Recently, I was engaged in spirited conversation with two other individuals of different political philosophies. One was libertarian and one was leftist. I, of course, am a right-wing extremist. All the participants were college-educated and tended to back up their views with facts, hence it was an excellent discussion and it helped reveal to me what my colleagues think about the world and politics. At first, the conversation was between myself and the libertarian essentially talking about how we both agreed on the reduction of the size and power of the state and essentially giving more power to the people, aka “freedom.” Eventually, I moved on to a serious point of disagreement that I have with libertarians, the foreign policy issue. While I do believe that the United States would do better to stay out of the affairs of other countries, the reality we are presented with does not allow this. In a globalized economy, with a network of necessary alliances, the United States faces threats that it must confront… dare I say, even preemptively. In my part of town, I am bold to say these things… but too many times have I seen children fall into drugs because of parents’ live and let live attitudes, too many times have I seen known criminal havens allowed to thrive because of this very same “tolerance.” All politics is local and these things I have come to know locally have made me realize that sometimes the adage “no man is an island” rings true and what happens in a faraway country reverberates across the world. My family witnessed the mobilization of troops and nuclear missiles, pointed at the United States while their dear dictator begged Nikita Krushchev to launch a first nuclear strike against America. Why was that dictator in power? Because the world stood back and watched, saying “oh, that’s just internal Cuban politics.” Also because a president was hesitant to do what was necessary to stop a madman… the thousands upon thousands of Latin Americans who died at the hands of the Communist guerrilla movement were done a great disservice back then. Sometimes regime change can mean the world.

Of course, the libertarian and I disagreed on this salient point and I respect that. I respect it moreover because the opinion of not entangling ourselves in foreign affairs is not a new idea, but one that came from the founding fathers. But even then, in our early years, America’s leaders (when real leaders existed) understood that whenever European powers flexed their muscle in the Western Hemisphere, our own backyard, we could not sit idly by. And history shows that we did not. I could go on, but the interesting part was yet to come. Eventually, the leftist would join our conversation and he said, in a nutshell, that all of society’s woes were the fault of big evil corporations. In fact, he used those very words: evil corporations. He cited examples of certain companies that were monopolistic or oligopolies and played that old class-warfare game with us. At one point he asks me, “do you like it that these corporations are making record profits while wages remain stagnant?” While bashing companies, he described a glorified version of government, that he admits does not exist, that essentially is a dispassionate servant of the people. On this point, we mostly agreed, except that I pointed out that the excessive concentration of power in any body, government especially, is A) corrupting, B) inefficient and C) against democracy. He disagreed of course. The corporate-bashing seemed to be common ground for the libertarian and the lefty, where they both agreed that they were behind some of the more insidious things in our society. The difference was that every time that the libertarian mentioned anything negative about corporations, he actually did not mention the corporations the liberal was interested in hearing about. The libertarian mentioned the corruption of unions, particularly the teacher’s union, and of ACORN. The liberal jumped up and said “see, yet another corporation that is hurting society.” The problem with the liberal’s arguments is the fact that he believes that free will must be tamed, compensation must be limited, and that once a person becomes rich they can no longer have any civic participation. Specifically, he grew outraged over the recent Supreme Court decision over corporate contributions to campaigns. I rebutted that corporations have been funneling money to politicians with or without that restriction and furthermore that taking away the right of an association of people from contributing to political campaigns or causes seems to run contrary to the first amendment. I remind my reader(s) that our founding fathers were not mere paupers. Rich does not equal evil.

The most enlightening part of the conversation was the full-blown absurd notion that contracts, especially complicated contracts, were in themselves evil. I said that made absolutely no sense… yet he continued. He said that it was the banks, the mortgage brokers, the credit card companies, and any other corporation that issues contracts with fine print, especially excessive fine print, that were the cause of so much misery in this country and the world. What would the solution to this be? To allow people who claim to not understand contracts to get out of them? To ban excessive fine print? Who decides what’s excessive and what’s necessary? He railed against phone plans, Apple, farming contracts, adjustable-rate mortgages, etc. Now that I think about it, I am surprised I was even listening to him. Of course, the solution to all this is to READ THE CONTRACT. I do it, why can’t other people? His response was that we were intelligent but most people aren’t. Indeed, no elitism there (note sarcasm). People need to take responsibility for their own lives, what sort of advanced society would have to dumb down contracts for its citizens? I rebutted by saying this and also that this shows the importance of education in general and that the state needs to get out of the education game and let in private education or at least have higher standards, something that the teachers unions absolutely oppose. The lefty’s comments should not have surprised me, they truly and firmly believe that the vast majority of people cannot and should not be responsible for themselves and that they absolutely NEED a big nanny-government to chew their food for them and wipe their butts. This was not a foaming at the mouth commie I was talking to, this was an intelligent person who embodies the sort of sheep, educated sheep, that follow the Mao Tse Tungs into the abyss. Absolutely shocking.

Ultimately, the lefty believes that the world was now under the control of multinational corporations that have reduced us all to slaves (indentured servants) and that freedom was endangered if not extinct. I cannot dispute that there are huge corporation out there, nor do I want to dispute that. As of yet, the McDonalds conglomerate has not infringed on my God-given rights as a human being, so why must I declare war on them? Or restrict their activities? If I have a problem with them, as the libertarian pointed out, we can simply boycott them… and in all truth, I don’t really like McDonalds. These corporations out there are not the bogeymen, the true enemy of freedom is an overgrown state. Only an overgrown government can issue edicts like the upcoming healthcare individual mandates that will only benefit corporations and the state alike. Only an overgrown government can subsidize one business or business practice and create market bubbles that ultimately burst and wreak havoc. Strictly speaking, would we be in this recession if the government and the Federal Reserve did not adopt a loose monetary policy for political reasons? Of course not. Would the housing market still be nearly frozen if the government would not have been so generous with the banks? Of course not. Would the cost of health insurance be so high if we allowed for competition across state lines? Probably not. At the end of the conversation, I pointed out that the solution to the problem, even the exaggerated “corporations are taking over the world” problem, is to limit the size and power of government and allow for an open free market that fosters competition and innovation. Without an ultra-powerful federal government, “evil corporations” could no longer be evil because they would be restricted to following laws, respecting contracts, and competing in the market. Most importantly, without an ultra-powerful federal government, we will finally unleash the power of American innovation and have a more free country. The libertarians seem to like the sound of what liberals say, but at least have a firm grasp of what being free means… I found it odd that the libertarian would take sides against corporations, but then again, he did see them as part of the big government nexus that is chipping away at our freedom. The libertarian ended up not being anti-business per se but did believe that special interests from all sides make the situation worse. He is right, but what this shows that in the larger national discourse, a lot of people who believe in freedom, responsibility, and limited government somehow are convinced by the Left that it’s the corporations that we need to destroy. For conservatives to win this battle for the hearts and minds of independents, we must emphasize the importance of taking responsibility for oneself and the centrality of American freedom… because what the Left offers as a solution is a complete government takeover of every aspect of society to ensure that their brand of “fairness” is the order of the day.

It was a fun discussion.

-AG

I am on a bunch of lefty mailing lists just so I can see what these nuts are up to. Here’s one that I received recently that I found to be pretty interesting; it’s from the Howard Dean group Democracy for America:

“DFA Member-

In case you haven’t heard yet, something scary is happening in Florida. Tea Party extremists have forced out the state Republican chair and are now free to nominate the most right-wing candidates imaginable to public office across the state.

We must not allow these extremists the power or legitimacy that comes with elected office.


That is why DFA is bringing some of the best political talent in the country to train Florida candidates and activists in 2010 to make sure progressives have the tools to win.

This is a critical year in Florida politics. There are huge statewide races with national implications as well as local races that hit close to home.

You may be disappointed by some so-called Democrats in Washington and, believe me, I am too. But the solution isn’t to throw up our hands and cede our country to extremists. The solution is to elect better Democrats, everywhere. And it starts in Florida. Join us.

Thanks for all you do.” [bold added for emphasis]

You’re welcome.

This email had three instances of “extremists,” one instance of “scary,” and one instance of “right-wing.” I’m panicking already! This is the type of fear mongering that is circulating among liberals who probably do not know any better about the Tea Party movement. As for the Florida issue, the state GOP chairman seemed to be mismanaging funds and he was making some bad calls. If only the RNC would do the same and rein in Mikey.

What I find most amusing is that at the end of the email, they admit that even though the Democrats that were just elected were doing a bad job, they should go and elect more of them! Apparently, the big government agenda put forward by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate does not go far enough. Spending trillions is not enough, we must spend QUADRILLIONS!!! Oh Dean, what a clown.

The sad part is that they consider me an extremist… I, who pay taxes, contribute to society, vote and sometimes put my simple, honest opinions on a hidden away blog on the inter-tube-webs… oh and I forgot my most subversive act: thinking! Sometimes I hope we would all be a little more extremist.

-AG

If you know anyone in Florida, send them this post, because people need to understand what governor Charlie Crist has done, especially since he will be running for Senate. Republicans are supposed to stand for free markets, limited government, and lower taxes, Charlie Crist has done none of this during his time as governor. First of all, in an effort to rein in skyrocketing insurance rates in the wake of two devastating hurricane seasons, he implemented price controls and required insurance companies to get permission from the state if they wanted to increase their prices. He also made it so that these companies will have to “return” the “excessive” profits they make. So much for free markets.

His next move was to make the state-run insurance company, Citizens, more competitive. It’s pretty expensive. After the price control policy was implemented, many insurers have either stopped writing policies or reduced their business in Florida, making Citizens the largest insurer in the state. In essence, Charlie Crist made the state the principal insurer of homes in a hurricane-prone peninsula. So much for limited government.

The next part is the most important. It is simple math. Let us say that Florida is hit by consecutive hurricanes like a few years ago. According to this article, insurance companies ended up paying more than $30 billion to meet their policy obligations. Right now, Citizens faces $400 billion in potential exposure and only has $3.4 billion in net assets. Simply put, a bad hurricane season can put Citizens out of business, but since it is state-run, taxpayers will end up “bailing out” the company. So much for lower taxes.

For the environmentalists out there, freezing prices and making property insurance rates more competitive will only increase urban sprawl and development along the coast. Bad news for the everglades and undeveloped lands. For those concerned with giving people affordable insurance, currently Citizens is among the most expensive insurance companies and if larger, more dependable insurers keep leaving the state, then a lot of people will be stuck with paying higher insurance bills or stuck with less dependable companies that may not be able to live up to their policy obligations.

In all, both Democrats and Republicans have compelling reasons to oppose Charlie Crist. He has put Florida at significant risk in a state where hurricanes are common. More importantly, he lied to and betrayed his constituents, pledging not to raise taxes but did so anyways. He cannot be trusted. Floridians need to make sure not to make this man Senator, we have enough crooked politicians in Washington.

-AG

Speaking of liberals who pledge not to raise taxes, in local news Charlie Crist was censured yesterday by the Volusia County Republican Executive Committee for his non-conservative ways. The list of reasons assembled by the Volusian Republican rebels (they are going against the de facto GOP endorsement of Crist) is essentially a Marco Rubio blueprint for attacks against the leathery faced governor.

You gotta love it. A Republican censured in his own state for being a RINO. I do not support Charlie Crist anymore, specifically for his performance as governor… even my father, hard-line right-wing Republican, voted for the Democratic candidate for FL governor. The truth is that Crist is a corporate puppet, a politician in every sense of the word. He betrayed the state, signing tax increases and appeasing the Left by appointing liberal judges. He is just plain dishonest. Moreover, he rubs it in the faces of Floridians by going on a $430K vacation to Europe under the pretense of a “trade mission” on the public dime.

While Charlie “Crispy” Crist was getting tanned on the beach, Floridians have been foreclosing on homes at higher rates than the national average. While Charlie “Crispy” Crist was getting tanned on the beach, Floridians were stuck with paying higher taxes and higher fees. While Charlie “Crispy” Crist was getting tanned on the beach, Democrats around the country have been using Crist’s endorsement of Obama’s plan to bludgeon the Republican party. Being censured in his own state is not enough, Charlie Crist needs to be outed as a closet Liberal. Enough is enough.

-AG

I have been focusing mainly on the international scene for the last few posts, primarily because I think enough conservative and non-conservative commentators have taken up the health care battle with gusto and did not want people to ignore what happens beyond our shores. I would like to change subjects for a moment and write about Marco Rubio who caught my attention due to his actions and recommendations as Speaker of the Florida House. His run for the Senate against Charlie Crist, the current, moderate, ultra-tanned governor of FL, is likely to prove disastrous. Sorry, Rubio. This is not because he lacks substance but rather because he is up against the GOP establishment which has pretty much endorsed Crist (though Rubio denies it). In my humble opinion, there are certain things that Rubio can do to improve his performance in this race. Already, he has made several existential mistakes and so I will endeavor to outline some of his weaknesses and recommend ways to turn them into strengths.

His first “weakness” is actually the central argument behind his candidacy: he is conservative, not moderate. While he may not say it outright during interviews, in typical political style, he starts describing Crist as someone who has betrayed or compromised on conservative principles. The first thing he needs to do is come right out and say it “I will stay true to my principles, unlike Crist.” Be more direct, no subliminals, no politics, just the truth. He just needs to make sure he defines principles, like sound government, personal freedom, or whatever. If he continues to be branded as a “conservative,” while that might appeal to the more right-leaning base (like me), it will make some think that he is an ideologue and not even take a chance to listen to him. Remember, there are centrist Republicans too. Clarity of message, not clarity of ideology. Ideology needs to leave this contest. The message should be fiscal responsibility period. Pound it into people’s heads: Crist raised taxes, Crist supported record breaking national spending, etc. Stay on message. Put Crist on defense. Also, Crist will be running to the right in the primary only to backtrack on his positions in the general. Hold him accountable. Flip-flopping hurt Romney, Kerry, and countless others.

The second “weakness” is his presentation. I like Rubio, he comes off straightforward, knowledgeable, and generally like a nice guy. That said, Crist seems even nicer, in fact, too nice for my tastes. Rubio suffers from a technocratic sort of demeanor, like he knows how to make the best steak but will not dress it up with garnish or mashed potatoes. Well, I hate frills, but I do like to be entertained as much as the next guy. He looks kind of nervous sometimes. Sometimes he looks like he belongs in a lecture hall teaching philosophy to half-awake students. Rubio needs to loosen up when he talks policy. Throw a joke in. Loosen your tie. Smile more. Do something, but don’t overdo it. Of course, Rubio cannot compete with Crist when it comes to looking like a “nice” guy. This is where the weakness becomes the strength. Crist seems way too laid back… I mean, look at the guy, he’s ridiculously tanned. Ridiculous. This makes him seem nice, but it does not make him seem more competent. Rubio must capitalize by keeping his technocratic demeanor in place, with a little garnish of “approachability,” and point out that representing FL shouldn’t be a day at the beach. Make that can-do attitude (with a smile) the basic approach while saying that as Florida’s problems mounted, the person in charge was getting a tan, taking trips, and relaxing a little too much. Take the gloves off but stay positive.

The third “weakness” is his appeal to the GOP. Let’s be clear, just because Crist is not that conservative does not mean that the GOP will discard him. The GOP, like any political organization, is in the business of winning elections and Crist can win elections, general elections in Florida. Regaining a significant number of Congressmen and women is the GOP’s primary aim. So Rubio needs to make his case even more clear. The Obama-Crist link is not enough, it is good for conservatives, but not enough to win. The GOP needs to see results, it needs to see action. What this means is popular support. Crist has proven it, now it’s Rubio’s turn. I’m saying the grassroots should have an even more active role in his campaign, in fact, the grassroots should hijack the Rubio campaign. His participation in the Tea Parties was excellent, now that they know his face, he needs to plan another, and then another and another, he needs to participate in non-stop town halls, continue challenging Crist, get out there, eat at diners, speak everywhere… energy is very very very very important. Not saying that Rubio does not have energy, but this is where the focus should be. I, for example, was a supporter of the Fred Thompson campaign in the primary but was disappointed when the energy wasn’t there… McCain had/has immense amounts of energy and he won the primary even though he was significantly behind and not the most conservative (he then lagged after winning the primary and look what happened). There is a lot of untapped conservative and libertarian energy out here in Florida, if Rubio can mobilize that then he will show the GOP what he can do. Look at Howard Dean, he used this very model and while he did not win, due to self-destruction (byahh!), he did go on to lead the Democratic Party and eventually took control of both Congress and the Executive. Not a bad model… except that he’s as liberal as the current president.

I have more recommendations and observations, but these are the big ones. Hopefully, Rubio will change his tactics a little because he seems to have good ideas and a good heart. I also can relate to his upbringing, hearing stories about the Castro gulag, the repression of faith, the mass extermination of “political opponents,” etc. These stories were our nursery rhymes, these stories stressed the importance of freedom, respect for human rights, and the accountability of government to the people. These are lessons that are ignored by many on the Left, and the main reason (in my opinion) why Cuban-Americans have tended towards conservatism. This race is a microcosm of the greater struggle within the Republican Party, the struggle to define itself as either the party of winning elections or the party of individual empowerment.

-AG

I just read a tweet from Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who is also running for Senate, asking for support of his campaign. His campaign advocates “less taxes, less government, more freedom.” If only, Charlie Crist, if only.

Barack’s buddy, Crist, talks the talk but certainly does not walk the walk. In Florida, he signed a budget last month that increased taxes and fees by more than $2 billion dollars and he defended his actions by saying that one of the taxes, the cigarette tax did not apply to the majority of Floridians, only 11% (majority of which are mid to low income persons), and that he needed to balance the budget by raising fees on the majority of Floridians. This means:

Crist VIOLATED his pledge to oppose and veto any and all tax increases.

Crist ATTACKED the free market by breaking conservative principles and backing the cap-and-tax bill.

Crist BETRAYED the American taxpayer on the federal level by supporting Obama’s pet projects and eye-popping spending programs.

Too-Close-For-Comfort-Charlie

What audacity for him to run a campaign based on reducing government, reducing taxes, and increasing freedom. The very least that the leather-faced governor could do is be honest and say he is a pragmatist of some sort, though I doubt that he truly is. He seems to be too relaxed and too tanned to be able to defend America values. He will most likely fold if the situation gets too hot. Furthermore, with the I-will-not-die allegations that he is a homosexual and the fact that he denies it, the last thing we need is another Larry Craig in the Senate. Some say this is a low blow, but given the fact that he has lied about raising taxes and about being a conservative, I do not trust his word any more. Crist has officially lost my support in the Senatorial primary. Florida does not need an Arlen Specter.

-AG

As the President of the United States leads the Democrats’ assault on the American economy and taxpayer, the opposition party has posted an “under construction” sign over its political platform. The disagreement is over the future of the party and whether it will pursue a more conservative line or a more moderate line. The problem is that, while conservatism is already pretty well defined, “moderation” is more ambiguous but as a centerpiece I expect that they advocate bipartisanship and reaching compromises on particular issues. Well, here in Florida, Republican Senate candidate and current Florida Governor Charlie Crist represents the “moderate” wing of the GOP while Marco Rubio, Republican Senate candidate and former Florida state House Speaker, represents the conservatives.

Fortunately for us watchers of these campaigns, the “moderate” Crist has made it clear what it means to be “moderate.” Apparently, to be moderate means to be an active supporter of a national “cap-and-trade” system, an active supporter of the Obama Stimulus/Spendulus bill, and to host the Democratic president in your home state while he pushes for a stimulus bill that undermines state government. This means that I am clearly NOT in the “moderate” wing of the Republican Party, because:

a) I reject a Stimulus bill that essentially increases the deficit to historically high levels, burdens the US taxpayer, infringes on state rights, is a handout to special interest groups, and does not work.
b) I reject a Cap-and-Trade system that punishes the American energy consumer instead of focusing only on incentivizing entrepreneurship and innovation that would help the environment
c) I reject any and all politicians who push for excessive government intervention in the free markets and the expansion of government power and size

For these reasons and more, I cannot support the theory of “moderation” of the Republican Party. What the moderates imply is that the conservative wing is out-dated and that surrendering to the will of Obama is the way forward. Conservatives need to emphasize their core values of independence, freedom, and opportunity to a constituency that has been brainwashed into thinking that government is the answer to everything. Those core values, though, represent the American Dream while the liberals believe in liberal spending of our wealth, liberal taxation of our wealth, and liberal appeasement of our enemies. Any Republican message should represent these values:

Independence is the ability to BE
Freedom is the ability to DREAM
Opportunity is the ability to BE what we DREAM

Therefore any government that promotes America’s dependence on government, or curtails our freedoms, or blocks opportunity through obstacles, economic or otherwise, must be opposed. America’s principles are being twisted beyond recognition during this period of one-party rule in Washington. Republicans need to do a better job in stopping them.

-AG

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

The Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF) was founded in 1981 by Jorge Mas Canosa and for the purpose of advancing freedom and democracy in Cuba, a communist controlled island 90 miles south of the United States. The group, under Mas Canosa’s direction, pushed for a strategy of isolating the regime while helping the Cuban people generate change on the island. The strategy included policies such as the embargo and programs such as Radio Marti and TV Marti that transmitted pro-democracy messages directly to the people of Cuba, bypassing the official censored communist media. Mas Canosa’s leadership helped shape U.S. foreign policy to Cuba and contributed in isolating communism to this island during a critical time in the Cold War and after. He passed away on November 23, 1997 due to lung cancer.

Today, CANF is a very different organization. Since the death of Mas Canosa, there has been what some describe as a softening of their positions and what other describe as a more pragmatic approach. In general, I have hoped that this group would take a stronger stance and hold policy-makers in Washington more accountable to their promises of helping Cuba rid itself of totalitarian communism. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats would travel to Miami promising to stand up to Castro and to help bring democracy to the island while sipping Cuban coffee and yelling “Cuba Libre,” all without the intention of doing anything of significance. Unfortunately, the organization seems to have lost the fire in its belly and I can cite no constructive policy coming out of Washington with their stamp. Even Bush’s restrictions did not directly bring Cuba significantly closer to freedom. Worse, a few days ago the Cuban-American National Foundation released recommendations on US-Cuba Policy that explicitly calls for ending direct confrontation with the communist regime, to engage in limited bilateral/multilateral diplomacy, and to relax our policy of containment. In other words, CANF has put forward a plan that agrees to everything Fidel Castro wants: normalization of relations, though in an incremental fashion.

In this proposal to the current administration, called the White [flag] Paper, they say that the US policy since the Cold War has been ineffective at promoting our own interests and the interests of the Cuban people. I, as well as many others, disagree. The policy of containment has limited communism to Cuba only. Imagine a western hemisphere with a communist Mexico on our border, or a communist bloc in South America reporting directly to Moscow during the Cold War… it would have been a recipe for disaster and a threat to freedom on this side of the world. The Cuban Missile crisis showed us how dangerous communism could be when brought to our doorstep. Furthermore, the strategy could have been more successful if we actually contained Cuba, but we did no such thing. The embargo only prevented trade between the United States and Cuba, the rest of the world was open for business. Regardless, the communist regime would pilfer the nation’s resources selling them on the world market, denying Cuba citizens the fruits of their labor, and creating a society of haves (the Castro cartel) and have-nots (everyone else). With the Soviet Union in their corner providing them with an immense amount of aid, “containment” was incomplete at best. So when CANF insists that we take a new direction, I would agree if what they advocate is a dual strategy of actual containment coupled with grassroots empowerment. The policy would be simple: weaken the oppressors while strengthening the oppressed. Instead, CANF insists on a strategy that doesn’t put more pressure on the communist rulers but pins its hope on the rationality/understanding of the dictator(s), and I quote: “It requires Cuba’s present rulers, or their successors, to understand that… the incorporation of grassroots reforms demanded by the Cuban people, are absolutely essential to the nation’s future prosperity and stability.” Naive and dangerous.

I understand the spirit of these proposals which insists on supporting the non-violent, pro-democracy dissident movement that is constantly threatened, harassed, beaten, and arbitrarily arrested, but when it comes to US policy towards Cuba, we should not start increasing the prestige, power, and wealth of these dictators. In one form or another, the proposals in this White [flag] Paper give the communist government in Cuba more international legitimacy and more direct funding. I might be willing to accept a little bit of funding to trickle into government coffers if it asymmetrically made the democratic activists stronger… but for this to happen, the communist regime must be under pressure, it must be contained, and it must be challenged at every turn. You cannot do one without the other. This has been the failure of US-Cuba policy, it only pursued quasi-containment and did not assist the resistance on the ground.

Now, a few old battle-weary warriors and young, kumbaya idealists are beating the drums of defeat and leading us down the road to appeasement. As a whole, I reject the White [flag] Paper and only hope that America do the same, particularly the Cuban-American community. As for CANF, I used to proudly carry around my membership card, but since I am foremost a member of a group of free people throughout history who never surrendered, like George Washington and Antonio Maceo, I offer this gesture:

-AG

Fool me twice, shame on The Miami Herald…

As one of the few remaining readers of the Herald (newspapers… remember those?), I’m shocked when I read editorials like the one today about North Korea. Less than a week ago, I reviewed Bush’s policy and recommended that the Obama administration not fall for the North Koreans’ extortion demands like so many past administrations have. Today, the Miami Herald puts out an editorial that urges the current administration to follow in the footsteps of the failed policies of Clinton and Bush II (second term). Let’s review again. Clinton offered millions in aid in exchange for a halt to their nuclear program. Result: North Korea keep their program going in secret, using much of this money for their military. Enter Bush, at first saying that we would not give in to nuclear blackmail and that we would suspend giving them aid because of their secret nuclear program (which North Korea admitted to having in October 2002) only to later, in his second term, agree to a similar aid-for-nuclear-freeze agreement after the North tests its first mini-atomic bomb. Result: North Korea has not fully complied, arrested American journalists on charges of espionage, threatened to destroy S. Korea, and is now planning missile tests in violation of U.N. resolutions. Here is a pretty thorough chronology of events. So what does the Miami Herald suggest? That the “U.S. should offer high-level dialogue if missile test is halted,” in other words, continue to give in to threats no matter the cost, no matter how often we look like fools for trusting them. Ridiculous.

On the other hand, though continual appeasement may be ridiculous, it is the most likely course of action given the current administrations inexperience and kumbaya mentality. I equate this type of “high-level dialogue” with appeasement because every time we dialogue with this regime, the United States loses and North Korea gets another lease on life. This type of dialogue requires that we ask them to back down from their threats, which only validates the strategy of threatening the U.S. Dialogue with N. Korea must be based on U.S. interests and policy in the region, not based on blackmail. Neither should we keep handing over aid for empty promises. The type of agreements and diplomacy that the U.S. has engaged in has been detrimental to our national security and global security.

To read that we should continue this policy because they are a threat to peace only reinforces the idea that we are not ready to engage in high-level dialogue with these belligerent rogue states, especially the type of bilateral talks that Kim wants. Even the list of what the editor believes to be North Korea’s desires is naïve, at the least (except for one). Let’s go through them:

• Normalization of relations – the only way to justify totalitarian rule under terrible economic conditions is to create a constant state of existential fear (that the U.S. will wipe them all out), normalization would open the door for U.S. pressure to democratize and increase local unrest, not something that Kim Jong Il would like
• Economic aid – okay, yes they want this.
• Security Assurances - they already feel confident that they can keep demanding and demanding and we will simply agree to whatever they want because we’re afraid of war or afraid of missile strikes on Japan or afraid of the utter destruction of Seoul or afraid that they will pass on nuclear secrets/materials/weapons to enemies/terrorists… nukes are the only security assurance they need, American promises of security means nothing in comparison
• Peace treaty – see above, siege mentality is the lifeblood of the Juche ideology (self-reliance) that justifies the Kim dynasty

N. Korea has already said that it would consider any sanctions adopted by the U.N. in case of a missile test to be a provocation which would jeopardize current nuclear negotiations. More blackmail. The problem with our reflexively dualistic approach to policy towards N. Korea is that many think that it’s either confrontation or dialogue. Neither has worked alone and sadly, dialogue has been discredited by the last two administrations. It’s disheartening that The Miami Herald sounds like Kim Jong Il himself when it prints “when North Korea acts up, attention must be paid.” As the sole superpower (for now), America must pay attention to all matters in the world, not simply because North Korea commands the world’s undivided attention. One decent result of Obama’s inexperience in foreign policy has been to leave Kim crying in the corner for the last few months, but it’s time to take a tougher stand with this rogue state. It must be a nuanced approach that balances confrontation and dialogue…

The Miami Herald should not be recommending that we give in to this totalitarian regime… or maybe this was one of the stories they lifted from the Communist Cuban News Agency.

-AG

I was reading a report today on Tonuya Rainey, a Miramar, FL woman, who forced her 16 year-old pregnant daughter to take abortion pills in order to terminate the fetus. When the daughter gave birth in the bathroom, Rainey put the 6 month-old fetus/infant in a bag and dumped it/him/her in the trash. Apparently, the daughter reported that the fetus/infant was moving its arms and legs and was breathing. The body was not recovered and authorities are uncertain as to whether the fetus/child was breathing or born dead. This news greatly disturbed me, as I’m sure it disturbs many people out there, and it brings to mind my usual argument on abortion, which goes something like this:

If the fetus is a human being, then he/she/it must be recognized as having human rights. Since my statement is conditional, and it must be conditional because humans do not have “absolute truth” regardless of what some persons believe (even if scriptures are absolutely true, human interpretation is flawed), I do not pretend to advocate for enacting far sweeping legislation that makes it legal or illegal nor do I claim that the act of fertilization confers on a cell (fertilized ovum) human rights. The technicalities I leave to the experts. More importantly, religion and faith should have no place in making this determination. Morality cannot be compulsory… that defeats the purpose of being moral.

But of course, the devil is in the details. At our current stage of technology, fetuses can live outside the mother’s body far earlier than naturally possible and the issue of viability is another headache… only God (or natural law, or random chance, or whatever force(s) govern the universe) knows what is viable or not. Once we establish a baseline argument as to what constitutes the beginning of human life, we can start delineating whether or not abortion is a violation of human rights or when we can consider abortion as being acceptable.

The problem I have with the pro-abortion argument is that it strongly affirms that it’s a women’s “choice” to do what she will with her own body. I understand that but to keep parroting that line, which I hear countless times used in abortion arguments, is to promote a homicidal idea… why do I say this? Because to affirm that basic right to ownership of other human beings (based on “privacy” in this case) as the determinant factor when dealing with human rights is to validate many crimes against humanity. Some examples include: if the prevailing idea is that black people are property, then violations of their rights would be acceptable under this idea, i.e. slavery; if the prevailing idea is that Jewish people are not human, then violations of their right would be acceptable, i.e. Nazi-ism; if property ownership were the final say in all matters, then I could collapse the roof on my own house killing my annoying roommates just because its my house… Of course, my arguments are extreme examples, but then again it was reasonable people who knocked down the first dominoes that led to terrible atrocities: I’m sure that there were reasonable people who thought that denying Jewish people property rights wouldn’t lead to the Holocaust, or that the buying and selling of slaves wouldn’t lead to a Civil War costing hundreds of thousands of lives, or that implementing Marx’s ideas on the redistribution of wealth wouldn’t lead to the deaths of millions of people… all in all, seemingly innocuous ideas can lead to unimaginable atrocities when they are taken too far.

In the case of Tonuya Rainey, I believe that she was convinced of her right over not only the life and decisions of her daughter (unarguably a human being), but also that, as a guardian, the right over the fetus/infant was hers as well, because it was her (daughter’s) body. This is because the prevailing idea is that a person has the right to “choose” what to do with their body (in this case, their child’s body). Were the prevailing idea that the fetus did have human rights if alive, I believe that a rational person would think twice before murdering.

The abortion issue can be boiled down to three important questions: what is the beginning of human life, does a person’s right to their own body supersede another’s human rights, and does the federal government have the authority to pass sweeping legislation over the whole country on this issue. On the first question, I would err on the side of sooner in the pregnancy rather than later. On the second, I do not believe, within reason, that I have the authority to violate anyone human rights, even at the cost of surrendering some freedom over my body. On the final question, I believe that the federal government should not have the final authority without reconciling itself with the highest authorities: the rights of the people and the truth. When the government does not have certainty that a universal rule is both correct and necessary, it should err on the side of freedom and allow states to determine their own fate. Note that religion has nothing to do with this… God’s law is resolved in God’s court, not Man’s. Though I do believe that every person has the right to vote their beliefs and their conscience. I base this opinion favoring life, not on faith in God but rather on my faith in God-given (or rather “Creator"-given as described in the Declaration of Independence) human rights… which is the faith of both secularists and non-secularists who believe in the vision of the Founding Fathers.

-AG

It has been suggested by some individuals within the Cuban-American community that our singular obsessive focus on the issue of Cuba has handicapped our own political participation. It has been suggested that Cuba does not truly matter anymore. They say that we have more pressing concerns, such as health care, national security, and the economy. Those who believe this threaten to destroy the foundation of freedom our community was built on and thrives on. Those who believe this undermine the unifying political consciousness of our people. For in truth, when it comes to choosing leaders, the Cuban issue must be the first. To us, who fought for freedom at every turn, whose families suffered at the hands of communism, Cuba will matter forever.

The importance of the Cuba issue cannot be overstated, especially with respect to the US political process. Cuba is not a singular political concept, it embodies questions that today plague the United States, from the health care debate to the immigration debate to the national security question.

Why does Cuba matter? Because nowadays, elements of the Democratic left are espousing views on health care that glorify the communist system and seek to imitate aspects of it. This is a dangerous road. In Cuba, for universal health care (if it can be so termed) citizens must pay a hefty price: all of their human rights. The vast majority of Cubans have universal access to a system with an extreme shortage of medical supplies, where one must bring their own pillows and sheets to the hospital, their own aspirin and other drugs that they procure from family in the US or on the black market. Some blame the embargo… yet medicine and agricultural products CAN be sold to Cuba. In fact, the US is Cuba’s largest agricultural trading partner. Furthermore, only the US has an embargo… the remainder of the world is open for business (about 6.4 billion people or so). Cuba teaches us to ask the tough questions about promises of paradise and utopia: What must we pay for this service? Are we willing to pay this?

Why does Cuba matter? Because nowadays, America debates the immigration issue without learning from the Cuban experience. Millions march in the streets in support of immigrant rights while countless others try to defend our borders without asking the important question: what are the principle causes of illegal immigration? Cuba teaches us that political repression, instability, government corruption, and abject poverty are the prime causes. America must understand that no man (nor nation) is an island (even if they are literally an island). To address the issue of immigration we must engage other nations and stabilize them while at the same time strengthening our borders. Latin Americans would not immigrate in such large numbers if their political and economic situations had at the least a modicum of stability and security. This does not even take into account that the communist regime in Cuba has helped foment revolutions and propped up guerrilla armies for the explicit aim of destabilizing American Civilization (North, Central, and South).

Why does Cuba matter? Because nowadays, America’s national security is in grave danger from violent extremists bent on spreading their ideology around the world, starting in their own backyard. This may be applied to the radical Islamists wishing to re-establish the Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia, or to Communist China wishing to dominate the entire continent of Asia by annexing Taiwan and using its North Korean proxy to stare down the West, or to the Cuba-Venezuela Axis wishing to create a new Socialist Bolivarian Super-State stretching across America. US policy towards Cuba can tell us volumes about our attitude towards national security. Cuba teaches us that evil must be confronted, not ignored nor praised, because evil will attack while we sleep. While we slept, Venezuela fell under Castro’s spell… and then Bolivia… and then Ecuador… and then Nicaragua… So we must ask: is our national security policy based simply on special interests, on corporations and competition for resources or on actual existing and rising threats to the United States? Do we confront Cuba because the specter of world totalitarianism is a very real threat or do we simply focus on those countries with vital resources? Should we ignore that Cuba and Venezuela have strategically allied themselves with Iran?

These are simply some of the current and more pressing issues affecting the United States seen through the lens of the Cuban-American community. To suggest that Cuba is not one of the most important issues of our time is to ignore the value of the historical lessons that we should have learned. The Cuban-American community did not endure so much suffering back in Cuba just to suffer the same abuse in a new home. We must understand that while America defeated tyranny long ago, tyranny continues to encroach on the American Dream.

-AG