Majed Khalil Majzoud, Barrueco et al use DMCA to get Blogger to suppress information

London 26.07.2012 - Today, Blogger has sent me a Blog takedown notification. Given that I did not fall for the different impersonators, who through crude and rather infantile attempts tried to force me to take down perfectly valid and verifiable information (see here, here and here) about Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco, Majed Khalil Majzoud and other associates and frontmen of Diosdado Cabello, they have taken their game to Blogger, and, most unfortunately Blogger has fallen for it.

So I have republished the information about Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco and Majed Khalil Majzoud elsewhere, while I dispute in the strongest possible terms these attempts of criminal thugs to silence me and suppress publication of their illegal deeds in Venezuela.

This is exhibit A of Bolibourgeois chavistas using spurious copyright infringement allegations and impersonating other people in order to remove from the web information that compromises them and their activities. I know they are reading, so take this as public notice: this does not end here...

Update 28 August 2012: Google has sent another communication saying that the posts in questions have been reinstated. The posts are linked below.

Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco, Diosdado Cabello, the Khalil Majzoub brothers et al. discover online reputation management techniques.

Majed Khalil Majzoub

Jonathan Glennie justifies human rights violations in Venezuela

Jonathan Glennie

London 25.07.12 - In nearly 10 years of blogging about Venezuela a great deal of things can be observed. One of the most important lessons is that otherwise well regarded institutions, those that are perceived to be ethical and moral beacons of civilised societies, are just as prone to be permeated by radicals as any other from underdeveloped countries. As such, The Guardian is perceived as being this "beyond-reproach" media institution. The Guardian has, for instance, soft-powered its way into basically dictate the editorial line of the BBC,  perhaps the world's most powerful media conglomerate. Alas neither is accountable. Evidence shows that both The Guardian and the BBC have a soft spot for the likes of Hugo Chavez, while Israel and the USA are devils incarnates.

But that's fine. We can accept that different people have different ideologies / opinions, everyone's rights to hold and express them so long as these are circumscribed to commonly accepted polity terms. But every so often, on a variety of issues completely alien to its own interests or those of its Islington-readership, The Guardian cranks it up a little. There are blogs solely devoted to document the Guardian's antisemitism. There are other blogs that take the approach of exposing the double standard and sheer hypocrisy of The Guardian, whether it is related to tax avoidance or lying about its own hacking practices, while some analysts have voiced concern about The Guardian's giving tribune to terrorists.

We have grown accustomed to read puff pieces published at The Guardian by paid apologists of Hugo Chavez, such as violent Stalinist Calvin Tucker,  discredited economist-cum-propaganda-film-script-writer Mark Weisbrot, pariahs like Ken Livingstone, or former KGB operatives such as Richard Gott. The Guardian is in a never ending quest to find new voices, to carry on whitewashing one the Left's most emblematic and last standing totems: the Venezuelan caudillo. Little it matters, to this group of hired pens, that the object of their infatuation is a lieutenant colonel that has militarised Venezuela's public administration (more here) -akin to the rightwing dictatorships of old in Latin America. Their driving force seemingly being Chavez's fiery anti US rhetoric -despite the fact that beyond all his protestations Chavez continues to sell all the oil he can to the USA.

However it would seem that The Guardian, and by extension its crew of Chavez apologists, have tied themselves into an impossible knot. Yesterday, new kid on the block Jonathan Glennie wrote:

Second, and somewhat more awkwardly for liberals in established democracies, the complete freedom of the press is not always a sign of a functioning democracy – in some contexts it can actually militate against progress for the majority poor.

And further down in the article:

There are many examples where more freedoms are indeed crucial to progress for the poorest, but there are also certainly examples where clamping down on media and other freedoms can be justified for development purposes. 

In his piece, he justifies concentration and abuse of power by Chavez in Venezuela, as reported by Human Rights Watch. Glennie's arguments, as a matter of fact, are nothing new among those feeling nostalgic about communism. Stalinist Calvin Tucker wrote in the blog Harry's Place in April 2009:

By contrast, I proclaim my support for the attempt to overthrow by force in 1992 the corrupt government of Carlos Andres Perez, which had lost all claims to democratic legitimacy when it massacred up to 3,000 civilians and secretly buried many of the bodies in mass graves.

In a previous instance, a 100 or so apologists of Chavez attacked another Human Rights Watch report, and were -rightly- dismissed as peddlers of "baseless allegations". Glennie, Tucker et al believe that there is justification for violations of human, civil and apolitical so long as these are carried out by leftists. It is absolutely fine, in their warped understanding of the world. See human, civil and political rights can militate against progress of the poor, and so in certain contexts, to be certain only those in which leftist / communist dictators are in power, it is OK to, erm, violate inalienable rights.

When I confronted Glennie about this in Twitter he buried himself even deeper, providing a link -to prove his purported serious analytical skills- to an article he wrote about -you guessed it- Hugo Chavez's so called nemesis across the Colombian border, Alvaro Uribe, and his atrocious human rights record. It is perfectly kosher for Chavez to trample on rights and personal freedoms of Venezuelans in the sake of "development" (obviously economic stats are most definitely not Glennie's forte). But, of course, Uribe needs to be measured with a different rule. He is a conservative, right wing, so Uribe's attempt to rid Colombia of the narcoterrorist marxist FARC guerrilla is BAD -never mind the +3 million displaced Colombians that have suffered the consequences of FARC attempt to wrest control from that country's institutions. Using his own argument, I said to Glennie that gross human rights violations under Pinochet were justifiable, just as much, for "development purposes". Mind you the economic benefits that his dictatorship brought to Chile are tangible, unlike Venezuela with its near total dependency on food imports, highest inflation in Latin America, unemployment, crime, etc., etc., etc. And let's not even touch Cuba's situation.

Needless to say that Glennie's article's sources establish clearly where he stands politically. In Glennie's little world -BTW funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation- material support to FARC, oil to Assad, support to Khadafi, Mugabe, Castro, al-Bashir, multibillion dollar weapons purchases to Russia, expropriations, coups d'etat, imprisonment of opponents, political persecution, all of that is fine and dandy. For "development purposes".

Despite all this, we must rejoice and feel grateful towards Glennie and his ilk, for continuing to provide examples of just how utterly deranged the left that supports Hugo Chavez is. For Glennie has also argued that Cuba is "A development model that proved the doubters wrong". This is not a joke, is there at The Guardian for all to see. And remember, this Glennie guy is meant to be a "development" expert.

Marcelo Barone wanted by INTERPOL

Marcelo Barone wanted by INTERPOL.

London 23.07.12 - Another extraordinary development in the investigation collaboration I did with Mabel Rehnfeldt from Paraguay's ABC Color: Marcelo Barone now appears in INTERPOL's most wanted list.

But there's a few more twists to these fascinating story. In the tragically long Latin American corruption scales, the amount of money allegedly stolen by Barone is not that big, just over $36 million USD. It is the sheer brazenness of Barone what's truly shocking. An Italian source recently communicated to me that Barone has been flaunting his ill-acquired wealth, his Ferraris, and his access to Italy's highest political echelons in obscene fashion. The man appears to claim that, contrary to his humble and rather destitute origins in Venezuela, he is a member of Italy's extinct noble class. While to Paraguayans he was pretending to be a citizen from Panama, with a PhD, to Italians, and others met within that context, he is now purporting to be "Barone di Messina", as in Baron of Messina.

It is obvious that Barone is playing his last name card. For nothing could be further from the truth. Barone in Italian means Baron, an order of nobility. There are a few references about "Barone di Messina" online, which recount the story of a family of Scottish ancestry that arrived in Italy with Charlemagne in the IX century (from page 30):

I Barone di Messina s'imparentarono con la nobilissima famiglia Abbenevoli di Reggio Calabria, dalla quale ereditarono il titolo di marchesi di Montebello. Altri rami fiorirono in diverse località dell'isola, dando luogo a nuove propaggini. Nei primi anni del 1700, un ramo da Trapani passò in Monte S. Giuliano, con un Sebastiano Barone, figlio di Giovanni e di Rosa D’Arcilo”. (bold added)

Note that in the Italian it refers to "I Barone di Messina" that is, the Barone family from Messina, rather than the Baron of Messina, got related to the Abbenevoli family from Reggio in Calabria, and inherited the title of Marquis of Montebello. The key is "I" and the following verb "s'imparentarono", it's in the plural.

One can only speculate how can a parvenu thug from Caracas, running from justice in Paraguay and object of financial alerts issued by Panamanian authorities, pretends to be a noble, especially in Europe, where it is so easy to be found out in well to do circles of obsessively self-aware people with a deep -if misplaced and irrelevant- sense of "own importance" in history.

My Italian source also said that Barone may have stashed the stolen money in a rather special and controversial bank in Italy. If this revelation turns out to be true, it would be a scandal of considerable proportions, given Barone's new found fame with INTERPOL. Then, there's also the issue of a London lawyer, wiling to recruit well connected Italians to go into business ventures with Barone.

In sum, this saga is far from over it would seem. I shall communicate all the information I've been furnished to INTERPOL, and so has done my Italian source. To be continued...

En qué se diferencia la campaña de Henrique Capriles de la de Manuel Rosales contra Hugo Chavez?

Londres 12.07.2012 | "Tu no tienes ni idea de cómo han cambiado las vainas en los últimos años. La gente está arrecha, obstinada. Tu sabes lo que es ir al automercado y ver filas y filas del mismo detergente? La misma leche en polvo, cuando se consigue? La misma harina? No hay un coño que comprar. Además de eso, uno tiene que encomendarse a los santos cada vez que uno sale a la calle, por que no se sabe si uno va a regresar vivo. La cuestión de la inseguridad y los secuestros se le fue de las manos al régimen. Los atracadores son los propios policías. Esa idolatría que la gente tenía por Chavez, esa vaina se acabo chico. Ahora la gente va a las marchas oficiales, cobra sus reales y deja a ese huevón hablando solo, como hicieron en la Plaza Caracas cuando se fue a inscribir en el CNE."

Lo descrito es parte de una de las muchas conversas recientes con un familiar, que está de visita. En su opinión, Capriles tiene chance de ganarle las elecciones a Chavez. Daniel Duquenal, cuyas opiniones respeto muchísimo, comparte la misma opinión.

Por mi parte, no puedo dejar de asombrarme ante tal esperanza, que dicen que es lo último que se pierde, y en el caso de Venezuela pareciera confirmar la teoría. No puedo abrigar tal esperanza. Y no puedo por razones que están a la vista de todos. A saber: Chavez sigue controlando todos los poderes, todas las instituciones, todos los dineros, todas las armas, y todas las maquinas de votación. La oposición siguen sin saber, a ciencia cierta, si los casi 19 millones de inscritos en el REP existen o no. A pesar de las irresponsables, y falsas, afirmaciones de Ramon Guillermo Aveledo -un dinosaurio de la 4ta Républica que nadie sabe cómo ni por quién fue electo para el cargo que detenta en la MUD- la realidad es que la oposición no ha auditado el sistema electoral, no ha auditado el REP, no se sabe si cuenta con testigos de mesa para todos los centros de votación, y por tanto no tiene forma de monitorear lo que sucederá el 7 de octubre.

Ahora bien, yo estimo que Henrique Capriles tiene entre 3,7 y 5 millones de votos en el bolsillo. Recordemos que Manuel Rosales obtuvo 3,7 millones de votos en la última elección presidencial en el 2006. Sería tonto pensar que no va a lograr, por lo menos, la misma cantidad de votos que Rosales. A pesar del empeoramiento  que supuestamente ha sufrido Venezuela en todos los frentes desde el 2006, que indicaría una mayor vulnerabilidad del caudillo en las elecciones venideras, vale la pena, para mi al menos, tener muy presente lo que sucedió en aquel entonces.

Esa multitudinaria inscripción de la candidatura de Capriles, que todo el mundo vió como una señal de triunfo, no debe confundir, ni emocionar, a nadie. La foto de la derecha es de una marcha de Rosales en el 2006. Entiendo, por que lo he vivido, que la gente se emocione y piense, ante tales concentraciones, que la oposición es mayoría. No por ello dejare de advertir que concentraciones multitudinarias no tumban dictaduras. Y antes de que a algún lector se le ocurra refutar lo anterior, y traer a colación la Primavera Árabe, es menester recordar que lo sucedido en esos países distó, y mucho, de asemejarse a las concentraciones pacíficas que ocurren, y han ocurrido, en Venezuela. En el 2006, vi a millones de ciudadanos manifestar su apoyo a Rosales en toda Venezuela. Millones. En Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia, Barquisimeto, Merida, Maracay... Es mas, me atrevería a decir que tengo la mejor colección fotográfica de marchas de la Venezuela post 1998. No me lo contaron, lo presencié, y debo admitir que fue una de las experiencias más maravillosas de mi vida. Ese gentío es esperanzador. Pero llego el 3 de diciembre, y Chavez nos ganó, por paliza. Sus marchas, pagadas, de asistencia obligatoria para empleados públicos, no convocaban ni la mitad de la gente. Sin embargo, obtuvo más de dos millones de votos que Rosales. Días después, en reunión con Leopoldo Lopez y Benigno Alarcón, me entere que la oposición no había tenido testigos en 40% de las 32.000 mesas, la mayoría en la Venezuela rural.

Estamos en el 2012. Los venezolanos, por mucho que se quejen de la situación actual, no están dispuestos a comportarse como los tunecinos, o los egipcios, o los libios. Lo mismo aplica a la oposición venezolana, que cree que repitiendo la misma estrategia del 2006 va a obtener resultados diferentes en el 2012. Han pasado 6 años. En este periodo, el único político que se ha pateado Venezuela es Leopoldo Lopez, y ese ni siquiera candidato es. Los demás continúan siendo unos relativos desconocidos más allá de su esfera de influencia. Así las cosas, los zulianos, orientales, gochos, llaneros, etc., poco conocen de la labor del gobernador Capriles en Miranda, así como no conocían a Rosales en el 2006. El "casa por casa" de Capriles no es diferente de las varias giras que hizo Rosales en el 2006. Las marchas serán igual de multitudinarias, personas más personas menos. Igual le van a caer a tiros -para asustarlo. Le van a impedir el paso a los mismos barrios. Le van a cortar la luz en las mismas ciudades -para que la gente no escuche su discurso. Le van a impedir aterrizar en los mismos aeropuertos. Lo dejan hablar los mismos 3 minutos por día. Los mismos degenerados de la izquierda internacional lo criticarán. Las mismas encuestadoras lo pondrán 20 puntos por debajo del caudillo moribundo. Es decir, el libreto es exactamente el mismo. Ya lo vivimos, y a los que estén ajenos los invito a revisar este archivo (entre el 14 de septiembre y el 5 de diciembre del 2006). Guerra avisada no mata soldado, y si lo mata es por ahuevoneao!

Las preguntas que debemos hacernos, y hacerles a quienes dirigen la MUD -mismas caras y nombres del 2006- son:

• Cuántos testigos han sido entrenados en la Venezuela rural? 
• Cuántos centros de votación existen en la Venezuela rural?
• Cuántos de esos cuentan ya con los testigos necesarios?
• Qué control tiene la MUD sobre la designación de testigos de mesa por parte del CNE?
• Cuándo entregará el CNE el REP a la MUD para una auditoría? 
• Cuándo, dónde, y quién está a cargo de auditar las maquinas Smartmatic, las captahuellas, y el resto del sistema electrónico de votación?
• Cómo será la participación de la MUD en el conteo y totalización de los votos? 
• Qué control tiene la MUD en la invitación de observadores internacionales?

Una vez nos respondan, con pelos y señales, esas preguntas, y otras más, podremos abrigar esperanzas. Por cuanto si tenemos presencia en todas las mesas, y participamos en todos los conteos, según la LOSPP, podremos saber a ciencia cierta si Chavez ganó o no. Sigo creyendo que si tenemos presencia en todas partes Chavez tendrá que demostrar que tiene los votos, que tiene la gente, que ganó limpiamente. Eso, o patear la mesa al verse descubierto.

Por lo anteriormente descrito, no comparto la esperanza. Me niego a caerme a paja, a creer en pajaritos preñados después de 14 años. Dicen que es de imbeciles esperar resultados diferentes cuando se repite la estrategia. Desde mi esquina, no veo a Capriles haciendo nada distinto a lo que hizo Rosales en el 2006. Nada. Será posible una victoria? No creo, a menos que el caudillo pase el páramo, luego de lo cual los chances de Capriles serán aún más inciertos.