A Miami resident, Gustavo Villoldo, recently won a civil suit against the Cuban government for driving his father to suicide and was awarded $1 billion. Villoldo will try to collect the money from frozen Cuban assets but it will not be very easy, given that much of that money has already been awarded to other individuals who won suits against the Cuban government. This story brings to mind a very important topic of interest to Cubans and Cuban exiles: the issue of compensation for property that was expropriated by the Castro regime.

The issue of claims to property in post-Castro or post-communist Cuba is a difficult one to untangle. The Castro regime created a catastrophic mess when it expropriated billions of dollars in property and businesses from Cuban citizens and other property holders. In the fifty years since, Castro has parceled out homes as he wished and redistributed wealth as he saw fit. This fact is central: the Cuban people have endured terrible suffering over the last five decades at the hands of this dictator. So what is to be done with respect to property rights and claims?

The solution to this problem must take into account the most important considerations when dealing with a post-communist Cuba: rights of the Cuban people, revitalization of the Cuban economy, and stability/security. Very simply put: if we allow Cuban exiles to rush back into Cuba after the end of communism and claim properties that were confiscated fifty years ago, this will effectively create a two class system. One class will be the Cuban exile class with roots in the United States and with ownership of significant portions of the Cuban economy and the other class will be that of ordinary Cubans who have absolutely no ownership in today’s Cuba and will not have as much of a say in tomorrow’s Cuba. This situation is unacceptable because it punishes ordinary Cubans who remained on the island… and it will possibly lead to instability and violence. The mere fact that Cuban exiles have long been expecting that their claims be honored and that Cubans on the island have expected the exiles to take back all their land, has made it a real concern for those who want change in Cuba. The exile’s demand for property has only strengthened the communist regime’s position by generating the fear of losing one’s home in ordinary Cubans. Therefore, it must be made clear that in a post-communist Cuba, claims to property cannot be honored simply on the basis of “property rights.” In other words, former property holders with proof of ownership will not be considered to have any right to those properties in any way. The best that they can hope to get is some sort of compensation, which I will address later.

The right to property cannot be regarded as a natural (and negative) right since property rights are by their very nature a contract between an individual and all others. Property is not the natural state of man, i.e. we do not come into this world clutching a deed to a house, we come into this world with self, life, and liberty… that’s it. The right to property is something that comes through negotiation with society. In Cuba, that contract was ruptured by a revolution that became communist and declared that everything belonged to the state. So when a new government is established in Cuba that is based on human rights, liberty, and justice, that government is coming into power with a blank slate in terms of property claims.

The revolution was a game-changer. A New Cuba after communism does not imply the return of the Old Cuba. Decisions over property and wealth distribution must be made on a national level and the vast majority will probably not be too keen on allowing faded pieces of paper held by aging Cuban exiles to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few… the suffering of the Cuban people was nearly universal and therefore the rebuilding of Cuba requires universal contribution and effort.

On the other hand, while I do not advocate honoring property claims in such a way that harms the regular Cuban population, I do advocate instead some sort of compensation if possible. The Castro regime has created a two-class system in Cuba: the higher communist officials and the regular citizens. Given this two-class system and the “illegal” concentration of properties, privileges, and wealth in the hands of the Castro cadre, the exile community should have the right to go after some or all of these assets as compensation for confiscated property. What is clearly the personal wealth of the ruling clique should be given back to the people whose property was confiscated as compensation. The process should go through courts established specifically for this purpose and only then should claims to property be considered. If no such assets can be clearly identified and/or recovered then zero compensation will go to the former property holders.

The policy is simple: do not punish ordinary Cuban people and award some or all of the assets of Cuba’s oppressors as compensation for those whose property was confiscated by Castro. All of this should be done through the courts of course.

This is simply my view in a nutshell… the varying types of confiscated properties and businesses, the treatment of Castro regime officials after a transition, the actual process of dividing up property among the local Cuban population, etc. are all issues that play a part in a post-communist or post-Castro Cuba and, in truth, the way that a transition takes place will decide a lot of these questions. In the meantime, all we can do is offer up our view of how justice will be best served in a post-communist Cuba.

-AG

Three weeks ago I predicted that the Taliban would start setting off bombs in the middle of Pakistan’s major cities and last Thursday, that is exactly what took place. The Taliban carried out a terrorist attack in Lahore killing 27 and wounding 250. In Peshawar, they set off a series of bombs hat killed 8 people. Of course, to be fair, I predicted that a terrorist organization would engage in terrorism… pretty much a no-brainer. Regardless of that, it is important to understand that the enemy that Pakistan is currently trying to defeat is not one that can be defeated using conventional strategies and conventional armed forces. The problem with these organizations is that they do not have standing armies, they do not wear distinct uniforms, and they do not always congregate in one area. They look like civilians, act like civilians, and smell like civilians… and if Pakistan stations its entire army in that region, then the Taliban will simply take off their ski masks and melt away into the civilian population.

What this means is that even if Pakistan gains control of a city or region, like they recently did, it does not mean that the organization is significantly closer to being defeated. Right now, we can expect that Taliban elements have dispersed throughout the country and are planning to carry out further bombings… so while the conventional battle may have been won by Pakistan, the unconventional war may rage on. The terrorists have several advantages: a clear set of demands ("Sharia Law"), support from the local population that fears creeping westernization, and years of preparation. If they can convincingly express that they will cease their attacks in exchange for the right to live by Islamic Law and convincingly portray Pakistan’s government as being Washington’s lapdog, then they can win the psychological war. Pakistan must preempt this strategy by launching and sustaining their own PR campaign (psy-ops) and by stepping up their counter-terrorist efforts in order to smoke out the terror cells set up around the country. They must also make sure that the internally displaced population is properly taken care of, otherwise these people will blame the Pakistani government for their woes and become ripe pickings for terrorist recruiters. The internal refugee population will become a ticking time bomb if not taken care of.

So far, Pakistan has been pursuing a policy more in line with logic than their previous policy of appeasement… it seems that the Obama administration is partially responsible for pushing them to crack down on the terrorists. In spite of that, I fear that the Pakistani government will not have the will to fight a prolonged guerrilla war in Swat Valley and a prolonged terrorist threat throughout the country… they have shown time and time again that they are more willing to negotiate with the terrorists so that they can “control” them rather than fight them. Let’s hope that the Pakistani government does not surrender and let’s pray that the Pakistani people do not suffer at the hands of terrorism.

-AG

I have been away for some time and it seems that the forces of tyranny have not relented… I guess there’s no rest for the wicked. So here goes:

First up: North Korea. First they test a nuclear weapon in direct violation of international law. Then they fire three short-range missiles off of their east coast, raising the stakes in its confrontation with the civilized world. Finally they threaten war if South Korea attempts to participate in efforts to stop weapons trafficking. All in a week’s work for dictator Kim Jong Il.

In response, the Obama administration has issued strongly worded condemnations and warnings of consequences for these actions. Let’s be serious, Obama has ignored North Korea for the majority of his tenure so far and Kim has been proceeding with his tests and nuclear arms buildup without a care in the world. How is it surprising that Kim Jong Il exploded a bomb similar to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How is it surprising that they launch missiles? How is it surprising that they threaten war?

Kim Jong Il took one good look at Barack Hussein Obama and he laughed.

North Korea will continue to provoke the international community as long as he believes that the United States and the UN will do nothing except issue denunciations or slap sanctions on their country.

The current weak president has only emboldened our enemies. Watching the situation unfold would be funny if it weren’t so serious. Obama should make sure that North Korea does not give this technology to our other enemies… otherwise it will be on his watch that Al Qaeda becomes a nuclear power.

-AG

That is what Pat Buchanan wrote in this article where he talks about Dick Cheney, Obama, and national security. While I respect Pat Buchanan for being one of the few conservatives in the mainstream media, I disagree with two points he made in this article. The first is regarding Barack Hussein Obama II (the president of the United States). He writes: “Barack is not into ideology. He is into Barack.” This is not correct, Obama is both highly ideological and highly “into himself.” The “into himself” part is pretty evident from his actions and speeches, like for example when he “re-enacted 9-11” in order to get pretty pictures of his new plane. The ideological part is evident in everything he has been doing. Take into account his overt policy of wealth redistribution, his overt embrace of foreign America-hating tyrants and domestic terrorists, and his overt efforts to treat enemy combatants nicer; how are these things not based on a far left ideology? Obama’s every move is defined by finding the most politically expedient way to implement his radical left ideology, in that sense he is somewhat pragmatic and not some raving lunatic foaming at the mouth. To simply dismiss him as an egotistical, young politician is to ignore the ideological coup d’état that has been carried out on this country. Who could ever imagine that the President of the United States would be personally consorting with people that openly advocate the destruction of America like Bill Ayers,? Who could ever have imagined the President of the United States openly supporting a system of wealth redistribution in this country which was founded on the principle of personal liberty? Pat Buchanan is just plain wrong in thinking that Obama is only about the fame.

The second issue I take with Buchanan’s article is the fact that he is convinced that Al Qaeda will strike again within the United States. Let’s be clear, America has been winning the war on terror. As long as America keeps going on the offense against the terrorists, an attack on US soil will not be likely. We have good soldiers out there in the field. We have satellites peering down at every Afghan goat herder on the ground. We have analysts listening in on terrorist chatter from all over the world. We are prompting foreign governments to disrupt the finances and operations of terrorist organizations. While it is certain that Al Qaeda is planning another attack, it is by no means certain that they will be successful. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering and is a slap in the face to all of our service men and women out in the field. The only thing that will make another attack probable is if we stop our operations against the terrorists or appease them in any way. A weak foreign policy is the terrorist’s best friend and this administration is looking awfully friendly.

-AG

Speaking of Obama making friends… I am adding the song “You’re my Best Friend” by Queen.

Rush, pick on someone your own size! 97-year-old Roberta McCain had a few choice words to say about Rush Limbaugh a few days ago: “I don’t know what he is, but he does not represent the Republican Party that I belong to.” Roberta is absolutely right. Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly violated Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

I know that Rush is not always at fault, for example, Michael “in da heezy” Steele had no business calling Rush irrelevant, but the truth is that Rush has been very vocal in attacking fellow Republicans, particularly Roberta McCain’s son. We must be realistic for a moment… do we want the Republican party to be a clique where only the most loyal conservatives can join or run for office? Do we be so exclusive that we save ammo for Republicans who stray even an inch from the official party line? Of course not.

I am no supporter of moderation in the defense of freedom, but I am neither an imbecile when it comes to backing people who are more conservative versus more liberal. Any day, I would rather have a McCain than an Obama. More generally, on any day I would choose a liberal Republican over a liberal Democrat, or even a conservative Democrat, because the truth is that Democrats DO NOT agree with the fact that “bigger government means less freedom” and conservatism holds that to be true (within reason of course: limited gov’t is the goal, not zero gov’t). The Republican Party cannot turn into the political version of the middle kingdom… we must be willing to accept some dissent.

This does not mean that we must moderate, it means that we should have lively debate within the party, and we must not become stagnant like the Democrats who decided decades ago that more taxes, more spending, and more government was the answer to society’s woes. For that reason, Rush is starting to stretch my patience to its limits. Reagan created the 11th Commandment for a reason… and we started winning election after election because of it… because we did not allow our inner policy debates to become weapons for the Democrats to use against us. Jeb said forget about Reagan… Rush seems to be following suit… now is not the time to betray his memory by destroying the Republican Party through civil war.

-AG

Army Maj. Steven Hutchison served his country honorably. He served two year-long tours in Vietnam. At age 57, he rejoined the military after the 911 attacks and after his wife passed away due to breast cancer. He died from the wounds inflicted by a roadside bomb and is the oldest serviceman to die in Iraq, at the age of 60.

One of his last acts in Iraq was to rescue a dog and find him a good home.

His brother told reporters that “he had a big heart.”

For defending freedom in this world, all Americans say:

THANK YOU

-AG

The problem I have with the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism is simple: they are looking for nicer ways to treat terrorists. You know who the terrorists are: the guys who killed thousands of Americans, blow themselves up, and decapitate journalists. These guys:

Apparently, Obama is considering restarting the Bush administration’s military commissions, which is a good thing. The only thing is that the suspected terrorists will be given more legal rights, which might not be so good. If they were waterboarded, will they be able to sue the US? Can their defense call on American citizens as witnesses? What if they are acquitted and then rejoin Al Qaeda as a hero once released? What exactly does “more rights” mean?

The problem is that Obama is not asking the right question when it comes to terrorism: how does America uphold its values and defend its values? Those are two different things. The former requires that we not abuse these suspected terrorists despite their beheadings of civilians, despite their vows to destroy any American, despite their dedication to a homicidal and suicidal ideology. The latter requires that we keep these suspected terrorists off the battlefield, outside of the US mainland, and that justice is served… but the administration is not asking this question.

Obama is asking: what is the nicest policy we can adopt without too much resistance from the American people? So he will restart the military commissions, but give them more rights. The Democrats will try to sweep Nancy Pelosi’s foreknowledge and complicity under the rug so that they can investigate only the Republicans who knew. Obama will consider sending some suspected terrorists to Saudi Arabia for “terrorist rehab.” Obama seems to be more interested in the well-being of terrorists than his own people… it is worth discussing that Obama’s interest in the lives of terrorists is high while he has absolutely no interest in the lives of the innocent unborn. It is worth discussing that he will spend hundreds of millions on Gaza when its rulers, Hamas, launches rocket attacks on Israel on a daily basis.

The accusations of knowing and being friendly with Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist, are being vindicated by Obama’s actions now. His moral compass is broken. His sympathy for terrorists and tyrants is guiding his foreign policy in a way that has not been seen since Carter, the one-term president who presided over Iran’s taking of American hostages and “economic catastrophe.”

Now, I am not one who ignores excesses in Republican behavior. I gladly point out that when Bush and co. took off the gloves, we did go overboard. I understand why, I voted for it, and so did millions of Americans who supported our tough stance against terrorism. We were faced with an enemy that would commit suicide in order to kill innocents. They would kill children for no reason. So did Bush overstep when he slammed two countries that were supporting terrorism (their support of terrorism is a FACT, whether affiliated to Al Qaeda or not)? Possibly some of our methods went too far. For example, a Powell aide recently said that the Bush administration was pushing interrogators to find the “smoking gun” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. While it seems that they pushed too hard… we must consider the alternative? Would we be willing to allow Iraq, which historically has had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, to collaborate with Al Qaeda? The UN had imposed crushing sanctions on that country, Hussein had used chemical weapons before, and Hussein was funding different terrorist groups already, did we want to wait until he decided to work with Osama bin Laden? America did not want to risk it, especially after 911. America made the best decision and re-elected Bush despite an unpopular war… because we had to do what was necessary to ensure that America was safe.

In retrospect, it is easy to criticize the Bush administration, but the truth is that the American people were there, Congress was there, and both parties voted their conscience. We now know the full details of the enhanced interrogation techniques and we reject them on the basis of our Constitution, which is a document that is not merely a contract between government and the people, but between the American people and the world. When we wrote that we would reject “cruel and unusual” punishment, we decided that we would hold ourselves to a higher standard than the monarchies and dictators of the world. In a sense, we failed to uphold that, all for understandable reasons, but now we can return to our principles. We should never have abandoned them. Also, EITs do not work so well. I do not suggest that we treat enemy combatants or suspected terrorists nicely, just that we do not stoop to their level. Waterboarding is nothing like public decapitations, nothing like pouring acid on prisoners, nothing like public lashings which are practices of the Taliban and Al Qaeda… but it is beneath the moral code of America. Let’s be rough with our enemies, but within the limits that we set for ourselves more than 200 years ago. It’s the American way.

-AG

Fidel Castro’s daughter Alina Fernández Revuelta spoke to a full house at Ohio University on Monday describing her life and experiences in Cuba. Castro’s own daughter fled the island in 1993 as a political refugee after she broke with her father’s totalitarian ideology. She describes how the “revolution” became endless and was used to militarize every aspect of Cuban society. Extreme rationing led to a breakdown of social values, where the average Cuban had to resort to breaking the law and participate in the black market simply to survive.

Young Alina Fernandez with her father

She explains that the transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his younger brother Raul Castro did not mean that much would change in the country, saying that “What is happening in Cuba is bizarre; it’s like a family business.” She also reiterated what I have written about before and what countless others believe: that Cuba should not “move toward a political or economic model like that of China.”

Fernandez describing the exploitation of Cuban women for foreign tourists

If America is to go into the business of propping up totalitarian, anti-American dictatorships, then we should do it with both eyes open. Around the world, America’s new approach to dictatorship shows the would-be dictators that authoritarianism pays, just as long as they can do business with the United States. We are giving legitimacy to those regimes that systematically deny basic human rights to their own population, at least in practice. In the name of cultural tolerance, liberals say to themselves: that’s the system they like, so why try to force them to change? The truth is that the oppression in these countries does not stop at “regular” folks but even reaches the very daughters of the dictators, because blood is not thicker than power. The oppression extends even further, with the exportation of an ideology that cultivates either apathy or sympathy here at home, the latter being the most dangerous threat to what we call freedom.

As we speak, Latin American countries are being taken over by leftist leaders that vow a radical socialist revolution based on defeating “the empire” which is code for “the United States.” The Domino Theory is being witnessed as we speak, and as long as these socialists can keep the propaganda flowing and keep their domestic situations from destabilizing excessively, we can expect the continued spread of communism and socialism in or own backyard… that is, unless something were to stop this downward spiral into socialism. Cuban-Americans have been warning of this for decades. Even Castro’s own daughter is warning us of this. An active anti-American alliance is being formed south of our borders united behind a love of tyranny, a love of Castro, and a hatred of free markets and free expression. Will we stand up against tyranny before it is too late? I hope so.

-AG

These were the words of President Barack Obama urging Congress to forgo scrutinizing, debating, and reading the massive stimulus package that he proposed and to simply pass it. His remarks about the imminent “economic catastrohpe” if we delayed acting took place more than two months ago. Here are his remarks below:

Well, Congress took his advice and along partisan lines the Democrats passed the stimulus package in record time… so what has happened since passing this massive spending bill? The federal government has spent less than six percent of the allocated money. What happened to “acting now?” With millions of people losing their jobs since the recession began and with more unemployment claims expected to come in due to the government-managed Chrysler bankruptcy and inevitable GM restructuring, the Democrats’ claim that the stimulus is the only thing that could “jolt” life back into the economy is not being followed up on.

The truth of the matter is that the “stimulus” was really never meant to stimulate anything but government itself. A lot of the money being “offered” to states is not coming for free, but rather with strings attached. For example, here in Florida, in order to receive $444 million in funds, the state would have to expand unemployment eligibility which would eventually mean raising taxes in Florida. Some of the money is being diverted to supplement government-run programs that have been underfunded through regular taxes, for example $600 million to the Superfund program that cleans up pollution which was supposed to be financed by an energy tax (this tax has been brought back) that expired in 1995. The article says that “Ronald Naman, the E.P.A. [Environmental Protection Agency] manager for the Vineland site, said the new money would create or save about 20 jobs.” $600 million = 20 jobs. Wow! At this rate $787 billion = 26,233.3 jobs. Which brings us to the “oxymoron of the day:”

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY

The stimulus will end up changing state laws and bloating government programs that will, in the end, need sustained funding from the taxpayer, i.e. us. The Democrats made a big deal about exit strategies a few years ago, well… where’s the stimulus package exit strategy? Is it any wonder that Republicans were almost unanimous in voting against this flagrant attempt at inflating the size of the federal government? With all the infighting between Republicans after losing the election, such common sense and such solidarity was a welcome breath of fresh air.

So… for all the fear-mongering about the collapse of the economy, barely 6% of the “urgent” stimulus has been pumped into the economy. Did the new administration just pulled a fast one on all taxpaying Americans? I think you guys already know the answer to that one.

-AG

Obama’s new best bud Hugo Chavez, “president” of Venezuela, has ordered the seizure of a pipeline and natural gas compression terminal owned by Williams Cos. Inc. after this company sent default notices to Venezuela’s state-owned oil monopoly PDVSA for lack of payment. Very interesting business move by Chavez, he owes money and then seizes the company that he owes money to… if only American citizens at risk of foreclosure could do the same thing.

Chavez also went ahead and ordered the seizure of 11 vessels and an operations base of New Orleans-based company Tidewater Inc. also coming after PDVSA fell behind on payments. Again, a shrewd business move… except for the part where both of these companies will not invest further in Venezuela and possibly move their operations out.

These moves come on the heels of other Chavez political hit-jobs such as stripping the mayor of Caracas, the capital, of his powers and persecuting the mayor of another major city, Maracaibo. The mayor of Maracaibo ended up asking for asylum and receiving asylum from Peru. Both of these gentlemen were Chavez opponents. Chavez, in early April, arrested former Venezuelan Defense Minister Raul Baduel at gunpoint in front of his wife for alleged corruption. Baduel was a principal player in restoring Chavez’s power after a coup against him but broke with him in 2007 in protest of Chavez’s power-grab. How quick friendships can unravel when they’re in the way of absolute power.

When you look at what’s been happening over here: nationalizing private companies and threatening to investigate the former administration… it’s no wonder Obama got all cuddly with Chavez.

-AG

It is despicable to see the state Republican Party try to invoke Rule 11 that will focus all of the party’s funds on the officially endorsed candidate, in this case Charlie Crist. It is a brazen attempt to exclude Marco Rubio from contesting the Senate seat… it is also a brazen attempt to shatter my dreams of seeing a battle between moderates and conservatives!

Right now the party needs to have a public debate about what it stands for and will stand for after the thorough thumping that we have received in the last two elections. While some Republicans lean towards “moderation,” the Democrats embrace their most liberal members, the ones that said that we lost the war, the ones that have increased the deficit to four times the previous level, the ones that knew about torture and now act like they had no clue. What the Republicans need to do is defend personal liberty, defend America, fight for smaller and smarter government, and stress fiscal responsibility. They need to strengthen the message, not moderate it… but in the spirit of fairness, I would love to hear how standing next to Obama and embracing higher spending is better for America; I would love to know how acting like a Democrat will help the Republican Party…

I feel that the moderates have not proven their case and, by the same token, neither have the conservatives. So let’s debate it, not drown it out in procedure and premature endorsements… Let Marco Rubio, the Conservative Contender, give us a fresh new look at how to move forward… we owe it to ourselves.

-AG

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a leader of the leftist ruling faction in Washington and next in line to become president if both president and vice-president die or are incapacitated, continues to deny that she knew about waterboarding all the way back to 2002. The back story is this: Pelosi was interested in establishing a truth commission to investigate how waterboarding came to be authorized and it was revealed last year that Pelosi was indeed briefed by the CIA about the use of waterboarding. Pelosi denied it, saying that they described the technique but did not say that they were actually using it. During that briefing it was reported that no one raised objections, so why the outrage now? Anyways, the CIA, a week ago, released memos detailing how the briefings on waterboarding included describing how the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) were being used on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah and how Pelosi was informed of this. Yesterday, a source reports that her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, actually informed Pelosi that waterboarding was being used. As expected, Pelosi has today accused the CIA of misleading her and that she did not know. Then comes a confusing account of how she actually sent a letter in protest, even though she never mentioned it before when asked if she objected during the briefings, only mentioning now after we know that her aide actually told her. Oh the tangled webs we weave…

Here is more irrefutable proof that Pelosi lied.

Pelosi’s denials do not stand against this mountain of evidence that is being stacked against her. I must commend the press in this case since they are, contrary to form, holding a Democrat accountable. The problem with the whole waterboarding issue is that Republicans AND Democrats knew about it and in the end, the outrage that we see today was absent during all those years. Were the democrats just waiting until the administration finished extracting all the information they needed before protesting? That implies that they thought that the EITs worked. The simple fact is that due to their silence, they were complicit. What is happening now is that the ruling party wants to hold a “public execution” and a McCarthyist witch hunt in order to embarrass the last administration and the Republican party. What the people in Washington need to do is fix the problems with the economy, win these two wars (one of which is pretty much wrapped up due to the Bush surge), and get back to the business of serving the people… instead they are squabbling, finger-pointing, and spending taxpayer money like no tomorrow.

In my opinion, the Democrats are using torture as a diversionary tactic as they spend record amounts of money and increase the size of government… even Obama put a stop to the release of certain photos showing the mistreatment of detainees. He deemed dangerous to our troops on the ground because they could be used to recruit more members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. These inquiries would be better to have later, after we decisively win the war on terror, and they should not be turned into a circus, their purpose should be to calmly and objectively ascertain the truth. Americans understand that we are currently at war with an enemy that does not care about the Geneva Conventions or any international treaties, an enemy that cuts people’s heads off simply for being American, an enemy whose singular mission is to kill all or any of us. Let’s focus on making the world safe from these maniacs first… we can play politics later.

-AG

Shanna Moakler, executive director of the Miss California USA pageant, has resigned because of the recent events involving Carrie Prejean, the current Miss California who answered that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and was subsequently disqualified. Moakler had accused Prejean of violating her contract with the pageant by speaking out in support of organizations that oppose gay marriage and for posing almost naked in pictures as a teenager. Apparently, the contract does not allow a contestant from exercising their first amendment rights to free speech, at least when it comes to gay marriage. Donald Trump, the pageant owner did not disqualify Prejean for the photos or the comments she made saying that even the president agrees with Prejean on this issue. Moakler, oddly enough, said that she would be starring in an ad promoting gay rights.

What we have here is an individual in a position of “power” in this organization that seems to be unhappy about another person having an opinion that is shared by the majority of the United States. Moakler has the right to resign, but what she represents is a type of liberalism that is condescending and that ultimately undermines the rights of all Americans. What the judges and people in charge wanted from Miss California was a non-answer or a dishonest answer and when they did not get it, they tried to exclude her and attack her, releasing videos with profanity and invective against her. What I do not understand is how can the pageant allow that sort of political question coming from a seemingly biased judge and then punish the contestant for answering truthfully?

Prejean actually did get involved with organizations which are opposed to gay marriage and is featured on this video:

It is this sort of intolerance to speech and religion that our founding fathers wanted to avoid and that those calling for “gay rights” accuse others of doing. There is a word for this: hypocrisy.

In this country, there is nothing wrong with debating both sides of the question and in the guise of being politically correct we have certain elements that are trying to stifle this debate. Questions about such a fundamental social change must be raised before we take action, especially when more states are passing laws that expand the “traditional definition” of marriage like New York. What does it mean that marriage is no longer a contract between a man and a woman? Do we simply expand the definition to man and man or woman and woman? Or do we go further and allow man, man, and woman? In other words, do we allow polygamy, bisexual polygamy, etc.? Is this the society that we want? If America believes that there is nothing wrong with this, then so be it… but let there at least be a debate in the public square.

A word on “gay rights": Human beings are endowed by their Creator (God, nature, or whatever) with certain inalienable rights. All humans have these rights and are thus called human rights. I do not support any distinction between humans when it comes to human rights; they are universal. The only case where I would deny certain rights is to protect the rights of others, like in the case of criminals where society must make sure that everyone is safe from them. African-Americans have rights and they are not called “African-American rights.” Japanese-Americans have rights and they are not called “Japanese-American rights.” So why does a section of society, distinct only in their sexual preferences, need to specify a distinct set of rights? Are they not human? Let’s not use the term “gay rights” when referring to the issues affecting this one group. In a free society, there can be no “gay rights"… only “human rights.” And I (like all Americans should) support the human rights of all people, including gay people.

That’s how I see it and whoever wants to take offense, can.

-AG

I’ve added a new feature to the site! It will now have a “songs of the moment” on the sidebar to the left… I will be changing it whenever inspiration strikes… or after people send me their requests at ag@neorepublica.com

Enjoy!

-AG

I like it.

Jim Greer is the chairman of the Florida Republican Party and after Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, democrat, announced that she would be running for governor of Florida, he said “I welcome former banker Alex Sink to the Governor’s race. After years of smoke in mirrors, it is about time for Floridians to meet the real Alex Sink.” The Florida Republican website lists these things that Alex Sink has done:

• The real Alex Sink was paid millions of dollars while overseeing what the head of Atlanta’s Legal-Aid called “subprime predatory mortgage lending.”
• The real Alex Sink fired thousands of Floridians while earning her millions through these predatory lending practices.
• The real Alex Sink used the very same practices that well known economists have linked to the significant economic downturn that Florida is facing today.
• The real Alex Sink played the leading role in tanking Florida’s economy.

Personally, I did not pay much attention to Alex Sink until she came after Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum for his ads that informed Floridians about online predators. The ad drives home the fact that predators now are using the internet to target children instead of simply hanging around playgrounds or elementary schools with their hand in their pants. Sorry for the gratuitous imagery. Here’s the ad:

This ad is excellent except for the fact that the statistics make it seem like every single child that goes online will be solicited for sex at one point or another, which is not really the case. It does make the point that the chances of being solicited are very high. Back to the point though: Sink, in an attempt to score political points against McCollum who may also run for governor, decided to go after him and investigate the company he used to produce the public service announcement (PSA). Apparently, McCollum employed the video production company that he has used before in a no-bid contract, which he is legally allowed to do. To Alex Sink, this was unacceptable, because it seemed like a campaign ad instead of a PSA and because it showcased McCollum instead of someone like America’s Most Wanted’s host John Walsh.

I am glad that McCollum was on the ad because now I know that the FL Attorny General is doing his job protecting Florida. If it were Alex Sink that was actually doing something to protect Florida’s children, instead of playing politics and using her position as CFO to advance her political career, then I would like to know it was her who ran the ads. In this episode, Alex Sink showed the Florida electorate that she is more interested in playing politics than protecting Florida’s children from predators. Shame on you, Sink.

It’s about time that politicians did something good for their constituents and live up to their title: “public servants.” I applaud Bill McCollum for informing the public of the new manifestations of very old dangers.

-AG

Friends, please look at this graph, I’ve posted it before but its importance cannot be overstated:

Government Spending

The Obama presidency, riding a wave of popularity, is creating record deficits in order to create a “new foundation” for America, which is really a “new foundation” for government. Obama is concentrating more power in the hands of a bigger government that is getting more expensive to run. Just think of the government agency that will be charged with ensuring that all currently uninsured Americans have government-run health insurance if Obama’s government healthcare agenda is passed, and how much money in the short and long term will be spent. Or how the government will administer the shares acquired with trillions of taxpayer dollars that they pumped into banks and other companies. The promises of bipartisanship and transparency have gone up in smoke with a Democrat controlled legislature ramming through their proposals and bills without healthy debate, without even giving the American people time to understand what is being passed. The radical left has gained control of the Democratic Party.

The Republican opposition, in the meantime, is stuck trying to figure out its next move. The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, has been sparring with conservatives around the country. The oft-reviled Dick Cheney has been criticizing moderate Republicans and the Obama administration, probably doing more harm that good, not because he is necessarily wrong but simply because nowadays politics is really a beauty pageant, and Obama is the prettiest contestant around. There is no powerful voice to unite around. One can only hope that the Republican Party can find that “eye of the tiger” and rebound.

For your viewing and listening pleasure

What is especially troubling is that now Obama has asked supporters to write letters to newspaper editors expressing support for his spend-our-way-to-socialism budget. The press in this country will do a good enough job of supporting Obama’s plans on their own without any input from the Obamatons, but this only shows how determined the Democrats are in consolidating and retaining power. This video below demonstrates how regular people are starting to take notice of these alarming developments in our country:

The radical left has tightened its grip on power and I urge both Republicans and especially Democrats to try to reverse this before it is too late. The Democrats of this nation need to take off their blinders just for a moment and consider if it is in our best interest to spend so many trillions, to have a government that is so huge and intrusive, and to give government excessive control over the free market. If this does not bother the Democrats, then perhaps they should consider what would happen if another administration similar to Bush came into power with a government made more powerful by the Obama administration. A more powerful Bush surely would scare Democrats. A stronger government in general is opposed by conservatives already. All Americans, regardless of party, can unite around the idea that more government inherently means less freedom… and we should start uniting now while we still have the chance.

-AG

I am flagrantly pushing for a Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio “grudge match” where the moderate Republican camp goes up against the conservative Republican camp. Though I have not endorsed either candidate yet, I am a bit disillusioned with Crist’s support of the very liberal president’s very liberal spending policies , as I wrote before. It looked like Crist was going to be a shoo-in for the GOP nomination, especially since Texas Senator John Cornyn, who is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, quickly came out to endorse Crist right after he announced he was running for the Senate. That endorsement combined with support from Mel Martinez, the current occupier of the Senate seat in question, made it look like they were brushing Rubio aside.

Well, it looks like some people are saying “not so fast.” The Miami Herald columnist Myriam Marquez wrote that this quick endorsement shows that in the GOP “only white-haired RINOs [Republicans-in-name-only] need apply for the Washington job.” Ouch. One of the arguments is compelling but I think it is a non-conservative argument by its very nature. The argument is that a “big tent” Republican Party, facing a Democratic Party led by a biracial person, needs to reach out to Hispanics and minorities in order to be viable in the long term and Marco Rubio is Hispanic. As a Hispanic myself, I did not become a conservative because the Republican Party “reached out to me” but rather because conservatism is a more logical set of ideas that emphasizes on the achievement of the individual and the Democrats’ liberalism can only lead to total government intervention in the lives of its citizens, and I cannot support that. Therefore, whenever we make decisions on who the candidate for the party should be, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should not be a consideration. The GOP does not need affirmative action or racial quotas. We are all Americans. I do not expect an African-American or an Indian-American or a Mexican-American to be any less American than the non-hyphenated Americans. Americans are Americans, we need to accept this and move on. So when Rubio supporter Ana Navarro says that Republicans “have paid all this lip service to how desperately Republicans need to build bridges with the Hispanic community and young people, but a 37-year-old Hispanic running for statewide office gets the door slammed in his face,” she is doing the Republican party a disservice by asking for a “racial quota” or primary “affirmative action.” That’s a tactic used by liberals to divide up Americans along class lines, race lines, religious lines, and now sexual-orientation lines while Republicans should simply advocate the respect of human rights regardless of social “difference.” I like Rubio, but I just call ‘em how I see ‘em.

In the end though, this argument might win out. I think that the real argument that should win is the one that I keep hearing: Rubio is the most conservative. The question remains: does Rubio have the best ideas?

With conservatives and moderates vying for more influence in the party, this primary race will be very significant. I think it’s time for a healthy debate.

-AG

I read an article a few days ago that brought to mind a long-standing objection I have had for years about Europe’s Holocaust denier laws that essentially make it illegal to express or possess anything that is either pro-Nazi or that denies the Holocaust. As an American citizen, these laws smack of censorship… a sort of reverse book-burning as practiced by the Nazis back in the day.

The reason it bothers me so much is that I once knew a Nazi-sympathizer who, in a very matter-of-fact fashion, explained to me why the Nazis were correct in their actions. At the time (I was very young), I was not very well informed as to the historical fact, so I hit the books, and lo-and-behold! I realized that this older gentleman was very much mistaken. So when I later learned that in Europe they banned all sorts of literature on Nazism, it disturbed me for two reasons. The first reason is that I truly believe that we must learn from history: about how a population could be kept in the dark about atrocities committed by the government on such a massive scale, about how demagogues use their oratorical power to hypnotize the “masses,” and about how we can avoid this type of thing in the future. To erase from our memory the motivations behind such genocidal and insane behavior would actually help the next genocidal dictator come to power, since no one would know what signs to look for. The second reason is the fact that the illegality of speech, even hate speech, is a violation of a basic human right to free expression. To lose an inch of our rights is a precursor to the complete loss of our rights.

Well, the article in question was a clear example of how compromising our right to free speech can be a slippery slope. In Russia, the government is considering what is called the law “Against the Rehabilitation of Nazism” that essentially makes illegal any sort of criticism of the Soviet Union’s actions during the Second World War. It makes it illegal to deny that the Soviets were the ones who won the war. It makes it illegal to criticize the tactics used during the war. It makes it illegal to say that the Soviets did not liberate Eastern Europe, which it did not… the Soviets simply replaced the Nazi occupiers with Soviet puppet-dictators. The sad part is that they point to European laws against Nazism to justify their move.

While the immense sacrifice of the Soviet Union during WWII cannot be denied, to criminalize the analysis of their history is to doom them to repeat the same mistakes. The first mistake was that the Joseph Stalin, then dictator of the USSR, carved up Poland with the insane Adolph Hitler… but under this law, that cannot be talked about. Another sad point during the war was the ruthlessness of the Soviet commanders who sent wave after wave of soldiers against the German without much consideration for their lives… but under this law, that cannot be talked about. At the end of the war, one dictatorship was replaced by another one that was paranoid of the west and possibly had designs for their own empire… but under this law, that cannot be talked about. Modern-day Russia will be forced to accept the highly dubious and skewed accounts of Soviet performance during the war and if anyone disagrees they may be sent to prison for three to five years.

Particularly, this law is intended to prevent the destruction of Soviet-era monuments to the war found in newly independent Eastern European states and will prevent their politicians from traveling in Russia if they have made comments denying Soviet victory over the Nazis. Practically, it is yet another blow against free speech in the world and Europe’s own laws played a part in justifying this law. The laws themselves are easy to pass because the world already knows about the gruesome and despicable acts carried out by the Nazi regime on people simply because of race. So when the average voter is asked whether we they should make Nazism illegal, a great majority will follow their gut instinct and vote to make speech illegal… I understand the urge to want to punish the Nazis of the past, present, and future with the only weapon that we have: our vote… I feel the same way about punishing Communism… but in our rush to get “revenge” we end up compromising our own freedom.

The greatest weapon that free people have against hate and tyranny is information. While the acts of the Nazi regime are amongst the most evil in history, no nation should criminalize the free speech of its people. In the United States, where there is no such prohibition, there are various pro-Nazi organizations and the mainstream has rejected them outright. As long as they abide by law and not endanger others, they should have the right to express their historical, political, racial, or any other views that they may have. If Europe is so intent on making hate speech illegal, then they should make the display of Che Guevara and communist insignia illegal as well. Communism has killed many, many millions and around the world they are unrepentant. Of course, they have done no such thing, and, even today, those that revere mass murderers like Che Guevara and Stalin get a free pass. Poland recently proposed banning images related to communism, but the “enlightened” Europeans have yet to catch on.

I do not wish to take away the right of an ignoramus or a radical leftist to wear Che Guevara shirts. Neither do I wish to take away the right of a neo-Nazi to wear a Hitler shirt. I disagree with both of their ideologies and their methods… but interestingly enough the communists and the national socialists have one thing in common: they would both take away everyone’s right to free speech. In tolerating them, I reject them.

It is kind of tongue-in-cheek, being that I exercise my right to free speech on this site, but to cite a famous quote: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

-AG

I am proud to present The Official Florida Senatorial Republican Primary Pre-Debate Debate: Conversations in Conservatism right here on NeoRepublica.com where I show what a debate between Charlie Crist aka “The People’s Governor” and Marco Rubio aka “The Conservative Contender” (I made that last one up) would look like. The first question is on offshore drilling and shows their respective positions on that issue. Both seem to favor drilling with Crist being hesitant in supporting it until it is proven that it can be done safely while Rubio insists that it would be economically beneficial and in the best interest of national security.

I hope that The Official Florida Senatorial Republican Primary Pre-Debate Debate: Conversations in Conservatism videos will give Floridians and Americans a better understanding of their relatively unknown positions. As of now, Crist has the name-recognition advantage and Rubio has had limited exposure. Hopefully, this will level the playing field. Enjoy!

-AG

He is the son of a great religious icon and a popular leader of a guerrilla army that was fighting against a foreign occupier with entire entire regions carrying his banner. So how did the United States manage to defeat him? He is Muqtada al-Sadr, son of a famous Iraqi Shiite cleric that was murdered by the evil Saddam Hussein, who created a fearsome guerrilla army that was ultimately defeated by US troops and the new Iraqi armed forces.

The United States, known around the world for being unable to fight protracted guerrilla wars like Vietnam, was able to do in the 21st century what it could not do in the 60’s and 70’s: defeat a popular guerrilla army. For the record though, in Vietnam the US military won every single battle and undeniably devastated the enemy through superior performance and superior technology even though we were outnumbered and in difficult terrain. In the end, the US government, under extreme political pressure, decided to withdraw from the conflict and let the South Vietnamese take care of their own country resulting in what we wanted to prevent: the communist takeover of the South. The reasons for one unsuccessful and another successful engagement is complicated and involves the politics of each time period, the different terrain, the different strategies employed by both sides, and differences in the sheer number of participants. What this conflict teaches us is that the United States military can adjust to urban combat, recruit local support, and be successful.

First, the Mahdi army was Sadr’s militia which formed a sort of government running parallel to the recently established Iraqi government. They took care of the security of Sadr city (a Baghdad district) and some other southern majority-Shiite cities. In 2004, the Mahdi army started on offensive across various cities and clashed with coalition forces (US, British, and Iraqi security forces). The militia was beaten back, but the Mahdi army did enjoy some success early on in their campaign. What ensued was an on again off again guerrilla war between the Mahdi army and Coalition troops that eventually culminated in an all out crackdown on the Mahdi army throughout Iraq. Coalition forces fought the Mahdi army in Basra and, in its first major operation, the Iraqi security forces (with US support) pushed into Sadr city. Sadr ordered a cease-fire last year and the Mahdi army has ceased its guerrilla operations since.

Throughout the entire conflict, Sadr was given the choice to join the political process if he disarmed and in fact was very successful in creating a political bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Some called this appeasement, but in what was essentially a civil war, to adopt a strategy that excluded them from politics and tried to capture or kill them would have been the equivalent of kicking and imprisoning out all southern governors, congressmen, and judges after the US Civil War. That just could not realistically happen. The success of coalition forces can therefore be attributed to three major accomplishments: sustained military crackdown of Mahdi army, political inclusion in exchange for ending violence, and limited collateral damage. The last one is very important, since an unrestrained campaign against Sadr resulting in the deaths of too many innocent Iraqis would have strengthened the Sadr organization. The other two is classic carrot-and-stick which worked well and, in a sense, Sadr’s decision to reorient his organization towards politics may have backfired since his brand of sectarianism seems to have been rejected by the electorate already weary of dictatorship and bloodshed.

Of course, this is not the end of Muqtada al-Sadr. Reports are that he is currently engaging in religious study in Iran with aspirations to become Ayatollah, a designation that will make it a religious obligation to follow his edicts for many Shiites. Eventually he is expected to return and, with the Ayatollah title, may become even more powerful politically than he ever was militarily.

What this episode in American history teaches us is that victory requires the smart application of power, not mere words, not mere dialogue, and definitely not appeasement. Had the coalition forces merely tried to negotiate with Sadr instead of actively neutralizing his faction throughout the whole of Iraq, then we would still be dealing with high levels of violence against our troops over there. More importantly, it shows the American military that we can confront an enemy that uses guerrilla tactics and win.

So I ask myself: if we can win this type of war, why are there people in Washington that are so eager to declare defeat and retreat as quickly as possible? Why did Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rush to declare the war “lost” instead of working to win it? Why are we entertaining the thought of negotiating with the enemy when we should simply be dictating our terms?

The illogic of the far left is astounding. We need to restore intelligent and courageous leadership in America.

-AG

Recently, the US military announced that they would be changing the general on the ground in Afghanistan as they continue to implement Obama’s Afpak strategy. As I reported yesterday, this decision, in addition to Obama considering a reduction in drone strikes in Pakistan and concentrating his new strategy on military advisers rather than combat troops, has emboldened the Taliban who are sensing either indecisiveness or weakness or both. To Obama’s credit, today there was a drone strike in Pakistan that killed some militants, so the Taliban still have reason to be afraid.

The Taliban attacked the city of Khost and entered government buildings killing security guards, police officers, and civilians in the process. US forces have entered the city in response and have killed some militants. This offensive is the logical consequence of their perception of our indecisiveness. The Taliban understand that they cannot win this war military, so their strategy is a psychological one, a terror-based one. They want to discredit the central government and demoralize coalition forces through surprise attacks, suicide attacks, and raids like this one.

In order to defeat the Taliban, we must win the psychological war and we must not allow for the continued existence of safe havens anywhere, particularly in Pakistan. We can only win the psychological war by making the Taliban understand that they will be defeated no matter what they do, by not turning the local population against us, and by empowering the Afghan and Pakistani government. Empowering does not mean unlimited aid, it means helping in joint missions, some joint intelligence, using precision air and drone strikes, and helping in the training of their forces if they need it. We are already doing most of these things, but increasingly the current administration is being pressured into abandoning precision strikes and leaving the battle only to the Afghans and the Pakistanis. The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is against the Taliban and Al Qaeda that launched a terrorist attack on us, so we cannot simply let others take responsibility for this war. Hopefully, the new cooperation that this administration says it is receiving will help bring this war to an end sooner.

-AG

Michael Steele has redeemed himself in my eyes. While I have been hard on Michael Steele (no homo) for being the Republican version of gaffe-machine Joe Biden, I think that his analysis of the Miss California and Perez Hilton issue was spot on. For some background, here’s Miss California who was asked by Perez Hilton, an openly homosexual blogger who is a Cuban-American Miami native, a question about same-sex marriage during the Miss America beauty pageant:

Her answer was less than stellar, saying “I think that I believe…” instead of simply expressing her view, too much hesitation, but the question itself was a loaded one being asked by judge who was viewed to be biased. Perez Hilton immediately posted a video blog where he calls Miss California a stupid b**** and says that the correct answer would have been that “states should decide whether or not they want same-sex marriage.” I guess that standing up for her beliefs that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman was the wrong answer. Here’s the clip:

We can see from the first clip that people applauded her, so I’m not sure that Perez is being truthful when he called it the worst answer in pageant history and that she was booed. He signs off by saying that he “needs a cocktail.” Alcohol, bad language, and bias all within the span of two minutes or so… definitely not the type of person who should be judging the personalities and beauty of others.

Anyways, Michael Steele makes an excellent point where he points to this Perez Hilton affair, that there are elements in this country that are trying to impose, using “political correctness” as a cover, their own agenda and silence opposition. For a beauty pageant judge to say that support for heterosexual marriage is “divisive” and that opening the door for same-sex marriage is by definition a “unifying” message is to advocate the silencing of the debate on the subject. Worse still is the fact that Perez seems to have disqualified her because of her honest answer that he disagreed with and then decided to go online and call her all sorts of nasty things. Here’s Michael Steele’s take, who talks about how this “empathetic judge” used a certain community’s beliefs to hijack this event and is but a microcosm of what liberals want to do, pit one community against the other:

Furthermore, if I were a judge on this panel, I would never ask a question on Che Guevara… why? Because I know what this person has done to humanity and if a contestant would have answered that they loved Che (because they are ignorant) because he represents “change” or “revolution” or whatever, then I would immediately disqualify them. I might not be objective. So I would not ask a question like that without first being prepared to accept the opposing point of view. Perez Hilton has said that the answer would have had to appease the gay and lesbian community. That is just plain wrong. The answer should be honest. Miss California having to answer Perez Hilton is like the scene in Star Wars where the commander has to tell Darth Vader some bad news:

Miss America contestants should not have to pass the same-sex marriage litmus test in order to be crowned.

-AG

Mitt Romney never was my cup of tea. That said, why the hell is Michael Steele saying that Romney’s Mormonism was a major contributing factor in his failed presidential bid? Does he not see that the President is biracial? Is he not aware that he himself, Michael Steele, is an African-American and was elected by Republicans? What about Eric Cantor from Virginia, a Jewish Republican?

The truth of the matter is that the American electorate has looked beyond socially divisive issues like race and faith, Republicans included. Just look at Glenn Beck, a very popular, very conservative, and very MORMON commentator on FOX, or look at Colin Powell an African-American (actually, a Jamaican-American) who, prior to his betrayal of the Republicans during the presidential election, was loved by many Republicans. What matters to voters in the modern day is not social or religious differences, but the character of the individual and the ideas of the individual.

So when Michael Steele mentions Romney’s faith as a reason that he was not elected, he is making a serious mistake, and he is calling the Republican base bigoted. Steele is disappointing me again. The rest of what Steele says is accurate and is the real reason that Romney did not win the primary. Romney changed his position on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life creating doubt in his true stand on the matter. Strike One. Romney raised taxes and/or state fees in Massachusetts. Strike Two. Romney supported a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq and then lied about it during a debate with Huckabee. Strike Three. He’s out.

Michael Steele correctly hit upon the abortion and economic question but missed the bus completely when he said that Mormonism was a big factor. Romney was polling very well in different states and I knew many Romney supporters down here in Miami.

Romney hit back today saying that Steele had missed “the target” on the analysis that he offered up. Michael Steele, like I have said numerous times before (here and here), needs to get back to the work of staging a Republican comeback and stop undermining his own party by casting doubt on potential candidates or picking fights with conservative commentators. Steele is very at ease in front of a microphone or a camera and that can be a great advantage or it can be an embarrassment. For Steele, it is definitely the latter.

-AG

Charlie Crist, popular governor of Florida, known as the “People’s Governor” has thrown his hat in the race for the Senate seat to be vacated by Mel Martinez (R-FL). He is considered to be the favorite but will face some competition from Marco Rubio, a Miami conservative who believes that Crist has compromised too much. Already the Democratic Party has produced an ad video attacking Crist as a “quitter” leaving Floridians with a “mess.”

It is unlikely that this will have much of an effect on his candidacy given his high approval ratings in Florida and name recognition. At stake is the balance of the Senate, which right now is in the hands of the ruling party in the United States: the Democrats. The primary race will give us an idea of whether Republicans are willing to compromise some principles to win elections or whether the Republicans will stick to their guns on small government and less spending. It could prove to be an interesting match.

Here is Marco Rubio, the conservative contender, firing the first shot:

I like it.

-AG

Here is how it works: when dealing with the Cuban government DO NOT QUESTION THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD. That’s the lesson that Canada learned yesterday when Cuba “postponed” Canada’s junior foreign affairs minister’s trip to Cuba. Peter Kent,the minister of state for foreign affairs for the Americas, planned to press Cuba for democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. Silly representatives of democracy… they should know by now that the communist dictators do not tolerate dissent, not even from foreigners. This visit would have been a historic event since Canada rarely sends government officials to the communist island.

Canada has officially maintained uninterrupted diplomatic relations with Cuba even after the communist revolution. Fidel Castro has visited Canada twice. Canada, a democracy that respects human rights, does extensive business with Cuba and, guess what? Cuba is still a communist dictatorship. Pardon my sarcasm but… what a surprise. Fifty years of supporting the Cuban revolution through trade and diplomatic recognition have contributed in keeping the Castro dictatorship in place. 22% of Cuban exports go to Canada and Canada sells oil and food to Cuba (as described here). More importantly, Canada is Cuba’s largest source of tourism revenue… so when we talk about the ineffectiveness of the US embargo, we can point to our neighbors to the north who have undermined our efforts to leverage the Castro government to reform its ways.

Some people never learn: if you subsidize tyranny, you get tyranny. I hope that the Canucks enjoyed 50 years of Cuban beaches, because I can guarantee you that the Cuban people did not enjoy one minute of it.

-AG

This is the Cuba that Raúl Castro wants to create. In a marked shift from the Marxist totalitarianism that his brother imposed on the island, Raúl Castro has said what every competent human being knows:

“Equality is not the same as egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation; exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy.”

Unbelievable that a communist would finally admit this after 50 years of failed revolution that has only brought misery to Cuba. Castro has been pushing for wage reforms that tie wages to productivity and decentralizing agriculture a bit. What he has not changed and does not seem to want to change is state control of the economy or the population. Some people believe that Raúl differs from Fidel in that he wants to create a system similar to China’s; these steps seem to be a step towards that goal.

Here, though, is where what some consider “modernization” is simply dictatorship by other means. What Castro is modernizing is the communist dictatorship, from a Stalinist model to a Chinese model, without making any changes to the repressive machinery that continues to deny basic human rights to the Cuban people. The Chinese model of dictatorship (or one-party rule) is not communism-lite as many people have suggested for years, just ask the victims of government repression in Tibet or the unknown number of political prisoners still languishing in Chinese prisons.

For those who have read George Orwell’s “1984,” China is looking more and more like the dystopia that he vividly describes. It is a government that does not stop at political control but uses all of the technology at its disposal to control the information that exists out in the world. Information is the single most important weapon that a society has against tyranny and strict censorship is an attribute that almost all existing dictatorships share. This is the beginning of total Thought-Control, something that this humanity has not truly witnessed simply because the technology to facilitate it has never existed before. Cuba, for example, uses “actos de repudio” or “acts of repudiation” to intimidate activists through mob violence in addition to overt police control. Thought-Control is the next level of totalitarianism… and it is the path of Chinese Communism.

So while communist regimes around the world are starting to “modernize,” what they are actually doing is coming to understand that they no longer need fully centralized economic planning in order to control a population. They have learned that to control the human mind is the ultimate power, so when anyone comes to believe that Cuba embracing an economic system less directly controlled by the government is a good thing, I advise that they pick up a copy of “1984.”

In the novel, the existence of “Big Brother” was more a construct of the ruling Party than reality… In Cuba, we have not seen Fidel Castro in public since July 2006, the only thing that anyone has seen or heard is still photos, articles in the newspapers that bear his name, and rumors that he has been seen on walks… when a government can control what we know reality to be, they can make us believe anything.

-AG

So is “human rights in China” and “brainwashing” and “withdrawing from the Communist Party"… the list goes on of course. China has censored many of these types of phrases from China’s largest internet search engine, Baidu.com, according to this New Tang Dynasty Television article. The Baidu search engine is not the only one that has caved to Chinese government pressure, other companies such as Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google that have benefited immensely from freedom of expression also censor a significant amount of content on the internet in China.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported that Myanmar (Burma), Iran, Syria, and Cuba are the top countries where the internet is highly restricted and where bloggers and independent journalists face steep punishment for expressing themselves. Though they say that China has the world’s “most comprehensive online censorship program” and imprison many writers as well. Apparently, the internet companies that work with the Chinese government do not have the courage to defend the very freedom that made them successful in the first place, the freedom to post anything on the internet.

Those who facilitate tyranny in the world are partly responsible for their atrocities. These companies are responsible for aiding in the totalitarian mind-control of a large section of mankind. The least that these companies could do is start de-censoring certain content by degrees or help develop ways around such censorship. Yes, I suggest that these companies undermine their own censorship efforts, otherwise we will be creating a blueprint for a world where governments around the world can limit the greatest hope for freedom around the world: the Internet.

-AG

In light of the recent events involving the current administration’s soft touch with regards to Cuba and the new Orbitz campaign pushing to do business with the Castro communist dictatorship, it is necessary to point out that repression is still alive and well in Cuba. Here is a video showing the Cuban police arresting several women who are pacifist pro-democracy activists, part of the group Movimiento Feminista por los Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks (Rosa Parks Feminist Movement for Civil Rights:

For those who do not speak Spanish, these ladies were dragged to the patrol cars and beaten brutally by the male police officers for the “crime” of going to visit another, more well-known, pro-democracy activist, Jorge Luis García Pérez Antúnez. According to the ladies, they were kicked in the ribs, thrown against the patrol cars, kneed, pinned on the ground, choked, and thrown in a cell for about three hours by the police officers.

I wonder if Orbitz will take tourists on a tour inside the Castro prison cells, some of them the size of small closets called “gavetas” (translates: “drawers") where they cram multiple prisoners who must take turns sleeping since there is only space for one person to lay down. That would be a memorable experience for their customers… I would advise the directors on the board to try it first though, so they can experience the “magic” themselves.

Are this the type of regime America should be doing business with?

-AG

As I insisted in previous posts, Al Qaeda sees the recent conflict in Pakistan as fertile ground to launch attacks that can eventually destabilize the country, at least according to intelligence officials. They also say that Al Qaeda is stepping up recruitment around the world, motivated by the potential terrorist takeover of a nuclear armed country, a move that will turn make the world a much more dangerous place. To the credit of coalition forces, Pakistan has intensified its offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley region and the United States is sending more troops to Afghanistan. The problem is that Al Qaeda, sensing a weak Pakistan and a US administration that is taking a more “measured” approach to the war on terror, may escalate its attacks in order to force a cease-fire in Pakistan that could result in more safe havens for the terrorist groups.

While the Obama administration continues its strategy in Afghanistan that focuses less on combat troops and more on military advisers and is seen replacing our top commander over there, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will point to our indecisiveness in this war as a sign that they are getting results. Already, the terrorists have the impression that Pakistan cannot stand up to a prolonged guerrilla conflict or terrorist offensive since this is not the first time that Pakistan has attacked the Taliban. Every other time, Pakistan has agreed to a cease-fire with the terrorists and the last agreement actually granted their demands for Sharia law (Islamic law) in certain districts. America must be more decisive in this war so that the enemy is not emboldened.

Another significant obstacle that the US military faces in its operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban is the fact that both the Afghan and Pakistani governments have been protesting air strikes conducted by the US. In Afghanistan, the president Hamid Karzai has been protesting the death of civilians in air strikes that are aimed at neutralizing an enemy that hides among the local population and uses human shields. Karzai has gone as far as calling for an end to US air strikes. I am sure Al Qaeda and the Taliban are thrilled that they have the Afghan government on their side. Furthermore, the Pakistani government has denounced US drone strikes inside their country, for the obvious reasons of collateral damage and violation of sovereignty. The administration is even considering stopping these attacks which, up until two weeks ago, were the only actions being taken to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Again, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are probably ecstatic that the Pakistani government is pressuring the US to stop these operations.

Will the United States Military be given the tools and the permission to go after the terrorists given the political climate? This is unknown as of yet. There are good signs and bad signs coming from Washington. Unfortunately, this uncertainty makes one thing certain: Al Qaeda will try to create more chaos anywhere and everywhere it can. Our soldiers can handle Al Qaeda, but not if we tie their hands and legs behind their back. The sooner they can do their job, the sooner they come home victorious… and to all the men and women fighting over there, know that the American people “got your back"…

-AG

Washington has outdone itself. While the last administration was able to turn surpluses into deficits, with some help from the Clinton Recession and the worst terrorist attack in US history, under the current administration the deficit will balloon up to $1.84 trillion, a record high. As expect, the current administration blamed the last administration for this deficit… but unfortunately for the administration these excuses cannot last forever, especially when Congress’s figures and the White House’s figures make it clear that even next year’s deficit will still be at historically high levels. See these graphs:

So when conservatives used to talk about fiscal responsibility, Americans would look at Bush’s spending and think that conservatives were being hypocritical. The heightened spending during the last eight years included spending on two wars and to help get us out of a recession. Now, Americans realize that the real heavy spenders in Washington continue to be the Democrats who now control Congress and the White House. That’s why they’re called liberal.

Republicans over the last few years have strayed from having a balanced budget but now must return to our principle of fiscal responsibility… abandoning fiscal responsibility was one of the major reasons that so many voters felt that the Republican party was not living up to its own rhetoric. A Republican comeback will only be possible if we can bring back some sanity to Washington spending.

With the current administration in power making the difference between conservatism and liberalism crystal clear with respect to spending, the question is: does America want the burden on the taxpayer to skyrocket as much as Washington is planning? The truth is that government does not create wealth, it can only take away wealth from those that create it. At a time when the economy is hurting everyone, the government is spending taxpayer money like crazy and giving it to the very companies that created this whole mess. Did “spreading the wealth around” actually mean giving billions to failing companies and hundreds of millions in bonuses to the people responsible for the mess?

America needs to wake up.

-AG

I am glad to report that Roxana Saberi, Iranian-American journalist that was imprisoned by Iran for alleged spying, was released by Iran. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the US was “heartened” by this move, we cannot start rewarding countries that can arrest people arbitrarily for releasing prisoners they should have never detained. This is a tactic commonly employed by Cuba, where they crackdown on activists and journalists, the US issues a statement of disapproval, and then Castro would release a fraction of the political prisoners in a show of “good faith.” The reality is that there is no “good faith” coming from repressive governments that can throw people in jail for trumped up charges simply because they want to silence them.

I wonder if, in another age, Saberi’s efforts and the international outcry would have gone unnoticed. Saberi went on a two week hunger strike that was covered by free press organizations, human rights organizations, the mainstream media, and bloggers, like yours truly. Even the president took notice of her case and spoke out about it. Our interconnectedness made it possible for the news of her unjust imprisonment to circle the globe many times and put Iran’s repressive character on display. Imagine what this could do in North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and other countries where the government denies human rights. We might get regime change without a single shot fired… all that we need is to directly fund the activists that are fighting for freedom in those countries and abstain from doing business with the oppressive regimes. Too bad Washington wants to do the opposite: make friends, give aid, and do business with the bad guys. What a shame.

-AG

While Washington engages in XOXO-diplomacy with countries that sponsor terrorism or interfere in the war on terror, some states are taking a stand against terror by stopping businesses from investing in terror-sponsoring countries. Here in Florida, both chambers of the legislature have passed a bill that Charlie Crist promises to sign that will divest any public funds from companies doing business with terrorist sponsors. Indiana has done the same. California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also have similar laws and all together will deny terrorism billions of taxpayer dollars that have no business undermining this country’s security.

Compare the states’ actions to the administration’s recent move of providing around $900 million to help rebuild Gaza which is currently controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas. The administration says that it will give the money only to the Palestinian Authority and NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) so that it does not reach Hamas, but how can Hamas not benefit from a $900 million infusion into Gaza?

Then comes Cuba, another country on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism that this administration has enriched through policies easing travel restrictions and allowing more remittances to the communist-controlled island. Add to that Iran, a country that this administration is trying to talk to directly in spite of its terrorist support and nuclear ambitions.

Our federal system that divides powers between the central government and the state governments allows for a more level-headed approach to terror on the state level given that Washington seems to be more interested in playing nice. I am proud that the American system of government decentralizes power in such a way, otherwise every tax dollar from every taxpayer in this country would be used to assist whatever regime that the current office-holders in Washington happen to sympathize with regardless of the implication on national security and/or moral stance. America should not be funding the tyrants or terrorists that are planning to kill Americans. I’m glad that these states agree.

-AG

Speaking of commies… we now take a trip to Peru, where a little group that calls itself “Sendero Luminoso” (Shining Path) unleashed terror on their entire country in the name of Mao and Marx back in 1980’s. The terrorist organization was funded mainly through trafficking cocaine and was headed by the then-mysterious Abimael Guzman. In 1992, Guzman was captured by Peruvian police, but not before his group turned Peru into a war zone. Peruvians I have spoken to describe bombings, assassinations, and massacres as a common occurrence during the years that the group was active. From 1980 to 2000, total deaths and disappearances from the conflict neared 70,000.

Once Guzman was captured, he was exhibited in a cage to the Peruvian public and humiliated. Later he was sentenced to life in prison for his actions.

Fast-forward to 2009 and we find that Sendero Luminoso has come back thanks mainly to cocaine trade. They control a mountainous area of the country and the Peruvian army was sent in August 2008 to try to contain a resurgent guerrilla army. Thus far, 33 soldiers have been killed by the terrorists and they have been capturing and killing peasants who collaborate with the government. Peruvian General Otto Guibovich told a local news source that Sendero Luminoso can count on help from Colombia’s own communist guerrilla army FARC. Peru needs to stop them now before it is too late, but in a country where former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori has been convicted for crimes against humanity due to cracking down on opposition and also for his heavy handed tactics against the terrorist group, it may be difficult for a sitting Peruvian government to go after the rebels.

The violence we have been seeing in Mexico coupled with a fanatical Maoist ideology that can eventually gain support from leftist Latin American leaders, if it hasn’t already, can become one of the most serious security threats in the region. The rise of revolutionary socialism in Latin America is not a matter to be taken lightly. It started in Cuba and has spread to Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and now El Salvador. How far these countries will go in spreading their ideology by force of arms is not yet known, but to ignore them is to give them what they want: time to overrun Latin America. Peru itself is between Ecuador and Bolivia in addition to sharing a border with Colombia which can be used as a supply route between Sendero Luminoso and FARC. This is no time for our government to start using kid gloves when dealing with Chavez or Castro.

-AG

Well, not only has Orbitz Worldwide, a Chicago based outfit, decided that traveling to Cuba is a good thing, it looks like some farmers from Illinois took a tour of Cuban farms and recommended that we open up trade with the island. They met with government officials, but of course did not meet with the democracy activists or the families of political prisoners or anything human rights related… it was pure business at the expense of the Cuban people.

John Block, also from Illinois and former U.S. secretary of agriculture under President Ronald Reagan, said “We met with (Cuban) government officials. They desperately want trade and tourism from the United States.” Good, then let them put an end to the systematic repression, the funding for terrorist groups, the continuous espionage, the unconditional support to anti-American leaders around the world, and then we can consider business. It’s called leverage and we should use it. Some people say it is not enough, the leverage has not brought change to the island so we need to abandon it… that’s ridiculous. If it is not enough, then we need more leverage, specifically by directly helping democracy activists get their message out. Imagine what camcorders coupled with the Internet could do. Cuban authorities could not easily get away with the flagrant mass arrests and repression of peaceful activists anymore. To sit by and simply funnel money into the pockets of anti-American tyrants is not only morally wrong, but it is un-American and it is dangerous to our national security. We have done it before and it has backfired. We gave aid to Kim Jong Il and look what that got us…

-AG

For years, Democrats have been accusing the Republican Party of engaging in politics of fear. Yet throughout this few months, since Obama came into power, the “cool” president and his government has caused and warned of various panics in the United States. Most ridiculous has been the swine flu scare which the media and the government have over-hyped. Let’s put the swine flu in perspective for a moment:

Since the start of the year, about 53 people died from different influenza types in the United States. Swine flu so far has, tragically, claimed three lives since it appeared in the US. It looks like regular influenza is much more deadly, yet no alarms are going off, no panic about regular influenza strains, no government officials saying to stay away from “confined places” due to regular influenza. I already know of several friends’ friends’ children reporting that they “have” swine flu and dutifully not going to class. The atmosphere of fear created by the government in ridiculous. Let’s get a grip, people. If that’s how people react to a disease like the flu, imagine what would happen if the timid elements realized that so far this year more than 4,600 people have died due to drunk driving! We might just bring prohibition back!

Add to this panic the words of our “beloved” president about imminent economic catastrophe if we didn’t do exactly as he said and passed the enormous stimulus package that spends unnecessarily on special projects, and North Korea, in sensing the president’s weakness, illegally launching rockets, and reports that Iran will be able to produce nukes within the year, and possible plans to bring relocate terrorists from Gitmo to the US mainland… and what you have is an administration that has elevated the level of fear in this country to unnecessarily high levels.

Maybe we should be afraid, not of economic catastrophe or the flu, but of a government that uses these unwarranted fears to spend more money, raise more taxes, and make government bigger and more powerful. Next thing you know someone will set fire to the Reichstag building… and there’s no easy way back from that.

-AG

The former VP Dick Cheney said today this about Colin Powell: “I didn’t know he was still a Republican.” This remark comes after Colin Powell explained that the Republican Party would do better by not listening to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh fired back saying that Powell should go ahead and become a Democrat already. A few things trouble me about this little verbal spat that has started within the Republican Party.

The issue here is one of principles and strategy. People like Cheney and Limbaugh seem to think that Republicans would do better by sticking to their principles in order to win elections rather than “moderate” or compromise some of them. Powell and his ilk believe that figures like Limbaugh are polarizing and “appeal to the lesser instincts” of those in the party. Personally, while I respect Colin Powell for his service to this country and his rationality when it comes to matters of national security, I disagree with him for a few reasons. The first reason is that Powell abandoned his party at its time of need by endorsing Obama.

I question Powell’s logic when he chose the candidate that opposed the winning strategy in Iraq, the candidate who was involved (in some way) with anti-American terrorists, the candidate who has been endorsed by terrorists and tyrants around the world. I think Powell followed his heart and not his mind. I understand it, but I disagree with it.

Second, when Powell insists that Republicans stop listening to Limbaugh, he is advocating that the Republicans not listen to a man who has devoted years to helping organize and motivate conservatives around the country. While I do not agree with everything that Limbaugh says, I believe that he has the right to give his point of view and people should listen to what he has to say. When Limbaugh says that Powell voted for Obama because of race, we should hear him out, at least to be able to refute him… which leads me to my next point:

Third, the reason that Powell pitched for the other team is not so much race, as Limbaugh implied, but rather as a rejection of Bush. In a sense, I do not blame him. Remember, it was Powell who stood before the UN with “proof” of WMD’s in Iraq only to later find out that the intelligence was less than reliable. Powell was left holding the bag. Powell was excluded from a lot of the policy decisions after the Bush administration decided to take the gloves off after 9-11. His advice was ignored. All the while, he faced criticism and inquiry from everyone. Sadly, the Bush administration left him hanging out to dry and when a person like Rush Limbaugh says things like “I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC” I sense a condescension that deeply disturbs me. Powell’s service to this country earned him his stars and his positions and it is disrespectful to call them into question simply because of his recent actions against the Republican Party. Back to the point though, Powell has drawn his weapon in response to the Bush administration’s actions… so why must conservatives around the country be targeted? Why not just contribute to the discussion instead of criticizing conservatives in the process? Bush is not the Republican Party and in many ways Bush was not completely a conservative. All conservatives should not have to pay for their disagreements.

The fourth reason that leads me to disagree with Powell is that he insists that the Republicans need to move more to “the center” and that people are more interested in government intervention in their lives. Well, technically I think statements like this show that Powell is no longer a conservative, if he ever was. Conservatives cannot abandon “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as their motto, and anyone who would diminish the “liberty” part has definitely gone astray. Specifically, Powell said that people are willing to pay for government services, but any transaction with the government requires surrendering more power to them and essentially limiting our liberty even further. Conservatives need to stick to their principles… Powell above all others should understand that the problem with the Republican Party is explaining the message, not the message itself. Bush was not effective at communicating the message and now what we need is an effective communicator, a Reagan.

The VP formerly known as Cheney (now known as Vader) is correct in rejecting Powell’s message but wrong in rejecting Powell. Republicans need to be open to all points of view, in as far as they do not contradict the basic values of this country, and the Democrat point of view that government needs more power to take care of everyone is against our first principles. Instead of arguing amongst themselves, Republican figures need to be discussing these issues. Listening to Powell nowadays, one would agree with Cheney that Powell seems to have left the party… what we need to do is invite him back… we need popular, rational people like him to carry our banner…

But only after he stops drinking the Obama kool-aid.

-AG

Ever wonder why the Hollywood-types experience the political version of a wet-dream whenever talking about Cuba or Castro, one of the longest reigning dictators in history? According to the Canada Free Press, the reason that Hollywood loves Fidel Castro is simple: he blackmails them. Actors and directors such as Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson, Steven Spielberg, and Oliver Stone have, throughout the years, only expressed kind words for a regime that has the blood of more than 100,000 on its hands. The regime that put hippies in labor camps has also been using its methods on modern-day hippies, but instead of using rifles, the communist regime uses eavesdropping to threaten celebrities into working for the regime as spokespersons. They send spies to follow them, install hidden cameras, and bug their phones in order to learn their secrets and use this information against them. This report comes from a high-ranking Cuban intelligence defector named Delfin Fernandez and, if true, restores a little faith in celebrities who many of us have thought were either unbelievably unintelligent, incredibly naive, or just plain old communists.

This paranoid and erratic behavior is not uncommon for totalitarian communist dictators. For example, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, apparently in love with the work of a South Korean director, kidnapped said director and his actress wife and put them to work in the communist state. The dictator Castro is paranoid to the extent that he has bugged the rooms of author and “friend” Gabriel Garcia Marquez and the last pope, John Paul II. The latter one apparently found the eavesdropping devices, probably from extensive experience with different paranoid leaders. When an entire nation is subject to the paranoid and cruel character traits of individuals like this, it’s a recipe for disaster.

It does not make sense to get into bed with these people that actively turn their countries into military camps, develop terrifying weapons, and send spies to infiltrate military bases and intelligence services. These tyrants are even coming after actors and actresses. It isn’t paranoia when they are really coming after you.

-AG

Yes, Chicago is the node for all things in favor of normalizing relations with Castro: Barack Hussein Obama, Supreme Minister of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan, unrepentant former terrorist William Ayers, and now: Orbitz! According to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago’s Orbitz Worldwide will be lobbying Congress to lift travel restrictions on travel to communist Cuba. Instead of sending money to the families of political prisoners… instead of campaigning for democratic reforms in Cuba… instead of of lobbying Congress to pursue a Cuban policy that empowers democratic activists on the island… instead of calling attention to the decades of anti-Americanism and decades of human rights abuses… Orbitz will be spending unknown sums of money lobbying Washington in order to open up business with the Castro regime.

Starting tomorrow, they will be hosting a website that will feature links to send petitions to members of government urging them to unilaterally allow travel to the communist regime. Indifferent to how the regime will use this money to further the repression of the Cuban people, they will offer a $100 credit towards Cuba travel to everyone who lobbies the government via their site. Barney Harford, president and CEO of Orbitz, calls the Castro’s Caribbean Gulag “a magical country.” Here are some pictures of that “magic":

Here’s the CEO in all his amoral glory:

This is a perfect example of how greed and corporate interests are teaming up with communist sympathizers in leading the charge against freedom in Cuba. I, for one, will boycott Orbitz for its indifference to human suffering and I urge others to do the same… and hopefully, free market participants will also defend the freedom they enjoy by switching to another service like Expedia, Priceline, or Travelocity. That is, unless they jump on the pro-communist bandwagon too.

-AG

A recent article by Jose Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch, describes Obama’s recent actions at the OAS summit as a calculated act of diplomacy that deflates Hugo Chavez’s dictatorial ambitions. The reality: Vivanco is wrong.

The reason he is wrong is the same reason that so many other international observers have been wrong; they fail to recognize the fundamental difference between the traditional Latin American “caudillo” (or military strongman) and the communist/socialist demagogue. The former swoops into power in order to accomplish a handful of goals. The caudillo is a product of political impasse, of popular dissatisfaction with a government, and the personal ambitions of a military or political figure. The caudillo generally does not remake or destroy the institutions of the country. Exceptions exist of course, but in general, these regimes tend to worry about their own country and neighbors.

The communist dictator or demagogue is a completely different species. By the very nature of their ideology, they believe that they themselves are historical figures fighting the imperialist armies intent on conquering the world. They back up their authoritarian rule with an ideology that they export around the world and use to justify any sort of abuse or atrocity. The first such dictator was, of course, Fidel Castro and naturally his successful subjugation of Cuba for more than fifty years serves as a model for other would-be dictators. The other main difference between military dictatorships and communist/socialist dictatorships lies in their approach to human rights. While both violate basic rights, the socialist variety denies that they exist altogether (at least how the world believes in rights). The state or the collective usurps all rights: property rights are nonexistent, people do not have the right to express themselves without permission, people do not have the right to assemble in groups, people do not have the right to travel without government permission, etc. The entire political structure of the country is remade radically. What I am describing is the Cuban model which, as of now, does not yet exist in the Latin American countries engaged in a “socialist revolution” like Venezuela and Ecuador.

Many people consider Chavez to be a clown who simply uses a populist platform to consolidate power over Venezuela, similar to Juan Peron (except for the clown part), but when you look at Chavez’s actions, he has restructured Venezuelan politics and has actively turned it into a one-party state. He rewrote the Constitution, remade the national seal, changed the flag, renamed the country to the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” arrested political opponents, has ruled by decree, nationalized foreign businesses, and the list goes on. Chavez is not going to let all of this work to “go to waste;” he is going to make sure that he retains power indefinitely… and therein lies the rub.

Those that say that Obama’s friendliness actually undermines Chavez do not understand that this individual does not plan to ever lose power, especially through those pesky things called elections. What happens when Obama comes with his hand out? Chavez says that he has made progress in stopping the imperialists by making them respect Venezuela, acting like a national hero.

What about Colombia? The fact is that Venezuela’s involvement with Colombian guerrillas has brought a lot of friction between both countries; at one point Chavez threatened war if Colombia pursued terrorists or guerrillas into Venezuelan territory. Chavez has a heavily armed, Washington-backed foil next door that he can goad into conflicts by supporting their local guerrilla armies, what does he need Washington for? He continues to deny that he supports drug traffickers or guerrillas, any action against Venezuela will be seen as a violation of their sovereignty. That means that Chavez still has the nationalism card that can be used to distract the populace from its current woes under the Chavez government. Worse still, the United States will most probably have to stand by our Colombian allies and therefore be complicit in any sort of problem involving a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.

What about the inevitable rise in the price of petroleum? Eventually, China’s insatiable appetite and recovery from this recession will push up prices. At that point, he can do what he has always done, throw money at the impoverished masses and mobilize their vote while continuing policies that will keep them impoverished.

What about the press? Chavez’s war against the free press will continue and his party will have control of all media. He already shut down anti-Chavez radio stations and TV stations. He has also shown the propensity for sending troops to nationalize businesses and private property. With a press under his control, he will have a rather easy time creating an alternate reality for the Venezuelan people.

So when someone writes or says that the Obama handjob… i mean, handshake just made it harder for Chavez, he/she does not understand that while heightened friction between the United States and Venezuela has served as a useful distraction for the Venezuelan people, it is not the only thing keeping Chavez in power. It does not make sense for the United States to get in Chavez’s corner at a time when Chavez is trying to increase his influence over Latin America, is in the process of building up its military, is thought to actively support communist guerrillas, is thought to undermine the war on drugs, and is improving ties with Iran, China, and Russia. Today, we perceive Chavez as a clown because of his antics at the UN and pronouncements at home and by extending our hand to him, we give him the appearance of being a reasonable person. “O"-pologists and starry-eyed idealists think that we can defeat our enemies through kindness… if that were the case, then Neville Chamberlain would be a hero for negotiating with that clown Adolph.

-AG

“Guantanamo Bay – known as GITMO – doesn’t house middle-of-the-road, white-collar criminals. Instead, this detainee facility houses deadly terrorists, including 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” said Kit Bond from Missouri, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That’s absolutely right. While the government issues reports classifying military veterans and libertarians as “right-wing extremists,” the Obama administration continues to push for more legal rights, the relocation, and/or the release of suspected terrorists currently at Gitmo.

While some of the detainees have been cleared, there are still terrorists at Gitmo that would love to make their way into the US mainland or back to the Middle East somewhere. Obama seems to want to give in to their wishes too. Fortunately, there is stiff resistance in Congress not only from the reliable opposition but also from Democrats who are starting to realize that a foreign policy that emphasizes retreat and surrender will only make America less safe. Bond accuses Obama of employing a “ready, fire, aim” strategy when it comes to national security and I happen to agree. The ultimate question for foreign policy is “will it make America safer?” but it looks like Obama’s foreign policy decisions are not based on this criterion at all.

For example, how does talking to Iran, a country that recently stood by terrorist organizations, threatened to destroy Israel, and that is almost finished developing nuclear weapons, help America’s security? If we actually talk to Iran, are we willing to let them keep working on nukes during our negotiations? What concessions are we willing to give up to the Iranian regime?

Or with Chavez… what do we plan to do to increase our influence in the region and stem the tide of socialism? How do we persuade Chavez to stop buying so many weapons? How do we persuade him to stop his support of communist guerrillas in neighboring country Colombia? What concessions are we willing to give up to the Chavez regime?

Now, how does the relocation of terrorists to the US mainland make America safer? Or how would putting detainees through “terrorist rehab” make America safer? These are the questions that Obama must answer clearly before going forward with his agenda. Obama is overly ideological when it comes to these real, practical problems, regardless of what his PR office… err, I mean, the mainstream media says. I will close with another quote from Bond that hits it on the head:

“When it comes to national security decisions, I prefer aiming before shooting, which is why I keep calling on President Obama to tell us, the American people, how his plan to close Guantanamo will make our nation safer … I think the American people have a right to know exactly what the White House plans to do with these terrorists.”

-AG

Roxana Saberi, Iranian-American journalist imprisoned for alleged “espionage,” was granted an appeal from the Iranian judicial system after going through a two-week hunger strike in protest of her arrest. Iranian officials say that Saberi has confessed to espionage, But her father believes that she was forced to admit to things she did not do. There are many organizations and prominent individuals that have denounced Iran’s imprisonment of Saberi and presenting her as a poster child for the fight for freedom of expression.

Roxana Saberi, former Miss North Dakota

It is great that the world has taken notice of Saberi’s unjust imprisonment, even the president called for her release, but the world needs to divert its attention to all other regimes that imprison journalists and human rights activists. Worldwide, repressive regimes use terror, imprisonment, and death to beat their populations to submission simply to retain power by controlling what people say and think. It is these very regimes that, in their quest for absolute power, seek out weapons in order to export their socio-economic model. Power knows no bounds, so when these repressive regimes develop weapons, they do not develop them for mere self-defense, they develop them in order to threaten other nations. For example, currently North Korea has an thousands of artillery pieces hidden away in well-protected underground emplacements all aimed at South Korea and is holding that country hostage. With all of its cannons aimed at US positions and densely populated South Korean cities, the chances that that any or both of these two countries would invade North Korea are slim to none, but this insurance is not enough. North Korea, despite their genocidal deterrent, has still been developing nuclear weapons. Why? The only thing that nuclear weapons do is give North Korea greater weight at a negotiation and make them more dangerous. If they improve their missile technology, they can threaten the United States with a nuclear attack. They can also threaten the US with releasing nuclear material or weapons to terrorists.

The moral of the story is: if a dictatorship views free thought as a threat to their existence, then their paranoia will lead them to ever more irrational and dangerous behavior. Tyranny is a disease that stems from the absolute corruption of absolute power. To ignore it or to appease it is to surrender to it.

-AG

What some have referred to as “Obama’s re-enactment of 9-11″ has finally resulted in the resignation of a responsible official. Unfortunately, that person’s middle name is not Hussein. Louis Caldera, the director of the White House Military Office, submitted his resignation to a “furious” Obama. For those unfamiliar with the story, read here.

Flyover-Gate ended up costing the taxpayer $328,835 for updating Obama’s plane’s pictures. Here’s a video of the ensuing panic over Obama’s 9-11 re-enactment:

This photo-op shows just how far the president and his office is willing to go in order to polish his image. The Celebrity-in-Chief needs to get to the business of defending this nation and fixing this economy and not panicking New York so that he can show off his shiny new plane. I repeat this because it is worth repeated: Obama, stop disrespecting America.

-AG

Time is almost up. According to a US Senate report, the Islamic Republic of Iran will have enough material for the production of a nuclear bomb by the end of six months. Iran is headed by supreme leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and elected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the latter of which has called for the elimination of Israel and has denied that the Holocaust definitely occurred. As reported before, Iran has repeatedly shrugged off UN and US economic sanctions and continued working on its nuclear program, which it insists is only for energy despite the fact that Iran has some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves.

This report comes on the heels of a recent statement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that reiterates the Obama administration’s policy of direct dialogue with the Iranian government. Instead of talking a harder line, the current administration believes that continuing a policy of sending seasons greetings (as Obama delivered on the Iranian new year) will somehow get the Iranians to stop their nuclear program. Maybe the White House should send a hallmark card… it could read:

We cannot allow madmen who question whether the Holocaust took place or not to possess the weapons to produce one of their own. Particularly madmen who preside over crowds screaming “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” These demagogues need to be stopped, not encouraged by offering them any concessions or dialogue… otherwise the world may be reminded of the reason for the phrase “Never Again.”

-AG

Let’s look at the timeline, demands, and actions of the North Korean dictatorship which has developed nuclear weapons:

North Korea demands one-on-one talks with the United States.
After Obama’s election, North Korea threatens war with South Korea.
While Obama gives a speech in Europe about “disarmament,” North Korea launches a rocket over Japan.
Later, North Korea backs out of six-party negotiations, kicks out nuclear inspectors, and restarts nuclear program.
A week ago, North Korea threatens to conduct nuclear tests.

Obama’s response: Agree to North Korean demands.

When a dictator issues a set of demands then fires rockets, threatens the world with war and nuclear tests and the President of the United States agrees to these very demands, it is called appeasement. To be more exact:

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz’mənt)
n.

1. An act of appeasing.
2. The condition of being appeased.
3. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

“O"-pologists cannot keep getting away with saying that the current president is not in the business of appeasement, even if they use different words like “engagement” or “soft power” when they really just mean giving in to the enemies demands. For the Bush haters out there, it is true that the former president also engaged in diplomacy with a regime that is known for breaking agreements. We need common sense policy from our leaders, but what we have been getting is naivete and weakness. North Korea understands that they can keep pushing us around as long as we are afraid of this:

We should not fear them.

North Korea has been able to extract concessions from Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. When will the president stand up to terrorists and tyrants? When will the president start standing up for America?

-AG

Yesterday, I focused on whether they had the will to win. Today’s escalation of attacks on the Taliban-controlled Swat Valley and the scrapping of the peace deal gives hope that Pakistan will finally get serious about fighting the terrorists instead of just talking to them. The truth is, though, that the stakes are high for Pakistan and its democratically elected government. The Taliban in Pakistan have several possible strategies that can tip the scales in their favor and the Pakistan intelligence services and armed forces need to guard against them.

So far it seems that in terms of conventional fighting, the Pakistani army is holding its own and beating the Taliban. What the Taliban must now resort to, if they cannot fight a conventional war, is to fight a guerrilla war and to use terrorism. A few suicide bombs in the middle of their metropolitan areas or their capital which is nearby will do much to shake up the Pakistani operation. Yesterday, Pakistani police arrested three would-be suicide bombers in Lahore, so we can expect that there are more of them scattered throughout the country. A second possible strategy that might change the game is a terrorist attack on India. The last thing that Pakistan needs right now is for India to somehow become involved in this fight or to threaten Pakistan. This may end up backfiring if the Indians actually help the Pakistanis against the Taliban, but it would be a wild card.

At the end though, Pakistan is dealing with a very resilient enemy that has a base in Afghanistan and in difficult terrain. The Taliban claim to control 90% of the Swat Valley region and there are fears that they might target high profile officials. For thousands of years these people have inhabited this regions and have never been easy to govern. This disturbing video shows just what type of enemy that Pakistan is dealing with:

Pakistan should try its hardest to limit collateral damage and civilian deaths before public sentiment turns against the war. They should also try to wrap this up as soon as possible. America knows all too well how a democracy dislikes war. If Pakistan does in fact win, then the civilized world would have won a major victory against terrorism.

Again, I am astounded. In a previous post I wrote that finally, there was some sort of common sense coming out of Washington when they denied Obama the funds to relocate Guantanamo detainees to the US mainland. Boy did I underestimate the top Democrat. It looks like the Obama administration is looking to offload 100 Yemeni detainees, who cannot be sent home because there is a high likelihood that they will be released and may join or rejoin Al Qaeda, on Saudi Arabia (a country neighboring Yemen) for: terrorist rehabilitation. That’s right: rehab. It looks like the guys in charge of national security came up with the idea: “if it works on Britney, it should also work on Bin Laden.”

Just last month, the National Counterterrorism Center said that the United States is not doing enough to defeat Al Qaeda. Given this reality, how can the administration think that it is a good idea to send them back to the Arabian Peninsula? The push for appeasement is unbelievably strong in this administration. Some might say “well, maybe rehab works.” Well, let’s take a look at what happens in “terrorist rehab.”

According to Slate, they are sent to a desert resort where they swim in pools, play video games, play soccer, and learn to practice moderate Islam. Of course, their version of moderate Islam is Wahhabism which “prohibit jihad unless there is an official fatwa.” So in terrorist rehab, they do not change them from being terrorists, they simply change the conditions under which they engage in terrorism. It has to be an official “fatwa” for their terrorism to be “good.” To graduate, they take an exam and if they pass, then they are released.

There you have it: lemonade by the pool, PlayStation games, a written test and voilà ! no more terrorist (unless of course a fatwa is issued). If the interrogators at Guantanamo would have known this then the type of waterboarding we would have used would have involved a surf board and sandy beaches. Silly CIA.

Of course, some of the graduates have returned to Al Qaeda’s ranks already. What a surprise. Obama’s agenda of closing Guantanamo regardless of the national security consequences is irresponsible and dangerous. This is the most naïve presidency since Carter… when will America wake up?

-AG

Day after day, the president continues to either amaze me or insult my intelligence. Apparently, in referring to wasteful government programs Obama said “There is a lot of money being spent inefficiently, ineffectively, and – in some cases – in ways that are actually pretty stunning.” This is they same man who just got Congress to approve the largest budget in the history of the United States, a “meager” $3.4 trillion. In an effort to “rein in spending” the president has proposed $17 billion in cuts. If Obama were truly interested in reining in spending, then he should just resign.

Then comes the issue of being “out of touch.” After spending the whole day yesterday in a powwow with the beleaguered presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to coordinate the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Obama then decides that it would be a good idea to cut the military spending. What?!? The president just talked about how we need to recommit and double down in the war against the Taliban only to go and propose budget cuts that target military spending. Here’s some of what he cut:

* Recruiting and retention adjustments: $6.24 billion
* Future combat systems of manned ground vehicles: $2.98 billion
* F-22 raptor fighter aircraft: $2.9 billion
* Transformational satellite: $768 million
* Joint strike fighter alternate engine: $465 million

Unbelievable. This comes a week or two after the Taliban got within 60 miles of the capital of Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. The threat from radical Islam is as bad as ever and instead of funding the military to fight this war, the Democrats are raising taxes and spending trillions on their agenda. I have had enough of Obama’s change, time to change Obama.

-AG

Or CNN, has come out with an article about the book “Che’s Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image” by Michael Casey, which I wrote about in a previous post, talking about the Che icon. Whenever we talk about Che Guevara, we must talk about what he represented and what he did. We must talk about his summary executions of thousands of political opponents. We must talk about his promotion of violent revolutions around the world. We must talk about when he said that “a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.” Of course, CNN did no such thing, simply calling Che Guevara a “charismatic and controversial leader.”

Not once did the author of this article, Brian Byrnes, use the word murder… or execution… or rationing of goods… or brutal… or any other description that strays from the portrayal of Che as an icon for “change” and “rebellion.” Imagine an article about Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, or John Wayne Gacy without ever mentioning the words “serial” or “killer.” I guess when you kill dozens you’re considered a murderer, and when you kill thousands you’re considered an icon. It is disrespectful to the countless dead as a direct result of his communist revolution and to the millions of Cubans living in exile because of the brutal regime he was a part of.

There is one thing that we learn from this blind reverence of Che Guevara: in the modern era, so called “educated” people can still fall under the spell of demagogues despite their crimes against humanity… and that should scare us all.

-AG

Currently, Pakistani forces are attacking the Taliban in the Swat Valley region. This counterattack started a little more than week ago, after the Taliban infiltrated neighboring regions dangerously close to the capital city of Islamabad. Not so coincidentally, the president of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari is meeting with the presidents of the United States and Afghanistan. So the question is, after 8 years or so, will Pakistan finally get serious about fighting the Taliban and driving out Al Qaeda? Or is this simply a temporary operation meant to make Obama feel justified in offering more billions in aid to Pakistan?

While the Pakistani army proceeds, we can expect the Taliban and Al Qaeda to launch attacks in Pakistani cities. Hopefully, Pakistani forces can stop terrorism before it happens, but the fact is that the cease-fire agreement between the government and the Taliban gave them ample time to set up sleeper cells throughout Pakistan. If terrorism becomes a reality, the question will be whether Zardari’s government can afford suicide bombs going off in major cities or will he back off the attack? Given Zardari’s low popularity, the ensuing political instability may bring an end to Pakistan’s offensive against the terrorists. America should do everything within its power to back up the Pakistani counterterrorism efforts, otherwise these recent gains will be reversed.

This assumes that Pakistan’s leadership isn’t just playing games… if they are playing around, then they might one day get bitten by the very snakes that they’ve raised. If that happens and Pakistan falls into extremist hands, God help us all.

-AG

The problem is simple to describe but difficult to solve. How do we gain control of Al Qaeda’s last safe haven? Today, President Barack Obama, Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari, and Afghan president Hamid Karzai will be meeting to discuss just that. The complicated part of this problem is that Al Qaeda’s safe haven is within Taliban-controlled areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. While our forces can easily attack the Taliban in Afghanistan, the enemy, who operates without regard to borders or sovereignty, is hiding out in Pakistan where American troops cannot go. The only thing that we have been able to do is strike certain targets using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s). Now it’s Obama’s turn to take a crack at the Taliban.

Obama’s plan is simple:

- Send more troops and military advisers from the US and NATO to train the Afghan army
- Spend billions in military aid to strengthen the Afghan and Pakistani armed forces
- Spend billions in nonmilitary aid to help the Afghan and Pakistani people

The simplicity of this plan does not address the major issues in an active way. What it does do is put Pakistan and Afghanistan more directly in charge of this war, and therefore more directly in charge of the war on terror, which is a national security issue we cannot outsource. The simple rule is: the more you subsidize something the more of it you will get. So, if Pakistan and Afghanistan realizes that their fight against the Taliban is what keeps America’s wallets open, then there is no incentive to end the fight. Instead, Pakistan will just contain the Taliban, like they have been doing during all of these years. On the other hand, we need to understand that Pakistan either does not have the capability or will to destroy the Taliban and root out Al Qaeda.

Karzai and Zardari

Just spending more money will not be enough. What needs to be done, as I described in a previous post, is convince the Pakistani people that restoring stability is necessary and is only possible by defeating the extremists. It may require a new government. It may require a more robust diplomatic effort. For example, Obama needs to not only include the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also India if he wants a lasting solution to instability in the region. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Hussain Haqqani has expressed that if the US would convince India to reduce military forces on the border, then Pakistan would redeploy its own troops to the fight against the Taliban. Instead, Obama has ignored India, despite the fact that the Pakistani government has admitted that this would be very helpful and it is in the best interest of world peace to reduce tensions along that border.

We cannot simply blame Obama’s inexperience, because he is currently surrounded by very experienced people, but the truth is that the administration needs to really look at all its options seriously. Add to the whole billions-in-aid plan, that has only extended this war, the fact that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US are either currently negotiating with some elements of the Taliban or is prepared to do so, and one realizes that Obama’s plan is as insufficient as his predecessor’s. Without a doubt, the problem of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not an easy one to solve and it requires involving all of the important players in Central and South Asia. So far, Obama seems more interested in spending taxpayer money on other people’s countries and figuring out the best way to withdraw instead of actually trying to win this war.

A “Responsible Withdrawal” policy should not replace a “Defeat Al Qaeda” policy.

-AG

Just today, former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative from Miami, has declared his candidacy for the Senate seat that will be vacated by Mel Martinez next year. According to this article he said that “the more Republicans become less distinguishable from Democrats, the less people will vote for Republicans… I don’t agree with the notion that to grow our party we need to become more like Democrats.” Amen. This could be a criticism is current Florida Governor Charlie Crist who was a vocal supporter of the massive spending contained in Obama’s Stimulus Package. Interestingly enough, Crist is expected to run for that same seat, though he has not announced his candidacy yet.

With Crist’s high popularity in Florida and name recognition it will be difficult for Rubio to secure the party’s nomination, but this race will give voters a chance to see a moderate who has sided with the president pitted against a more conservative candidate. Crist has been named the RINO of the Year in 2009 (so far) by conservative website Humanevents.com for giving in to Democrats’ opposition to the appointment of a conservative judge to the Florida Supreme Court. Crist also swam against the current and in spite of nearly universal rejection of Obama’s higher spending by Republicans, he actually stood by Obama and defended the stimulus. I completely disagree with Crist on this point. See this video:

This may come back to bite him especially since the mood of the GOP is strongly against taxes and spending. In this article he is being compared to Arlen Specter, who recently left the Republican party. Crist also opposes offshore drilling, not an unpopular position in Florida with its beautiful beaches. Add to that a new documentary that questions Crist’s sexuality, a rumor that seems unsubstantiated but won’t go away (various men have said that they know first-hand that Crist is gay). These rumors never cost him politically though, especially since Crist is strongly in favor of a Florida Defense of Marriage Act that makes marriage an institution between a man and a woman. The rest of his positions are pretty conservative, promising no new taxes, being pro-life, tough on crime, pro-second amendment, etc. He’s a tough guy to beat.

Crist has often appeared on the national stage with Arnold Schwarzenegger

Marco Rubio has guts to go up against a big name candidate like this, but the political process is all about choosing someone who will represent his or her constituents best. Rubio’s politics are easier to characterize, something that might end up working for him in the election. With respect to education he proposes making our current comprehensive tests reflect a world-class standard and incentivizing good student and school performance. He stands for transparency in government budgets. He advocates tough penalties for sex predators, for those enabling sex crimes, and to get tough on gangs and hate groups. Reduce the scope of government by privatizing certain services such as the Division of Drivers’ Licenses and to partner with private companies to improve roadways. Also is for lowering or eliminating taxes in order to stimulate the economy and communities. The list goes on and a lot of his ideas can be found here.

While I am not endorsing anyone yet, it looks like it might be a good race to watch. Good luck to both.

-AG

Robert Gates, Obama’s Secretary of Defense, has confirmed that the administration will continue to reach out to Iran despite the negative signs they see coming from the Islamic Republic. In the meantime, 25 senators have introduced a bill that will impose new sanctions on Iran if it does not halt its nuclear work. The bill will give the president the authority to impose sanctions on companies that supply Iran with fuel. In response, Iran has said that the sanctions would not stop them from continuing their nuclear work. Every round of international sanctions has failed to stop Iran’s nuclear development.

The threat of acquiring nuclear weapons was not enough apparently, because today, just as the Isreali president Shimon Peres, Iranian and Syrian presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad met and declared their support for “Palestinian resistance…until all occupied territories are liberated,” which is code for “until Israel ceases to exist.” Ahmadinejad plans to meet with representatives from Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the western world. At a time when most of the international community is calling for an end to violence in Israel and a two-state solution, the Iranian and Syrian governments are encouraging more war and backing terrorist organizations. Are these the type of people that Obama should be trying to make friends with?

Iran recently affirmed that it will take them no more than 11 days to wipe Israel out of existence if there is an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Here’s video

Which means that Iran is holding Israel hostage: either Iran, a nation that openly has called for the destruction of Israel, acquires nuclear weapons or if Israel tries to prevent it militarily, they will destroy Israel anyways.

What’s worse is that, just as Iranian elections near, Obama’s overtures toward Iran may make the Iranian people think that Ahmadinejad’s policies are working and that his threats are finally bringing America to the negotiating table. Talking to Ahmadinejad or reducing pressure on the regime will only give them more time to develop nuclear weapons and make other dictators think that they can take advantage of us.

What we need to do is make the case to the world that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, impose sanctions, build up international pressure, and seriously consider the military option if necessary. If Obama wants a nuclear-free world, then he has get serious about it. Inviting the seemingly unstable Ahmadinejad to a political discussion over tea and biscuits while Iranian nuclear scientists perfect their bomb is not the answer. In this era, when rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons and aiding terrorist groups, we cannot afford a Weak President.

-AG

The soul of the Republican Party is currently in turmoil. Since the last election, conservatives around the country have been offering up their ideas on how to stage a comeback. Most notably, we have seen personalities such as conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, chairman of the RNC Michael Steele, Virginia representative Eric Cantor, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, current Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and others offer their voices to this debate. Unfortunately, conservatives have yet to create a united front against the liberal onslaught that currently has strengthened its grip on the legislative and executive branches of government. The most promising group out there seems to be The National Council for a New America which is a group of national Republican leaders seeking to come up with a new foundation for the party. Here’s their video:

Unfortunately, some conservatives, like this blogger, have protested that this group is run by a bunch of RINO’s (Republicans-in-name-only), such as John McCain. For Republicans to be able to defeat the Democrats, the party must decentralize and change the strategy of spreading the message from a top to bottom approach to a bottom to top approach. While the Democrats insist on listening to tyrants and terrorists, Republicans must insist on listening to the American voter. Like the blogger I just mentioned wrote, it is the grassroots after the communications revolution that now does not need the party to hand down the message of freedom. In fact, the Republican party should be true to its convictions and not merely preach that the free market model works but actually employ it in the political sphere by allowing the sea of conservatives activists out there to have a say in our future direction.

There are signs that this the Republican party is taking this direction, but when Jeb Bush goes on camera saying that we need to forget about the nostalgia of the Reagan years it only goes to show that some of the top “leaders” are out of touch with the base. Did the Democrats says goodbye to JFK, LBJ, or FDR? Absolutely not.

Bad Bush.

What the Republican Party needs to do is better organize the grassroots not better organize the top leadership as it is currently doing. I see that they are currently getting on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. but what is needed is to get the activists active and to focus on the message. Focus on the message! What’s the message: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes, but is not limited to: smart and efficient government, not bigger and bigger government; less unnecessary taxation, not hurting small businesses and their employees; fiscal responsibility, not skyrocketing spending. Strong foreign policy, not the “yellow doctrine;” respect for our Constitutional rights.

These values are American and conservatives do not need to apologize for them.

-AG

Like in previous posts of mine, I have repeatedly pointed at the flagrant bias of the American media. Wellm I just ran across this video showing how obviously disrespectful the press corps was towards Bush, and how they show the utmost respect for Obama. Here’s one video:

Here’s another:

Man! George is fast! But back to the point. The first video just further illustrates that the press in this country is obviously biased in favor of Obama regardless of what he does. Media today is becoming like fast food and if the media outlets decide to feature sound bites and video bites of one president that are positive then a great number of the less independent minded among us will think that the president is doing a great job. What bothers me is that there are some Democrats like Richard Durbin (D-IL), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), John Kerry (D-MA), etc. that want to limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine” which essentially does not allow a commentator to control the contents of his/her show. With a mainstream media that is clearly biased towards the Left, to require a conservative commentator to express views that are not his/her own is, in my opinion but not the courts, a violation of the first amendment right to free speech. Fortunately, the internet serves as a great equalizer, where ideas from both sides can be expressed freely… that is, until the liberals find a way to extend the government’s reach into this environment too.

-AG

CNN correspondent Nic Robertson recently interviewed Zabiullah Mujahid, one of the spokesmen of Mullah Mohammed Omar the leader of the Afghan Taliban. The reporter goes into great detail about the meeting and makes us feel like we are sitting there with him, but I am more interested in what the enemy has to say. The highlights are these:

Taliban goals: Enforce Sharia Law and drive out foreign forces from Afghanistan

Taliban justification for suicide bombs: Taliban believe it is justified in Islam

Taliban Plan to win the war: Mujahid says “We believe by both … by negotiation and also by war … we ask them to leave the country we are ready to talk … so they are not ready to leave so they want to talk by the mouth of the gun we will talk by the mouth of the gun.”

Of course, this last point is the most important one to me. With the Obama administration declaring that they will pursue talks with “moderate” Taliban, as the Afghan government is currently trying to do, and with the Taliban high command also open for talks, does this mean that we will negotiate with the Taliban? Already, as I written before, we see that Pakistan’s talks with the Taliban led to concessions and those concessions only emboldened the Pakistani Taliban. To repeat their mistakes would be dangerous for America. First of all, the Taliban will want a full withdrawal, second they will want to establish an “Islamic” government in Afghanistan, and third they will reserve the right to host Al Qaeda as part of their tradition of hospitality, especially since Al Qaeda has been helping the Taliban fight the west. To agree to any of these terms would be to effectively surrender the fight in Afghanistan. Talks with the Taliban can only occur after they have been neutralized and disarmed, never before. Victory in Afghanistan, in my view, does not require that we annihilate the Taliban, but rather that we leave in place a government that has the ability to fight and control them.

America has been forgetting the reasons that we invaded Afghanistan in the first place, so here I present the context of this war again as a refresher: Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, was using Afghanistan as a base under the protection of the Taliban who were effectively in control of most of the country. Al Qaeda attacked the United States by hijacking four planes, crashing two into the Twin Towers which collapsed the buildings, then crashing one into the Pentagon, and then the fourth was brought down by the passengers who resisted the hijackers. The Taliban did not hand over the terrorists and continued offering them protection. America went to war with Al Qaeda and their Taliban protectors.

Never Forget

Let me put it simply: Al Qaeda and the Taliban did not want to “talk” to us before they crashed planes into our buildings and killed thousands of innocent civilians… America should not be “talking” with the Taliban, unless we are accepting their surrender. Victory first, talk later.

-AG

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is currently being investigated by federal authorities to determine whether he spent campaign contributions appropriately. Being investigated is more than $100,000 in payments made to the firm of Rielle Hunter, the woman with whom Edwards had an affair. For those not familiar with the story, John Edwards cheated on his wife and admitted it to her, but not the public, in 2006. During his run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2007, it was reported by tabloids that Edwards was having an extramarital affair with Hunter which he initially denied. Last August, Edwards admitted to the affair and dropped out of the public eye. Normally I would not delve into the personal nor moral issues affecting people’s lives unless they affect the public, but this serves as an important lesson for voters, especially in light of Edwards’ politics.

Edwards and Hunter

Edwards ran on a platform that was excessively radical and leftist. By simply reading his stand on the issues without much analysis one can immediately understand the type of America he envisions: a Marxist one. This is a direct quote of Edwards’ goal from his campaign website: “Creating a Working Society… In the Working Society, everyone who is able to work hard will be expected to work and, in turn, be rewarded for it.” This quote is eerily similar to the popular slogan first expressed by Karl Marx that summarizes communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The Democratic party has become the party of the radical Left and the fact that Edwards had a chance at becoming vice-president in 2004 makes me very nervous for the future of this country. This federal investigation into Edwards possible corrupt conduct by funneling more than $100k to a girlfriend’s company, including suspicions that he illegally used thousands in funds for personal use, shows us that to give the federal government more power over our lives will lead to abuse motivated by self-interest. I am not implying that Edwards did in fact behave corruptly, but rather pointing out the risks of believing in a charismatic leader who promises a Utopia in exchange for excessive power.

The founding fathers of this nation understood that human vices needed to be kept in check and that any government with excessively concentrated power might turn tyrannical. Human moral failings and ambitions coupled with an all-powerful central government will almost inevitably lead to dictatorship and the end of American freedom, Edwards is a prime example of this. The reason I do not like to delve into people’s personal lives is because the current American political system makes personal vices relatively irrelevant… but if we continue down the road of strengthening and growing government, like Edwards campaigned for and like Obama has been doing it will be these very personal vices that will lead to tyranny. I expect the mainstream media to make a big deal about Edwards’ personal life, I hope they do not turn it into a circus for his family’s sake, but the least they could do is turn it into a positive lesson for the American people… about how his wife was able to forgive… about the fact that no one on this Earth is perfect… about how our political system should not be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer imperfect people. The whims of the few should never be given absolute control over the fate of hundreds of millions… to lose sight of this maxim is to lose our freedom.

-AG

It’s a battle that many of us realists thought was lost on November 3rd and then again on January 21st, when the president pledged to close Guantanamo within a year and halted all trials including that of the terrorists who bombed the USS Cole. Well, it looks like the Naïveté Brigades currently heading the US government are wavering because of how difficult it is proving to find a place to relocate a lot of the detainees. With the limited willingness of Europe to accept some of these detainees and due to the fact that we cannot relocate a lot of them because their home countries would probably release them, the pressure on the current administration to relocate them to mainland United States has increased. Fortunately for us, unfortunately for the president, House Democrats rejected the president’s request for $50 million to relocate Guantanamo detainees. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) expressed that the relocation plan was too ambiguous and would face enormous pressure from lawmakers who do not want suspected terrorists in their “backyard.” Looks like not all Democrats are immune to common sense. To their credit, Republicans have generally agreed that bringing the detainees to the United States would pose a national security threat. Imagine the possibility of mixing hardened terrorists with common criminals, that was probably Al Qaeda’s intention all along.

Not So Fast, Barack

These developments, including the fact that some detainees who have been cleared cannot be sent back to their home countries because they would be persecuted like the Uighurs from China, might lead the Obama administration to break two key campaign pledges. The first being the possibility of restarting the military tribunals, which is opposed by human rights groups, as admitted by Attorney General Eric Holder. The second being the possible continued indefinite detention of the most dangerous detainees, as admitted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. It took a cold splash of reality from a complicated international scenario and from Democrats and Republicans in Congress to snap the Obama administration out of this dream that it would be easy to close Guantanamo.

Personally, I believe that we should make the detention facility more transparent, process and try the suspects more quickly, and use a military tribunal system that is suited to this task. Indefinite detention costs the taxpayers money which could go to more useful programs. I am not thrilled that my money is being used to keep terrorists clothed, housed, and fed. We should be very sure before we release any of these suspects as well, else they rejoin the ranks of Al Qaeda. To make Guantanamo more efficient at processing suspects and to establish a definite set of legal guidelines for interrogations should be the goal. Instead, I see this administration disregarding security in order to score political points. Fortunately, reality has prohibited them from realizing their agenda. We may finally see security defeat naïveté, at least in this single case. I hope this realism spills over into the rest of his foreign policies.

-AG

Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the group “Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan,” is an up-and-coming jihadi who has evaded capture and has threatened to strike against the United States, as I have reported before. It seems that his knack for evading the Pakistani armed forces is a result of his ties to the Pakistani intelligence agency that tips him off before any operation is carried out against him or his group, at least according to a theory presented by two counterterrorism experts. While currently the government does not believe that Mehsud has the capability to strike at the United States, his rise in popularity amongst extremists and elusiveness make him a threat that should not be ignored. That perception of “harmlessness” is what gave Al Qaeda the opportunity to sneak up on us last time.

I remember when Osama bin Laden came to our attention and when he issued his declaration of war against the United States. Bill Clinton’s reaction was lukewarm. He ordered strikes on a site he thought was producing chemical weapons for Al Qaeda but it turned out to be an aspirin producing plant with little evidence of involvement with Al Qaeda. Clinton also struck at four terrorist training camps that were mainly empty at the time due to the arrest of an Al Qaeda member which made Osama and company cancel a scheduled meeting for fear that the US knew the details, at least according to John Diamond, a former national security reporter. In fact, Clinton admits not being able to do enough against bin Laden:

And former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer says that Clinton did not give the go-ahead to kill bin Laden on the 8-10 occasions that the opportunity presented itself:

But the issue here is not blame, the issue is being vigilant. With Al Qaeda, America was not vigilant enough. Now we have another madman with ties to Pakistani intelligence who is leading the fight in Pakistan and Afghanistan and vows to attack the United States. The current administration must not allow him to develop the organizational and/or operational capacity to attack us. All that this man needs is some logistical and operational “talent” and he can bring terrorists into the US and attack. We cannot let our eyes off of him. We must learn from our mistakes and act. History has taught us that the price of insufficient action is too high.

-AG

Driving around southwest Miami today I saw a sign reading “Obama ♥ Chavez” on the median (next time I’ll take a picture). I do not know if that’s true, but then again, what else could explain the fact that Obama was all chummy with the would-be dictator even after Chavez said so many offensive things about him and this country. Hopefully, more people out there will protest the “changes” that are jeopardizing the future of this country.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, I present this montage:

Also, on May Day, Chavez took the opportunity to denounce the “infamy of Obama” due to a State Department report listing Venezuela as a country that does not support the fight against terrorism. It looks like that’s how Chavez is going to play it: nice on the world stage, belligerent at home.

The same day, hundreds of Venezuelan police fired tear gas and water cannons in order to disperse a march that was protesting the recent measures enacted by the Chavez government that stripped the mayor of Caracas (the capital) of most of his budget and makes him report to a Chavez appointed official.

It looks like Venezuela’s socialist “revolution” is leading the central government to interfere in local governments… that sounds awfully familiar though. Maybe the governor of Texas isn’t so crazy after all.

-AG

I was just reading an article on The New York Times by Roger Cohen who characterizes the president’s new foreign policy philosophy as “The Mellow Doctrine” that includes, in his own words, “acknowledgment of the limits of American power; frankness about U.S. failings; careful listening; fear reduction; adroit deployment of the wide appeal of brand Barack Hussein Obama; and jujitsu engagement.” In all truth, this could better be described as “The Yellow Doctrine” but in spite of that I admire the author’s honesty in describing the Obama foreign policy, something lacking in mainstream media today. As a former practitioner of judo, cousin to the aforementioned martial art, I do not see anything “jujitsu” about the yellow doctrine, at least not yet. Unless this is what Cohen meant:

As for the rest, this philosophy of “hoping” that our enemies will play nice if we put on a big, sloppy, goofy smile is naive at best, cowardly at worst. Of course, the author does not think so and runs through a list of “accomplishments":

- Cohen writes: “the Castro brothers in Cuba are squabbling over the meaning of Obama’s overtures.” In a sense, this is true, but what they are squabbling over is what they will be willing to negotiate. Raul seems to have no use for the pro-democracy dissidents while Fidel wants to keep them as a scapegoat and as hostages. This is a question of tactics not strategy. The Castros will use the political prisoners and dissidents as a bargaining chip one way or another, especially when they can very easily round up a few hundred more political prisoners to replace any that are used as an “exchange.” The administration is clearly waiting for the Castros to “concede” something so that they can issue a new round of unilateral concessions. This is hardly an effective policy. It gives the communist regime what they want: more dollars and more recognition.

- Cohen writes that “Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez has gone gooey-eyed over the “Yanqui” president.” The author obviously has not heard what Venezuela has said about Obama at home. Chavez has called him a “poor ignorant,” has told him to “not mess with Venezuela” and mind his own business, has told him to stop going down the “path of stupidity,” has said that he represents the “destroyer” of Latin America and in the same breath has called for the “fall of ‘the empire’ [America].” Come time to get in front of the world’s cameras and Chavez acts all warm and fuzzy, gives Obama a gift, and from the looks of it did not get the opportunity to give him a kiss, but who knows what happens back-stage. Chavez is playing with Obama and with the Venezuelan people. By the looks of it, Cohen is falling for it. By all estimation, Chavez will eventually fall in line behind the Castro strategy of asking for concessions. All he wants is to continue his own private socialist “revolution” in Venezuela and extract as much as he can from the United States.

Chavez says: “Don’t Mess With Me, Mr. Obama” [Spanish]

- Cohen writes that Bush era policies made things “easy” for our enemies. While I concede that Bush’s PR and bad handling of certain matters, exacerbated by the wars, made a lot of people mad at the United States, they also helped crystallize who was our friend and who was our enemy. In the post-911 world, this is critical. Now Obama wants to make friends with everyone and reduce “fear,” when what is needed is for the United States to be either respected or feared in the world… and to extend your hands to your enemies while they talk about destroying your country is not going to generate respect nor fear, it will only project weakness and make America less safe.

At the end, Cohen clarifies what the success of the yellow doctrine will look like: “it will succeed if America’s foes understand that normal relations with Washington do not imply the loss of distinctive cultures and politics or the imposition of U.S. values.” The author has it backwards. The issue is not our foes’ fears of compromising their own values… the issue is that by accepting terrorists or dictators with open arms WE end up compromising our own values… and that, my friends, is what the enemy wants.

-AG

In Cuba that is. Today marks the international workers’ day and it is celebrated in all communist countries around the world. Cuba is no exception. While the government sponsored celebration takes place around the country, pro-democracy activists are languishing in Castro’s gulags. There is no May Day party for them, only arbitrary confinement and the faint dream of freedom in Cuba. News agencies have been reporting on these festivities but will not be reporting the ongoing human suffering on the island, particularly they will ignore the repression of nonviolent dissidents. Gotta love the media.

Some May Day celebrations turn violent

How is it not newsworthy to cover the activities of pro-democracy dissidents in Cuba? As members of a profession that exercises free speech as a part of its soul, why not use their voice to help bring free speech to that corner of the world? There are some who have reported but, by and large, the press would rather report on Kim Kardashian’s cellulite than on political prisoners imprisoned for demanding their inalienable human rights, and the public is more acquainted with the former than with the latter. It’s a surreal world. So on May Day, I present the profile of one nonviolent pro-democracy dissident in Cuba who is fighting for freedom:

Guillermo Fariñas Hernández

Fariñas is a doctor of psychology and an independent journalist in Cuba who has undergone various hunger strikes protesting against censorship in Cuba. Reporters Without Borders, an organization that supports free press around the world, has awarded him with the “Cyber-freedom” prize in 2006 for his unyielding commitment to this cause. For his trouble, the Castro regime has sent people to harass him, threaten him, beat him, and detain him frequently.

Fariñas after state-sponsored beating

He staged a hunger strike in 2006 asking the Cuban government to allow free internet access to all Cubans and to respect the rights of independent journalists to report on the island. Seven months later, after being hospitalized and put on intravenous drip to save his life, he ended the hunger strike, vowing to continue the struggle in another way. Reporter Without Borders reported that “the day before he reached his decision [to end te hunger strike], his mother, Alicia Hernández, had reported that he was suffering from fever, convulsions, kidney problems, a swollen abdomen and a heart disorder.” He was already in the intensive care unit for nearly two weeks.

Fariñas hospitalized while on hunger strike

From the multiple, prolonged hunger strikes that he has gone on he now suffers from permanent health problems, yet repression continues on the island. He is one of the brave independent journalists that has endured so much abuse at the hands of the Cuban state simply for reporting the news and is an example for the many other democratic activists on the island. Hopefully the world will one day hear his own “mayday,” and forget the other “May Day” that celebrates a system guilty of innumerable crimes against humanity.

Let’s help the brave men and women who suffer so that future generations can be free, not appease and do business with their oppressors because we are interested in one day vacationing on Cuban beaches.

-AG

Well, it looks like while the administration may be willing to talk to Cuba and ease restrictions on the regime, they are not quite ready to remove them from the list of countries that support terrorism. This begs the question though: is it a good idea to open trade with a country that supports terrorism?

Cuba currently harbors members from many different terrorist organizations that operate in Colombia, Spain, Puerto Rico, and other countries. This reassertion that Cuba still sponsors terrorism comes on the heels of a declaration by Raul Castro that it should be the United States who makes the important moves towards the normalization of relations since it was the US that imposed the sanctions to begin with. Of course, with the restricted media in Cuba it is not easy to refute this assertion, but the fact is that the embargo was put into effect (on Castro’s regime) as a result of Cuba’s expropriation of US businesses and their alliance with the Soviet Union. That was so long ago that people tend to forget. It shows that the Castro regime is only interested in extracting concession after concession from the United States instead of seriously changing its ways. This is not a surprise. The Castros’ intransigence is something that the Cuban-American exile community has been trying to explain to the world for 50 years.

America cannot keep sending the signal to the world that we will simply give in to the whims and the demands of rogue nations that support terrorism or pose a threat to stability. Cuba, historically, has been the focal point of the most fervent anti-Americanism in the region and is the “godfather” of the leftist movement in Latin America that are currently gaining traction. A mixture of local corrupt government and US inattention has left Latin America vulnerable to the utopian ideals espoused by communism, but the militant communism present in Cuba is only possible through the repression of the local population and support from other nations. Currently, the Castro-Chavez axis has been able to recruit several other nations in the hemisphere and they openly undermine our interests wherever they can. We cannot turn a blind eye to Cuba simply because it is no longer an active threat to the United States. Our enemies in the region are increasing and Iran’s relation with Cuba and Venezuela have improved significantly. The threat of a nuclear armed terrorist-sponsoring state with allies in this hemisphere would put our national security at serious risk.

Cuba has become an ideological battlefield where “socialism” is perceived to have defeated democracy and free enterprise. Were we to help change that, the leftists coming to power around the region would no longer have an example or a model to point to… the tools exist on the ground: there is a growing and more vocal pro-democracy movement on the island that is shaking things up. Right now, the worst action to take would be to give the Cuban repressive machine a new lease on life by opening up trade and normalizing relations with the communist regime. We need to help those dissidents who are peacefully resisting the dictatorship, both for moral reasons and for national security reasons.

What we have witnessed instead is increasing calls for doing business with the communist regime and praise for their “great” health care system. Congressional delegations go to the island without visiting the families of political prisoners or observing anything outside of what Castro has authorized. Presidents have paid only lip-service to the cause of Cuban freedom since the days of Kennedy. Between the simple publicity stunts such as Jimmy Carter’s “endorsements” of the Castro regime and the Michael Moore documentary that extols the greatness of communist healthcare much harm has been done to the cause of freedom in Cuba, imagine what opening up our wallets would do…

-AG