Alan Gross promueve el acercamiento a Cuba en evento en Miami

todos los pueblos y grupos etnicos tienen lados oscuros y el pueblo judio no es una excepcion. luego de los brutales maltratos que sufrio el subcontratista norteamericano alan gross al que incluso se le impidio visitar a su madre en el lecho de muerte, el mal judio muestra su oreja peluda y se suma a la caterva de agentes de influencias del regimen cubano en eeuu, para promover los viajes y el acercamiento incondicional al feudo de biran. el new pac cuba y el engage cuba [recientemente elogiado por cubadebate] son presididos por james williams [der.].

alan gross habla en la presentacion del new cuba pac/ foto; james williams

---------------- 

¿Gross en Cuba?

La constitución del “New Cuba PAC” y “Engage Cuba” ha sido observada de cerca por Frank Calzón, director ejecutivo del Centro para una Cuba Libre, que aboga por mantener las sanciones hasta que el gobierno cubano no se comprometa a mejorar la situación de derechos humanos.

“Esta no es la primera vez que alguien hace un PAC para recaudar dinero con el fin de promover los viajes a Cuba. Tenemos que esperar y ver”, dijo Calzón, que llamó la atención de que el PAC y el grupo de cabildeo compartieran una misma dirección.

Pero Calzón sí se mostró sorprendido de la participación de Gross en este esfuerzo político.

“Creo que sería mucho mejor y tendría más sentido, si Gross dedicara su tiempo, no a abogar por más viajes a Cuba –cuando sabemos que el gobierno cubano se quedará con la mayoría de los dividendos– y sí a demandar al mundo que no olvide que hay otros presos políticos en Cuba, que como a él, se le negaron sus derechos fundamentales”, agregó.

Pero Gilbert, opinó de modo diametralmente distinto.

“Alan Gross no está haciendo lobby para el gobierno cubano. Alan Gross cree, como yo, que el embargo no es bueno para el pueblo de Estados Unidos, los cubanoamericanos o las empresas americanas. También cree que no es bueno para el pueblo de Cuba”.

“Él y yo, y la mayoría de las personas racionales, creen que el embargo debe terminar, la Ley Helms-Burton debe derogarse y que el aumento del comercio y los viajes entre EEUU y Cuba será bueno para los pueblos de ambos países”.

Calzón también trajo a colación el deteriorado estado físico de Gross cuando fue liberado en diciembre. “¿Qué le sucedió a toda su dentadura? ¿El gobierno cubano no le dio atención médica mientras estaba encarcelado? Solo mira las fotos de los espías cubanos. ¿Alguno de ellos aparece sin dientes? Eso en sí mismo es una tremenda declaración”.

Según su abogado, Gross se ha sometido a chequeos de salud. Su visión “es buena” y está usando “unas gafas especiales que lo ayudan a ver mejor. Está trabajando con un dentista para la reconstrucción de su dentadura. Ahora tiene dientes temporales. Todavía tiene problemas con las caderas, por los cinco años en los que estuvo básicamente en una sola habitación”.

“Él ha subido algo de peso, está comiendo bien y está simplemente disfrutando de su libertad. Le encanta caminar y disfrutar de las cosas que damos por sentado. Para Alan estas experiencias siguen siendo muy apreciadas”, comentó Gilbert.

Read more here: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/america-latina/cuba-es/article20305149.html#storylink=cpy

Mas en El Nuevo Herald >>

The laughable duplicity of ‘former’ Cuban spy Arturo Lopez-Levy | Babalú Blog

Babalú Blog

Lt. Col. Chris Simmons (Ret.) in Cuba Confidential:

“Former” Spy Arturo López-Levy

The Laughable Duplicity of “Former” Cuban Spy Arturo Lopez-Levy

The Huffington Post disgraced itself again yesterday with another propaganda piece by admitted “former” Directorate of Intelligence (DI) officer, Arturo Lopez-Levy. His feature, “Why Senator Rubio’s Lies Matter,” condemned the Senator for a lack of ethics. Lopez-Levy attacked Rubio for having lied when he claimed his family fled the left-wing dictatorship of Fidel Castro when in reality they fled the right-wing dictatorship of General Fulgencio Batista. The “former” spy said this deception “shined a spotlight on the senator’s moral character.” Lopez-Levy then proceeded to make the outrageous claim that conservative Cuban-Americans (including Rubio) are former Batista supporters.
As ludicrous as Lopez-Levy’s statements are, the real hypocrisy is the layers of lies in which he has encased his own persona. The real name of this perpetual doctoral candidate (now believed to be in his 8^th year of studies) is Arturo Lopez-Callejas. After all, this is the name he lived by for over 30 years in Cuba. The faux scholar also now denies his spy career, although he acknowledged his patriotic service to Fidel in his book, Raul Castro and the New Cuba: A Close-Up View of Change.
He also – innocently I’m sure – forgot to tell readers he is Raul Castro’s nephew-in-law. More specifically, he is the first cousin of Castro’s son-in-law, Brigadier General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Primo Lopez-Callejas. Rodriguez leads the Enterprise Administration Group (GAESA), placing him in command of Cuba’s entire tourism industry. According to the Miami Herald, “Rodriguez, married to Castro’s oldest daughter, Deborah Castro Espín, is widely viewed as one of the most powerful and ambitious men in Cuba — smart, arrogant, frugal and a highly effective administrator of GAESA.”  Herald reporter Juan Tamayo also noted that Deborah Castro’s brother is Alejandro Castro Espín, Castro’s chief intelligence advisor.
So to recap, the man who lies about his true name, his career, his family ties, and the privileged life he led in Cuba now has the cojones to question the integrity of another person?  Seriously????

Súbditos leales: Lenier González y Roberto Veiga

no le falta razon a gomez manzano en lo que afirma, solo que no incluye en su target a otros elementos de la disidencia actual que se inscriben de una u otra manera en la lealtad al regimen. 

------------------

Cubanet

René Gómez Manzano 

LA HABANA, Cuba . — Recientemente se reunieron en La Habana las delegaciones de Cuba y la Unión Europea (UE). Con ese fin viajó a nuestra capital el señor Christian Leffler, alto funcionario del bloque comunitario. Según el vicecanciller cubano Abelardo Moreno, las negociaciones se centraron en el tema de “la cooperación, en su sentido más tradicional”. Como el asunto abordado incluye posibles dádivas al gobierno castrista, no causa asombro que haya habido “un avance importante”.

Se sabe que el objetivo final de las tratativas es la firma de un convenio. Este documento, entre otras cosas, reemplazaría la conocida Posición Común. Aunque esta última decisión unilateral de la Unión Europea está vigente desde diciembre de 1996, cabe recordar que sus cláusulas no siempre han sido observadas al pie de la letra.

Durante años resultó bastante común que las esporádicas visitas a Cuba de dignatarios importantes del Viejo Continente, no incluyeran encuentros con “todos los sectores de la sociedad cubana”. Y esto a pesar de lo que al respecto establece con claridad el Punto 3, inciso a), del referido documento.

En esta oportunidad, parece que el señor Leffler deseó actuar de manera diferente. Según se informó, él y el señor Herman Portocarrero, embajador de la UE en la Isla, se entrevistaron con Roberto Veiga y Lenier González, dirigentes del proyecto Cuba Posible. En base a esa realidad, ¿puede considerarse que esta delegación de la UE sí dio cumplimiento al aspecto arriba mencionado?

Para preferir una respuesta negativa a esa interrogante, no parece imprescindible fundarnos en las posturas harto discutibles que han asumido esos dos compatriotas y sus amigos ante la actual problemática nacional. Tampoco es menester hacer demasiado hincapié en los alardes de contorsionismo verbal en los que ellos han demostrado ser verdaderos maestros.

Basta —por el contrario— con entrar al sitio-web de esa cofradía. Allí, en su presentación, los propios “posibleros” dan respuesta a dos interrogantes: “¿Quiénes somos?” y “¿Cuáles son nuestras propuestas?” Y es precisamente en esos textos, elaborados y divulgados por ellos mismos, donde alcanzaremos a encontrar el fundamento de nuestra discrepancia con esa actuación de Leffler y Portocarrero.

Lo primero a destacar es la frase siguiente: “una democracia más plena”. Es hacia allí que, según propia confesión, quieren avanzar Veiga y sus seguidores; es lo que ellos intentan procurar. De esa expresión se colige —ante todo— que, en opinión de esos señores, la Cuba de hoy es un país democrático. Sus palabras sugieren además que nuestra Patria posee esa condición de un modo completo. La única objeción que ellos oponen a esa supuesta realidad es su deseo de que la Isla tenga ese carácter de manera aún “más plena”.

Según lo planteado en la mencionada presentación, Cuba Posible (que “no pretende convertirse en un partido político”), actúa “con el propósito de promover: la educación, la cultura y la espiritualidad; el encuentro, el respeto y el intercambio entre posiciones en debate”. Como se ve, nada que no puedan asumir un círculo de abuelos o una inofensiva asociación cultural. Por parte alguna se dice que, con respecto al gobierno castrista, la referida institución esté en oposición, aunque sea de esa que los mismos “posibleros” califican como “leal” (cualquier cosa que esto quiera decir).

En los trabajos individuales colgados en el portal por los mencionados jefes, aparecen planteamientos aún más pasmosos: Roberto Veiga expresa su preocupación por “salvar la capacidad del PCC para hacer política en medio de toda la sociedad”. En un rapto de osadía, este autor, que no excluye “la existencia de un partido único”, contempla otra posibilidad: que “la realidad estableciera el pluripartidismo”; eso sí, uno “leal a las entrañas de la cubanidad”. (Confío en que mis lectores entiendan la frase.)

Por su parte, Lenier González, para la “transición” de la “generación histórica” hacia el “relevo político”, piensa en nombres jóvenes asociados a “1) las Fuerzas Armadas, 2) el Ministerio del Interior, 3) el aparato de relaciones exteriores, 4) niveles intermedios del Partido Comunista, y 5) otros civiles del entorno cercano al presidente Raúl Castro”. ¡Que Dios nos coja confesados!

¿Y es a esos señores, que tratan al régimen totalitario con delicadezas de terciopelo y ternuras de súbditos leales, a quienes el señor Leffler y sus colaboradores consideran otro sector —distinto del gobierno— de la sociedad cubana! Parece una broma de mal gusto. Espero que no lleguen al colmo de catalogarlos como opositores, algo que rayaría en la obscenidad.

Confieso que yo hubiese preferido que, también en esta ocasión, los representantes de la honorable Unión Europea hubiesen ignorado el Punto 3-a de su todavía vigente, aunque moribunda, Posición Común.

-----------------------

la entrevista de roberto veiga y lenier gonzalez al embajador de la union europea en cuba   aqui >>

Muere Vázquez Raña amigo y propagandista de Castro y exdirigente del COM

leer en espn >>

una nota de Ichikawa >> sobre sus dialogos con la historia, donde pone su pluma e influencias al servicio del dictador.

Intervencion de la poetisa Maria Elena Cruz Varela en el Panel «El intercambio cultural y el papel del creador exiliado»

Wenceslao Cruz

Elena Freyre, una agente cubana en los EEUU

Carlos Rafael Diéguez

Cuba: Reclutamiento de colaboradores y agentes de influencia en universidades norteamericanas

periodistacriticola1

Mas informacion y fotos en  cubaaldescubierto >>

IGNOMINY: Cuban-american Harvard Professor Claims There Are No Political Prisoners in Cuba

capitolhillcubans

In an online interview in CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Harvard University Professor Jorge Dominguez stated:

"The trend line... is now the number of political prisoners is effectively zero. The Cuban government changed its strategy to deal with dissidents away from locking you up and throwing away the key. The new strategy is they will arrest you and hold you for a week and release you. Then if you do something they don’t like they’ll arrest you again and hold you for 72 hours. So the number of people who get arrested is now much higher; the number of people who spend a long time in prison has pretty close to vanished."

He is correct about the high number of short-term detentions, which average nearly 1,000 per month..

However, Dominguez's claim that "the number of political prisoners is effectively zero" -- is both dangerous and irresponsible.

It's exactly what the Castro regime wants -- for the world to forget those it has unjustly imprisoned.

We understand that Dominguez is sometimes unfazed by tyrants -- like when he went traveled to Damascus to deliver a speech at an event "under the esteemed patronage of Her Excellency Mrs. Asma al-Assad, The First Lady of Syria."

Thus, for the sake of clarity, below is a list of nearly 100 Cuban political prisoners (and the date of their arrest) currently serving long prison terms.

Despite Dominguez, they will not be forgotten.

Marcelino Abreu Bonora (2012)
Harold Alcala Aramburo (2003)
Anoy Almeida Perez (2013)
Claro Fernando Alonso Hernandez (1996)
Miguel Alvarez (2012)
Lewis Arce Romero (2003)
Mercedes Arce (2012)
Yohanne Arce Sarmiento (May 2014)
Ariel Arzuaga Pena (2011)
Jose Asencio Lopez (2013)
Lazaro Avila Sierra (2003)
Ernesto Borges Perez (1998)
David Bustamante Rodriguez (May 2014)
Juana Castillo Acosta (2012)
Eliso Castillo Gonzalez (2012)
Jorge Cervantes Garcia (2012)
Maikel Delgado Aramburo (2003)
Jose Angel Diaz Ortiz (2003)
Darian Ernesto Dufuss Preval (May 2014)
Ivan Fernandez Depestre (2013)
Alexander Fernandez Rico (2012)
Angel Figueredo Castellon (May 2014)
Carlos Figueroa Alvarez (May 2014)
Enrique Figuerola Miranda (2012)
Eider Frometa Allen (February 2014)
Angel Frometa Robaina (2012)
Haydee Gallardo Salazar (April 2014)
Sonia Garro (2012)
Alexander Gonzalez Estrada (2003)
Alcibiades Guerra Marin (February 2014)
Miguel Guerra Astie (2013)
Alexis Guerrero Cruz (April 2014)
Ramon Henry Grillo (2003)
Jose Herman Aguilera (1993)
Mario Hernandez Leyva (May 2014)
Roberto Hernandez Barrios (2013)
Eugenio Hernandez Hernandez (2012)
Ricardo Hernandez Ruiz (2011)
Hector Hierrezuelo Marquez (March 2014)
Luis Enrique Labrador Diaz (2011)
Wilmer Ledea Perez (2003)
Rider Lescay Veloz (2007)
Jose Leyva Diaz (2013)
Ruberlandis Maine Villalon (2013)
Sandalio Mejia Zulueta (May 2014)
Yordenis Mendoza Cobas (June 2014)
Juliet Michelena Diaz (2014)
Vladimir Morera Bacallao (2013)
Reinier Mulet Levis (2013)
Ramon Munoz Gonzalez (2012)
Vladimir Ortiz Suarez (2014)
Alexander Otero Rodriguez (2013)
Wilberto Parada Milan (2013)
Leonardo Paumier Ramirez (June 2014)
Ricardo Pelier Frometa (May 2014)
Jorge Perez Puentes (2003)
David Piloto Barcelo (2011)
Emilio Plana Robert (2012)
Daniel Quesada Chavieco (2013)
Jorge Ramirez Calderon (2013)
Angel Yunier Remon Arzuaga (2013)
Rolando Reyes Rabanal (May 2014)
Francisco Reyes Rodriguez (2003)
Aracelio Ribeaux Noa (2012)
Niorvis Rivera Guerra (2012)
Ernesto Riveri Gascon (2012)
Osvaldo Rodriguez Acosta (2012)
Osvaldo Rodriguez Castillo (2012)
Jose Rodriguez Navarro (2013)
Lazaro Romero Hurtado (2012)
Yoelkis Rosabal Florez (May 2014)
Cesar Sanchez Perez (2010)
Angel Santiesteban-Prats (2013)
Rolando Sarraf Trujillo (1995)
Ruben Sintes Rodriguez (2009)
Miguel Angel Tamayo Frias (May 2014)
Ernesto Tamayo Guerra (May 2014)
Yoanny Thomas Gonzalez (2003)
Juan Antonio Torres Fernandez (2011)
Miguel Ulloa Guinar (2013)
Alexei Vargas Martin (2012)
Diango Vargas Martin (2012)
Bianco Vargas Martin (2012)
Juan Carlos Vazquez Osoria (2012)
Julio Vega Santisteban (2013)
Hector Velazquez Gomez (2013)

Encuestas y la banalización de la barbarie

Cuba Encuentro

Julio M. Shiling

El Cuban Research Institute (CRI), o Instituto de Investigación Cubano, un departamento dentro de la Facultad de Asuntos Internacionales y Públicos de la Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU), acaba de publicar una encuesta que pretende explicar cambios de actitudes y pensamientos percibidos dentro de la comunidad cubana en Miami. Esto encaja muy oportunamente con la misiva enviada recientemente al presidente Barack Obama por 46 personalidades, entre ellas cabilderos, comerciantes, oficiales retirados de las fuerzas armadas y funcionarios del gobierno, pidiendo implícitamente el levantamiento del embargo con el pretexto de ayudar una sociedad civil imaginaria e inexistente.

Esta “encuesta” es, para efectos prácticos, la retaguardia estratégica dentro de esta ofensiva apaciguadora, que busca destruir las barreras que impide el traslado de fondos de supervivencia a la dictadura castrocomunista.

Esta posición, no es nada nuevo para el CRI. Años antes de que el titulado “intercambio cultural” se convirtiera en frente oficial de penetración al exilio cubano. El CRI aprovechó y explotó todas las brechas legales para brindar un podio a los académicos de la dictadura aquí en Miami y en La Habana, ellos participaron “colegiadamente” en instituciones académicas censuradas, escuchando y charlando de todo lo que la dictadura le diera la mismísima gana de tolerar. Esto, por seguro, no incluyó nada expresado en público de política contestataria, de cambios sistémicos o mucho menos, de la libertad o la democracia.

Este nuevo sondeo es simplista y engañoso. Dada la seriedad del asunto y de todo lo que está en juego, este titulado “estudio” se convierte en algo vergonzoso y lamentable. El CRI ha sostenido, a través de los años, la clara preferencia por la cesación del embargo estadounidense y por la normalización incondicional de las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Cuba comunista.

El proyecto en cuestión fue pagado por el Trimpa Group y el Open Society Foundation. Ambas organizaciones vienen cargadas con una trayectoria probada de apoyar la eliminación de las sanciones contra el despotismo comunista cubano. La investigación fue conducida principalmente por profesores amenos a la idea de una aproximación al castrocomunismo. Cuando se le añade el hecho de que históricamente, los bolsillos principales que han costeado estos proyectos del CRI han sido instituciones como el Brookings Institute, el Christopher Reynolds Foundation y el Ford Foundation (entre otros), todos comprometidos con el principio de no presionar al poder dictatorial en La Habana, no debe de constituir una sorpresa el resultado que dicho sondeo ha arrojado.

El Cuba Study Group y su vástago, CubaNow, buscando legitimar sus acciones a favor del rescata del comunismo cubano, les urgía un sondeo como éste. A la Cámara de Comercio de EEUU también le hacía falta.

Sin duda, la clase política con frecuencia tiende a impresionarse por estudios cuasi-científicos cuando lleva un emblema universitario. Lo fundamental de toda esta hazaña con adorno académico es reconocer este proyecto como un elemento más dentro de una campaña integradora que busca validar la reconexión diplomática entre EEUU y Cuba, a pesar de que la isla caribeña sigue portando el absolutismo como modelo político.

En Cuba se ha torturado y se sigue torturando; se ha encarcelado y se sigue encarcelando; se ha asesinado y se sigue asesinando. En Cuba no hay derecho a la libre expresión contestataria, ni se puede escoger entre candidatos políticos con visiones que compiten, ni hay tribunales autónomos. La barbarie, se ha cometido y se comete, en nombre y para el beneficio de un régimen tiránico. No le debe de importar a nadie que quiera para Cuba nada menos que una democracia con plena libertad, que la dictadura esté modificando su coordinación económica para así prolongar su poderío.

El problema en Cuba es político, ético y moral. Lo económico es un factor secundario y el enfocar en eso exclusivamente, sería banalizar la perversión que se ha ejercido desde el poder político en los últimos 55 años en Cuba. Cualquiera que esté proponiendo levantar las sanciones contra la dictadura cubana, sin condiciones o concesiones políticas y unilateralmente, no le debe de ofender mucho regímenes liberticidas. Dejemos a un lado sondeos que sólo rinden buhonería ideológica. ¡Concentrémonos en el problema panorámico: Cuba libre!

FIU's Cuba Poll: Manipulations, Omissions and Contradictions

capitolhillcubans

FIU Professor Guillermo Grenier

When a poll is more concerned about meeting its sponsor's expectations, than about being thorough and scientific, then manipulations, omissions and contradictions abound.

That's exactly what has happened in the 2014 edition of FIU's Cuba poll, sponsored by the for-profit "progressive" lobbying firm, Trimpa Group, which works to lift the embargo towards Cuba.

In this morning's The Miami Herald, FIU Professor Guillermo Grenier, who led the poll, admitted to manipulating the numbers.

"Grenier acknowledged his numbers reflect only those respondents who said they favored or opposed the embargo and did not include 'don’t know/no answer' replies. Including those numbers in the tally would change the percentages to 45-41 (from the reported 52-48) against the embargo — short of a majority and with 12 percent replying 'don’t know/no answer.'"

That casts even further doubt on all of the poll's numbers.

Why would an academic institution do this? Such manipulations are highly questionable.

“What you’re telling me is unusual. Really unique. Very, very extremely rare," David Hill, a nationally known pollster with Hill Research Consultants in Washington D.C., said about FIU’s method.

The Miami Herald had also first noted that:

"Although only 62 percent of all the Miami-Dade Cubans surveyed by FIU said they were U.S. citizens, 90 percent also reported that they were registered to vote."

Remember -- only U.S. citizens can vote.

Could FIU have been so sloppy?

We can't say for sure, as they purposely don't disclose all of their data.

But let's take a closer look.

Here is the tab for the question: Are you a U.S. Citizen?

Overall, 62% answered YES, while 32% answered NO.

According to the tab's breakdown, 14% of those not registered to vote were U.S. citizens, while 86% were not and 1% did not respond. For a total of 101%!

But then, they have a whole separate tab asking the question: Are you registered to vote?

Overall, 90% answered YES, while 10% answered NO.

Needless to say, those numbers don't mesh.

(It also shows how heavily FIU weighed the poll with non-U.S. citizens and non-voters.)

Similar contradictions are found policy-wise. Here's our favorite:

The poll asks, "do you think people living in the US should be allowed to invest in new non-governmental small businesses in Cuba?"

Overall, 60% said NO, while 40% said YES.

Yet, the poll claims these same Cuban-Americans support lifting the embargo by a 52-48% margin (or 45-41% margin).

In other words, Cuban-Americans purportedly support doing businesses with Castro's monopolies, but not with "cuentapropistas"?

Here's another one:

The poll asks, "the US Department of State [or US Government] includes Cuba on a list of four countries which the US government considers to be State Sponsors of Terrorism. This designation penalizes persons and organizations engaging in certain activities with Cuba and the other countries on the list. The other countries on the list are Iran, Sudan and Syria. Do you believe that Cuba should be kept on that list of penalized countries that support terrorism, or be taken off the list?"

Overall, 63% said YES, while 37% said NO.

Yet, the poll claims these same Cuban-Americans support lifting the embargo by a 52-48% margin (or 45-41% margin).

In other words, Cuban-Americans purportedly want to sanction the Castro regime for supporting terrorism, but do business with its monopolies?

That's rubbish.

This sloppy poll was designed for a sensationalist headline.

FIU should be ashamed of itself.

Una encuesta descartable de FIU

Diario de Cuba

Mauricio Claver-Carone

Durante más de dos décadas, la Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU, por sus siglas en inglés) ha realizado encuestas de actitudes cubano-americanas respecto a la política de Estados Unidos.

Y por más de dos décadas, estas encuestas poco detalladas nunca han llegado a traducirse en realidad política.

Entre otras causas porque las encuestas de FIU no son un verdadero ejercicio académico y sus resultados pueden predecirse por la naturaleza de sus patrocinadores.

Las anteriores encuestas de FIU sobre Cuba fueron patrocinadas por Brookings Institution, Cuba Study Group, la Fundación Christopher Reynolds y el mecenas internacional favorito de Mariela Castro, la Fundación Ford.

Todos estos grupos cabildean fuertemente a favor del levantamiento incondicional de las sanciones impuestas al régimen castrista.

La encuesta de este año, que fue publicada este martes, nos llega por cortesía del Grupo Trimpa y  la Open Society Foundation de Georges Soros.

Y es de todos conocidos quién es George Soros y cuáles son sus opiniones políticas.

Para aquellos no familiarizados con el Grupo Trimpa, se trata, según sus propias declaraciones, de una "consultoría progresista, una consejería para la inversión filantrópica y política, y una firma de relaciones del Gobierno".

Recientemente, el Grupo Trimpa fue contratado para dirigir la campaña de cabildeo de una ramificación de Cuba Study Group, llamada #CubaNow, que colocó anuncios en el metro de Washington, D.C. que abogaban por el levantamiento de las sanciones contra el régimen de Cuba.

En otras palabras, FIU ha pasado de tener encuestas patrocinadas por organizaciones ideológicas sin fines de lucro a tener encuestas patrocinadas por cabilderos ideológicos con fines de lucro.

Esto es, sin dudas, una mayor recaída. Así que será mejor llamar a las cosas por su nombre: esta no es una encuesta de FIU, sino una encuesta del Grupo Trimpa.

Y, por supuesto, dado el espíritu de las campañas de cabildeo del Grupo Trimpa, esta encuesta procura el apoyo cubanoamericano para el levantamiento del embargo por un margen de 52%-48%.

Además, procura el apoyo cubanoamericano a los viajes de estadounidenses a Cuba por un irrisorio margen de 69%-31%.

Ted Trimpa, presidente del grupo, es también líder del Tectonic Theatre Project, que está organizando un viaje "pueblo-pueblo" a Cuba, así que resultaba importante para su encuesta mostrar un fuerte apoyo a esa clase de despilfarro.

Compárense estos resultados con los del sondeo de la semana pasada, auspiciado por The Miami Herald —un observador más neutral— y llevado a cabo por los encuestadores democráticos Bendixen & Amandi, de ningún modo incondicionales de las sanciones a Cuba.

De acuerdo con la encuesta de The Miami Herald, los cubanosamericanos se oponen a levantar la totalidad del embargo por un margen de 56%-36%.

Mientras que se oponen al levantamiento de las restricciones de viaje por un margen de 51%-42%.

Las enormes diferencias entre la encuesta del Grupo Trimpa y la encuesta de The Miami Herald están muy lejos de los márgenes de error en estos casos.

Esas diferencias serían probablemente aún mayores si alguna de esas encuestas se hubiera ocupado de hacer consultas más detalladas, dirigidas  a los sucesos actuales en la Isla. Por ejemplo, el abrumador apoyo de las sanciones por parte de los activistas cubanos por la democracia, el incremento de las violaciones de derechos humanos, el encarcelamiento de un rehén estadounidense, el contrabando de armas con Corea del Norte, el refugio otorgado a terroristas y la subversión de la democracia en Venezuela. 

Hasta la encuesta de The Atlantic Council incluyó una consulta en relación con las violaciones de los derechos humanos por parte del régimen castrista. Y cuando se hizo referencia en esa encuesta a las circunstancias en que viven los cubanos, el presunto apoyo para normalizar las relaciones o relacionarse directamente con el régimen de Castro cayó dramáticamente, del 56% a nivel nacional y 63% en la Florida, hasta un 43%.

Visto todo lo anterior, si FIU desea conservar al menos una apariencia de integridad académica debería ser más escrupulosa a la hora de afrontar el contenido de sus encuestas y los patrocinadores que presionan a través de ellas.

Porque, tal y como ha aparecido, esta última encuesta de FIU resulta un mal chiste.

What a Rockefeller Coincidence on Cuba

capitolhillcubans

David Rockefeller with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Last month, CHC Editor Mauricio Claver Carone wrote in The Huffington Post:

"Because trade and investment entails dealing only with the Castro's monopolies -- a reality people would (or should) find unpalatable -- it begets the question: How can these monopolies be weakened and dismantled?

Various approaches can reasonably be debated, but it is undeniable that "doing business" with state monopolies strengthens and enriches them. If that were not the case, then democratic nations wouldn't need antitrust laws. Democracies would simply feed their monopolies more business and allow them to magically weaken and fall apart. Imagine what "might have been" if in the early 20th Century, the United States' approach to Big Oil was to strengthen its then monopoly. Today many Americans think the oil industry exerts a disproportionate influence, but if it hadn't been for the "trust-busting" efforts of the last century, we might well have become the United States of Rockefeller, working at the behest of monopolists.

Cubans have no choice; they work for the monopolies of Cuban government under the Castro brothers. Increasing U.S. trade and investment in those monopolies is nonsensical. It defies logic to believe that doing more business with monopolies weakens them."

Just over a month later, the Council of the Americas, whose Honorary Chairman and main financier is David Rockefeller, would publish an open letter to President Obama lobbying him to bypass Congress in easing trade and financial sanctions towards Cuba.

Rockefeller, and his associate, Peter Johnson, were (of course) featured signatories of the open letter.

What a coincidence!

New York Daily News Uses “Former” Cuban Spies as Unattributed Sources in “Handshake” Coverage

Cuba Confidential

Jesus Arboleya Cervera

The recent article by Albor Ruiz “Obama-Castro Handshake More Than Just a Gesture” used former Cuban Intelligence Officers Jesús Arboleya and Arturo López-Levy as central sources in the feature. However, Ruiz failed to identify either man as a former spy, instead referencing Arboleya as a “Cuban writer and political analyst” and López-Levy as a “Cuba expert and Political Science professor at the University of Denver.”

Editor’s Note: Colonel Jesus Arboleya Cervera was identified by intelligence service defector Jesus Perez Mendez in 1983. Years later, Arboleya’s intelligence service was further corroborated by convicted spy Carlos Alvarez.

Arturo López-Levy

Arboleya served as a Second Secretary at the Cuban Mission to the United Nations in New York City before transferring to the Washington-based Cuban Interests Section. During his US tour, Arboleya was the architect of the 1970’s US-Cuba normalization drive, which almost succeeded in 1977 following the formation of a group of prominent Cuban-Americans who called themselves the Committee of 75. Although headed by respectable Cuban-Americans, including two clerics Arboleya may have been the longest serving DGI officer in the United States.
and several businessmen, the Committee was inspired by the DGI, (then) Cuba’s primary foreign intelligence service. According to Senate testimony of March 12, 1982, at the time,

Arturo Lopez-Levy is a self-professed “former” Intelligence Officer in Havana’s dreaded Ministry of the Interior (MININT). He is also a relative of MININT Col. Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas, Raul Castro’s son-in-law and head of GAESA, the regime’s business monopoly.

Thanksgiving Terror From Friends of a “Cuba Expert” | Babalú Blog

Babalú Blog

By Humberto Fontova

Here’s how her media friends describe the CFR’s Julia Sweig upon their frequent showcasing of her “expertise:”
“Julia Sweig heads the Latin American division for the Council on Foreign Relations.” (Stephen Colbert)
“Julia Sweig is director for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.” (NPR)
“Julia E. Sweig is senior fellow and director of Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.” (New York Times)
Here’s how the Council on Foreign Relations itself describes their star:
“CFR Senior Fellow and Director of Latin America Studies and the Global Brazil Initiative and award-winning author of Inside the Cuban Revolution.
Fine. Let’s turn to the acknowledgments in Julia Sweig’s award-wining book. Here we find:
“In Cuba many people spent long hours with me, helped open doors I could not have pushed through myself, and offered friendship and warmth to myself during research trips to the island…Elsa Montero and Jose Gomez Abad championed this project.”
Let’s turn now to the front page of The New York Times Nov. 18th edition. Ah! Here we find that Elsa Montero and Jose Gomez Abad had just been arrested by the FBI for a terror plot against Manhattan that would have probably put the death toll from 9/11 in second place. Some background:
On Nov. 17, 1962, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI cracked a plot by Cuban agents that targeted Macy's, Gimbel's, Bloomingdale's and Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The explosions were timed for the following week, the day after Thanksgiving.Macy’s get’s 50,000 shoppers that one day.Thousands of New Yorkers, including women and children—actually, given the date and targets, probably mostly women and children—were to be incinerated and entombed.

Our friends at Town hall help disseminate some items carefully hush-hushed by the mainstream media and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Celebrity Scientist Thinks Canadians Should Sustain Poverty, Cuban-Style

just move to cuba mr. suzuki and enjoy the castro's regime.
--------------------------- 

David Suzuki thinks Cuba is a model of sustainability, and this week his views are “on trial.” Source: The Trial of Suzuki

By Victoria L. Henderson  

If Canada wants to avert an environmental apocalypse, it should follow the example of a communist state that consistently fails to meet its own citizens’ demands for toothpaste and toilet paper.

So says Canadian scientist-turned-eco-warrior David Suzuki, who sees Cuba as a model of sustainability.

This week, Suzuki is inviting the public to vote on whether his recently released carbon manifesto is an act of treason, or, as he alleges, a fitting testimony to the “willful blindness” of government, corporations, and Canadians at large (essentially everyone except Suzuki himself).

Like many of Suzuki’s projects of late, “The Trial of Suzuki” is more than a little exaggerated. For starters, the “trial” is actually a controversial live theater performance sponsored by the Cape Farewell Foundation, an international environmental activist group that credits itself with offering “a cultural response to climate change.”

But since Suzuki’s manifesto decrees willful blindness — “failing to be informed about critical issues” — as an indictable offense, it seems only fitting that his own claims should be put under closer scrutiny.

In 2003, Suzuki lauded Cuba for having “invented” urban agriculture. Then, in 2006, he hosted Cuba: The Accidental Revolution, a two-part documentary (see trailers here and here) that celebrates Cuba’s de-industrialization. The documentary explains how Cuba turned adversity into acclaim, pivoting inwards toward organic, localized agriculture after losing its economic benefactors with the collapse of the Soviet bloc.

Keep reading on panampost >>

Exposing the CFR’s radical Castro sympathizer Julia Sweig

Babalú Blog

By Alberto de la Cruz

It took longer than it should have, but we are happy to see that Julia Sweig, a radical Castro sympathizer with dubious ties to Cuban intelligence is finally being exposed all over the country. Of course, all of this information has been readily available for years after being meticulously documented by Cuban American intransigent hardliners such as our own Humberto Fontova.

Alex Newman in The New American:

Exposure of Radical CFR Latin America Boss Offers Broad Insight

The infamous global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations is under fire again after its director of Latin American studies, Julia Sweig, was exposed thanking convicted terrorists in her book, calling for more brazen attacks on the Second Amendment, and having myriad close associations with Castro’s brutal communist dictatorship ruling over Cuba. Some prominent analysts, even a former military official charged with tracking Cuban-regime spies, have suggested that Sweig is actually an “agent of influence” for the autocracy in Havana. The implications are enormous.
For one, the fact that the immensely powerful CFR would employ Sweig sheds additional light on the organization, as well as on various disturbing trends that The New American magazine has been highlighting for years — particularly the ongoing takeover of Latin America by a closely knit network of autocratic, Castro-friendly socialist regimes and forces. This network, the Foro de São Paulo (FSP or São Paulo Forum), now dominates regional politics south of the U.S. border. It was founded by despot Fidel Castro, former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, the Sandinistas, and an array of Marxist narco-terrorist groups.
The U.S. government, meanwhile, which according to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually gets its orders from the CFR, has been linked to the so-called “pink tide” in more than a few ways. Among them: concealing the resurgence of communism in Latin America and overtly aiding some of the regimes at the heart of the FSP with billions of American tax dollars. Indeed, analysts say the Obama administration and previous administrations have been crucial to letting the Communist Chinese and Russian-backed dictatorial network expand its power unmolested.
Details about Sweig, who also serves as the CFR’s “Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies,” were reported most recently by Charles Johnson at the online Daily Caller in an explosive article headlined "‘Nation’s most influential foreign-policy think tank’ employs pro-terrorist Castro follower." However, as far back as 2010, prominent analysts, such as author and Cuban exile Humberto Fontova, who wrote The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro, were publicly exposing the scandalous revelations.

Continue reading HERE >>

Lopez Levy & Hugo Cancio: Obama speaks to Rouhani. Is Raul Castro next?

pushing and pushing and pushig, these motherfuckers agents of the cuba regime.
---------------------

Last Friday, President Obama made a historical phone call to President Hassan Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For millions of Americans and Iranians this conversation of minutes offers an opportunity to think on past decades of confrontations and a hope for less antagonistic relationships in the future. The Presidents' phone conversation was possible because of some important leadership transitions in Washington and Teheran. In 2008, president Obama proclaimed his flexibility to establish a dialogue not only with friends but also with adversaries. During the Iranian presidential elections, president Rouhani declared his will to negotiate and compromise with the West about his country's nuclear program. Although the U.S.-Cuba relationship is lower in American priorities than Washington's policy towards Teheran, the positions presented by president Obama and Secretary Kerry make the public wonder why there are not similar bold steps of dialogue with the Raul Castro's government. As Cuban-Americans committed to better relations between Cuba and the United States, we believe that there are favorable conditions in Havana, Washington and Miami to build greater understanding and direct communication between government, civil society, business and social leaders on both sides of the Strait of Florida. The processes of economic reform and political liberalization in Cuba and the generational change in Miami are showing a Cuban nation that is eager to engage and for the links between the U.S and Cuba to grow. 

Keep reading on Hola Arkansas >>

Group Founded by “Former” Cuban Spy Denounces US-Cuba Policy

cubaconfidential

By Chris Simmons

CAFE Denounces Mario Diaz-Balart’s Attempts to Reverse Advancements in U.S.-Cuba Policy

The Executive Committee of CAFE, Cuban Americans for Engagement, would like to express our severe dismay over the recent language introduced by representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) to the House Financial Services Appropriations Bill for the fiscal year 2014 that would reverse important advancements in U.S.-Cuba relations.

The language contained in sections 124 and 125 of the bill, which was passed by the full committee on Wednesday, would adversely affect two major policy changes of the Obama administration that have brought about improvements in the relations between the citizens of both nations over the past four years.

Section 124 would effectively dismantle the “people-to-people” licensing program, allowing American citizens to travel to Cuba for educational purposes, by defunding the program. These licenses have allowed U.S. citizens to legally visit Cuba and experience the island first-hand, ending their reliance on the skewed portrayals of Cuban reality by either the U.S. government or the corporate-controlled media.

These visits have also allowed Cuban citizens to interact with average U.S. citizens and to discover that most people in the U.S. desire normal relations with their Cuban neighbors. These educational exchanges have served to reinforce the similarities of both peoples and to express our shared interests.

The provisions in section 125 are particularly disturbing because they negatively affect thousands of Diaz-Balart’s own constituents and their families in Cuba by requiring OFAC to monitor and report details on Cuban American travel to Cuba and on all remittances carried to Cuba, whether by Cuban Americans or others.

These remittances that have been taken to Cuba in the past years have helped to bolster the nascent mixed economy and allow Cubans on the island to start and maintain small businesses. Without these much needed investments Cubans wouldn’t be able to participate in this new paradigm. The regulations imposed by this legislation would require a costly and intrusive monitoring system and would ultimately lead to diminished monetary support for the limited, yet increasing, free enterprise that is now possible in Cuba and less humanitarian and other donations to Cuba’s religious NGOs.

It is extremely hypocritical and downright un-American of Diaz-Balart and the Republican controlled Appropriations committee to discourage Cuban Americans from taking advantage of the economic reforms taking place in Cuba. These are the same public figures that decry the communist, authoritarian government’s control over the economy. These remittances have been the lifeblood of recent reforms in Cuba and Diaz-Balart’s shortsighted and malicious attempt to curtail such funds is an affront to the American way of life.
CAFE will join others in fighting to keep this hateful language from ever making it to the president’s desk and we hope that Diaz-Balart’s mean-spirited tactics will be met with negative results at the polls on Election Day in November of 2014. Diaz-Balart’s attempt to control the American citizenry’s right to travel and sabotage his own constituent’s efforts to contribute to the welfare of their extended communities in Cuba is a disgusting act of political posturing that shouldn’t be accepted by any sector of the American government or society.

CAFE advocates an end to the unconstitutional restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed by the U.S. Congress and exhorts the U.S. State Department to at least, in the mean time, establish a single general license to cover all currently permissible categories of travel to Cuba. We also support the unlimited investment by Cuban Americans in Cuba and the end to the embargo that prohibits individuals and companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction from most trade and economic transactions with the island.

Editor’s Note: “Former” self-professed Cuban Intelligence Officer Arturo Lopez-Levy is a founding member of CAFÉ. More on this group can be found in the May 10, 2012 post: CAFE: Changing the Aroma of Cuban-American Politics, CAFE: Changing the Aroma of Cuban-American Politics

Congressional Black Caucus Supports Boycott of Florida (But Not Cuba)

capitolhillcubans

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and others members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an economic boycott of the State of Florida over the jury verdict in the case of Trayvon Martin.

We respect their opinion.

Yet, ironically, these are also the leading Congressional voices against the economic boycott of Cuba's brutal dictatorship, which disproportionately represses its Afro-Cuban population.

Which raises the question:

Why didn't they support an economic boycott of Cuba when the Castro regime denied water to Afro-Cuban political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who consequently died in a hunger strike protesting the beating and abuses he suffered? 

Or more simply:

Why do they continue to defend the Castro regime?

From The Hill:

Congressional Black Caucus members would support Florida boycott

A number of House Democrats are lining up behind the Rev. Jesse Jackson's threat for an economic boycott of Florida following the not-guilty verdict in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Exerting pressure on Florida's economy as Jackson is suggesting, they said, could help overturn the state's controversial stand-your-ground laws that many contend contributed to the tragedy.

"That's probably the best strategy, because people understand dollars and cents," Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said Friday. "And they understand, if there's a significant drop-off in revenues – at conventions, at Disney World and Universal Studios – that that will get the attention of the powerful."

Rep. Bennie Thompson echoed that message. The Mississippi Democrat called the verdict "a travesty" that "does not speak well for this country," and said he would "absolutely" support an economic boycott of the state.

"[It] could have significant economic significance if properly organized," Thompson said Friday. "What I gather from a lot of people who have feelings about it, he [Jackson] would get … support."

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said she's also on board.

"I would support whatever it takes to get these stand-your-ground laws off the books," she said.

Emilio Ichikawa » Freddy Balsera, el Vice de “Balsera Communications” y una reunión “dialoguera” en la Calle 8

Emilio Ichikawa

www.balseracommunications.com

Alfredo J Balsera, conocido en la esfera pública de Miami como “Freddy”, estuvo programado (parece que finalmente no participó) en un audaz evento “dialoguero” celebrado en el Teatro Tower de Miami, en la Calle 8 de la Pequeña Habana, el jueves 4 de octubre de 2012. Según el programa del evento Balsera debía concurrir al panel titulado “U.S. Policy and the Vote”, moderado por Wayne Smith, ex Jefe de la Oficina de Intereses de Cuba en La Habana y uno de los grandes defensores de la normalización de relaciones entre EEUU y Cuba.

La reunión no tuvo apoyo oficial; pero no está de más llevar carta de que el Vice President & General Counsel de “Balsera Communications” es Carlos Gimenez, hijo del Alcalde del Condado Miami Dade.