Perspective: Three Mexican Mayors Have Been Shot Dead Since Jan 1, 14 Killed All of Last Year

While people have been mourning the Tuscon Tragedy here in the US, the Mexican Drug Wars against the government rages on. After seeing 14 mayors killed all of last year, we have already seen three mayors shot and killed this year, so far, and we're just into the second week of the year. At this rate, 78 mayors will die by the end of the year in the battle between the Mexican government and police versus the various drug cartels.

The mayor of an indigenous community in southern Mexico was shot dead on Thursday, a local prosecutor said, making a total of three Mexican mayors killed this year.

Luis Jimenez Mata, who only took up his post in Santiago Amoltepec at the start of year, was shot dead as he arrived at his offices in nearby Oaxaca City, capital of Oaxaca state, said Manuel de Jesus Lopez.

The motive of the killing remained unclear and fourteen people were called in for questioning, but none had been detained, the official said.

Santiago Amoltepec, which has around 1,000 inhabitants, is involved in several land conflicts with neighboring communities.

The mayor of Temoac, in central Morelos state, was fatally "shot in the face" last Monday, while authorities in the northern state of Coahuila found the bullet-riddled body of the mayor of Zaragoza last week.

Fourteen Mexican mayors were killed in 2010, mostly in the volatile north of the country near the US border, which has been gripped by brutal violence among drug gangs and security forces in recent years.

Now, I'm not trying to minimize the tragedy in Tuscon. It was horrific, but I just want to remind everyone that as much as we hem and haw about how violent the US is and that all of this violent rhetoric will take us down the path to uncontrollable violence, it could always be much worse.

Mexican officials and the population in general have to worry about getting gunned down in certain parts of the country every day. In 2010 alone, over 15,000 have been killed in the Drug Wars overall, including many police chiefs and mayors. Since 2006, a total of around 35,000 people have been killed in the Drug Wars.

Compared to many other countries, public officials in this country are very safe. Prior to the Giffords shooting, there has not been an assassination attempt of an elected official, since Hinkley shot Reagan looking to impress Jodie Foster in the 80's, and that was around 25 years ago.

So, all of this finger pointing and blaming is trivial and means nothing in the big picture.

TX Gov Rick Perry Suggests that White House Should Consider Sending Military Into Mexico

Fresh off from becoming the new head of the RGA, Texas Governor Rick Perry is worried that the drug wars that are being waged across the Rio Grande will spill in to the United States and suggested that we should consider sending the military into Mexico to fight the drug cartels that have all but taken control of the Mexican border cites

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who was just elected the new head of the Republican Governor's Association, said this week that President Obama should consider sending the military into Mexico to help fight the drug war.

During an interview on MSNBC on Thursday, Perry, a potential presidential 2012 presidential candidate, said the U.S. must "use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military," when asked whether he would support military involvement in Mexico to help the country battle drug lords.

"I think you have the same situation as you had in Colombia," Perry said. "Obviously, Mexico has to approve any type of assistance that we can give them."

Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger told the San Antonio Express-News that the governor's point is that the U.S. must consider all options to secure the border.

Perry is pretty much echoing the sentiment that Hillary Clinton has regarding the subject. The Mexican border has become increasingly violent over the past few months, and the Mexican government seems to be powerless to stop it. Border security is going to become more of an issue, if things do not get any better, and it doesn't look like that it will.

Bill Clinton was very successful in Colombia, when he helped that country get things back under control when the drug cartels were kidnapping and killing people left and right with little to no resistance from local authorities. Now, Clinton stopped short of a full invasion of the country, but he did give the Colombian president military assistance, which included hardware and a limited amount of personnel, to help them quell the "insurgency".

However, things are much different in Mexico than they were in Colombia in the late 90's. The Colombian president welcomed help from the US. Mexico is much more nationalistic, and because of that, President Felipe Calderon is much less likely to be so enthusiastic about receiving any help from us. Still, if the violence continues to escalate as it has been and it starts to spill across the border into US cities, then, we may have very little choice but to fight back against these drug gangs.

Hillary Goofs Twice in Mexico, MSM Buries Story

Hillary's Mexico Visit Blunders Ignored by Old Media
By Warner Todd Huston
March 29, 2009 - 06:59 ET

Thus far, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made two diplomatic blunders during her visit to Mexico that the U.S. Old Media are shockingly uninterested in highlighting. One was a policy blunder and the other a cultural/religious one.

Clinton's first mistake was in imagining she is still a Senator that can make pronouncements on pending laws and policy plans instead of a mere envoy of the president, a mouth piece that hasn't the same freedom to invent policy prescriptions and laws that a Senator does. Last week, Clinton told Mexican officials that "we" -- as in the U.S. government -- are considering re-upping the so-called assault rifle ban because Mexico's drug violence is "our" fault.

When asked on March 27 about plans to return to the 1994 law banning "assault weapons" (a vague and illegitimate term at best), Obama's press secretary replied that he was unaware of "any plans" to reinstitute the ban.

Clinton obviously spoke out of turn making promises to Mexican officials that she was not authorized to make.

"Who painted it?"

The second Clinton gaffe concerned her abstruse question at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Thursday, March 26. Her question showed that Clinton was woefully uninformed about the most important feature of the church, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe enshrined there since 1531.

Catholic tradition holds that the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on a cloak belonging to Saint Juan Diego in 1531. As Monsignor Diego Monroy brought Clinton before the shrine, Clinton asked her blundering question.

"After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked 'who painted it?' to which Msgr. Monroy responded 'God!'"

Now, perhaps Clinton being so woefully ignorant of anything religious isn't such a surprise, but for a Secretary of State to be visiting one of the most famous and important churches in the region, one holding a much beloved religious relic, without even finding her staff informing her "who painted" the image reveals a shocking lack by professionalism of both the Secretary of State and her staff.

Add this to the "button gaffe" of March 7 where Clinton's staff failed to find out how to spell a simple word in Russian and we are seeing a Secretary of State failing in the simplest of tasks making a mockery of our "diplomatic" outreach.

Sadly, the Old Media is letting her off the hook with aplomb.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/03/29/hillarys-mexico-visit-blunders-ignored-old-media
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

None of this is any surprise to anyone. The Mainstream Media will do anything to protect the golden one from any embarrassment. It must be hard for them to keep it all under wraps. Obama's State Department and their foreign diplomacy is starting to look like a SNL sketch not a legitimate foreign relations team.

Clinton: Mexican Drug Wars Are America's Fault

Hillary Clinton: Sorry Mexico, Your Violence is All Our Fault
On her "Gosh We're Sorry" tour, Clinton assures Mexico it's all our fault...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, March 27th at 10:56AM EDT

Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.

And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.

So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.

Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.

For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.

It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.

Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.

Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.

And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?

“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.

“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.

“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.

Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.

This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.

Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/03/27/hillary-clinton-sorry-mexico-your-violence-is-all-our-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

How on earth is the fact that Mexico cannot control their own crime and government our fault? We aren't in control of Mexican police, military, or government. So, how is could be the US's fault?

I am in total agreement with Huston. I wonder why while we have the biggest amount of deficit spending ever, we are throwing $80 mil down the Mexican rat hole? It could be much better spent as he pointed out.

Mexico is in total shambles. Something must be done as it is bleeding into this country through illegal immigration. This isn't just a Mexican problem anymore. The war is taking American casualties on our soil as well. However, Clinton's approach of apologizing and taking guns out of the hands of those that need to defend themselves looks like weakness to the drug lords. Banning assault weapons isn't going to keep them out of the criminals just the law abiding victims. Liberals need to wake up and realize these facts.

Democrats: What Is Good For Mexicans Isn't Necessarily Good For Americans

Friday, February 20, 2009 |

Examiner Editorial Special Report:Card Check co-sponsors favor secret ballot for Mexico, but not for U.S. workers
By Kevin Mooney Editorial Staff Writer |
2/20/09 5:44 AM

Democrats leading the charge in 2009 for legislation that critics say will abolish secret ballots for employees voting in U.S. workplace unionization contests signed a 2001 letter urging Mexican officials to protect their workers’ electoral privacy as a defense against union thugs.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA or “Card Check”) would allow labor activists to gather signatures from 51 percent of employees to force a company to accept a unionized workplace. Current law requires a representation election in which workers are guaranteed a secret ballot.

Critics, including officials with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Right to Work Committee and Members of Congress from both parties who oppose EFCA, say the card system invites abuse because workers could be intimidated into signing.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the main “card check bill” sponsor on the House side, and nine other Democratic co-sponsors,” all signed the letter to Mexico demanding that the secret ballot be maintained. Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.),  Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.),  Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). all joined Miller in both co-sponsoring EFCA and signing the 2001 letter.

“We understand the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose,” Miller and the other card check co-sponsors said in the letter.

“We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and a trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace,” they said.

Aaron Albright, a spokesperson for Democrats on the Education and Labor Committee, told The Washington Examiner that EFCA has been on the receiving end of “corporate misinformation” and that it will not jeopardize the secret ballot for workers.

“These are two separate situations,” Albright said. “These workers in Mexico were represented by a sham union and they were trying to replace this company dominated union with an independent one. In that circumstance a secret ballot is absolutely warranted and is the same as the law in this country, and it’s going to remain the same as this country. It’s a particular situation that was occurring in Mexico that the letter was addressing; the law will be exactly the same here.”

“My fellow Members of Congress and I wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a specific case, where workers were trying to replace a phony, company-dominated union with an independent union,” Baca told The Washington Examiner.  “The Employee Free Choice Act is responsible legislation that is consistent with this principle.”

The 2001 letter makes a strong case for the secret ballot in union representation elections everywhere, said Alexa Marrero, a spokesman for Republican labor committee members.

“I could not have defended secret ballots better myself,” she said. “I think they spell out exactly why voters could be pressured into voting for a union that they don’t support in their own words and I think this is incredibly relevant to the discussion today.”

The public is becoming more aware of the “card check bill’s” true intentions and they understand that it would put secret ballots in jeopardy contrary to what the co-sponsors have argued, Marrero said.

Union officials predicted after the 2008 congressional elections that EFCA would be approved by Congress within its first 100 days of 2009, thanks to expanded Democratic majorities, Marrero said.

“The dynamics have changed and the Democrats seem to be slowly backing away from the bill,” she said. “The more the public knows about this legislation, the less they like it. “Our strategy right from the beginning has been to push as much information out there as we can to let people know what exactly is at stake and what this legislation would do.”


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/special-editorial-reports/Examiner-Editorial-Special-ReportCard-Check-co-sponsors-favor-secret-ballot-for-Mexico-but-not-for-US-workers-39875112.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Typical liberal double standard and hypocrisy. The Big Labor movement is too strong within the party. This letter shows that they know better than to actually put card check into law. We'll see if they really will do things that are better for the American people as a whole or do what is best for them by catering to their very liberal base.