Multiservicios Psicológicos - Dra. Sandra I. Colón-Méndez

03/01/2026

Y seguimos…

MADURO, NARCOTRÁFICO Y LA HIPOCRESÍA DE TRUMP: CRÍMENES, PERDONES Y DOBLE DISCURSO

Por Abimael Acosta

La ofensiva jurídica y política contra el presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro ha llegado a su punto más álgido: el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos ha presentado cargos en el Distrito Sur de Nueva York acusándolo de liderar una vasta red criminal conocida como el Cartel de los Soles, involucrada en narcotráfico internacional, tráfico de co***na hacia Estados Unidos, conspiración y posesión de armas, y vinculaciones con organizaciones criminales extranjeras. En este contexto, la administración de Donald Trump ha intensificado su retórica al presentar a Maduro no solo como un adversario político, sino como un narcotraficante internacional cuya captura sería esencial para la seguridad estadounidense y regional.

Sin embargo, para comprender verdaderamente lo que está sucediendo y sus implicaciones, es clave mirar las acciones del propio Trump respecto a personas vinculadas al narcotráfico. Durante su segundo mandato, Trump ha utilizado su poder de clemencia para perdonar o conmutar sentencias de personas condenadas por delitos relacionados con dr**as, incluyendo casos que han provocado críticas severas por parte de legisladores y expertos legales estadounidenses. Entre los ejemplos más notorios está el indulto completo a Ross Ulbricht, fundador del mercado clandestino Silk Road, un sitio que facilitó millones de dólares en comercio de dr**as ilegales antes de su condena a cadena perpetua. Además, Trump perdonó al ex presidente de Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández, quien había sido condenado por conspirar para introducir decenas de miles de kilogramos de co***na en territorio estadounidense, un acto que desató una ola de críticas por socavar la credibilidad de la política antidr**as del gobierno.

Este contraste entre el discurso duro contra el narcotráfico en Venezuela y los actos de clemencia a figuras vinculadas al tráfico de dr**as plantea una pregunta inevitable: ¿es genuina la preocupación de Trump por el narcotráfico o es un pretexto geopolítico y estratégico? Por un lado, la administración acusa a Maduro de narcoterrorismo y redes criminales responsables de la entrada de dr**as a EE. UU.; por otro lado, ofrece indultos a individuos cuyas acciones contribuyeron directamente al flujo de dr**as hacia ese mismo país.

Esta aparente hipocresía no es un detalle menor ni un accidente diplomático: es parte del contexto que permite entender por qué muchos analistas y críticos ven con escepticismo las justificaciones dadas para una intervención o presión extremas contra Venezuela. La historia reciente muestra que los perdones presidenciales no son un fenómeno aislado; Trump ha otorgado clemencia a al menos 10 personas por delitos relacionados con dr**as durante su segundo mandato, y casi 90 más durante su primera administración, mientras simultáneamente eleva la retórica contra el gobierno venezolano y amenaza con medidas militares o sanciones severas.

Quienes defienden la política de Trump argumentan que el poder de indulto forma parte de prerrogativas presidenciales legítimas, y que cada caso de clemencia responde a criterios distintos. Pero el contraste entre perdonar a personajes vinculados al tráfico de dr**as y criminalizar a un jefe de Estado bajo cargos similares debe quedar claro para el público. No se trata solo de política exterior; se trata de coherencia, de credibilidad institucional y de cómo se usa o se abusa del sistema de justicia en función de intereses estratégicos.

Este es un momento para que la opinión pública reflexione: cuando un gobierno acusa a otro de delitos graves como el narcotráfico, es legítimo y necesario examinar si el acusador actúa con la misma severidad que exige. Y si no lo hace, entonces debemos cuestionar no solo las acciones específicas, sino el marco entero bajo el cual se promueven esas acciones. En este caso, esa reflexión es indispensable para entender no solo lo que está en juego en Venezuela, sino también las prioridades y contradicciones de la política estadounidense en materia de crimen, justicia y poder.

03/01/2026

Mejor no se pudo decir… antes que nada ni nadie… 🇻🇪 VIVA VENEZUELA LIBRE 🇻🇪

INVASION OF VENEZUELA, OIL AND POWER: WHAT HISTORY TELLS US

By Abimael Acosta

The early morning when explosions erupted in Caracas and Donald Trump announced the capture of Nicolás Maduro marked a turning point for Venezuela and for the region. A United States military operation, presented as “decisive” and “necessary,” removed from the board the man who for years embodied the country’s authoritarian drift. For many, the news felt like relief; for others, like vertigo. Because when a foreign invasion reshapes power, the urgent task is not to celebrate, but to understand.

It is understandable that some may see Maduro’s capture as something positive. After years of repression, hunger, forced migration, and institutional collapse, any exit can feel like a breath of air. But history is an uncomfortable lighthouse: it helps us read the present without naivety. Military interventions rarely arrive without a bill, and they almost never place peoples at the center. Looking at the real context, geopolitics, natural resources, corporate interests, is not cynicism; it is historical responsibility.

Latin America knows that script well because it has paid dearly for it. In Guatemala, the United States intervention in 1954 did not only overthrow a democratic government: it dismantled a project of social reform, handed the country to economic elites allied with Washington, and triggered a civil war that left more than 200,000 dead, most of them Indigenous. In Chile, U.S. backing of the 1973 coup did not only end Allende’s government; it institutionalized terror, normalized torture, eliminated unions, and turned the country into an economic laboratory where growth coexisted with extreme inequality and generational trauma. In Nicaragua, the U.S.-funded war of the 1980s devastated the economy, militarized society, and left a polarization that still prevents democratic stability. In the Dominican Republic and Panama, invasions destroyed entire neighborhoods, caused civilian deaths never fully acknowledged, and produced tutelaged democracies dependent on Washington’s approval. The pattern repeats itself: the United States weakens institutions, reshapes economies to its convenience, tears social fabrics, and leaves countries more vulnerable than before. There was no shared prosperity or strengthened sovereignty; there was dependence, fear, and wounds that still fester.

Then comes the second act: once the United States gets what it seeks, strategic control, political alignment, access to resources, it withdraws. It leaves behind weak governments, conditioned economies, and fractured societies. In this context, it is troubling to hear Trump speak of Venezuela’s oil as “our oil,” as if it were not the patrimony of a sovereign nation. It is also concerning that María Corina Machado, in her push for “opening,” has hinted that she would be willing to hand over the key to Venezuelan oil to the United States. Investment is not the same as surrendering sovereignty; partnership is not appropriation.

Added to this picture is an uncomfortable truth: the Venezuelan opposition has been deeply fragmented. Rivalries, egos, opposing strategies, mutual boycotts, and distrust have weakened its credibility and its capacity to govern. Recent history shows a coalition that unites only in emergencies and breaks apart the next day. Today, with power in dispute, there is no solid, organized, and cohesive opposition ready to take charge of the country with a common project.

It is also worth remembering that Venezuela experienced dictatorships before chavismo. Marcos Pérez Jiménez did not fall from the sky: he ruled with external acquiescence during the Cold War, when Washington prioritized “order” and anti-communism over democracy. The United States facilitated and tolerated authoritarian regimes when it suited its interests. The lesson is clear: support is not measured by values, but by interests.

The conclusion demands frankness and care. Trump is not pursuing Venezuelan well-being; he is pursuing oil, power, and a geopolitical victory. He showed this when he dismantled migrant protections, left thousands of Venezuelans in limbo, and, according to documented complaints in courts and investigative reporting, accused migrants without due process of being criminals, sending some to prisons in El Salvador under narratives later challenged with evidence. That is not solidarity; it is the instrumentalization of pain.

That is why, today more than ever, Venezuela’s future must be written with one non-negotiable idea: a Venezuela for Venezuelans. Not for corporate plunder, not for gunboat geopolitics, not for saviors who charge by the barrel. Learning from history is not looking backward with fear; it is protecting tomorrow. My solidarity is with the Venezuelan people, with their dignity, their right to decide, and their sovereignty, and my warning is firm: freedom imposed from the outside almost always arrives with new chains.

01/01/2026

🕛🥂 🥳 H A P P Y N E W Y E A R 2️⃣0️⃣2️⃣6️⃣ 🥳🥂🕛