern state of Oaxaca. The authorities claimed their agents were unarmed and the protesters had fired on them first. The new U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Roberta Jacobson, was carefully neutral in her first public evaluation of the incident, stating simply that she “lamented the loss of human lives.”

But during the ensuing days the awful truth has trickled out. Thanks to the reports of journalists on the scene, the Mexican government has been forced to accept that the police were in fact heavily armed. And the evidence now points to the commission of a brutal massacre by federal forces against peaceful protesters. These forces are under the command of Mexico´s President Enrique Peña Nieto and receive significant funding from the United States government under the Merida Initiative.

It all began when a group of rural, elementary school teachers closed a highway that runs through the small, mostly indigenous town of Nochixtlán. They were protesting the government´s neo-liberal education reforms and in favour of the release of two top teacher union activists, who had been taken as political prisoners a week earlier.

Instead of negotiating with the protesters, or using limited force to liberate the highway, the federal government decided to violently quash the uprising. Peña Nieto sent hundreds of masked police officers armed with high-powered automatic rifles and tear gas to run off the protesters. In response, the surrounding communities called for reinforcements. Church bells ran, a form of SOS call to the surrounding villages, and hundreds of residents appeared on the scene in support of the peaceful teachers. Although some of the reinforcements did throw rocks and launch fire crackers at the riot police, none of the protesters were armed nor were the lives of law enforcement officials put at risk.

Article Continued Below

The police acted with desperate vengeance. According to eyewitness accounts, plain clothes police first set fire to buses and cars in order to create the impression of chaos and thereby “justify” the upcoming brutal attack. The uniformed agents then opened fire on the innocent crowd. Nine protesters were killed, dozens wounded and many others arbitrarily arrested by law enforcement, who grabbed anyone they could get their hands on. Amid the chaos, the police even interrupted a family funeral taking place in the town cemetery to haul off to jail dozens of the attendees who had no connection to the protests.

The federal police also indiscriminately launched dozens of tear gas canisters from land and air during the assault. One of them landed in the patio of a health clinic, which was attending to the wounded, forcing it to close down and thereby putting numerous lives at risk.

Such attacks by Mexico´s highly militarized federal police on the civilian population are not rare. Excessive use of force has become commonplace in recent years, especially since the beginning of the Peña Nieto administration in December of 2012. Civilian deaths are normally presented as the result of frontal combat with narcotraffickers or “criminals.” In fact, local and international government and non-governmental organizations have unveiled the systematic abuse of human rights by security forces in Mexico.

But this time the violation of human rights is particularly glaring. The victims cannot be presented as “criminals” even by the most creative imagination. They were all peaceful protesters, teachers and community members, standing up for their rights. In response, the government turned a sleepy, rural town into a war zone.

Mexico has erupted in protest. Teachers have taken to the streets throughout the country, even in regions such as Monterrey where such activism is rare. Tens of thousands of students and doctors have also mobilized in solidarity. The indigenous communities of Oaxaca have taken action and highways remain blocked throughout the state. This Sunday there was an enormous protest march in Mexico City organized by the principal opposition party, Morena. The international solidarity movement, in Argentina, Spain, France, England, Canada and the United States has also jumped into action. Both the National Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Human Rights Commission have initiated investigations of the attack.

Meanwhile, official diplomatic circles in the United States and Canada have remained silent, pretending as if nothing has happened. This is particularly worrisome given the fact that this Wednesday Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto will meet in Ottawa for their first “Three Amigos Summit.”

Obama has been an adamant defender of the Mexican President and has not dared to call him out once for the grave human rights violations and corruption scandals, which have marked Peña´s presidency from day one. Trudeau has made the positive step of offering to remove the visa requirement for Mexican visitors to Canada imposed by Stephen Harper in 2009, but also seems to be disconnected from what is actually happening on the ground in Mexico.

In the face of the silent complicity of the U.S. and Canadian governments, civil society in all three countries should use the opportunity of this week’s summit to make their voices heard. They should forcefully condemn the violent repression and democratic breakdown taking place in Mexico and reach out a helping hand to their brothers and sisters south of the Rio Grande.

John M. Ackerman is a professor at the Institute for Legal Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), editor-in-chief of The Mexican Law Review and a columnist at Proceso magazine and La Jornada newspaper. www.johnackerman.blogspot.com , Twitter: @JohnMAckerman

DHS - A Stepchild Of The US Military Industrial Complex

US Planning New Sweep of 'Reprehensible' Deportation Raids

Published on

Friday, May 13, 2016

by

Common Dreams

US Planning New Sweep of 'Reprehensible' Deportation Raids

Reporting by Reuters reveals immigration officials planning to round up Central American families throughout May and June

by

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

•            
              Share                              

6 Comments

The Obama administration is planning its largest sweep this year. (Photo: ndlon/flickr/cc)

The Obama administration is planning more raids to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children in May and June, Reuters reported on Thursday.
It is poised to be the largest sweep this year, following a two-day operation in Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina in January. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) said the announcement means the administration "is turning a blind eye to the many serious due process violations" that occurred during previous raids.
"These military-style raids against mothers and children fleeing violence are reprehensible," said NILC executive director Marielena Hincapié. "We are outraged that the Obama administration has once again decided to engage in a PR stunt that only serves to create fear and paralyze everyday life and civic participation in immigrant communities, in our schools, and in workplaces."
"The federal government's failure to address the violent conditions that are causing women and children to flee in the first place means that these raids are a complete and utter policy failure," Hincapié said.
According to Reuters, which saw an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) document, field offices nationwide have been instructed to conduct month-long "surges" to round up mothers and children who have already been instructed to leave the country, as well as those who entered the country as unaccompanied minors but have since turned 18.
Migrants who arrived after January 1, 2014 are the priority targets, an ICE spokesperson told Reuters.
Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration rights organization America's Voice, also criticized the raid plans and the Obama administration for disregarding how violence in Central America is fueling the displacement of individuals and families.
"We are outraged that the Obama administration has once again decided to engage in a PR stunt that only serves to create fear and paralyze everyday life."
—Marielena Hincapié,
National Immigration Law Center
"There is a refugee crisis in Central America and to deal with it effectively we need to treat it like a refugee crisis," Sharry said. "Central American kids and young families are fleeing horrific violence. El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are among the most murderous countries in the world. Incredibly, however, the U.S. government is using deterrence, detention and deportation as its main tools."
The government's enforcement-based approach "misdiagnoses" the reasons people are fleeing their home countries, Sharry said. "Those fleeing horrific violence in Central America need to be protected, not deported."
The news come as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the fate of two of President Barack Obama's own executive programs on immigration, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
Just this week, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights called for the deportation of a woman and her 12-year-old daughter from the US to El Salvador to be halted, saying "their lives and personal integrity would be at risk."
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voiced their opposition to the raids, which Sanders described as "the painful and inhumane business of locking up and deporting families who have fled horrendous violence in Central America and other countries."
"I urge President Obama to use his executive authority to protect families by extending Temporary Protective Status for those who fled from Central America," Sanders said.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

NAFTA Should Bite Hillary Clinton In The Buttocks

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/05/politics/clinton-sanders-trade-michigan/index.html

The Clinton-Sanders trade war

By Eric Bradner, CNN

Updated 8:25 AM ET, Sat March 5, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

 

Story highlights

• Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are fighting over trade, looking to win blue-collar and labor voters
• The Michigan primary is Tuesday

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are in Michigan this weekend, home to blue-collar Democratic and labor voters concerned about the future of manufacturing jobs in the state.

And head of CNN's Democratic debate in Flint on Sunday night and Tuesday's primary, a full-fledged trade war has broken out.

Sanders, hoping to exploit what could be a major weakness for Clinton in labor-heavy states, called Clinton the "outsourcer-in-chief," latching Clinton to her husband's promotion of the North American Free Trade Agreement and her slow-to-the-game opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clinton is hitting Sanders for siding with Republicans last year in a vote opposing the Export-Import Bank.

They're both playing to a labor-heavy audience, and both attacks get at the core of each candidate's critique of the other: that Clinton sways with the political winds, and that Sanders is too pie-in-the-sky to embrace the tools that deliver actual benefits to real people.

Clinton had dropped her attacks against Sanders in recent days after her dominant win in South Carolina and successful Super Tuesday, turning her attention to Donald Trump, the GOP and the general election. But she is now exchanging barbs with the Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist.

Read More

In a speech Friday in Detroit, Clinton tagged Sanders as hewing to an "ideology" and "an old set of talking points," rather than offering a "credible strategy designed for the world we live in now."

One example: Sanders' vote to shutter the Export-Import Bank. The bank, which helps finance U.S. companies' exports into foreign markets and claims credit for supporting 109,000 jobs in 2015, has been a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill in recent years. Hardline conservatives -- including outside groups financed by the Koch brothers, who have labeled it a tool of crony capitalism -- have fought to shut it down, while Democrats and business-aligned Republican leaders have found legislative tools to keep it open.

Sanders was the only member of the Senate Democratic caucus to side with the GOP in a June 2015 vote. In a news release at the time, he labeled it "corporate welfare for multi-national corporations."

That's a controversial claim: Much of the bank's money helps Boeing, General Electric and Caterpillar. But the vast majority of the bank's customers are small businesses -- including 176 small businesses in Michigan since 2007, according to the bank.

"Unfortunately Republicans in Congress along with Sen. Sanders have tried to kill it repeatedly," Clinton said Friday in an economic policy speech at Detroit Manufacturing Systems in Detroit.

Flip-flopper?

Sanders, as he has done much of the campaign, is painting Clinton as a flip-flopper who has only recently joined the left in opposing free trade deals like the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Negotiated by President Barack Obama's administration, TPP is particularly controversial on the left. Sanders has opposed it for years. But Clinton waited until October to announce her opposition, saying she wanted to see the deal's final contents before taking a side.

"We have had for the last 25 years, disastrous trade policies. What these trade agreements are about, TPP, what these trade agreements are about," he said Friday in Edwardsville, Illinois. "They are written by corporate America and big money. They want to have an agreement that enables them to shut down plants."

Clinton's history, Sanders argues, is clear.

"The real question is was she right to support NAFTA? Was she right to support permanent normal trade relations with China? The answer is, she was very, very wrong and millions of families around this country have been suffering as a result of those disastrous trade agreements," Sanders said Thursday in Lansing, Michigan.

He added: "These trade agreements were pushed and written to a significant degree by corporate America for corporate America and the results are clear. We're not talking about some academic debate here. The results are clear when you look at Detroit, you look at Flint, you look at my own state of Vermont. We have lost thousands and thousands of decent-paying jobs."

The back-and-forth sets the frame for a broader debate over trade deals. Sanders is also assailing Clinton's vote for trade with China, her support for pacts with Colombia and South Korea (which cost U.S. steel jobs -- something Sanders is sure to highlight if the race lasts until Pennsylvania), and her delayed opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Helping Sanders in his attacks are Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose president, Tom Donohue, recently said he thinks Clinton would reverse herself and sign that pact if she were elected.

The Republican National Committee on Saturday highlighted Clinton's past comments supportive of trade deals -- such as calling the TPP a "gold standard," the South Korea pact a "milestone" and the Colombia deal as one she opposed as a presidential candidate in 2008 but then was "absolutely committed" to implementing as America's top diplomat.

Friday, Clinton said that her approach is based on more than ideology.

"When it comes to trade deals, here's my standard: I won't support any agreement unless it helps create good jobs and higher wages for American workers and protects our national security," she said. "I need to be able to look into the eyes of any hard-working American anywhere in our country and say this deal will help raise your income."