Log In | Register
My articles have correctly told you that the COPRRUPT LIARS at the Associated Press, and at Yahoo "News" (which features most of the worst of the AP stories as almost its only source of featured sotries) have ignored the continuing violence in Mexico--and specifically as little as a stone's throw away from the city in which I am typing this. Yes, I am typing this in El Pas, and Juarez, Mexico is AVERAGING about 7 murders a day. You will remember that the CORRUPT AP did a story DATELINED MEXICO about the incident where a U.S. border patrol agent killed a 16 year old boy (allegedly), because (alledgedly) the boy was trhowing stones at the border patrol agent FROM JUAREZ. The border patrol agent was on the El Paso side of the border. Yes, the corrupt AP presented that story solely from the MEXICAN point of view, and the Yahoo headline talked about the ANGER IN MEXXICO (which the AP evidently thinks is fine, while the AP things anter against murdering illegal immigrants in Arizona is a terrilbe thing). Did I tell you that the AP is anti-American and CORRUPT? I know I did. Does this have a point?
Yes, it does. The current headline featured on my Uverse default page--from the CORRUPT AP and Yahoo "news"--is: Top Mexi can drug lord is killed in military raid." You have multiple murders every day in Juarez--some truly horrific (not to mention the other murders along the rest of the Mexican border), and THIS is what the corrupt, anti-American people at the AP (boycott Yahoo) consider a story worth featureing.
Well, you say, isn't it "news". Yes, it is--sort of. But it is not nearly as significant as the continuing violence along the Mexican border. This is not like al-Qaida in Iraq, where you had enemies of the U.S. on one side and terrorist leaders on the other side. (Yes, there is a question as to which side to put the AP in Iraq, and I solidly put them on the side of the TERRORISTS--where the AP regularly acted as press agents for the terrorists). You will note that the AP--as far as Iraq is from the U.S., compared with Juarez--virtually recorded EVERY civilian death in Iraq (deaths caused by our enemies). Yes, the AP would--sometimes, anyway--report when we killed an al-Qaida leader, but that did not stop the AP from treating almost every killing in Iraq as a major, featured story.
What is different about Mexico, besides Mexico being much CLOSER than Iraq? Well, the AGENDA of the truly CORRUPT Ap (and Yahoo) is thre reason the violence in Mexico is not featured on a regular basis. You hardly ever see a story about such violence on the Uverse default page. But there is another difference. There is not just ONE drug cartel. There are MULTIPLE drug cartels. And they are fighting each other, as well as the honest (if they exist) forces of the Mexican government. In other words, it is entirely possible for one cartel to USE Mexican forces to try to eliminate a rival. It does not necessarily have any significance at all as far as reducing the violence in Juarez, or "winning" the drug cartel war. Yes, I am telling you that the AP--as usual--has it completely BACKWARDS. If you have to choose, you should choose to report the VIOLENCE, and to NOT report single deaths of single drug lords (which may have no significance at alll as to the continuing drug war). Sure, I have no prolbem with reporting the death of a Mexican drug lord, if only for the reason of trying to put a little fear in the hearts of these drug ords. But the AP's idea of what is IMPORTANT--to the United States--in Mexico is.......well, typically CORRUPT.
Mexcio is a corrupt country, much aS the AP is a corrupt "journalistic" enterprise. That means that you can never be sure that army and police personnel are fighinting for truth and justice. Sometimes, they are just fighiting for their particular drug lord. No, I am not saying that the present Mexican President is not making a sinccere effort, or that there are no honest people in the Mexican army and police. But it is really hard to be sure. The death of ANY "drug lord" is good news, but may mean little in terms of the terrible situation along the Mexican border. As I indicated, one Mexican drug lord might well set up another, even if the actual Mexican army forces are acting on the side of right and justice.
What is not in dubt here is the CORRUPT nature of the AP, and Yahoo "News". It is just not defensible to ignore the continuing violence along the Mexican border, and then treat the killing of a Mexican drug lord as some sort of major friumph against the violence. It may be--only "maybe"--some sort of triumph for the Mexican government, which needs all of the success it can get. But the test of success is REDUCING THE VIOLENCE. You have no way of knowing if, or when, that hapens, because you can't trust the corrupt AP--or, really, the mainstream media in general--to TELL you.
Thus, you will continue to get my dispatches from the war zone across from me in Juarez, Mexico. I will even tell you if the violence starts to subside (which it has not). Yes, it is important for Mexico--for its own sake--to seize back control of the Mexican border from the drug cartels. But OUR reposnisbility is to secure our border, so that the murder and violence does not spread like a cancer across the border.
What to do about the corrupt AP (boycott Yahoo)? I faovr holding it up to ridiculue, which is why I do so. In the end, of course, the answer is the "Carthage Solutioni" (figuratively speaking). Rome destroyed Carthage to the point of salting the Earth, so that it could never rise again. As far as the AP is concerned, and really the whole mainstream media, that is the end game (with the "estruction", of course, being a matter of the people turning away, and never lettiing these people have influence again).
P.S. I know whereof I speak as to the corruption of Mexican authorities. I once personally knew--as a lawyer in El Paso officing with a criminal defense attorney who obviously had connnections in the criminal world--a formerpolice chief of Juarez. He was definitely connected with a drug cartel. And this was when things WERE NOT BAD (in comparison). At that time, it was actually safe to go to Juarez, and the people of my law firm did (as my daughters did, as recently as 10 years ago). But Mexico was corrupt, even then. The country had just not spun out of control, as it has now done (at least along the Mexican border with the U.S.). (no proofreading of this article, as I try to post these articles in time with the AP stories which prompt them, and I can't do that if I do any proffreading at all. My eyesight slows me down too much.
