Jorge R. Gonzalez @PolkCubiche @Twitter
Barack #Obama has been a disaster as POTUS! The voters will fire him in November 6, 2012. LIFT THE #CUBA #EMBARGO, YOU DUMMY!
1:19 PM - 11 Apr 12
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Cuba Embargo HAS GOT TO GO!
And Barack Obama has to go in November too. His Hope, Change You Can Believe In, and New Begging With Cuba were HUGE FRAUDS!
No, no, the Cuba Journal publisher is not endorsing Romney. Very little difference between the two ruling branches of The Capitalist Party. Have you had enough or Tweedledee and Tweedledum?
No, no, the Cuba Journal publisher is not endorsing Romney. Very little difference between the two ruling branches of The Capitalist Party. Have you had enough or Tweedledee and Tweedledum?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Latest Poll on Obama
Washington Post-ABC News Poll. See Complete poll.
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone March 7 to 10, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,003 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York.
50% disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.
46% approve.
Just on the Cuba issue alone, he does not deserve to be re-elected. He has continued the blockade/embargo.
If the nominee is Romney, Obama will lose in November. But Romney will be no better than Obama.
Both Obama and Romney represent the interest of BIG CAPITAL and not the average working-class American.
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone March 7 to 10, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,003 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York.
50% disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.
46% approve.
Just on the Cuba issue alone, he does not deserve to be re-elected. He has continued the blockade/embargo.
If the nominee is Romney, Obama will lose in November. But Romney will be no better than Obama.
Both Obama and Romney represent the interest of BIG CAPITAL and not the average working-class American.
Congressman Introduces Bill to Trigger Obama’s Impeachment
By Stephen C. Webster - The Raw Story
Monday, March 12, 2012 9:18 EDT
In a House Resolution introduced last week, Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) put forward use of the military by the executive branch without explicit authorization from Congress as an impeachable offense: one which some conservatives believe President Barack Obama has already committed.
The bill’s author, Rep. Jones, was once a Democrat who switched parties before seeking congressional office in the 90s. He endorsed former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for president in 2008, and has been one of the Republican Party’s loudest critics of the presidency’s warmaking powers.
“When you talk about war, political parties don’t matter,” he told The New York Times last year.
While not directly calling for impeachment, the bill would declare “that it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war… and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.”
In other words, the bill would, in effect, serve as a trigger mechanism for impeachment proceedings.
Despite the Republican majority in the House, it is not clear if it has a chance at passing. It would have no chance of clearing the Senate, which has remained in bitter partisan gridlock since the 2010 elections.
Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress handed President George W. Bush blanket authority to make war, and the battlefield has since been classified as anywhere in the world, even on U.S. soil. Both the Afghan and Iraq wars were launched under this authority, and President Obama continues to claim the same executive power to carry on theaters of conflict in other regions.
Similarly, Congress committed the U.S. to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Following the 9/11 attacks, troops were deployed under NATO authority following a United Nations resolution which declared the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to be in breach of the U.N.’s terms. Congress did not specifically authorize those invasions, but Republicans were adamantly supportive of the president.
It is based upon that authority that U.S. Defense Secretary recently said before the Senate Armed Services Committee the U.S. could attack Syria — but only if the U.N. or NATO decides it appropriate. A similar legal channel was used by President Obama to commit the U.S. military to a supporting role in Libya’s recent civil war, drawing calls for impeachment then, too.
Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.
Monday, March 12, 2012 9:18 EDT
In a House Resolution introduced last week, Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) put forward use of the military by the executive branch without explicit authorization from Congress as an impeachable offense: one which some conservatives believe President Barack Obama has already committed.
The bill’s author, Rep. Jones, was once a Democrat who switched parties before seeking congressional office in the 90s. He endorsed former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for president in 2008, and has been one of the Republican Party’s loudest critics of the presidency’s warmaking powers.
“When you talk about war, political parties don’t matter,” he told The New York Times last year.
While not directly calling for impeachment, the bill would declare “that it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war… and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.”
In other words, the bill would, in effect, serve as a trigger mechanism for impeachment proceedings.
Despite the Republican majority in the House, it is not clear if it has a chance at passing. It would have no chance of clearing the Senate, which has remained in bitter partisan gridlock since the 2010 elections.
Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress handed President George W. Bush blanket authority to make war, and the battlefield has since been classified as anywhere in the world, even on U.S. soil. Both the Afghan and Iraq wars were launched under this authority, and President Obama continues to claim the same executive power to carry on theaters of conflict in other regions.
Similarly, Congress committed the U.S. to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Following the 9/11 attacks, troops were deployed under NATO authority following a United Nations resolution which declared the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to be in breach of the U.N.’s terms. Congress did not specifically authorize those invasions, but Republicans were adamantly supportive of the president.
It is based upon that authority that U.S. Defense Secretary recently said before the Senate Armed Services Committee the U.S. could attack Syria — but only if the U.N. or NATO decides it appropriate. A similar legal channel was used by President Obama to commit the U.S. military to a supporting role in Libya’s recent civil war, drawing calls for impeachment then, too.
Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Are Not Telling U.S. Citizens About the Summit of the America's
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are telling people that Cuba can not attend the Summit of the Americas because:
1) Cuba is not a "democracy."
2) Cuba does not respect freedom of speech.
What a pair of hypocrites!
When General Augusto Pinochet imposed a brutal right-wing dictatorship, with financing and direction from the U.S. government (Nixon and Kissinger), there was no democracy or freedom of speech in Chile. The U.S. Ministry of Colonies (a.k.a. The Organization of American States) never expelled Chile.
1) Cuba is not a "democracy."
2) Cuba does not respect freedom of speech.
What a pair of hypocrites!
When General Augusto Pinochet imposed a brutal right-wing dictatorship, with financing and direction from the U.S. government (Nixon and Kissinger), there was no democracy or freedom of speech in Chile. The U.S. Ministry of Colonies (a.k.a. The Organization of American States) never expelled Chile.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Barack Obama and Benhamin Netanyahu Have to Be REPUDIATED and stopped
The Democratic Party has always been the Party of War in hyper-capitalist USA. A few days ago, the Israeli Zionist newspaper Haaretz confirmed that the USA and their favorite mercenary forces in Israel will launch a new war against Iran, a country that has not attacked our nation. George W. Bush did the same thing against Iraq. For the capitalists that rule our nation, war is always very profitable. Obama and Hillary will not have to send their daughters to fight. Working-class people, as usual, will do the fighting and the dying, while the U.S. capitalists amass huge war profits.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Credit Where Credit is Due
Jorge R. Gonzalez @PolkCubiche (Twitter)
I give credit to Barack #Obama for making it possible for Cuban-Americans to visit their families in #Cuba as many times as they want.
6:08 PM - 16 Feb 12 via web · Embed this Tweet
I give credit to Barack #Obama for making it possible for Cuban-Americans to visit their families in #Cuba as many times as they want.
6:08 PM - 16 Feb 12 via web · Embed this Tweet
Friday, February 10, 2012
Barack Obama's arrogance comes to the fore again on the Cuba issue
Cuba Wants To Attend Upcoming Americas Summit; US Rejects
(This article was originally published Thursday.)
BOGOTA (Dow Jones)--Colombia's foreign minister said Thursday Cuba wants to attend the upcoming 34-nation Summit of the Americas, an idea immediately dismissed by the U.S. on the grounds the island nation isn't democratic.
Source: Wall Street Journal
JG: He does not deserve to be reelected. He continues to pander every day to the antics of the Miami fascists.
To Barack Obama "democracy" means the return of Capitalism to Cuba, something that the people on the island totally reject.
(This article was originally published Thursday.)
BOGOTA (Dow Jones)--Colombia's foreign minister said Thursday Cuba wants to attend the upcoming 34-nation Summit of the Americas, an idea immediately dismissed by the U.S. on the grounds the island nation isn't democratic.
Source: Wall Street Journal
JG: He does not deserve to be reelected. He continues to pander every day to the antics of the Miami fascists.
To Barack Obama "democracy" means the return of Capitalism to Cuba, something that the people on the island totally reject.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Mr. President, you are supporting a 50 year failure. I will not vote for you in November.
No cigar: Economic embargo on Cuba turns 50
By PETER ORSI, Associated Press – 2 minutes ago
HAVANA (AP) — When it started, American teenagers were doing "The Twist." The United States had yet to put a man into orbit around the Earth. And a first-class U.S. postage stamp cost 4 cents.
The world is much changed since the early days of 1962, but one thing has remained constant: The U.S. economic embargo on communist-run Cuba, a near-total trade ban that turned 50 on Tuesday.
Supporters say it is a justified measure against a repressive government that has never stopped being a thorn in Washington's side. Critics call it a failed policy that has hurt ordinary Cubans instead of the government.
All acknowledge that it has not accomplished its core mission of toppling Fidel and Raul Castro.
"All this time has gone by, and yet we keep it in place," said Wayne Smith, who was a young U.S. diplomat in Havana in 1961 when relations were severed and who returned as the chief American diplomat after they were partially re-established under President Jimmy Carter.
"We talk to the Russians, we talk to the Chinese, we have normal relations even with Vietnam. We trade with all of them," Smith said. "So why not with Cuba?"
In the White House, the first sign of the looming embargo came when President John F. Kennedy told his press secretary to go buy him as many H. Upmann Cuban cigars as he could find. The aide came back with 1,200 stogies.
Kennedy announced the embargo on Feb. 3, 1962, citing "the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet communism with which the government of Cuba is publicly aligned."
It went into effect four days later at the height of the Cold War, a year removed from the failed CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion meant to oust communism from Cuba and eight months before Soviet attempts to put nuclear missiles on the island brought the two superpowers to the brink of war.
Washington already had some limited sanctions in place, but Kennedy's decision was the beginning of a comprehensive ban on U.S. trade with the island that has remained more or less intact ever since.
Little was planned to mark Tuesday's anniversary, but Cuban-American members of Congress issued a joint statement vowing to keep the heat on Cuba.
Supporters of the policy acknowledge that many U.S. strategic concerns from the 1960s have been consigned to the dustbin of history, such as halting the spread of Soviet influence and keeping Fidel Castro from exporting revolution throughout Latin America. But they say other justifications remain, such as the confiscation of U.S. property in Cuba and the need to press for greater political and personal freedoms on the island.
"We have a hemispheric commitment to freedom and democracy and respect for human rights," said Jose Cardenas, a former National Security Council staffer on Cuba under President George W. Bush. "I still think that those are worthy aspirations."
With just 90 miles (145 kilometers) of sea between Florida and Cuba, the United States would be a natural No. 1 trade partner and source of tourism. But the embargo chokes off most commerce, and the threat of stiff fines keeps most Americans from sunbathing in balmy resorts like Cayo Coco.
Cuba is free to trade with other nations, but the U.S. threatens sanctions against foreign companies that don't abide by its restrictions. A stark example arrived off the coast of Havana last month: A massive oil exploration rig built with less than 10 percent U.S. parts to qualify under the embargo was brought all the way from Singapore at great expense, while comparable platforms sat idle in U.S. waters just across the Gulf of Mexico.
The embargo is a constant talking point for island authorities, who blame it for shortages of everything from medical equipment to the concrete needed to complete an eight-lane highway spanning the length of the island. Cuba frequently fulminates against the "blockade" at the United Nations and demands the U.S. end its "genocidal" policy.
Every fall, like clockwork, the vast majority of nations agree, and overwhelmingly back a resolution condemning the embargo. In November, 186 countries supported the measure, with only Israel joining the U.S. in opposition.
Also each year, Cuba updates its estimate of how much the embargo has cost it, using a complicated — and some say flawed — calculus that takes into account years of interest, the end of the gold standard and other factors. Last year's estimate summing 49 years of sanctions was $975 billion.
Even some critics of the embargo call Havana's claims exaggerated, saying that while the sanctions had a tremendous impact when first put in place, Cuba was able to adapt and benefited from relationships with like-minded allies such as the former Soviet Union and Venezuela.
"There's no doubt that the embargo is detrimental to the Cuban economy. It complicates international financial transactions, but more importantly, it limits Cuban families' access to medicine," said Geoff Thale, a Cuba analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, which supports ending the policy. "At the same time, Cuba's economic problems go beyond the embargo."
While 50 years of socialism have brought advancements in areas such as education and health care, even island authorities acknowledge their perennially struggling economic system must change. President Raul Castro is in the process of allowing more private-sector activity, decentralizing state-run businesses, implementing agricultural reform and slimming government payrolls.
The United States actually does have significant trade with Cuba under a clause allowing the sale of food products and some pharmaceuticals.
According to the most recent information available from Cuba's National Statistics Office, the U.S. was the island's seventh-largest trading partner in 2010, selling $410 million in mostly food products. However, that was down from nearly $1 billion in 2008, as the island increasingly turned to other countries that don't force it to pay cash up front.
Many U.S. businesses would love to be allowed into the Cuban market, but an end to the embargo seems a long way off.
The issue is seen as a political nonstarter in the United States, where every four years, presidential candidates take turns courting the Cuban-American vote in Florida, a key swing state.
President Barack Obama has said Raul Castro's economic openings are insufficient, and it's unlikely he would do anything in an election year to risk losing support in Florida, which he won in 2008. Even if he wanted to lift the embargo, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 stipulates that it would have to be approved by Congress.
Raul Castro, for his part, says recent changes in the U.S. such as allowing Cuban-Americans to visit relatives more often and send them more money are merely cosmetic.
Backers of the sanctions say it's as important as ever to maintain what they call the moral high ground, saying islanders will be grateful whenever change does come.
Critics cite the annual U.N. votes to argue that times have changed and the embargo is a Cold War relic that ought to be thrown onto the scrap heap.
"It's no longer a matter of the United States leading a movement to isolate Cuba in the hemisphere," said Smith, a staunch opponent of the embargo. "Quite the contrary: If anyone's isolated, on this issue anyway, it's us."
Follow Peter Orsi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Peter(underscore)Orsi.
------
Related article from Albor Ruiz at the N.Y. Daily News:
U.S. economic embargo of Cuba marks its half-century of failed foreign policy
By PETER ORSI, Associated Press – 2 minutes ago
HAVANA (AP) — When it started, American teenagers were doing "The Twist." The United States had yet to put a man into orbit around the Earth. And a first-class U.S. postage stamp cost 4 cents.
The world is much changed since the early days of 1962, but one thing has remained constant: The U.S. economic embargo on communist-run Cuba, a near-total trade ban that turned 50 on Tuesday.
Supporters say it is a justified measure against a repressive government that has never stopped being a thorn in Washington's side. Critics call it a failed policy that has hurt ordinary Cubans instead of the government.
All acknowledge that it has not accomplished its core mission of toppling Fidel and Raul Castro.
"All this time has gone by, and yet we keep it in place," said Wayne Smith, who was a young U.S. diplomat in Havana in 1961 when relations were severed and who returned as the chief American diplomat after they were partially re-established under President Jimmy Carter.
"We talk to the Russians, we talk to the Chinese, we have normal relations even with Vietnam. We trade with all of them," Smith said. "So why not with Cuba?"
In the White House, the first sign of the looming embargo came when President John F. Kennedy told his press secretary to go buy him as many H. Upmann Cuban cigars as he could find. The aide came back with 1,200 stogies.
Kennedy announced the embargo on Feb. 3, 1962, citing "the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet communism with which the government of Cuba is publicly aligned."
It went into effect four days later at the height of the Cold War, a year removed from the failed CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion meant to oust communism from Cuba and eight months before Soviet attempts to put nuclear missiles on the island brought the two superpowers to the brink of war.
Washington already had some limited sanctions in place, but Kennedy's decision was the beginning of a comprehensive ban on U.S. trade with the island that has remained more or less intact ever since.
Little was planned to mark Tuesday's anniversary, but Cuban-American members of Congress issued a joint statement vowing to keep the heat on Cuba.
Supporters of the policy acknowledge that many U.S. strategic concerns from the 1960s have been consigned to the dustbin of history, such as halting the spread of Soviet influence and keeping Fidel Castro from exporting revolution throughout Latin America. But they say other justifications remain, such as the confiscation of U.S. property in Cuba and the need to press for greater political and personal freedoms on the island.
"We have a hemispheric commitment to freedom and democracy and respect for human rights," said Jose Cardenas, a former National Security Council staffer on Cuba under President George W. Bush. "I still think that those are worthy aspirations."
With just 90 miles (145 kilometers) of sea between Florida and Cuba, the United States would be a natural No. 1 trade partner and source of tourism. But the embargo chokes off most commerce, and the threat of stiff fines keeps most Americans from sunbathing in balmy resorts like Cayo Coco.
Cuba is free to trade with other nations, but the U.S. threatens sanctions against foreign companies that don't abide by its restrictions. A stark example arrived off the coast of Havana last month: A massive oil exploration rig built with less than 10 percent U.S. parts to qualify under the embargo was brought all the way from Singapore at great expense, while comparable platforms sat idle in U.S. waters just across the Gulf of Mexico.
The embargo is a constant talking point for island authorities, who blame it for shortages of everything from medical equipment to the concrete needed to complete an eight-lane highway spanning the length of the island. Cuba frequently fulminates against the "blockade" at the United Nations and demands the U.S. end its "genocidal" policy.
Every fall, like clockwork, the vast majority of nations agree, and overwhelmingly back a resolution condemning the embargo. In November, 186 countries supported the measure, with only Israel joining the U.S. in opposition.
Also each year, Cuba updates its estimate of how much the embargo has cost it, using a complicated — and some say flawed — calculus that takes into account years of interest, the end of the gold standard and other factors. Last year's estimate summing 49 years of sanctions was $975 billion.
Even some critics of the embargo call Havana's claims exaggerated, saying that while the sanctions had a tremendous impact when first put in place, Cuba was able to adapt and benefited from relationships with like-minded allies such as the former Soviet Union and Venezuela.
"There's no doubt that the embargo is detrimental to the Cuban economy. It complicates international financial transactions, but more importantly, it limits Cuban families' access to medicine," said Geoff Thale, a Cuba analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, which supports ending the policy. "At the same time, Cuba's economic problems go beyond the embargo."
While 50 years of socialism have brought advancements in areas such as education and health care, even island authorities acknowledge their perennially struggling economic system must change. President Raul Castro is in the process of allowing more private-sector activity, decentralizing state-run businesses, implementing agricultural reform and slimming government payrolls.
The United States actually does have significant trade with Cuba under a clause allowing the sale of food products and some pharmaceuticals.
According to the most recent information available from Cuba's National Statistics Office, the U.S. was the island's seventh-largest trading partner in 2010, selling $410 million in mostly food products. However, that was down from nearly $1 billion in 2008, as the island increasingly turned to other countries that don't force it to pay cash up front.
Many U.S. businesses would love to be allowed into the Cuban market, but an end to the embargo seems a long way off.
The issue is seen as a political nonstarter in the United States, where every four years, presidential candidates take turns courting the Cuban-American vote in Florida, a key swing state.
President Barack Obama has said Raul Castro's economic openings are insufficient, and it's unlikely he would do anything in an election year to risk losing support in Florida, which he won in 2008. Even if he wanted to lift the embargo, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 stipulates that it would have to be approved by Congress.
Raul Castro, for his part, says recent changes in the U.S. such as allowing Cuban-Americans to visit relatives more often and send them more money are merely cosmetic.
Backers of the sanctions say it's as important as ever to maintain what they call the moral high ground, saying islanders will be grateful whenever change does come.
Critics cite the annual U.N. votes to argue that times have changed and the embargo is a Cold War relic that ought to be thrown onto the scrap heap.
"It's no longer a matter of the United States leading a movement to isolate Cuba in the hemisphere," said Smith, a staunch opponent of the embargo. "Quite the contrary: If anyone's isolated, on this issue anyway, it's us."
Follow Peter Orsi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Peter(underscore)Orsi.
------
Related article from Albor Ruiz at the N.Y. Daily News:
U.S. economic embargo of Cuba marks its half-century of failed foreign policy
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The recent statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are an act of colossal cynicism, says Josefina Vidal at Cuba's MINREX
To read her statement, in Spanish, click here.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Barack Obama Wants to Start a New War
The United States is financially broke and almost bankrupt. But the President of the United States, together with his band of Zionist mercenaries in Israel, wants to start a new and horrible war against a country that has not attacked us, Iran.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
Of all the candidates for POTUS, only one stands out that is decent, honest, and 100% against reckless engagements in new foreign wars. That man is Libertarian U.S. Representative Ron Paul.
Send Barack Obama a message. Your days are numbered! We, the people, do not want a new war.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to stop Obama's new reckless war.
Icing on the cake is the fact that Ron Paul is totally opposed to embargoes that do not work (against Cuba) and which do not have the support of the civilized world.
Vote for Ron Raul on the January 31st Primary Election in Florida.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
Of all the candidates for POTUS, only one stands out that is decent, honest, and 100% against reckless engagements in new foreign wars. That man is Libertarian U.S. Representative Ron Paul.
Send Barack Obama a message. Your days are numbered! We, the people, do not want a new war.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to stop Obama's new reckless war.
Icing on the cake is the fact that Ron Paul is totally opposed to embargoes that do not work (against Cuba) and which do not have the support of the civilized world.
Vote for Ron Raul on the January 31st Primary Election in Florida.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Jeffrey Goldberg: It's Time to Remove Cuba From the State Sponsor of Terrorism List
The Atlantic
Jan 17 2012, 9:04 AM ET
It's been curious to me for some time that Cuba, a country that does not sponsor terror groups, is listed by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terror. Cuba's inclusion (there are three other countries on the list, Iran, Syria and Sudan) undermines the seriousness of the list. Cuba is on the list, of course, because Castro-haters in the U.S. want it to be on the list, but it is not intellectually or analytically honest to include Havana. The State Department realizes this, of course, which is why its description of Cuba's "terrorist" activities is written the way it is. From my Bloomberg View column this week:
More...
------
JG: Mr Goldberg forgets to tell his readers that the top two Castro-haters in USA are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who both have been dissapointments and frauds.
Jan 17 2012, 9:04 AM ET
It's been curious to me for some time that Cuba, a country that does not sponsor terror groups, is listed by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terror. Cuba's inclusion (there are three other countries on the list, Iran, Syria and Sudan) undermines the seriousness of the list. Cuba is on the list, of course, because Castro-haters in the U.S. want it to be on the list, but it is not intellectually or analytically honest to include Havana. The State Department realizes this, of course, which is why its description of Cuba's "terrorist" activities is written the way it is. From my Bloomberg View column this week:
More...
------
JG: Mr Goldberg forgets to tell his readers that the top two Castro-haters in USA are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who both have been dissapointments and frauds.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Ahmadinejad Arives in Caracas; Barack Obama Issues New Threats Against Latin American Nations
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed with military honors upon his arrival at Maiquetia Airport in Caracas on January 8, 2012.Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:2AM GMT
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has arrived in the Venezuelan capital Caracas on the first leg of his tour of several Latin American countries.
President Ahmadinejad was welcomed by Venezuelan Vice President Elias Jaua upon his arrival at Maiquetia Airport in Caracas on January 8.
Ahmadinejad is scheduled to meet with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other senior Venezuelan officials. He will also sign several contracts and inaugurate a number of projects.
Earlier on Sunday, Chavez said he hoped the Iranian president would "rest a bit tonight and then tomorrow we will work all day reviewing cooperation agreements."
Ahmadinejad's stay in Venezuela will be followed with a trip to Nicaragua to attend the inauguration of its recently re-elected leader Daniel Ortega.
During his five-day trip, President Ahmadinejad will also visit Cuba and Ecuador and hold talks with senior officials of both countries on the further expansion of bilateral relations.
The US warned Latin American states on Friday against further expansion of diplomatic and business ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressing concerns over “Iran's outreach to the Western Hemisphere.”
“We are making absolutely clear to countries around the world that now is not the time to be deepening ties, not security ties, not economic ties, with Iran,” US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
Leaders in all the four Latin American countries have in recent years built up diplomatic and trade ties with Iran, while their relations with the United States have been greatly reduced amid popular demands for an end to dependence on Washington.
Source: Press TV, Iran
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Privatization of U.S. Foreign Policy
The American imperialists have come up with a new twist when they are trying to subvert the internal affairs of a country they dislike.
The Cuba case is a very good example. The dislike of the imperialists has been transmorphed into regular vanilla flavor of hate.
The imperialists always think that the rest of the world is stupid and that they can hide their never-ending policies of greed and rapaciousness’ by coining new terminology.
The covert agents of the American empire are no longer called “assets” or “spooks.” Hillary and Obama now call them contractors.
Allan Gross was fooled by the Washington D.C. dynamic duo into believing this new word that they minted recently, in an effort to curry favor with corporate CEO’s, who apparently are now in charge of directing U.S. foreign policy, in exchange for 12 gold coins.
Gross deserves the 15 years that he got for allowing himself to be used by the smelly pair of the Potomac.
The Cuba case is a very good example. The dislike of the imperialists has been transmorphed into regular vanilla flavor of hate.
The imperialists always think that the rest of the world is stupid and that they can hide their never-ending policies of greed and rapaciousness’ by coining new terminology.
The covert agents of the American empire are no longer called “assets” or “spooks.” Hillary and Obama now call them contractors.
Allan Gross was fooled by the Washington D.C. dynamic duo into believing this new word that they minted recently, in an effort to curry favor with corporate CEO’s, who apparently are now in charge of directing U.S. foreign policy, in exchange for 12 gold coins.
Gross deserves the 15 years that he got for allowing himself to be used by the smelly pair of the Potomac.
Monday, December 19, 2011
U.S. Maintained Historic Policy of Aggression Against Cuba in 2011
Por Jorge V. Jaime *
Havana (Prensa Latina) The legislative and institutional aggressions of the United States against Cuba actually increased in the course of 2011, despite the relative flexibilities of the blockade decreed by U.S. President Barack Obama at the beginning of the year.
The attacks and attempts to thwart the projects of firms belonging to the government and Cubans were led mainly by congress people linked to the Cuban-American extreme right wing, mainly in the cities of Miami and New Jersey.
In general, Washington's historic hostile behavior against Cuba was maintained without significant changes, although, for the twentieth consecutive year, the United Nations General Assembly in October again condemned the blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba half a century ago.
In the presence of Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, the world forum voted in favor of another resolution on "the Necessity to End the Economic, Commercial and Financial Blockade," with only two votes against and 186 in favor.
Nevertheless, two days after the historic vote in New York, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, head of the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, openly asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take more forceful actions against the government of Havana.
During a congressional hearing, the ultraconservative Lehtinen criticized Clinton because of what she called Washington´s "double standard," for using force to remove leaders like Muammar Gadaffi, while it abstains from similar actions against Cuba.
Lehthinen's provocative statements were added to others throughout the year with the same tone, spread by congress people from the group of politicians considered as anti-Cuban reactionaries: Marco Rubio, Mario Díaz-Balart, Bob Menendez, David Rivera, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, among others.
In that same sense, Congressman Diaz-Balart, from the Republican Party of Florida, argued that U.S. President Barack Obama's policy on Cuba has been counter-productive, since the Cuban government has interpreted it as a sign of weakness.
"Obama´s concessions have been seen as a sign of weakness by the White House and are another demonstration of how wrong the U.S. administration's policies regarding Havana really are," said the congressman of Cuban origin.
In January 2011, by virtue of a resolution by the U.S. President, some regulations related to Washington´s blockade against Cuba were relaxed, but important restrictions against Cuba remained in force.
The minor changes signed by the White House only allow trips for academic, religious, cultural or sports events that comply with certain regulations, and especially with a policy Obama has called "promotion of person-to-person contact."
The U.S. Department of Treasury warned that the flexibilization of educational and cultural trips by U.S. citizens cannot be interpreted as the promotion of tourism to Cuba.
The Office for Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) decided to clear up what it called "mistaken interpretations appearing in some media," which had talked about an alledged broad opening of trips to Cuba.
Indeed, this very month, the OFAC and the Department of Treasury sanctioned another foreign bank for trading with Cuba in the context of the economic blockade maintained by the U.S. government for more than 50 years, despite international protests against this extra-territorial measure.
The OFAC reported that a New York branch of the German Commerzbank was fined 175,000 dollars, for carrying out transactions violating the U.S.-imposed financial blockade against Cuba.
Before Commerzbank, in this same year, JP Morgan Chase had to pay a fine of 88.3 million dollars for alledged transgressions against the regulations of the White House for dealings with Cuba.
Also, the U.S. branch of CMA-CGM, the world´s third biggest shipping company, was fined 374,400 dollars for transporting goods from Cuba.
In tune with Ros-Lehtinen´s incitements against Cuba, another congressman from the ultra-right wing, David Rivera, orchestrated attempts to revoke the relaxation of the restrictions on trips to the Caribbean island.
Rivera, a Republican from south Florida, presented an amendment that was approved by 36 votes in favor and 6 against in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This proposal was very similar to the one presented by Diaz-Balart, which was added to a Department of Treasury bill and was certified by a committee of the U.S. Senate.
Both Rivera´s and Diaz-Balart´s amendments would restore the drastic prohibitions to travel to Cuba that were in force during the George W. Bush administration.
While the U.S. government increases its hostility towards Cuba, U.S. non-governmental organizations are sponsoring initiatives in favor of the Cuban people, and are denouncing the absurd laws ratified by different U.S. administrations.
A recent example of this was the Conference of Washington. This forum, convened against the U.S. government´s inclusion of Cuba in the list of countries fostering terrorism, was a success and gathered renowned academics in defense of Cuba.
"It was very important that academic and civil society sectors with certain voice and influence in the U.S. political system declared the unfairness of the measure," commented Carlos Alzugaray, a professor at the University of Havana.
In a telephone conversation with Prensa Latina from the venue of the event, this political scientist and an expert in the United States, said that the seminar allowed establishing dialogue emphasizing that subject in the very center of power of the country.
"We agreed that there is no reason to maintain Cuba on that list, which in fact is arbitrary, because the first thing we should discuss is Washington's right to create a registry of alleged terrorist states," emphasized Alzugaray. The United States included Cuba in the controversial list in 1982, at the request of then Secretary of State Alexander Haig and by a resolution certified by then President Ronald Reagan.
The NGOs Latin America Working Group and the Center for International Policy sponsored the pro-Cuban meeting at the National Press Club, in Washington D.C.
Among the distinguished lecturers were the university professor Arturo Lopez-Levy, of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies in the University of Denver; Wayne Smith, a former U.S. diplomatic representative in Cuba, and Sarah Stephens, from the Center for Democracy, among others.
The Washington-imposed blockade of Cuba has caused direct economic damage estimated at almost 975 billion dollars and, according to some experts, the amount would be higher if the calculation were made taking into account the inflation of U.S. retail prices.
Cuba reasserted this year its traditional position to maintain respectful dialogue with the government of the United States.
Such dialogue must be developed on the basis of fairness, equality and reciprocity," said the director of the North America Department at the Cuban Foreign Ministry, Josefina Vidal.
Obama has the historic opportunity to change relations with Cuba. There is an international demand for the White House to make that decision, turn the page and change this relationship of 50 years that does not respond to the interests of the U.S. or Cuban people, said the Cuban official.
* Head of the North American Desk at Prensa Latina.
Modificado el (domingo, 18 de diciembre de 2011)
Fin del “capitalismo”
David Brooks
Menos y menos de los que contribuyeron al éxito de nuestra economía… se beneficiaron de ese éxito. Aquellos en la punta de la cima se volvieron más ricos que nunca con sus ingresos e inversiones. Pero todos los demás batallaron con los costos que crecían mientras las quincenas no, y demasiadas familias acumularon más y más deuda… Esto no se trata de lucha de clases. Esto se trata del bienestar del país.”
Estas palabras que se escucharon por todo el país no provenían del movimiento Ocupa Wall Street y sus simpatizantes. No eran de un economista progresista, ni de uno de esos intelectuales que han insistido en que la desigualdad económica destruye el modelo económico. “Este país sólo prospera cuando todos tienen una oportunidad, cuando todos ponen su parte y cuando todos juegan bajo las mismas reglas… Lo que está en juego es si éste será un país donde la gente trabajadora puede ganar lo suficiente para mantener una familia, construir un ahorro modesto, ser dueño de un hogar y asegurar su jubilación”, subrayó el vocero de este nuevo mensaje "populista" en el sentido estadunidense: en defensa del hombre común ante los poderosos.
El orador fue el presidente Barack Obama. El discurso ofrecido a mediados de la semana pasada fue considerado como un giro "populista" con vistas a la relección del presidente en 2012. Analistas y editorialistas afirmaron que el discurso fue notable por su enfoque sobre la desigualdad como el gran tema del momento. Pero tal vez lo más notable fue que el discurso comprobó el extraordinario logro de Ocupa Wall Street en cambiar la "narrativa" nacional. En poco más de dos meses, el enfoque oficial ha cambiado de la reducción de déficit federal y la deuda nacional a uno sobre la desigualdad económica y sus injusticias, o sea, para ponerlo en los nuevos términos, lo del uno por ciento y el 99 por ciento.
Obama "dejó claro que finalmente está preparado para concursar en la elección sobre los temas de la desigualdad de ingreso y la obligación de ambos, el gobierno y el sector privado, de ampliar la cada vez más encogida clase media de la nación", opinó el New York Times en un editorial sobre el discurso.
Que el joven movimiento Ocupa ya cambió la óptica del debate nacional no es poco, pero aún está por verse si eso lleva a cambios en el terreno real de la vida cotidiana del 99 por ciento.
El hecho es que casi 3 millones han perdido su vivienda, y se calcula que otros 3,6 millones enfrentarán lo mismo en los próximos dos años. Y aunque la tasa de desempleo por fin bajó de 9 a 8,6 por ciento, por lo menos la mitad de esa reducción se debe no a la generación de empleo, sino el abandono de decenas de miles de la fuerza laboral, o sea, gente que ya se dio por vencida para encontrar una chamba. Hay más hambre y más desesperanza en todo el país.
Aunque Obama y su equipo hablen en nombre del 99 por ciento no necesariamente convencerá a todos. Hay ciertos detalles que provocan más bien dudas, entre ellos que el sector financiero continúa siendo uno de los principales contribuyentes a la campaña electoral del presidente, aportando hasta la fecha un tercio de sus fondos recaudados para esta próxima elección (en 2008, Obama recibió más fondos de Wall Street que su contrincante republicano).
Otro es el hecho incómodo (políticamente) de que Obama y su gabinete pertenecen al 1 por ciento. Ocho de los 10 integrantes del gabinete, incluido el presidente, analizados por el Center for Responsive Politics son millonarios. Hillary Clinton, la secretaria de Estado, es la más rica con un valor neto promedio de 31 millones de dólares, seguida por William Daley, jefe del gabinete, con 28 millones. Obama tiene un valor neto de 7,3 millones. Los bancos preferidos por los integrantes del gabinete más ricos para sus cuentas personales son JPMorgan Chase y Wells Fargo. Clinton, Daley, Rahm Emanuel (su ex jefe de gabinete) y Obama tenían un total combinado de más de 50 millones en cuentas de JP Morgan Chase en 2010, según análisis de datos públicos por el Center for Responsive Politics.
También está el hecho de que hasta que estalló el movimiento Ocupa Wall Street, el presidente, su gabinete y gran parte de la cúpula política (con notables excepciones) no abordaban el tema de la desigualdad económica. No hablaban de que la desigualdad en el ingreso en Estados Unidos está en su nivel más alto desde los años 20. No indicaban que por primera vez desde 1927, el 10 por ciento más rico tenia 50 por ciento del ingreso nacional.
O el dato que provocó gran atención esta semana cuando se reveló que los Walton, los seis herederos de la fortuna Wal-Mart, habían acumulado un tesoro personal equivalente al valor neto combinado de 30 por ciento de los estadunidenses en la base de la pirámide económica, según datos de 2007 (o sea, podría ser aún mayor hoy día).
El movimiento Ocupa, al provocar el debate sobre la desigualad documentado por todos estos datos y hechos incómodos, también genera preocupación entre los republicanos que, en público, descartan como flojos y rojos a los manifestantes (el multimillonario republicano Donald Trump denunció esta semana que Obama creó el movimiento Ocupa). “"Yo estoy tan asustado de este esfuerzo anti-Wall Street. Estoy asustado a muerte”", afirmó Frank Luntz, uno de los estrategas nacionales más reconocidos del Partido Republicano en una reunión de gobernadores republicanos del país. Indicó que "están teniendo un impacto sobre lo que el pueblo estadunidense piensa del capitalismo", reportó Yahoo News. Entre sus recomendaciones a los políticos republicanos que enfrentan preguntas de sus bases sobre la desigualdad económica y otros temas que surgen del movimiento Ocupa: no usen la palabra capitalismo. “Estoy intentando remover esa palabra y sustituirla con ‘libertad económica’ o ‘libre mercado. El público … aún prefiere capitalismo que socialismo pero creen que el capitalismo es inmoral. Y si nos perciben como defensores de ‘Wall Street’, tendremos un problema”.
Mientras el presidente y otros millonarios afirman representar al 99 por ciento y el uno por ciento propone evitar el uso de la palabra "capitalismo", parece que el movimiento Ocupa ha logrado, por lo menos, dejar claro que el emperador está desnudo.
La Jornada
------
JG: Barack Obama is a faithful servant of Corporate America, the Banks, and Wall Street. Do not listen to what he says, WATCH WHAT HE DOES!
Monday, December 12, 2011
Why I Don't Trust the Barack Obama Administration: U.S. Gov´t Asks to Reject Cuban 5 Appeals
Havana, Dec 12 (Prensa Latina) The U.S. government asked Florida''s South District Court to reject collateral appeals from Ramon Labañino and Fernando Gonzalez, two of the five Cuban antiterrorist fighters unjustly held in that northern country since 1998.
The petition, made on December 6, states that the arguments made by both men lack legal merits to be considered by the court.
The government said the argument on the government's payment to Miami journalists before and during the trial against the Five to create an atmosphere of hostility against them and prejudice the jury presented in both appeals does not constitute a violation of due process.
The government´s motion responds to the appeals presented by defense attorneys of Ramon Labañino and Fernando Gonzalez on August 8 and September 12, 2011, respectively, states the note.
Labañino and Gonzalez, along with Antonio Guerrero, Rene Gonzalez and Gerardo Hernandez, are currently serving harsh sentences for informing on the plans of violent actions against Cuba conceived by terrorist groups based in U.S. territory.
Rene Gonzalez was released from prison on October 7 and a Miami judge decision has forced him to serve three years of "supervised release" in the United States after completing his sentence.
Such situation puts his life at risk and is an additional punishment for him and his relatives.
According to the judge, Rene Gonzalez should respect the special condition of not approaching places attended by well-known terrorists.
Modificado el (lunes, 12 de diciembre de 2011)
------
JG: His campaign of HATE against Cuba has continued. He is no different than George W. Bush
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Political Corruption in Miami-Dade County: Absentee Ballot Fraud Could Derail Barack Obama in 2012
Wednesday, 30 November 2011 09:36
By Luther Campbell
From Miami New Times
Absentee ballot fraud could derail Obama in 2012
Rampant absentee ballot fraud is destroying democracy in Miami and across the United States. County Commissioner Rebeca Sosa has proposed that anyone caught messing with absentee ballots will go to jail for 60 days and pay a $1,000 fine. Ten of her colleagues agree on the plan, which will be voted on this month. Sosa is also urging the state legislature to charge anyone who collects absentee ballots with a felony.
Why do we need such a plan? The Miami-Dade ethics commission just concluded that three North Miami Beach residents' votes were stolen via the absentee ballot process. But more and more, absentee ballot brokers are the key to every election.
No sitting politician will reform the system, especially with the 2012 presidential election on the horizon. Absentee ballots in Miami-Dade may well elect the next president. There's a county mayoral race next year too.
Consider this: In the most recent elections in Miami and Hialeah, absentee ballots either tied or outnumbered ballots cast on Election Day. On his way to victory, Miami city Commissioner Willy Gort collected 2,228 absentee ballots, nearly double the 1,245 he received on Election Day this past November 2. His colleague, Marc Sarnoff, had almost the same number of absentee ballots (2,289) as votes cast at the polls (2,322).
In the Hialeah mayoral race's first round, absentee ballots outnumbered voters on Election Day by 2,023. In the runoff, winner Carlos Hernandez had 730 more absentee ballots than Election Day votes. His absentee ballots outpaced those of his opponent -- longtime Hialeah king Raul Martinez -- by 4,000.
The only way to get that many absentee ballots is by hiring brokers who charge candidates thousands of dollars to deliver bundles to the county elections department. The brokers are the ones responsible for dead people voting in the '80s and '90s. Now they go around strong-arming the elderly residents at assisted living facilities or fooling them with free breakfast at the local IHOP. The brokers also pay off preachers so they can set up shop inside houses of worship to sign up absentee voters.
I saw it firsthand when I ran in the recent county mayoral race. One guy, who I won't name, guaranteed he could deliver thousands of absentee ballots in North Miami and North Miami Beach for $3,000. I took a pass. It showed on Election Day. I had more early and Election Day ballots than absentee votes.
I don't believe our forefathers intended voting by absentee to be sold to the highest bidder. But that's the way it is.
(Progreso Weekly Editor’s Note: Miami has three notorious boleteras or absentee ballot queens. They are Sasha Tirador, Zaida Nuñez and Emelina Llanes. The Miami Herald recently published an article on Tirador.)
Luther Campbell, also known as Uncle Luke, is a former rap artist. He now writes for Miami New Times. He ran for Miami-Dade mayor earlier this year.
Source: Progreso Weekly
By Luther Campbell
From Miami New Times
Absentee ballot fraud could derail Obama in 2012
Rampant absentee ballot fraud is destroying democracy in Miami and across the United States. County Commissioner Rebeca Sosa has proposed that anyone caught messing with absentee ballots will go to jail for 60 days and pay a $1,000 fine. Ten of her colleagues agree on the plan, which will be voted on this month. Sosa is also urging the state legislature to charge anyone who collects absentee ballots with a felony.
Why do we need such a plan? The Miami-Dade ethics commission just concluded that three North Miami Beach residents' votes were stolen via the absentee ballot process. But more and more, absentee ballot brokers are the key to every election.
No sitting politician will reform the system, especially with the 2012 presidential election on the horizon. Absentee ballots in Miami-Dade may well elect the next president. There's a county mayoral race next year too.
Consider this: In the most recent elections in Miami and Hialeah, absentee ballots either tied or outnumbered ballots cast on Election Day. On his way to victory, Miami city Commissioner Willy Gort collected 2,228 absentee ballots, nearly double the 1,245 he received on Election Day this past November 2. His colleague, Marc Sarnoff, had almost the same number of absentee ballots (2,289) as votes cast at the polls (2,322).
In the Hialeah mayoral race's first round, absentee ballots outnumbered voters on Election Day by 2,023. In the runoff, winner Carlos Hernandez had 730 more absentee ballots than Election Day votes. His absentee ballots outpaced those of his opponent -- longtime Hialeah king Raul Martinez -- by 4,000.
The only way to get that many absentee ballots is by hiring brokers who charge candidates thousands of dollars to deliver bundles to the county elections department. The brokers are the ones responsible for dead people voting in the '80s and '90s. Now they go around strong-arming the elderly residents at assisted living facilities or fooling them with free breakfast at the local IHOP. The brokers also pay off preachers so they can set up shop inside houses of worship to sign up absentee voters.
I saw it firsthand when I ran in the recent county mayoral race. One guy, who I won't name, guaranteed he could deliver thousands of absentee ballots in North Miami and North Miami Beach for $3,000. I took a pass. It showed on Election Day. I had more early and Election Day ballots than absentee votes.
I don't believe our forefathers intended voting by absentee to be sold to the highest bidder. But that's the way it is.
(Progreso Weekly Editor’s Note: Miami has three notorious boleteras or absentee ballot queens. They are Sasha Tirador, Zaida Nuñez and Emelina Llanes. The Miami Herald recently published an article on Tirador.)
Luther Campbell, also known as Uncle Luke, is a former rap artist. He now writes for Miami New Times. He ran for Miami-Dade mayor earlier this year.
Source: Progreso Weekly
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
PINCH ME! Good News About the Obama Administration
Jorge Bolaños Suarez
The on-line publication People's World has reported the following:
by: Anita Waters
November 28 2011
COLUMBUS, Ohio - In a small sign that U.S. relations with Cuba may be improving, Ambassador Jorge Bolaños Suarez, head of the Cuban Interest Section in the United States, traveled to Ohio last week. It was first time in 10 years that the United States has permitted Cuba's highest ranking diplomat to travel away from the Washington D.C. area, where the Interest Section is based. Bolaños spoke on Thursday to a small audience at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center, in a talk that revisited key points of common history shared by the U.S. and Cuba, described some of Cuba's outstanding achievements, and contemplated the long-term future of relations between Cuba and the United States.
Bolaños reminded the audience of the close relationship that the U.S. and Cuba have shared over two centuries, beginning in the American Revolutionary War when a Cuban military hero fought in George Washington's army and ultimately died in Washington's home. U.S. participation in Cuba's wars of independence from Spain ultimately led to a diminution of Cuba's national sovereignty, until the victory of the revolution in January 1959 restored the nation's self-determination.
Cuba is an internationally respected nation with outstanding achievements to its credit, Bolaños said. He cited its 35,000 professionals - doctors and teachers - who are at work abroad in poorer countries where help is desperately needed. Cuba has achieved accolades for its high ranking among Latin American countries in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. The international community overwhelmingly supports Cuba, as evidenced in consistent calls in the United Nations for the end of the US embargo against Cuba. Bolaños recalled that Cuba was the first foreign destination for Nelson Mandela when he was finally elected president of a free South Africa. Ambassador Bolaños was at the UN when Mandela spoke there and recognized Cuba as the leader in the international fight against apartheid.
Bolaños' discussion of U.S./Cuba relations centered on the embargo, which has both economic and moral costs to both Cuba and the United States. Bolaños reminded his audience that the original purpose behind the U.S. embargo against Cuba was to cause suffering amongst ordinary Cubans. U.S. officials hoped and expected that when Cubans were hungry and desperate, they would rebel against their government. That of course never happened, and more than 50 years later, the policy is still preventing Americans from buying Cuban products and from visiting Cuba for themselves.
Cuba is linked closely by geography, culture and history to the United States, Bolaños noted. Cuba has never been at war with the U.S. and poses no threat to U.S. security, he said, adding that Cubans hope the two countries can live in peace based on mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and self-determination.
Bolaños credited Ohio State University President Gordon Gee for organizing his visit to Ohio. He went on to speak at Youngstown State University on Friday before returning to Washington.
------
JG: Any positive step should be commended and applauded. But the Cuba embargo is a failed U.S. policy. GET RID OF IT MR PRESIDENT! Give us a new Profile in Courage: send a written message to the U.S. Congress that says: "It came a time when the United States recognized that The People's Republic of China was the only true government of mainland China. The reality of Cuba is that the Cuban Revolutionary Government is the only true legitimate government of the island, and it has the overwhelming support of the population. The embargo must be LIFTED, and let the remnants of the Cold War be repealed!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)