Obama's Cuban Advances

Targeted by Republicans

        In this first week of February, 2016, UC-Berkeley has announced that it is offering a Berkeley Study Abroad program in Havana for this coming summer. The above graphic provides pertinent details. It is one of many positive reactions to President Obama's brave and remarkable overtures aimed at normalizing relations with the nearby Caribbean island. UC-Berkeley and numerous educational and business entities are hoping that, in this final year of Mr. Obama's two-term presidency, that a myriad of Obama-orchestrated advances will hold off antiquated Cold War-era tactics of Cuban-exile and Republican extremists who will, beyond doubt, powerfully attempt to roll back Obama's sane and decent visions for U.S.-Cuban relations.

   Elizabeth Vasile, a Ph.D. and top administrator at UC-Berkeley, devised this summer's Berkeley Study Abroad program in Cuba. Dr. Vasile said: "Cuba is a great place to see rapid transformation taking place. The two primary objectives for the program are to instill in students a nuanced understanding of the complexity of Cuban history and the ability to critically observe the world around them." I hope you will take time to re-read that quotation from Dr. Vasile. It's decency and sanity regarding Cuba is in stark contrast to the indecent and insane Cuban policy in the United States that has been dictated since the 1950s by self-serving right-wing extremists. Perhaps, as President Obama has said, it is time in the year 2016 to consider input from people such as Dr. Vasile and not just have everyone forced to bend to the dictates of right-wingers in Miami and the U. S. Congress, and that undemocratic and unethical genuflection includes not just Americans but America's very best friends all around the entire world.

       Every day throughout 2016 the U. S. media, if not the U. S. people, will be obsessed with a presidential election that will determine who succeeds President Obama in the White House in January of 2017. The montage above is courtesy of the AP and Reuters and shows the three Republican contenders, all of whom hope to begin tearing apart President Obama's Cuban policy, returning it to one that serves a few right-wing extremists at the expensive of everyone else. America's democracy has a two-party system -- Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are bought-and-paid for with the approval of the current Supreme Court, which in 2010 sanctioned unlimited political donations from individual and corporate billionaires. All three of the Republican candidates depicted above should be universally known to be unqualified to be the next President of the United States. {I'm a lifelong conservative Republican displeased with the right-wing takeover of my party and with a money-crazed system that rules both parties}. Donald Trump is a multi-billionaire that is not bought-and-paid-for but, as a controversial lifelong businessman, he is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Yet, Trump would be less of a disaster than Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. That's not because they are first-term and unsuccessful Cuban-American U. S. Senators. It's because they are extreme right-wingers totally bought-and-paid-for by a few easily identifiable right-wing billionaire extremists. Therefore, any of the above three Republicans would be disastrous as President and Commander-in-Chief, not just regarding Cuba but regarding all things most dear to Americans and its worldwide friends, such as...security.

       Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton are the only two Americans who stand as obstacles to a Rubio-Trump-or-Cruz presidency. Mr. Sanders is a 74-year-old Socialist-Democrat and Ms. Clinton is the 68-year-old standard-bearer of the Clinton political dynasty. Because Americans are clearly fed-up with the Clinton and Bush dynasties, and with bought-and-paid-for politicians, Sanders would be the best President out of the five remaining contenders. But his age and his Socialist background will, in the end, obscure his lifelong fight for everyday Americans and his lifelong fight against Wall Street billionaires. The Clinton machine, fueled by decades of support from Wall Street and even foreign billionaires, will overwhelm Sanders, which means it will overwhelm his views that most Americans, especially young Americans, strongly support. If America's friends around the world didn't know it before, the elongated and money-crazed presidential campaigns are proof to them that a handful of billionaires can easily purchase the U. S. democracy and there is nothing 315 million Americans, the vast majority in a famed democracy, can collectively do about it.

       The ongoing 2016 presidential sweepstakes will come down to Democrat Hillary Clinton against Republican Marco Rubio. Both money-saturated political parties as well as the two individuals will literally have billions-of-dollars to back the two candidates. Democracy-lovers elsewhere in the world are aghast at this situation, which is drawn out for many months so rich people and rich media entities can get much richer. Consultants, television stations, and pundits are presented with legal means to become wealthy, undemocratic thieves. Any legal roadblocks to that insanity is easily brushed aside, such as the recent Iowa caucuses when the two win-at-all-costs Cuban-Americans, Cruz and Rubio, sent out last-minute officially looking flyers all across Iowa warning Iowans they would be breaking the law if they didn't do this or that, and Cruz's campaign, courting the evangelical voters supporting Dr. Ben Carson, loudly lied that Carson had dropped out of the contest so they should shift their votes to Cruz, who actually won in Iowa with such blatant, but acceptable, schemes. Cruz, however, is far too extreme to get the necessary support from the Republican establishment. That leaves Rubio to take the Republican banner, and Rubio would be even more dangerous -- domestically and internationally -- than Cruz. That's because America has never had a serious presidential contender as bought-and-paid-for as Rubio nor -- as journalist Ken Silverstein recently opined -- has America ever had a serious presidential candidate as "corrupt" as Rubio. Yet, he is supported by enough Wall Street, Hedge Fund, Jewish, and Cuban billionaires to purchase the White House for eight years...and beyond!! As February, the shortest month of the year, moves into high gear, Rubio is not a long-shot. He will soon lock-up the Republican bid for the White House and then have a 50-50 chance of beating Hillary Clinton.

       Even Bill O'Reilly, easily America's and Fox News's most influential conservative voice, mocks the money-crazed, pundit-driven political process. Before and after this week's final caucus voting in Iowa, O'Reilly had the sanest media appraisals. He mocked it as "nonsense." Months on end, the U. S. media obsesses over Iowa because it holds the "first" voting contest of the almost endless presidential cycles. Then the media obsesses over the results, which, as O'Reilly says, is nonsense. First off, almost all-white Iowa is totally unrepresentative of the United 50 States. Secondly, the most religious candidate is almost surely going to win in Iowa. Thirdly, in Iowa some of the caucus results were decided by...uh!...a coin flip. Fourthly {and I could go on and on...} the two Cuban-American candidates got away with scaring the voters with a saturation of official-looking "warning" flyers and even lying about another candidate having dropped out of the race, reminding some of Banana Republic tactics. Meanwhile, before, during and after the results, the media pundits obsessed over the "shocking" Iowa debacle that mostly just enriched a lot of folks who are now laughing over their newly bulging bank accounts.  One candidate who lost big-time, the ultra-rich Jeb Bush, actually spent thousands of dollars FOR EACH VOTE HE GOT, as did Cruz the winner. What Iowa proved is that both of the Cuban-Americans have enough ambition and more than enough money from right-wing billionaires to easily purchase the hallowed White House. O'Reilly summed Iowa up best: "It's clear that in Iowa religious voters preferred the religious conservative Ted Cruz. The media despises Trump and will paint him as a loser if they can but here on the Factor we're fair, and the truth is Trump remains very formidable." Mr. O'Reilly and Fox News, remarkably, had the most honest appraisal of this week's super-hyped Iowa debacle, just one step on the money-crazed, pundit-driven marathon known as a presidential campaign in America.

     Many millions of democracy-loving Americans have literally begged Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic U. S. Senator from Massachusetts, to run for President of the United States. Beyond any logic or question, she is the most qualified American to succeed Barack Obama as President and Commander-in-Chief, one who will likely get to name three new Supreme Court justices.

        But Elizabeth Warren refuses to run for President of the U. S. because she refuses to sell her soul and her political beliefs to Wall Street billionaires. But America and democracy need her badly.

      Because Elizabeth Warren is not running for President of the United States, the Wall Street obscenities will continue to shame America thanks to too many bought-and-paid-for politicians.

        In January of 2017 it will be the Wall St. billionaires celebrating the outcome of yet-another presidential campaign, not Elizabeth Warren and the millions of Americans who so direly wanted her to run for President. Conclusion: If the majority of Americans can't defend their democracy and avoid a bought-and-paid-for President in 2017, they will deserve the consequences, which will include the decent, brilliant Elizabeth Warren just shouting from the congressional sidelines.

      Millions of decent American voters like Dr. Elizabeth Vasile, whom you met at the top of this essay, are now being left out in the cold by our money-crazed, pundit-driven political process. They have no one to support in a two-party system in which both parties are bought-and-paid-for.

  ****************************************

  

Cuba & U. S. Journalism

A Candid Observation
{Thursday, February 4th 2016}

         This beautiful young lady is Katie Pavlich. She is 27-years-old. For years now, or almost since the day she graduated from the University of Arizona, she has been anointed as the face, or at least one of them, of broadcast journalism in the United States. That's important because television news, despite its precipitous decline in quality in recent decades, remains the dominant force in American journalism, long ago eclipsing newspapers and still far ahead of the digital explosion, at least regarding so-called hard news. Katie Pavlich majored in broadcast journalism at the University of Arizona and probably took a government-related class or two. That, plus her stunning looks and her strong opinions, made her an instant hit on network news operations that particularly covet Talking Heads, commentators, and pundits like Katie. The visionary Ted Turner in 1980 founded CNN as the first 24-hour cable news outfit. His idea was to hire the best broadcast journalists and send them out to cover the news. That viewpoint made him and CNN legends, but he sold out to a corporation, which also purchased his vision. Now huge corporations like Disney, General Electric, Comcast, etc., own the networks and their singular vision is money. Thus, Talking Heads and pundits as opposed to real broadcast journalists now dominate the airways...hour after nauseating hour. Talking Heads and pundits like Katie Pavlich are smart, educated, and easy to look at, but they are not broadcast journalists. In other words, they don't report the news as unbiased anchors nor do they go out and investigate the news as reporters. But they save the networks money by being studio pundits who are more than happy to be promoting themselves or their products.

Katie Pavlich happens to be a political conservative tilted to the right.

       She is thus a popular pundit and commentator on Fox News, especially Bill O'Reilly's top-rated program. Networks long ago determined that Talking Heads save them money that should be spent on sending journalists out to cover the news so viewers could be informed and also form their own opinions on issues. But Talking Heads and pundits are propagandists whose prime function is to proselytize the viewers to accept whatever it is they are selling -- their opinions, their books, etc. Katie, straight out of college, chronicled her conservatism or right-wingism with two highly publicized books. Her two books are: "Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up" and "Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women." With books like that straight out of the University of Arizona, Katie Pavlich was sure to get flattering calls from every major conservative or right-wing radio or television newshound. Barack Obama still has eleven months to go in his two-term presidency, so Katie probably has one more anti-Obama book up her sleeve before he leaves office, knowing full-well she would get countless hours of free network promotion as a prime Talking Head. That, in essence, is what broadcast journalism in the U. S. has evolved into -- a capitalist propaganda and promotion machine prioritizing money with scant emphasis on actually covering and reporting the news.

       This beautiful young lady is Cristina Escobar. She is 28-years-old. Cristina is the top broadcast journalist in Cuba and a truly skilled anchor and interviewer in either Spanish or English. Like Katie Pavlich, Cristina is well-educated and opinionated. In fact, Cristina has a very low opinion of broadcast journalism in the U. S. and she has studied it minutely -- from her vantage point in Cuba, at a journalism seminar in California in 2014, in Washington this past summer when she covered the Vidal-Jacobson diplomatic session, etc. Both on Cuban and American soil, Cristina has pointedly made this point: "The lies the U. S. media tells about Cuba hurts everyday Cubans the most." Indeed, on her newscasts in Cuba Cristina will readily criticize the Cuban government if she feels everyday Cubans are being mistreated or could be better served. By contrast, she believes her counterparts in America do not have the broadcast freedom that she has in Cuba. Yes, she understands that broadcast journalists in the U. S. can and do regularly criticize their governments -- local, state and national. However, she believes that "the lies the U. S. media tells about Cuba" is "mostly speaking to the choir, telling the masses what they have been programmed to believe and then using that to make money and improve ratings." Moreover, Cristina seems to comprehend what Americans are not supposed to realize, which is: The stark preference for Talking Head pundits in the U. S. is merely designed to save the corporate owners money so they don't have to go to the expense of covering the news with real reporters. Cristina says, "Broadcast journalists, I believe, should report the news and be able to write it and be able to conduct intelligent and appropriate interviews. But having people on set to fill time and promote themselves or their views is not broadcast journalism. So, yes, I closely study the journalism in the U. S. to learn what not to do. I'm not a propagandist. I consider myself a broadcast journalist."

       Whether or not you agree with Cristina Escobar's views on broadcast journalism and her criticisms of the U. S. media, she is, I think, worth pondering. That's because: {1} broadcast journalism is the most domineering aspect of the U. S. media, because of the visuals and because its easier than reading print journalism; and {2} it is the medium that, as a proven propaganda tool, best proselytizes masses of people. From Cristina's Cuban viewpoint, the lies the U. S. media tells about Cuba results mostly from political correctness as opposed to hateful or punitive lies. "But," she says, "the end result is the same whether the lies are meant to hurt Cuba or meant to tell the viewers what they expect to hear, what they have been programmed to expect." Cristina believes that "lack of respect for journalism also has a capitalist bent -- money. If lies tend to make more network money than the truth, lies win out in U. S. broadcast journalism."

       From the beautiful young broadcast journalists Katie Pavlich and Cristina Escobar, we move to the pedestrian-looking, veteran print journalist Ken Silverstein. He helps explain the declining respect for the news media in the U. S., which is reflected by an approval rating in the single digits, even below class-action lawyers. Ken has earned a reputation as a top investigative journalist. He has worked for a myriad of highly respected organizations -- the Los Angeles Times, Harper's Magazine, and the Associated Press. Because of television and digital competition, many great newspapers have gone out of business, such as the superb Rocky Mountain News in Denver, or been forced to downsize print editions in favor of online coverage. But to this day magazines like Harper's, Time, etc., and print newspapers from the Los Angeles Times on the West Coast to the New York Times on the East Coast to the Kansas City Star in the Heartland remain the best sources to get actual news coverage. Ken Silverstein represents the divide between print journalism today and pundit-driven broadcast journalism. He recently wrote a long, well-researched article about a prime presidential candidate that he depicted as just about the most corrupt person to ever be considered a serious presidential candidate in the United States. Mr. Silverstein is a high-profile journalist and his eminently detailed corroborations were similarly high-profile, amply supportive of his conclusions as he cited incidents, names, and dates -- none of which, to my knowledge, will ever be denied. Yet, the broadcast networks don't dare mention such things because, if they did, that notable candidate and others like him might refuse to become Talking Heads, meaning the networks might have to cover the news.

       This is the graphic that accompanied the aforementioned article by Ken Silverstein in which he eviscerated Marco Rubio's character, which possibly -- unless disputed -- could, or should, be of interest to voters. You can go online to read the article and then judge it, Mr. Silverstein, and Mr. Rubio for yourself.

         Print journalists such as Ken Silverstein and the editorial writers at the New York Times still tell both sides of two-sided stories, something broadcast journalists in the U. S. appear incapable or unable to do. MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program -- featuring anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski -- is one of the most influential political programs. Morning Joe, a former Florida congressman, is more of a pundit than anchor. On the morning a major article in the New York Times revealed major financial mishaps and misdeeds by Marco Rubio in Florida, Morning Joe held up that article to the camera and loudly proclaimed, "This will get Marco elected President of the United States!!" And well it might, if the broadcast journalists have their way. Ken Silverstein's subsequent article was much more detailed in regards to what he called Rubio's unfathomably "corrupt" shenanigans but I don't know if Morning Joe held up Silverstein's article and declared that it would get Rubio elected President. But my contiguous and contaminant mosaic that includes such eclectic and diverse media personalities as Katie Pavlich, Cristina Escobar, Ken Silverstein, and Morning Joe is merely to illustrate a fact of life in the United States: What now passes for broadcast journalism in the U. S. would, I think, be reprehensible or unrecognizable to the great Walter Cronkite.

       The New York Times this week used this perceptive Political Cartoon to show an Anger Meter that aptly defines the growing distaste Americans have for both the money-crazed political process and the money-crazed/pundit-driven media coverage of it, which drags on endlessly to keep the unlimited financial donations and the ad money streaming in. THE PRIME VICTIMS ARE THE VOTERS AND THE VIEWERS.

{Photo courtesy: JSBICXY/Birds & Blooms Magazine}
Birds in winter need seeds/food from humans.

****************************************

  

"Last Vestige of Cold War"

France Fights for Cuba
But Rubio Is Now #1 Republican

         As we have said in this forum for many months now, Josefina Vidal -- Cuba's indefatigable American expert -- has predicted that Marco Rubio will be the next U. S. president beginning in January of 2017. Because her expertise regarding the U. S. has been extremely accurate in the last fifteen years, many top Cuban observers, including those confused by America's prolific punditry, put much stock in Vidal's long-shot prediction. Today -- Feb. 2-2016 -- it is far less of a long-shot. Rubio was the big winner with a strong 3rd place finish in yesterday's first Republican primary voting in the Iowa caucus. Vidal and the Cuban government have embraced President Obama's massive efforts to normalize relations with Cuba but, following Vidal's lead, Cuba is resisting following up on economic and political ties with the U. S. that a Republican-dominated Congress along with a Republican in the White House can easily overrule beginning less than a year from now. For that reason, and because of Vidal, Cuba is stressing the need to firm up relations with all other countries other than the United States. In 2016, a year in which Fidel Castro turns 90 and Raul Castro turns 85, the future of post-Castro Cuba is more than ever in Vidal's hands. She is acutely aware that U.S.-backed right-wingers now powerfully challenge Cuban-friendly governments in Venezuela and Brazil. She is acutely aware that post-Castro Cuba must adopt the Chinese and Vietnamese styles of capitalism. And she is also acutely aware that a Republican, namely Marco Rubio, will defeat the Obama-like Democrat, Hillary Clinton, in America's ongoing 2016 presidential sweepstakes.

        Marco Rubio, the first-term U. S. Senator from Miami, can now seriously point to the White House. In the Iowa caucus yesterday he finished a strong third behind the winner, fellow Cuban-American first-term Senator Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump. But that showing projects Rubio as the strong favorite of the Republican financial and political establishment, which will, in the coming months, easily elevate Rubio.

      The two Cuban-Americans -- Rubio and Cruz -- will now begin to squeeze out the national poll-leader, Donald Trump, for the Republican presidential nomination. That's the way it looks now after Iowa and that's the way Vidal predicted months ago.

        French President Francois Hollande is warmly hosting Cuban President Raul Castro this week in Paris. After a state dinner at Elysee Palace, Hollande spoke profoundly against the U. S. embargo of Cuba, calling it "the last vestige of the Cold War and one the world wants ended once and for all against Cuba." 

Cuban President Raul Castro was given full military honors in Paris.

Presidents Hollande and Castro have met in both Havana and Paris.

        This AP photo shows Cubans enjoying internet connections thanks to one of the 50 wireless connection points in Havana. This week Cuba announced it will open 17 more wi-fi hook-ups in Havana and it is now launching broadband internet service in homes in two Havana neighborhoods and will later extend it to cafes, bars, and restaurants. The BBC says 150,000 Cubans now use Havana's wi-fi hook-ups.

     The makers of Bacardi Rum are furious at President Obama. Since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, the Bacardi family has been one of the many who have benefited massively from exiting the island to embrace American capitalism and decades of U. S. efforts to recapture what it had in Cuba during the Batista-Mafia years from 1952 till 1959. Bacardi Rum was founded in Santiago de Cuba in 1862. Now based in the tax-haven of Bermuda and making its rum in the U. S. Territory of Puerto Rico, Bacardi has multiple buildings in the Miami area. Bacardi for decades has enjoyed having the Bacardi trademark and a monopoly on rum sales in the U. S. and the massive areas it most influences. Also, historians have noted that considerable Bacardi money has supported numerous anti-Castro enterprises. In 1996, for example, Bacardi's highly financed lobbyists in Washington, led by anti-Castro zealot and Bush-connected Otto Reich, pushed through the infamous anti-Cuban Helms-Burton Act that has mightily enriched a few Cuban-Americans but massively harmed millions of Cubans on the island. But last month President Obama, in his continuing efforts to normalize relations with Cuba, bravely renewed the famous Havana Club trademark for Cuba's Cubaexport company. Bacardi, not surprisingly, has sicced its vast lobbying effort in the U. S. Congress on Obama.

     Except for the U. S., Cuba's famed Havana Club trademark is recognized by the rest of the world. Havana Club was officially introduced in Cuba in 1934 but it dates back to 1878 when Jose Arechabala founded a distillery in Cardenas, Cuba. It is now distributed via a propitious long-term deal with the French alcoholic giant Pernod Ricard. Havana Club is considered the only authentic Cuban rum and has earned a reputation as being a superior product to Puerto Rican-produced Bacardi. Thus, if President Obama's overture prevails and creates a level playing field, Havana Club could overtake Bacardi's huge multi-billion-dollar advantages in the U. S.

**************************************** 

Cuba & U.S. Politics

Obama's Successor Will Be Crucial

       Jose Mujica -- the very, very popular former President of Uruguay -- had a long and very pleasant visit in the Havana home of Fidel Castro this past weekend. Mujica, a huge revolutionary friend who was Uruguay's President till March of 2015, has visited Fidel each of the last four Januarys -- 2013, 2014, 2015 and now 2016. At a news conference in Havana Saturday -- January 30, 2016 -- as reported by Fox News Latino and others -- the 80-year-old Mujica said these interesting words: "I had a pretty long meeting with Fidel and we talked about an infinite number of things. He remembered perfectly well our last conversation, and I confess he looked better than he did when I was in his home last year -- always scintillating, with the most diverse concerns. He is concerned about the spreading Zika virus. And he is direly concerned...alarmed, really...by the need to breed livestock as an important food category." Fidel Castro, who has surprised a lot of people for a lot of decades, now plans to celebrate his 90th birthday on August 13th of this year. 

     Cuban President Raul Castro arrived in Paris yesterday -- Sunday, the last day of January, 2016 -- and he will receive all the Bells & Whistles now accorded to major heads of state. That includes a state banquet in his honor at Elysee Palace. This photo shows French President Francois Hollande on his important state visit to Cuba in May of 2015. Hollande was the first of the leading Western Presidents to take full advantage of U. S. President Barack Obama's overtures to Cuba, including the opening of embassies in Havana and Washington for the first time since 1961. Prior to Castro's return visit, Hollande's office said, "Cuba is a country that is opening and we want to be a significant part of that opening." The statement also expressed France's recognition that "good relations with Cuba improves France's with all of Latin America." Even prior to Obama's brave efforts to normalize relations with Cuba, major French companies have been doing business with the island for years. Accor is involved in Cuba's hotel industry and Air France has regular flights to Cuba; the French alcohol beverage giant, Pernard Ricard, distributes Cuba's prized Havana Club, etc. Cuba owes France $4 billion but the French appear willing, even anxious, to reinvest most of that debt back into Cuba. Like all of America's best friends, France adamantly opposes the embargo of Cuba, which has been in effect since 1962. On his visit to Cuba in May, France's President Hollande said, "Few nations, large or small, could have withstood over five decades of intransigence from superpower America, with the embargo just one element. But now that Cuba has withstood it, the end of the embargo should stop hurting other nations too."

       President Obama's two-term presidency began with him supposedly marching to defend a Cuban policy that the prior ten U. S. presidents -- including Democrats Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton -- had neither the courage nor the ability to change. But Obama, realizing the negative image it casts worldwide on America, has done all in his power to alter the abomination, changes that France this week is following up on.

        Obama's legacy as President will note that he was the only U. S. President since the 1950s with the guts and decency to extend a warm hand to Cuba. He understood that Cuba's revolution in 1959 didn't overthrow a U.S.-backed Mother Teresa dictatorship in Cuba; he understood the ill-advised Bay of Pigs attack in 1961 only added to the Castro legend, as did countless U.S.-aided Exile and Mafia assassination attempts; he understood that such things as the terrorist bombing of the civilian Cubana Flight 455 and the embargo greatly harmed both everyday Cubans on the island as well as America's international reputation; and he understood that having a Cuban policy designed to sate the revenge, economic, and political motives of a handful of extremists had maligned the image of American and democracy long enough.

      The gutty brilliance of Mr. Obama regarding Cuba highlights the fact that none of his predecessors -- not even Kennedy, Carter and Clinton who tried -- could compete with a bought-and-paid-for Congress when it came to mandating Cuban policy. In the final months of his two-term presidency, Obama is forced to confront belligerents in Congress led by two first-term Cuban-American extremists -- Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio -- who happen to be prime Republican presidential contenders in 2016. Yet, Obama continues into this new month of February-2016 to use his Executive Powers to chip away at the abysmal Congress-mandated Cuban policy that all other U. S. presidents lacked the courage and intelligence to utilize.

       America's most enthused democracy-lovers, such as Sarah Stephens, have walked in stride every step of the way as President Obama has tried to normalize relations with Cuba. Ms. Stephens is the Founder and Director of the influential Washington-based Center for Democracy in the Americas. In her latest "Cuba Central" update on the CDA website, Ms. Stephens wrote: "President Obama is making it easier for U. S. actors and producers, writers and musicians, to work and perform in Cuba, and engage with Cubans in the process of creating their art. We have come a long way since the days when Cuban artists of the caliber of Latelbrahim Ferrer...were barred by the Bush administration from picking up their Grammy Awards."

       Unfortunately, the two-term George W. Bush presidency directly preceded President Obama's two terms. The Bush dynasty, dating back decades, has benefited massively from economic and political standpoints with its tight alliance with only Cuban-exile extremists as opposed to Cuban-exile moderates. For example, over and beyond the strident bought-and-paid-for Cuban policies of the U. S. Congress, the George W. Bush presidency mandated such anti-Cuban dictates as an expensive, for both taxpayers and America's image, program to entice Cuban doctors and nurses working in poor foreign nations to defect to the U. S., one of the last-minute Bush directives that President Obama inherited and tried to correct.

        During his eight years as President, George W. Bush appointed only anti-Cuban zealots such as Carlos Gutierrez {above}, Roger Noriega, Otto Reich, Mel Martinez, etc., etc., to direct his Cuban and Latin American policies. It was in line with his father's {George H. W. Bush} extreme anti-Cuban policies during a long political career and his brother's {Jeb Bush} extreme anti-Cuban policies during two-terms as Governor of Florida, policies that certainly will be resumed if Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or any other Republican claims the White House in January of 2017 succeeding the decent Mr. Obama. During the preceding George W. Bush presidency, for example, the U. S. executed its last Latin American regime-change, strongly and embarrassingly supporting a coup that overthrew -- for about 72 hours -- Cuba's friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. While such a return to abysmal U. S. policies in Latin American still alarms and roils the entire region, the Bush dynasty has always been assured that nothing it does in regards to Cuba will cost it any votes or support from sufficiently proselytized and propagandized Americans who have been primed to think that such abominations as the Bay of Pigs attack, the terrorist bombing of Cubana Flight 455, the Venezuelan coup, etc., etc., were pro-American, pro-democracy acts.

        If Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush -- or any Republican, for that matter -- becomes President of the United States in January of 2017, they will immediately begin rolling back all of the positive overtures President Obama has made regarding Cuba. Yet today -- February 1, 2016 -- as the armies of television pundits analyze the results of the first primary caucus voting in Iowa -- the Cuban issues, as far as the media is concerned, are totally off the table although, in essence, the Cuba issue has a dramatic effect on the overall image of America and democracy. And, sadly, propagandized Americans will merely sigh and not utter a whimper regardless of what any anti-Cuban zealot as President or Commander-in-Chief does.

           Cubana Flight 455 resonates throughout the Caribbean, Latin America, and the world. Yet, Americans have been successfully propagandized into believing it never happened, or at least that it was/is insignificant. Whether goaded by incompetence or intimidation, the U. S. media navigates through an entire presidential campaign cycle, obsessed with such things as today's vote in Iowa, without ever mentioning the vastly significant difference between President Obama's Cuban policy and the Cuban prospects of the would-be Republican presidents, a contest that includes yet another Bush and two Cuban-American anti-Castro extremists. And so, what is the significance of Cubana Flight 455?? Well, if Americans were proselytized to have no reaction to Cubana Flight 455, what could a Republican Commander-in-Chief do regarding Cuba that they would react to? {The operative word being...react}.

Meanwhile:

       Meet a very important Cuban named Odalys Rodriguez del Toro. She is the Director of ETECSA, the island's networking effort. On this very first day of February of 2016, Odalys has a big announcement: She is launching broadband internet service in two Havana neighborhoods as a pilot project aimed at bringing home access to the island. Then she will allow cafes, bars and restaurants to begin ordering broadband services. To bring that about, Odalys says she is working with Huawei, China's giant telecom operator.

       Cristina Escobar, Cuba's highly regarded and superbly talented television news anchor, reminds her attentive audience that the island "has many friends around the world, including Americans like Mr. Obama, and as you will see this week...like France and China. To move forward, we must work with our friends, the ones we can trust the most." At age 28 and the most influential Cuban among the crucial young-adult generation of Cubans, Ms. Escobar clearly does not trust the U. S., for these reasons: "Miami, Republicans in Congress, and the possibility of a Republican president who will try to undo what Obama is accomplishing."

         During the above session, Cristina cracked up her two guests with this comment: "Your viewpoint gives me a revolutionary thought -- WHY DON'T CUBANS ON THE ISLAND DECIDE THE FATE OF CUBA'S FUTURE!"

Cristina Escobar is very much A CUBAN ON THE ISLAND.

Even Washington now pays attention to her viewpoints FROM HAVANA.

Even in her leisure moments, Cristina Escobar fights for Cuba.

And, I might add, with a revolutionary fervor.

****************************************