Monday, December 23, 2024
Home Blog Page 3

San Francisco’s war on cars: Parking policies leave residents frustrated

Photo credit to SFTA.

by Marvin Ramírez

The City of San Francisco has escalated its crackdown on drivers, implementing controversial measures that critics say prioritize revenue and ideology over residents’ daily needs. From transforming residential parking into metered zones to closing parts of Highway 1, these policies are leaving citizens scrambling for solutions in their already hectic lives.

At a heated community meeting on Monday, November 11, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) unveiled a proposal to replace free parking with paid meters across Marina and Cow Hollow neighborhoods. The meeting drew a crowd of frustrated residents and business owners who accused the city of using parking as a cash grab or, worse, treating citizens as a financial piggy bank.

“I’m livid. I’m upset beyond belief,” said Marina resident Mike Najjar, 60, who has lived in the area for 35 years. “They’re doing it to cover up their budget shortfalls.”

Under the plan, the affected area spans major streets like Lombard and Van Ness Avenue, potentially disrupting daily life for thousands. Linda Reda, a senior resident, fears the changes will make it harder for locals to park near their homes while enabling bar patrons and visitors to monopolize spaces.

Business owners like Linda Kha, who operates Carats & Stones on Union Street, worry about the economic toll. “It’s very unwelcoming,” Kha said, expressing concerns about losing customers and imposing additional costs on staff unable to afford all-day parking.

For many, these measures seem like a blunt abuse of power and a lack of consideration for hard-working citizens who rely on their vehicles to navigate an already challenging urban landscape.

City officials, however, argue the changes are about improving parking availability rather than boosting the agency’s coffers, despite the $6 million in projected annual revenue. Raynell Cooper, residential parking policy manager, explained that paid parking “encourages turnover,” allowing more people to find spaces.

Some, like transportation planning student Nate Koudler-Balmy, see the move as part of a broader shift toward public transit and reduced car dependency. “I think this is a step in the right direction,” he said, despite pushback from those who believe public transit improvements should precede parking restrictions.

Daylighting law cuts thousands of spaces

Meanwhile, another policy is causing a stir citywide. The new California “Daylighting” law bans parking within 20 feet of crosswalks to improve pedestrian visibility, eliminating 14,000 parking spaces in San Francisco alone, in addition to the hundreds or thousands of parking spaces that have been eliminated over the last decade and so, converting most meters near intersections into red zones.

This is disproportionately affecting low-income business and residential zones, such as the Mission District (District 9), which has long struggled with a mix of challenges, including the proliferation of street vendors with and without permits and the lack of public parking garages. One glaring example is the public parking garage at 24th Street and Capp Street. The city repurposed the space for street vendors, but the vendors largely rejected it as a viable venue for their sales. As a result, the garage has remained almost empty, with the city failing to restore it for public parking.

John Goins, a resident of the city’s dense neighborhoods, supports pedestrian safety but criticizes the one-size-fits-all approach. “I think they should have differentiated large SUVs that obstruct vision from smaller cars,” he said.

Other drivers, like Neema Esfandiari, support the change despite the inconvenience. “People’s lives are more important than a little extra time looking for parking,” she said.

Fines for violations will start in January, compounding frustrations for residents already circling endlessly to find parking.

Highway 1 restrictions compound woes

Adding to the chaos, the recent passage of a controversial proposition authorizes closures on parts of Highway 1 to prioritize bike lanes and pedestrian paths. Critics see this as another assault on drivers, further snarling traffic and eroding accessibility for those who rely on cars for work and errands.

The city’s efforts to discourage car use are meeting resistance from residents who feel sidelined. For many, driving remains essential for commuting, shopping, and maintaining a manageable daily routine. Linda Kha summed up the sentiment: “These policies feel like an attack on hardworking people trying to live their lives.”

As San Francisco continues its war on cars, the fallout is deeply felt by residents and businesses alike. For many, these actions raise the question: Are these policies truly about public good, or is the city simply viewing its citizens as a piggy bank? If the latter, it’s a blunt abuse and a stark disregard for the hard-working citizenry that keeps the city alive.

With reports by ABC7 News and San Francisco Standard.

spot_img

Giant Motors CEO in Mexico ‘unfazed’ by Trump tariff threats

by the El Reportero‘s wire services

The CEO of the only company that makes Chinese vehicles in Mexico is unfazed by the possibility that new tariffs could be imposed on Mexican exports and imports of foreign goods to Mexico.

Elías Massri, chairman of the board and CEO of Giant Motors Latinoamérica, spoke to the Bloomberg news agency about Donald Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on Mexican exports as well as the possibility that Mexico could impose new or additional duties on imports from countries such as China.

Giant Motors Latinoamérica, a joint venture between the Massri family and billionaire businessman Carlos Slim’s financial company Inbursa, assembles JAC vehicles at a plant in Ciudad Sahagún, Hidalgo. The company, which was founded in 2006 with 100 percent Mexican capital and describes itself as “proudly Mexican,” does not export cars to the United States and has no current plans to do so, meaning that it wouldn’t be affected by any tariffs imposed by the second Trump administration.

Still, Massri told Bloomberg that “if they change the rules, we are ready to play by them.”

He noted that Giant Motors has already survived tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration in 2018 as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There have already been many battles, and we have not stopped investing what is required and earning profits,” Massri said.

According to Bloomberg, the CEO said that “Giant Motors’ ambitions are narrowly focused on the Mexican market, and the company will not be poking the bear by attempting to export vehicles to the U.S.”

Massri also said that if new tariffs were imposed on imports to Mexico — products from China, for example — his company could source auto parts and components from countries that are on favorable trade terms with Mexico. “There are free trade agreements in Mexico with many parts of the world,” he said.

Earlier this year, Mexico implemented new tariffs on hundreds of products — including transport and electrical material — from countries with which it doesn’t have trade agreements. That move appeared mainly directed at China. Still, around 10 percent of all cars sold in Mexico in the first 10 months of this year were made by Chinese automakers.

As Mexico comes under increasing pressure from the United States and Canada over its trade relationship with China and Chinese investment in a range of sectors of the Mexican economy, the Mexican government could increase tariffs on Chinese imports.

It is currently pursuing an import substitution plan to reduce reliance on Chinese imports, and last week demonstrated that it is prepared to take strong action against counterfeit Chinese goods when it carried out a raid on a Chinese-operated wholesale shopping complex in Mexico City.

Giant Motors wants to grow, but will more Chinese cars be made in Mexico? 

Bloomberg reported that Giant Motors began manufacturing JAC vehicles in Mexico in 2019, when production totaled about 8,000 units. It started selling JAC cars in 2017, before vehicles made by other Chinese automakers such as BYD and SAIC were available in Mexico.

JAC, officially called Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Corp., is based in the Chinese province of Anhui.

Giant Motors, Bloomberg reported, “buys completely knocked-down kits from JAC in China and adjusts the design of the cars and trucks at its plant to meet the needs of the local market.”

Massri explained that his company makes vehicles with higher suspension and powerful engines to ensure they are suitable for hilly terrain and potholed roads in Mexico.

Production this year is expected to be 30,000 vehicles, with output anticipated to increase to 40,000 units in 2025. Giant Motors’ plant in Ciudad Sahagún, located about 90 kilometers northeast of central Mexico City, has the capacity to assemble 60,000 vehicles annually.

“We are not satisfied with our size. We want to be bigger,” Massri told Bloomberg.

While JAC vehicles are made in Mexico by a Mexican company, some Chinese automakers have announced plans to build their own plants in Mexico. They include BYD, MG Motor and Chery, whose announcements caused — and continue to cause — concern in the United States and Canada.

Although a number of Chinese automakers have announced plans to establish a manufacturing presence in Mexico, none of them has a “firm investment project” here, President Claudia Sheinbaum said last Thursday.

The Chinese automaker that has received the most attention about its plans in Mexico is BYD, the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer. BYD has said that it is aiming to settle on a location for its proposed plant by the end of the year.

The Shenzhen-based company says that it will make vehicles in Mexico purely for the Mexican market, but there is speculation that its ultimate aim is to export vehicles from Mexico to the United States, which currently allows products made in Mexico to enter the country tariff-free in accordance with the provisions of the USMCA trade pact.

The possible imposition of U.S. tariffs on all Mexican exports, all vehicles made in Mexico or specifically vehicles made in Mexico by Chinese companies may be causing BYD and other Chinese automakers to rethink their plans, and could be a key reason why they have made scant progress on their proposed projects since they first announced them.

With reports from Bloomberg 

spot_img

Giant Motors CEO in Mexico ‘unfazed’ by Trump tariff threats

by the El Reportero‘s wire services

The CEO of the only company that makes Chinese vehicles in Mexico is unfazed by the possibility that new tariffs could be imposed on Mexican exports and imports of foreign goods to Mexico.

Elías Massri, chairman of the board and CEO of Giant Motors Latinoamérica, spoke to the Bloomberg news agency about Donald Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on Mexican exports as well as the possibility that Mexico could impose new or additional duties on imports from countries such as China.

Giant Motors Latinoamérica, a joint venture between the Massri family and billionaire businessman Carlos Slim’s financial company Inbursa, assembles JAC vehicles at a plant in Ciudad Sahagún, Hidalgo. The company, which was founded in 2006 with 100 percent Mexican capital and describes itself as “proudly Mexican,” does not export cars to the United States and has no current plans to do so, meaning that it wouldn’t be affected by any tariffs imposed by the second Trump administration.

Still, Massri told Bloomberg that “if they change the rules, we are ready to play by them.”

He noted that Giant Motors has already survived tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration in 2018 as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There have already been many battles, and we have not stopped investing what is required and earning profits,” Massri said.

According to Bloomberg, the CEO said that “Giant Motors’ ambitions are narrowly focused on the Mexican market, and the company will not be poking the bear by attempting to export vehicles to the U.S.”

Massri also said that if new tariffs were imposed on imports to Mexico — products from China, for example — his company could source auto parts and components from countries that are on favorable trade terms with Mexico. “There are free trade agreements in Mexico with many parts of the world,” he said.

Earlier this year, Mexico implemented new tariffs on hundreds of products — including transport and electrical material — from countries with which it doesn’t have trade agreements. That move appeared mainly directed at China. Still, around 10 percent of all cars sold in Mexico in the first 10 months of this year were made by Chinese automakers.

As Mexico comes under increasing pressure from the United States and Canada over its trade relationship with China and Chinese investment in a range of sectors of the Mexican economy, the Mexican government could increase tariffs on Chinese imports.

It is currently pursuing an import substitution plan to reduce reliance on Chinese imports, and last week demonstrated that it is prepared to take strong action against counterfeit Chinese goods when it carried out a raid on a Chinese-operated wholesale shopping complex in Mexico City.

Giant Motors wants to grow, but will more Chinese cars be made in Mexico? 

Bloomberg reported that Giant Motors began manufacturing JAC vehicles in Mexico in 2019, when production totaled about 8,000 units. It started selling JAC cars in 2017, before vehicles made by other Chinese automakers such as BYD and SAIC were available in Mexico.

JAC, officially called Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Corp., is based in the Chinese province of Anhui.

Giant Motors, Bloomberg reported, “buys completely knocked-down kits from JAC in China and adjusts the design of the cars and trucks at its plant to meet the needs of the local market.”

Massri explained that his company makes vehicles with higher suspension and powerful engines to ensure they are suitable for hilly terrain and potholed roads in Mexico.

Production this year is expected to be 30,000 vehicles, with output anticipated to increase to 40,000 units in 2025. Giant Motors’ plant in Ciudad Sahagún, located about 90 kilometers northeast of central Mexico City, has the capacity to assemble 60,000 vehicles annually.

“We are not satisfied with our size. We want to be bigger,” Massri told Bloomberg.

While JAC vehicles are made in Mexico by a Mexican company, some Chinese automakers have announced plans to build their own plants in Mexico. They include BYD, MG Motor and Chery, whose announcements caused — and continue to cause — concern in the United States and Canada.

Although a number of Chinese automakers have announced plans to establish a manufacturing presence in Mexico, none of them has a “firm investment project” here, President Claudia Sheinbaum said last Thursday.

The Chinese automaker that has received the most attention about its plans in Mexico is BYD, the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer. BYD has said that it is aiming to settle on a location for its proposed plant by the end of the year.

The Shenzhen-based company says that it will make vehicles in Mexico purely for the Mexican market, but there is speculation that its ultimate aim is to export vehicles from Mexico to the United States, which currently allows products made in Mexico to enter the country tariff-free in accordance with the provisions of the USMCA trade pact.

The possible imposition of U.S. tariffs on all Mexican exports, all vehicles made in Mexico or specifically vehicles made in Mexico by Chinese companies may be causing BYD and other Chinese automakers to rethink their plans, and could be a key reason why they have made scant progress on their proposed projects since they first announced them.

With reports from Bloomberg 

spot_img

Trump calls for a cap on credit card interest rates: Breaking the chains of credit slavery

Marvin Ramírez, editor

In a world dominated by credit, it’s easy to forget that true wealth was once measured in tangible assets like gold and silver. Over time, the Federal Reserve and central banks replaced “real money” with fiat currencies—money not backed by physical assets, but by government trust. Today, the U.S. dollar and other currencies are essentially credit. Each dollar spent adds to the national debt, perpetuating a cycle of credit dependency that affects economies worldwide.

For individuals, the chains of credit are glaring. From credit cards to student loans and mortgages, many are trapped in a cycle of borrowing just to keep up with living expenses. In developing countries, entire economies rely on credit. In these cases, credit isn’t just a tool—it’s a lifeline.

The “buy now, pay later” mentality is deeply embedded in society, but it often leads to overwhelming debt. U.S. credit card companies frequently charge interest rates upwards of 21.5 percent or even 29 percent, leaving consumers struggling to pay both principal and interest. Proposals like capping interest rates at 10 percent, as suggested by former President Donald Trump, could offer some relief, but they don’t address the deeper issue—our dependence on credit.

Trump’s proposal targets credit card rates specifically, but it doesn’t fix the broader problem of credit addiction. Lowering interest rates would relieve some financial pressure, but it won’t change the structural forces that drive borrowing.

Some argue that capping rates could have unintended consequences, like banks limiting credit for high-risk borrowers or raising other fees. This might push consumers toward worse options, like payday loans. Credit, after all, is both a tool for growth and an instrument of exploitation. For many, borrowing is not a choice, but a necessity.

Is Trump’s suggestion revolutionary? In part, yes. It challenges the ability of credit card companies to profit from high rates. But lowering rates only addresses symptoms, not the root cause of credit dependency. Credit isn’t just about interest rates—it’s about how we use and rely on it.

Trump’s approach is making headlines, coming from a man often criticized as a capitalist protecting corporations over everyday people. However, it was recently reported that he offered permanent residence to undocumented immigrants who graduate with at least a two-year college education, adding complexity to the image of a man typically associated with big business over social causes. Trump’s proposal to cap credit card interest rates even earned an unexpected ally: socialist Bernie Sanders, who expressed a willingness to work with Trump on this issue.

This system isn’t inevitable. It’s time to rethink banking and credit. If private banks won’t reform, governments must step in with limited intervention to protect consumers. This is not advocating for socialism, but for state involvement to ensure that credit serves as a tool for empowerment, not exploitation. The government already manages systems like student loans—why not extend this model to other areas of personal finance? A government-backed credit system could offer low-interest loans, bypassing banks and easing financial strain.

However, if government intervention is a “curse word” due to fears of socialism, then banks should take the lead by reducing credit card interest rates to a maximum of 10 percent. They would still make billions in profits, without trapping consumers in a cycle of debt.

Such reforms would allow responsible borrowing without the burden of high interest and endless debt. Government involvement need not undermine capitalism; it should fill the gap where the private sector has failed. The goal is to offer a fair alternative, not replace free enterprise but protect individuals from financial exploitation.

This model could also benefit developing nations, where affordable credit is scarce. Low-interest loans could empower entrepreneurs and boost local economies, fostering growth and reducing dependency on predatory lending. It would promote a more equitable global economy while maintaining the principles of free markets.

The current system, where banks hold the power, is unsustainable. Credit has shifted from a tool for growth to a method of exploitation. If banks won’t change, the government must step in with limited intervention, ensuring that credit works for people, not against them. It’s time to break the chains of credit slavery and create a system that empowers consumers. The moment for change is now.

spot_img

Russia’s foreign minister tells Tucker the West must avoid making this ‘serious mistake’

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, published Thursday night, was an 80-minute conversation that provides remarkable insights on war and politics beyond the narratives we are told by the news

by Frank Wright

Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: We should all be grateful to Tucker Carlson for seeking and succeeding in obtaining this major interview to help bring about understanding and peace between Russia and the West.

Tucker is obviously not as skilled and knowledgeable an interviewer as some of the prominent TV network interviewers from the past such as Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and David Brinkley. Regardless, he has done what desperately needed to be done. Now the world has an opportunity to hear the other side, which has always been essential for the best resolutions to conflicts. We encourage you to watch this fascinating interview and to tell others about it.

 

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was posted Thursday night.

If you are interested in whether there will be a world war, why, and indeed whether it has already started, the 80-minute conversation will provide remarkable insights beyond the narratives we are told by the news.

Carlson begins with the question of the moment: Is the U.S. at war with Russia?

Lavrov says no, but that the danger is obvious. NATO and the West, he says, “don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announce the red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again and again. This is a very serious mistake.”

Statements such as this can be dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” Yet Lavrov is simply stating the case. The Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center – the home of “world-leading” U.S./NATO strategic thinking – has admitted that “nudging Russian red lines” has been the gambit of the West for many years.

Lavrov explains the situation conversationally, but with a frankness uncommon from Western diplomats.

He explains that Russia seeks to avoid war, though it remains prepared to fight one.

We are ready for any eventuality, but we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations” – to the Ukraine conflict.

It was “Russian propaganda” until recently to speak of this as a U.S./NATO “proxy war” waged by the West against Russia, until Boris Johnson admitted it was a proxy war in an interview last week.

With so many former “conspiracy theories” having come true in the West, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, the tainted and dangerous COVID mRNA injections, and the narrative of the Ukraine war itself, Lavrov’s genial and revealing chat with Carlson reveals a rich seam of information.

He covers the death of Alexei Navalny, the effective suspension of U.S. diplomacy with Russia, the now obvious role of Boris Johnson in destroying peace and prolonging war in Ukraine, along with Russian relations with China and its role in the current Syrian war.

His remarks provide food for thought for an audience ravenous for information. It is understandable that Lavrov’s view of these events would prove controversial, as the denial of the obvious is a basic principle of the liberal-global system which is currently fighting Russia in two theaters of war.

It is a credit to Carlson that he asks Lavrov, at around the one-hour mark, what his opinion is on the question of who is in charge in the United States.

“Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the U.S.?” Carlson asks.

“I wouldn’t guess,” says Lavrov. “I haven’t seen Tony Blinken in four years”.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the chief diplomat of the United States and is effectively Lavrov’s counterpart. That he has not spoken to Lavrov since 2020 is an extraordinary fact in itself, given the nuclear brinkmanship his administration has lately pursued, following a long campaign towards a failed proxy war against Russia.

Lavrov says in these four years all he has had from Blinken is a “few words” outside a G20 meeting, where Blinken astonishingly told the Russians, “Don’t escalate.”

Lavrov described the brief exchange: “I said, we don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia?”

Apparently, Blinken rejoined, “No, no, no, no, it is not, it is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”

Yet it is not only Blinken playing peek-a-boo. Lavrov’s description of the last meeting of the 20 most powerful nations is startling.

“Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish and unbelievable,” he said.

Following this shocking depiction of the state of Western diplomacy, Lavrov moves to the serious business of regime change, saying it has long been U.S. strategy to “make trouble and see if they can fish in the muddy water” afterwards – in Iraq, for example. As for “the adventure in Libya,” he says, “after ruining the state [there] … they went on to leave Afghanistan in very bad shape.”

His summary recalls that of JD Vance, who denounced the last four decades of forever war as “a disaster” in his speech in May, when he asked, “What are the fruits of the last 40 years of American foreign policy? Of course, it’s the disaster in Iraq, it’s the disaster in Afghanistan, it’s Syria, it’s Lebanon, it’s on issue after issue after issue.”

Lavrov was far more polite about the matter, and said simply, “If you analyze the American foreign policy steps – ‘adventures’ … is the right word.”

There is simply no way to do justice to the example set by Russia’s leading diplomat. Of course, he skillfully represents Russian interests, but it is not to collude with him or his nation to note a master at work. 

His extraordinary composure and command of the situation contrasts starkly with the near total absence of any diplomacy at all by the U.S. with this most significant strategic rival – or future partner. It is a credit to Carlson that he brings this view to the West, which explains so much of the crises in Ukraine and Syria from a viewpoint that has been canceled in the formerly free world.

If you have 80 minutes to spare you will learn more about the state of the world watching Lavrov than in a year’s consumption of mainstream media. One obvious shock is how impoverished our political system is, that it produces no one of the caliber of our supposed enemies, no one who discusses with cordial directness the naked truth of a near-nuclear crisis.

His sobering analysis can be condensed into one statement, from which it is hoped the red line nudgers will not seek to test. Lavrov warns the game players of the U.S. and NATO:

“They must understand that we are ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call a strategic defeat of Russia.”

This strategic defeat, now impossible in Ukraine, is being pursued right now by Western proxies in Syria. With one war about to end, another has been started. Russian patience is exhausted, and they have committed fully to preventing the takeover of Syria by U.S. and Ukrainian backed “foreign terrorists.”

It is to be hoped that someone will be in charge in a few weeks’ time who will listen, rather than hiding and seeking escalation. (LifeSiteNews)

spot_img

Mexico seeks agreement with Trump to limit non-Mexican deportees

by the El Reportero‘s staff

As Donald Trump prepares for his return to the presidency, Mexico is working to establish a deal aimed at curbing the number of third-country deportees it may receive from the United States. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum confirmed this during a press conference on Thursday, expressing hopes to build on agreements already in place with the Biden administration.

“We are in solidarity with everyone, but our primary responsibility is to our own citizens,” Sheinbaum stated, emphasizing Mexico’s readiness to negotiate with Trump’s administration. “We hope to secure an agreement that allows deportees to be returned directly to their countries of origin.”

To address potential mass deportations, Sheinbaum said her administration is coordinating with governors of border states, including Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. The discussions aim to prepare for the possibility of large numbers of repatriated Mexicans.

“We are preparing for every scenario,” she noted, “and although we hope such deportations won’t occur, we must be ready to welcome our compatriots.”

Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for Trump’s transition team, highlighted the incoming administration’s tough stance on immigration. “President-elect Trump has a mandate to secure the border, deport dangerous individuals, and ensure public safety,” Leavitt said in a statement to CNN. “He will fulfill that commitment.”

Sheinbaum and Trump recently held a conversation about shared border issues and the fentanyl crisis, which both leaders described positively. On X, Sheinbaum characterized the call as “excellent,” while Trump claimed on Truth Social that Mexico had agreed to halt migration through its territory. Sheinbaum quickly dismissed this claim.

“We have never proposed closing the border,” Sheinbaum said. “That is not our approach, nor do we agree with it. Everyone communicates differently, but let me assure you that this has never been part of our discussions.”

This marks the first major interaction between Sheinbaum and Trump since the latter announced plans to impose tariffs on Mexican goods in retaliation for illegal immigration. While Sheinbaum has expressed readiness to counter any economic measures with reciprocal tariffs, her administration remains focused on collaborative solutions.

Mexico has also intensified efforts to address border security and drug trafficking. This week, Mexican authorities announced the largest fentanyl seizure in the nation’s history, recovering over a ton of the synthetic opioid in Sinaloa. Additionally, data revealed that Mexican authorities have detained an average of 5,200 migrants daily since Sheinbaum took office on October 1.

The migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border continues to evolve, with migrants from Central and South America, as well as countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and increasingly China, attempting to cross into the U.S. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported over half a million encounters with migrants from Central America in 2022 alone.

Elsewhere in Latin America, Panama has preemptively rejected the notion of accepting deportees of non-Panamanian origin. The Panamanian Foreign Ministry issued a statement emphasizing the country’s adherence to international law and its commitment to safeguarding national interests.

“We are not obligated to accept non-Panamanian deportees,” the ministry asserted. “Our foreign policy prioritizes mutual respect and the well-being of Panama.”

The migration and border crisis remain one of the most pressing issues for the region. Both Mexico and its neighbors are navigating the complex challenges of international law, humanitarian obligations, and domestic interests, all while preparing for significant shifts in U.S. immigration policies under the incoming Trump administration.

– From reports by Abel Alvarado, CNN, and additional sources including the Panamanian Foreign Ministry.

spot_img

LTF organizes winter career fair

by Magdy Zara

The Latino Task Force of San Francisco (LTF) has planned a Job Fair for this winter with the aim of facilitating decent employment opportunities for Latino immigrants.

The LTF was born during the pandemic when the citizens of the Mission District seemed to have been abandoned, it was then that a group of Latino activists with extensive experience met and began to look for a way to help those most in need.

The Economic and Employment Commission is in charge of organizing this career fair, to be held at the City College of San Francisco, on Dec. 3 of this year, City College of San Francisco, Missionary Center

1125 Valencia St., San Francisco, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

This will be a public event, all job seekers are invited.

MACLA presents art exhibition Mírame

The Latin American Art and Culture Movement presents the exhibition Mírame, starring exclusively women, five artists who examine how cultural beliefs have shaped and limited the role of women.

The featured artists are: Abby Aceves, Tiffany Alfonseca, Ruby Bloo, Mónica Hernández and Elba Raquel.

The exhibition begins on December 6, 2024 and concludes on March 9, 2025, from 12 noon to 5 p.m. The Macla Gallery is located at 510 South 1st Street, San José.

Fiber Arts and Gift Making

Shelby Hendricks will be teaching a painting and weaving workshop organized by the San José Museum of Art.

Hendricks, who is an educator, says that participants will learn embroidery techniques and experiment with unconventional materials to embellish and personalize a mixed media painted canvas. Finished canvases can be gifted to participants’ family and friends for the holidays.

Seating is limited to 25 participants ages 13 and older. The event will take place at the museum’s headquarters at 110 South Market Street in San Jose, this Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024, between 1 and 4 p.m.

Ensambles Ballet Folklórico hosts its Christmas Celebration

The Ensambles Ballet Folklórico of San Francisco is pleased to announce the staging of its new winter production, Christmas Celebration.

This will be “Pastorela Festiva” full of dance, music and Mexican tradition, featuring live music by Mariachi Mexico de Gilroy.

Tickets are on sale at https://ensamblesbfdsf.brownpapertickets.com/

This year’s Christmas Celebration will be on Saturday, Dec. 14 from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., and Sunday, December 15 from 2 to 4 p.m., at the Cañada School-Teatro Principal, in Redwood City

spot_img

“Pinta Miami 2024: A vibrant meeting of global contemporary art”

by the El Reportero’staff

Miami is preparing for a new edition of Pinta Miami, one of the most important events in Latin American and global contemporary art, which will be held from December 1 to 3, 2024. This event has established itself as a key platform for galleries, artists and collectors seeking to explore the latest trends and artistic expressions. During these three days, the event will bring together more than 60 galleries from around the world, from Latin America to Europe and the United States, offering a unique exhibition that highlights the best of modern and contemporary art.

Pinta Miami is not only an art fair, but a space for cultural exchange where ideas, art and visual narratives intertwine. Attendees will be able to enjoy a wide variety of works by emerging and established artists, who explore issues of social, political and cultural relevance. The fair takes place in the vibrant context of Miami, a city that has been gaining recognition as a global art hub, thanks to its diversity and the influence of Latin American communities.

Among the main features of Pinta Miami 2024 are the incorporation of new technologies in art, the integration of immersive experiences, and the exploration of identity and public space through interactive installations. Participating galleries will not only exhibit paintings and sculptures, but also digital and multimedia artworks that invite attendees to question and reflect on the future of art in an increasingly digitalized world.

The event will feature a series of talks, panels, and educational activities that will allow visitors to interact with artists, curators, and experts from the art world. Pinta Miami also offers the opportunity to discover new voices in Latin American art, which are often left out of the traditional circuits of large international art fairs.

Local and international audiences will be able to enjoy a program of guided tours, as well as special events such as the opening of new exhibitions, artist presentations, and the opportunity to participate in auctions and private sales. Pinta Miami is positioning itself as a space for reflection and dialogue, where art is not only exhibited, but also becomes a tool for social change.

In addition to its artistic offering, the event will have a significant impact on the local economy, with a notable increase in the arrival of tourists, collectors, and art lovers, who will also explore the city’s vibrant cultural and gastronomic offering.

Pinta Miami 2024 is an essential event for all those interested in contemporary art, and promises to be an event of great relevance for the cultural panorama of Latin America and the world.

spot_img

Rolling Stone: Trump team has discussed ‘soft invasion’ of Mexico

by the El Reportero‘s wire services

Four months ago, Donald Trump said he was “absolutely” prepared to launch United States military strikes against Mexican cartels if large quantities of drugs continued to flow into the U.S. from Mexico.

During the second Trump administration, could the United States military even carry out some kind of incursion into Mexican territory to combat powerful transnational criminal organizations such as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG)?

That possibility, according to reporting by Rolling Stone magazine, is being debated by members of Trump’s transition team. President Claudia Sheinbaum effectively dismissed the veracity of the magazine’s reporting at her Thursday morning press conference.

Rolling Stone reported on Wednesday that there is “a fresh debate” within Trump’s “government-in-waiting” over “whether and how thoroughly the president-elect should follow through on his campaign promise to attack or even invade Mexico as part of the ‘war’ he’s pledged to wage against powerful drug cartels.”

The magazine quoted an unnamed “senior Trump transition member” as saying: “How much should we invade Mexico? That is the question.”

For its report, Rolling Stone said it spoke with six unnamed Republicans who have each spoken to Trump about the possibility of using U.S. military force against Mexican cartels.

It said that some of its sources have briefed the former and future U.S. president on a range of ways that the U.S. military could be used against the criminal organizations that ship fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs across Mexico’s northern border. They include:

Rolling Stone cited a “Trump adviser” as saying it is “unclear how far” Trump will go in his quest to combat Mexican cartels and stem the flow of narcotics across the United States’ southern border.

“If things don’t change, the president still believes it’s necessary to take some kind of military action against these killers,” the source said.

Rolling Stone said that “another source close to Trump” described “what they call a ‘soft invasion’ of Mexico, in which American special forces — not a large theater deployment — would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.”

“Indeed, this is a preliminary plan that Trump himself warmed to in private conversations this year,” the magazine said.

Rolling Stone said that Trump has “told confidants and some GOP lawmakers that he plans to tell the Mexican government they need to stem the flow of fentanyl to America — somehow, in a span of several months — or else he’ll send in the U.S. military.”

Earlier this week, the president-elect said he would impose a 25 percent tariff on all Mexican and Canadian exports to the United States on the first day of his second term as U.S. president due to what he described as the “long-simmering problem” of drugs and “illegal aliens” entering the U.S.

With his cabinet picks, Trump has emphasized his commitment to taking action against what he calls an “invasion” of the United States.

Rolling Stone reported that several of his cabinet picks, including his choices for secretary of defense and secretary of state, “have publicly supported the idea of potentially unleashing the U.S. military in Mexico.”

“So has the man Trump has tapped to be his national security adviser. So has the man Trump selected as his ‘border czar’ to lead his immigration crackdowns. So have various Trump allies in Congress and in the media,” the magazine added.

After three women and six children were murdered in an ambush in northern Mexico during his first term as president, Trump said that “if Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these [cartel] monsters, the United States stands ready, willing & able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively.”

“… This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the Earth. We merely await a call from your great new president!” Trump said in a social media post in late 2019.

Former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador declined Trump’s offer.

“We don’t need the intervention of a foreign government to attend to these cases. … We are a free and sovereign country; another government cannot intervene in our territory if there isn’t a cooperation agreement and, of course, without an express request on our part,” Lopez Obrador said at the time.

‘What is their basis?’

At her morning press conference on Thursday, Sheinbaum agreed with a reporter who likened Rolling Stone’s report to a far-fetched movie.

Sheinbaum said that she bases her view on the United States’ intentions during the second Trump administration on the two conversations she has had with the president-elect, including one on Wednesday.

She said that Trump asked her on Wednesday how the United States can collaborate with Mexico on security issues.

“I told him that within the framework of our sovereignty there are schemes for collaboration,” Sheinbaum said.

“… We’re always going to defend our sovereignty. Mexico is a free, independent, sovereign country. And that’s above everything,” she said.

With reports from Rolling Stone.

spot_img

Is the Biden administration intentionally escalating the war against Ukraine?  

Ukraine President

A Problem for the Trump Administration

As the Biden administration approaches its end, the question of its policy decisions and their potential repercussions for the future grows more urgent. In particular, there is increasing concern about Biden’s approach to the conflict in Ukraine, and whether, just days before leaving office, he is deliberately accelerating a war that could spiral into an even greater crisis, with devastating effects for both the United States and the rest of the world. Is this a deliberate strategy, or simply a reflection of the pressure from the military-industrial complex, which is becoming ever more evident in the White House’s policies?

Under the Biden administration, the United States has been a strong ally of Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion, providing billions of dollars in military and economic aid. This intervention has been backed by the majority of the Democratic Party, which argues that Ukraine must defend itself from Russian aggression to preserve global stability and democratic order. However, while some view this stance as a legitimate defense of democratic principles, others consider it a risky strategy that could have much more serious consequences for global security.

In this context, the Biden administration may be, unknowingly, opening the door to a much broader conflict, involving not only Europe and Russia but potentially other powers like China. This approach could be designed not only to impose tougher sanctions on Russia and weaken its military power, but to strengthen the United States’ position in global geopolitics in the long term. However, it is also possible that Biden is yielding to the pressures of the military-industrial complex, which has historically sought to expand U.S. military interventions abroad, not so much for national security reasons, but for economic and strategic motives.

For the incoming Trump administration, which will take office in January 2025, this situation could represent a monumental challenge. Trump has been a vocal critic of the prolonged U.S. wars abroad, arguing that they do not benefit the American people or global stability. He has pointed out on several occasions that military intervention in Ukraine is not only draining vital U.S. resources, but also increasing international tensions, raising the risk of an even more dangerous global confrontation.

Trump has expressed his intention to dismantle what many call the “deep state” in the United States, a network of powerful political, financial, and military interests that operate beyond public oversight. This faction, which includes actors within the military-industrial complex, has been accused of influencing U.S. policies to maintain a bellicose stance abroad. Trump’s criticism of the “deep state” is not new, but his determination to reorient U.S. foreign policy to prioritize national interests over global interventions could put him at odds with these forces.

If Biden is indeed accelerating the conflict in Ukraine in the final months of his presidency, he could be leaving a legacy of international instability for Trump, who will have to navigate the consequences of a potentially prolonged war in Eastern Europe. In this sense, the incoming president could find himself caught between the pressure of an international community demanding continued support for Ukraine and the internal needs of the United States, which does not support an endless war.

Moreover, there is growing speculation about the potential repercussions for Trump, who could face strong resistance from pro-war sectors that are unwilling to abandon their strategic interests in Ukraine and other regions of the world. These sectors, which include powerful figures within the military and defense industry, could see Trump’s stance as a threat to their influence and power. Some theories suggest that these interests might even go as far as attempting to destabilize the Trump administration, with rumors pointing to a possible assassination attempt on the elected president in an effort to prevent him from following through with his plans to reduce the power of the military-industrial complex.

It is a highly speculative scenario, but it is not far-fetched to consider that the interests created by decades of U.S. military intervention abroad will not allow a president who challenges that status quo to govern without opposition. In this context, the Biden administration, rather than simply managing U.S. foreign policy, could be playing a much more complex role in creating a scenario that limits the options of the incoming Trump administration once in power.

This scenario raises the urgent question of whether the Biden administration is, in some way, intentionally accelerating the war against Ukraine, and whether, in the process, it is creating a problematic legacy for the next U.S. president. The answer to that question will have implications far beyond the borders of Ukraine, affecting domestic U.S. politics and its position on the world stage. Meanwhile, the 2024 elections and the days that follow will be crucial in determining the course of U.S. policy, with the fate of the Trump administration and global security at stake.

spot_img
1234...613Page 3 of 613

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.