Andrés Manuel López Obrador's Speech at the PRD Demonstration Today (Translation)

I very much disagree texastoo. See my previous post to Kimberly GG.

Since I have lived on this border for more than 20 years, I have seen first hand what has happened. As I said, the PAN party has done more harm than any other political party in Mexico. Twenty years ago even in South Texas we didn't have push 1 for English. Most every one spoke English. The government pays almost 80% of all the health care in the valley. Eight out of ten people use food stamps. The unemployment rate is always high here.

There was more hype on FR than in the valley. Do you have any links to back up your assertions or is most of this just your opinion?

Here is a quote from a news story on the Mercury News website that gives a very short overview of the distinctions between Calderon's PAN and the PRD:

". . . López Obrador promised to bring prosperity to this developing country of 105 million -- at least 40 million of whom live in poverty -- with a combination of social welfare programs and projects to build the country's infrastructure. When he was mayor of Mexico City, he instituted a pension for all retirees over age 70 and improved the freeway system, overseeing the building of the segundo piso, or second deck of a major Mexico City freeway to relieve traffic in one of the world's largest, most congested cities.

But many voters feared his social programs would plunge Mexico further into debt and disrupt the economic stability the country has enjoyed under Fox.

Calderón, of the conservative, pro-Catholic National Action Party, or PAN, promised to continue the free-market, pro-globalization policies of Fox, while expanding opportunities for women and the poor.

Fox's historic election in 2000 broke the stranglehold of the infamously corrupt PRI, which ruled Mexico for 71 years.

Critics claim PAN's economic policies have resulted in only half the economic growth rate Mexico needs to compete on the world market, and that their pro-business ``trickle-down'' policies have hurt the poor. . . ."

I left the last paragraph in to show you the similarity between what PAN's critics face in Mexican politics and those the Republican Party faces in this country. Those two are practically identical, though there is reason to criticize Mexico's central bank, which Fox does not control, for monetary policies as being too restrictive in targeting "overall inflation" rather than "core inflation" (as we do in this country). You can read more about that at:

http://www.cepr.net/publications/mexico_background_2006_06.pdf

If you want to get to that information in a hurry, go to page 8.

Now I don't want to give the impression that the PAN has been a success in implementing economic policies that have put Mexico on the path to success. Far from it, the real story of what has happened in Mexico is that Vicente Fox's policies have been obstructed by a political system that has failed to change. I quote from an article on the Pacific Council on International Policy's web site:

". . . In fact, the main responsibility for Fox's failure lies with two dysfunctional features of Mexico's transition to democracy: its institutions and its political parties. Fox and his team, of which this writer was a member, decided from the outset to work for important economic and social reforms - civil rights for indigenous groups, new taxes, changes in the nationalized electricity industry - without first attempting to give Mexico a modern, democratic institutional framework. But in the absence of such changes . . . achieving the so-called structural reforms proved impossible."

I agree with that analysis, though it does not include a discussion of Fox's proposed changes to Mexico's financial institutions, which also were not implemented. I think those would have done a lot more to encourage capital formation in Mexico, which is their real problem, and I am hopeful that the dramatic loss of seats in the Mexican national congress which the PRI experienced this past week will convince them to move to support Calderon's policies. That previous quote makes clear that the PRI were the primary obstructionists.

And regarding the relationship between economic deprivation in Mexico and its impetus to immigration, I submit that inflation in Mexico in the 1980's and 1990's, which is now largely under control, did more than anything else to drive immigrants north. Inflation nearly destroyed the purchasing power of so many Mexicans at the edge of subsistence. That second link has more on that problem.

So to sum all of this up, I think there is good evidence to support the contention that PAN pursues and economic agenda that creates much more hope for Mexico than anyone else, that they have not been as successful as they could have been given the internal nature of Mexican politics, that the current situation and recent experience puts them in a better position to make progress on their agenda -- I still expect slow movement to be honest -- and the defeat of the most far-left Latin American political movement north of Venezuela all combine to produce a brighter future for Mexico.

"Here is a picture of demonstrators supporting Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador outside of the Federal Electoral Institute in Mexico City last Wednesday: Try to imagine for a moment what will happen in Mexico in the Leftist supporters of Obrador come to power."

Are you serious? Those 'demonstrators' look no different than the millions who, at the risk of our national security, took to the streets and threatend to shut down our country in an attempt to coerce our lawmakers into giving into their demands. I don't have to imagine for a moment what will happen in Mexico, frankly I don't care.....I've already seen what happens in the ghettos they've created across our country. I've seen them wave their flags and carry their threatening, hatefilled, racist posters and I want them gone.

http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm
http://medcarta.us/chicanopark/images.aspx

"We all know their economic policies will be a disaster for their country. What will happen after the disaster? Answer: 15 million more Mexicans will immigrate north to this country. "

Sorry, but it is not the responsibility of the United States to 'fix' the problems of Mexico at the expense of our own national security and sovereignty, even though Bush and his openborder/free trade croonies keep telling us otherwise.

And whatever mistakes we have made in the past, rewarding the illegals by allowing them to stay is simply an excuse and NOT the answer. The time has come to enforce our immigration laws, prosecute employers of illegals, deny all welfare benefits to illegals, including medicaid, prescriptions, food stamps, and housing vouchers. If they can't earn a living or live off our government, they will have no choice but to return home and since they are such hard working people, they can fix their own country or apply for legal entrance to ours.

All of the key communist words are here being used to incite the people, "coalition," "national march," "democracy." The Mexican party in power has been in power for almost the whole of the last century.

Mexico is a socialist country. That is the reason for the poverty and why people are trying to excape.

First of all, the sites you have linked and the organizations and ideas they express are of a like mind with La Raza, whose ideas and political expressions are very far out in left field, in my opinion, very close to those of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who they have spoken of with some admiration on occasion. They even rushed to publish the statement of the famous Peruvian leftist author Mario Vargas Llosa celebrating the rebirth of leftist populist ideas in Mexico -- he's referring to Lopez Obrador -- saying that now the world has someone beside Cuba alone to present "the cause of the people" in Latin America. I'm not going to translate it, but here is the link:

http://www.laraza.com/news.php?nid=34600

Now do you really want to strengthen left-leaning ideologues like La Raza and embolden them further by denigrating the PAN, whose leaders and actions represent the only attempt underway in Mexico to forestall this kind of leftist political demagoguery? Or are you telling me that "all Mexicans are alike" and that because we have an immigration problem here in this country that all of them are to blame for it? Are you telling me that the kinds of policies pursued within Mexico will have no impact on the immigration problem in the future?

If you want to side with La Raza and denigrate the right wing within Mexican politics that is holding Lopez Obrador and his leftist PRD at bay, go right ahead. All you will be doing is shooting holes in the floor of the very boat in which you are now afloat, sinking your own cause, because if Lopez Obrador comes to power you can count upon the complete destruction of the Mexican economy and that defintely means the immigration problem will get worse.

Now in response to my earlier statement that we all know their [Lopez Obrador and the PRD] economic policies will be a disaster for their country. What will happen after the disaster? Answer: 15 million more Mexicans will immigrate north to this country you wrote:

". . . Sorry, but it is not the responsibility of the United States to 'fix' the problems of Mexico at the expense of our own national security and sovereignty, even though Bush and his openborder/free trade croonies keep telling us otherwise. . . ."

What in the world are you talking about? My statement is precisely about having the Mexicans fix their own problems, rather than we Americans doing it for them. We're not voting in the Mexican elections, the Mexicans are. I specifically posted that we were better off with Calderon and the PAN because Lopez Obrador and the PRD's policies would "break" the already-struggling Mexican economy even more so than it is now. Don't you get it? The Mexican economy is in trouble, therefore we should hope that someone comes to power in that country to fix their problems on their own. If their situation improves then maybe some Mexican nationals now living here will want to return to their homes in Mexico. Why in the world would you oppose that? Would you prefer to see Lopez Obrador come to power and break the Mexican economy because you're angry about illegal immigration? Do you not see that if the Mexican economy fails our problem of illegal immigration is going to multiply tenfold? Or is that what you want because you don't see enough anger in America about the problem as it exists now? Will you not entertain any argument that it is possible to view one political party within Mexico as improving our chances for controlling illegal immigration?

I get the feeling that you just will not permit anyone to say anything good about anyone in Mexico Kimberly. And I am not at all hesitant in speaking with admiration of Felipe Calderon and the PAN for having the b___s to stand up to the most dangerous leftist in Latin America north of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. I celebrate Calderon's victory.

"Mexico is a socialist country. That is the reason for the poverty and why people are trying to excape."

Mexico has many socialist holdovers from its decades-long domination by the PRI, who lost the presidency in 2000 and slipped into minority status in their Congress in these elections. Those socialist holdover policies, particularly the nationalized oil and electricity industries, are a tremendous drag on Mexico's chances for recovery. That is why we should celebrate the victory of the PAN. I am not about to argue they will cure Mexico's problems, but they are definitely headed in the right path with their support of market-oriented reforms.

Regarding post #20, I have to agree with Kimberly. Also, during the marches by the illegals,Fox and the PAN party supported the marchers by encouraging them. Even cities of Mexico were boycotting American corporations. Marching, boycotting, ect. is the Mexican culture with some of it being none other than "macho". It backfired here in the states as marching like this is not a part of our way of life.

Thank you again for all your hard work.
Individual Freeper expertise never ceases to amaze me
and it is something that sets this site apart from all
the rest.

I disagree that Fox and PAN party encouraged the marchers. Show me a link that provides evidence of that besides some American saying so. I want to see something of Fox in his own words. Those marchers were demanding citizenship for all illegals, not temporary work permits. Fox doesn't want them to leave Mexico permanently because he needs their contributions to the Mexican economy.

Like Bush, Fox has supported the development of a temporary worker program. That is not the same thing that those marchers were asking for. Show me any quote from Fox in which he argues for the U.S. granting citizenship to all illegals her in this country.

You're welcome tet68. And if I may say so I marvel at the capabilities of so many of my fellow Freepers as well. This is a great crowd of people to be amongst.

Even those refugees from Mexican penal clinics. LOL!

>> "As far as I'm concerned, Calderon is just as much OUR enemy...." I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. <<

Oh don't like commies, eh? Here's a bio of one of the highest ranking people in "conservative PAN party" leader Vicente Fox's cabinent:

Jorge Castañeda Gutman (b. May 24, 1953) is a Mexican politician and academician who served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs (2000 – 2003). Castañeda was born in Mexico City. After receiving his B.A. from Princeton University and a Ph.D. from the University of Paris I (Panthéon-La Sorbonne) The younger Castañeda made a career for himself as a Marxist college professor professor at several universities , including the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the University of California at Berkeley, Princeton University, New York University, and the University of Cambridge. He also authored more than a dozen books, including a biography of Che Guevara , and he regularly contributes to newspapers such as Reforma (Mexico), El País (Spain), Los Angeles Times (USA) and Newsweek magazine. Castañeda is of half-Jewish parentage through his mother. He is also the son of Jorge Castañeda y Álvarez de la Rosa, who also served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1979 – 1982) during the administration of José López Portillo. Castañeda's political career began in the 70s as a leader of the Mexican Communist Party. He served as an adviser to Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas during his (failed) presidential campaign in 1988. He also backed the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) in 1988 and 1994 but advised Vicente Fox during his (successful) presidential campaign in 2000. After winning the election, Fox appointed Castañeda as his Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

I gotta love how you PAN apologists use the "Orbador associates with commies like Hugo Chavez" as scare tactics, but when someone points out the "conservative" PAN president cuddled commies and even appointed them to top positions in his government, your response is "...."

There is NO excuse for "conservative" Vicente Fox appointed the likes of Jorge Castañeda to run his foreign policy. That would be like Bush appointing Ramsey Clark to be the new secretary of defense.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the three main parties in Mexico. They're all overrun with corrupt socialists who support the welfare state.

Regarding the "Bloomberg" article, Bloomberg has an agenda and that is globalization without regard to sovereignty of any country.

". . . López Obrador promised to bring prosperity to this developing country of 105 million -- at least 40 million of whom live in poverty -- with a combination of social welfare programs and projects to build the country's infrastructure. When he was mayor of Mexico City, he instituted a pension for all retirees over age 70 and improved the freeway system, overseeing the building of the segundo piso, or second deck of a major Mexico City freeway to relieve traffic in one of the world's largest, most congested cities.

From what I was told all the elderly 70 and over were getting was $40 or $60 a month.The US has the richest poor people in the world, so what was the problem with the elderly getting such a measly amount. Fox and the PAN party has pushed the illegals to get into our welfare system. The young, healthy illegals get a heck of a lot more in the US than $40 OR $60 a month.

Calderón, of the conservative, pro-Catholic National Action Party, or PAN, promised to continue the free-market, pro-globalization policies of Fox, while expanding opportunities for women and the poor.

I don't know if you are aware but the Bush administration and Mexico have signed a "Totalization of Social Security Agreement" with Mexico. Is this the globalization policy Fox and Calderon are waiting for? Notice, no policy was mentioned just a generalized statement. Quite frankly, I would like Mexico to take care of their own citizens.

Fox has been a "woulda, coulda, shoulda" president. The implementation of NAFTA drove thousands of Mexican farmers to the US. Most all of these are indigent and uneducated. Fox has been unable to get a handle on the drug trade if he even tried. He has encouraged disrespect for our laws and our way of life. He was the first to renounce the war on terror.

This has been an election of fear.Obrador was accused of doing things that there was no way in the world he could do. Their congress is controlled by the PRI party.

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between the three main parties in Mexico. They're all overrun with corrupt socialists who support the welfare state."

By which you mean that the policies the PAN has pursued in expanding transparency in Mexico's financial institutions, trying [admittedly unsuccessfully] to privatize Mexico's oil and electricity monopolies, stopping attempts to double social welfare spending [successfully], attempting [unsuccessfully] to develop credit reporting standards for individuals and businesses that would guarantee a recognized credit rating when they go to a bank (political affiliation has something to do with acquiring credit in Mexico to this day), and supporting NAFTA (Socialists don't like Free Trade, Lopez Obrador and his people oppose NAFTA) all add up to the PAN being "Socialist"?

I must disagree BillyBoy. The PRI ran a one-party state in Mexico up until 2000, almost everyone with a public past there is going to have some background that associates them with leftist ideology. The point is "what are they doing now," "what evidence can we see of what their ideas are in the policies they pursue"? Those are the questions that matter.

>> By which you mean that the policies the PAN has pursued <<

For starters, how abotu some of THESE policies:

-- The "conservative" government of Mexico opposed us tooth-and-nail on the WOT
-- The "conservative" goverment of Mexico STILL recognizes Castro and sucks up to the UN
-- The "conservative" government of Mexico still supports the welfare state and demands we provide freebies (health care, education) for all their people
-- The "conservative" goverment of Mexico continues to be increadbily weak on crime to the point where they even try to prevent us from executing all their convicted killers and won't even support life in prisoner for dangerous murders
-- The "conservative" governemnt of Mexico supports envirowacko laws and gun control
--The "conservative, pro-life" government has not said one word critizing abortion or worked to combat illegal abortion and dsicourage Mexicans from funding or promoting abortion
-- The "conservative" leader of Mexico blantantly violated traditional Catholic marriage laws to marry his secretary and was condemned by the church but cheered on by the supposely "devout Catholic" Mexican citizenry for doing so.
-- Illegal immigration is still at an all time high as people FLEE his country
-- The drug cartels smuggling, murder, and violence is still at an all-time high.
-- The "indigious" Mexican Indians are still running rampent in that nation without any attempt from the governmetn to address the issue
-- Mexico continues to have an extremely wealthy ruling class and an extremely poor electorate
-- Mexico is still a third world hellhole

>> and supporting NAFTA (Socialists don't like Free Trade, Lopez Obrador and his people oppose NAFTA)

Incorrect. According to Obrador's own website, he does support NAFTA : "Lopez Obrador supports NAFTA and acknowledges its benefits in terms of increased trade among Canada, Mexico and the United States. Lopez Obrador understands that Canada, Mexico and the United States should work together as an economic region in order to successfully compete with the Asian and European economies. Lopez Obrador would like to strengthen the agreement..."
Lopez-Obrador 2006 - English Language Version

The "leftist" PRI also supported NAFTA (hell, it was passed in 1993 under THEIR rule, not Fox's) The old "liberal" PRI government was pro-free market and open trade as well. Abortion was also illegal in Mexico during the PRI's rule. Nice try though.

>> all add up to the PAN being "Socialist"? << <

Yes. He's so liberal he's actually governed to the LEFT of the PRI. Under Fox, the government is even issuing little taxpayer funded travel kits to Mexicans with food, water, supplies, and directions so they can illegal cross the border. The officially policy of the Fox goverment is to export their poor northward, demand the U.S. pay for all their education, health care, driver's licenes, etc., and then send their money back to Mexico. That's a socialist welfare state.

Fox loves the UN, he loves free amnesy for all his citizens, he opposed soverginity and property rights, he happily appoints known marxists to his cabient... the guy is a socialist if there ever was one.

>> I must disagree BillyBoy. The PRI ran a one-party state in Mexico up until 2000, almost everyone with a public past there is going to have some background that associates them with leftist ideology.

If Vicente Fox is Mexico's idea of "conservative", then Ted Kennedy would be a hard-core right winger by Mexican standards. All three "main" parties in Mexico are run by liberals.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14468.html

MAY DAY in MEXICO and MORRIS' BAD ADVICE
May 10, 2006 10:52 AM EST

by Allan Wall - May 1st in the United States was "The Great American Boycott", while here in Mexico it was "Nothing Gringo on May 1st".

excerpt....

"On the eve of May Day, Fox advised the marchers to be prudent, so as not to provoke "xenophobia".

And on May 2nd, after the marches, Fox's spokesman Ruben Aguilar extended his congratulations to the marchers in the U.S. for being peaceful and respectful. Aguilar stated that the Mexican government supports the demands the migrants are making in the Unted States."

Some quick responses:

I have seen "globalization" used as a "code word" by many Americans who see it as an attempt to destroy our national sovereignty through free trade. Make no mistake about it, I will support free trade policy until the last ditch, because nothing has done more to encourage competitiveness and investment in our economy, and the job growth that comes with it, than free trade policy. God Bless You Ronald Reagan!

So if you want to make the argument that the Pacific International analysis is suspect because of its association with "globalization" then you have not impressed me, nor have you dealt with the accuracy of what was presented. That means you've ignored it rather than providing an alternative.

"Fox and the PAN party has pushed the illegals to get into our welfare system."

No they haven't. They've pushed for the development of a temporary worker program to get them earning larger salaries, estimating that a good deal of what they earn will flow south of the border, as it does now. Personally; I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of American salaried jobs contributing so much to Mexican economic development, but I don't blame Fox for pushing the idea from his end. He would be a fool not to, since all it produces is economic growth for his country and no President in his right mind would oppose ideas that do that.

The "Totalization of Social Security" Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico is to eliminate dual Social Security payments falling upon the shoulders of both governments for the same individual. It's designed to eliminate "dual coverage" and it is something that only provides savings, perhaps not as much as I would like frankly because I wish it would have been linked to residency in country of citizenship, but still some savings. Here is a link explaining the agreement:

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/USandMexico.htm

Regarding the displacement of farmers in Mexico by NAFTA, this did happen, there is no getting around it. It was shortsighted of the U.S. and Mexico to not work out an agreement on how to handle the problem. I would be responding falsely if I ignored this, so I won't. But I will argue that the displacement of the subsistence farmers in agriculture is a necessary step towards the integration of the remaining farmers into a market-oriented farm economy. It happened in this country in the late 19th and into the early 20th centuries and it created big problems for us (read up on the Populists), so we shouldn't be surprised that it does for Mexico as well. It was never a question of if Mexico's subsistence farmers would be displaced by the development of a market economy, but when and under what conditions.

And one of the great things about this election is that the PRI has been seriously, perhaps mortally wounded. Going into these elections they controlled both houses of the Mexican Congress. No more. I just tried to Google a page in English that gives the results on the "Google News" search, but I found none. So please forgive me if I cite a source in Spanish from a Mexican newspaper site:

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columnas/59073.html

Here is the first paragraph translated:

"The elections of 2006 were a hard misfortune for the PRI. It barely won a little more than a fifth of the vote for President and it will probably finish with a little more than a fifth of the seats in the House of Representatives and one fourth the Senators."

Your statement about the PRI certainly holds completely true before 2000, somewhat true from 2001-2006, but will no longer be true after December when the new Mexican President and Congress take office. And given that the PRI have done so much harm to Mexico, especially in preventing Fox from implementing his market-oriented reforms, I am celebrating their defeat.

These are the policies I put up BillyBoy:

"By which you mean that the policies the PAN has pursued in expanding transparency in Mexico's financial institutions, trying [admittedly unsuccessfully] to privatize Mexico's oil and electricity monopolies, stopping attempts to double social welfare spending [successfully], attempting [unsuccessfully] to develop credit reporting standards for individuals and businesses that would guarantee a recognized credit rating when they go to a bank (political affiliation has something to do with acquiring credit in Mexico to this day), and supporting NAFTA (Socialists don't like Free Trade, Lopez Obrador and his people oppose NAFTA) all add up to the PAN being "Socialist"?"

With the single exception of your inaccurate portrayal of Lopez Obrador and Nafta, you didn't address them.

Lopez Obrador's comments as cited by you were pure politicking during the campaign. His turnaround to try to undo the damage his anti-Nafta proposals early in the campaign were noticed. See the following:

Will the real Andrés Manuel López Obrador please stand up?

Now policies on guns, recognition of Castro (many of our closest allies have relations with him -- do you want a list?), the UN (again many of our allies are much closer to the UN than we are . . . regretfully in my opinion, gun control, and social welfare spending in Mexico were already in place when Fox took office. I don't know where you're getting your information about abortion in Mexico, but it is dead wrong. Abortion has been illegal in Mexico since 1931 and Mexico under Fox has been derided by the so-called "Human Rights" lobby of the Left for making abortion laws tougher.

And no matter how many times it is said, Mexico has never demanded that we use our social welfare spending to support their poor, that is false.

If you want to deny that the core policies I listed up at the top are the basis of recognizing what is conservative vs. liberal, you can do so. But you haven't answered the questions by that rant.

BillyBob, it seems to me that your problem is that you just don't like Mexicans.

"Aguilar stated that the Mexican government supports the demands the migrants are making in the Unted States."

Nope. That is either a misquote or an error in translation by someone somewhere down the road. I know you didn't do it texastoo, so I do not accuse you. It was perfectly legitimate for you to post it as you found it. But let me cite the orignal source and post the original language in Spanish and then translate it for you.

Here is the link provided on that source you gave me to the original Mexican newspaper news report they cite:

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/346381.html

Here is the paragraph (final paragraph) in Spanish pasted in right off the page:

"No obstante, el gobierno de México coincide con las demandas de las organizaciones de migrantes de que les sea reconocida su enorme aportación a la economía norteamericana, pero no sólo eso, sino su aportación también de carácter social. Los valores sociales de los migrantes mexicanos son: La honestidad y el trabajo”, dijo Aguilar, reprodujo Formato 21"

And here is the translation:

"'Moreover, the government of Mexico coincides with the demands of the migrant organizations that they be recognized for their enormous contribution to the northamerican economy, but no only for that, also for their contribution to the social character. The social values of the Mexican migrants are: Honesty and Work' said Aguilar, as broadcast on Formato 21."

note: Formato 21 is a mexican news radio broadcast

Before this Aguilar said that President Fox congratulates the demonstrators on the "peaceful and respectful" way they handled themselves and that he supports the "decided manner" in which they were going about things. Aguilar did not say that he or Fox supported any demands beyond that they be recognized "for their enormous contribution to the northamerican economy." That is not what is quoted on the page you cited, and that is an error.

What makes you think that el-universal is the one and only for Ruben Aguilar? Can you give me a reason that one article would be a lie and the other article wouldn't?

I don't doubt anything that Ruben Aguilar would say.

Rubén Aguilar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rubén Aguilar (1946 - ) is a journalist, former guerrilla, and spokesperson for the Mexican government and very close to Vicente Fox. He is son of a former chair of the Banking Association in Mexico, and a former Jesuit (he left the order in 1979 after 13 years).

He was involved in a guerrilla in El Salvador for five years before he returned to Mexico. He was part of the "Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional" (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front) whose slogan was "Revolution or Death! The armed people will win!". In that front he led the Information Committee where he founded the Salpress news agency (based in Mexico) and helped to bring all injustices to public light.

This article about a journalist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This article about a Mexican writer or poet is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub%C3%A9n_Aguilar"