As reported by EFE via Fox Latino:

From an article in Baltimore's The Catholic Review Online covering the teleconference earlier this week with Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and organized by our own Alberto De La Cruz:

(Dr. Biscet) called on fellow Cubans to “act moderately, impartially, and with firmness in the defense of our principles without falling into sectarian extremism, but always intransigent in regards to liberty, justice, and democracy for Cuba.”

That, to me, is what's it's all about. Plain and simple.

Miami Herald File: Albert Coya

The story of Carmen Santana's life in exile mirrors that of so many others who left their lives behind in Cuba to seek freedom. The fact that Ms. Santana's story isn't out of the ordinary doesn't make it any less heroic, however.

The above picture from the Miami Herald's files was on the front page on Sunday, June 6th, 1971:

On June 6, 1971, the Sunday Miami Herald front page displayed stories about the Vietnam War, a Fort Lauderdale car crash that killed six, First Daughter Tricia Nixon’s upcoming wedding – and an arresting picture of a woman on her knees holding a young boy’s hand.

The woman was Carmen Santana; the boy her 12-year-old son, Normando. The day before, they’d landed at Miami International Airport on a “freedom flight’’ from Cuba.

Carmen was fulfilling a promise.

“She was a nurse in Cuba,’’ explained her son, now called Norman. “When we were living there, the age for the armed forces is 12. When I was 11, we had been sanctioned to leave but they put a clamp on her’’ because of her profession. “She made a promise that if she did leave, she would never go back. She vowed she would be on her knees.’’

Words can't fully describe the emotions displayed by Ms. Santana in that picture. Holding her 12-year-old son in one hand and on her knees in what could be described as a mixture of heavenly gratitude and perhaps a tinge of emotional pain. God only knows how many others in her exact situation had similar reactions or displays of joy and gratitude upon landing in Miami. We can be grateful that Ms. Santana's dramatic gesture was captured on film, if only to serve as a reminder of the invaluable nature of freedom.

That's what freedom does. Freedom from an island prison. Carmen Santana, en paz descanse.

Read the article in full below the fold.

BY ELINOR J. BRECHER
ebrecher@miamiherald.com

On June 6, 1971, the Sunday Miami Herald front page displayed stories about the Vietnam War, a Fort Lauderdale car crash that killed six, First Daughter Tricia Nixon’s upcoming wedding – and an arresting picture of a woman on her knees holding a young boy’s hand.

The woman was Carmen Santana; the boy her 12-year-old son, Normando. The day before, they’d landed at Miami International Airport on a “freedom flight’’ from Cuba.

Carmen was fulfilling a promise.

“She was a nurse in Cuba,’’ explained her son, now called Norman. “When we were living there, the age for the armed forces is 12. When I was 11, we had been sanctioned to leave but they put a clamp on her’’ because of her profession. “She made a promise that if she did leave, she would never go back. She vowed she would be on her knees.’’

And so, in her floral-print dress and hosiery, Carmen Santana inched across the tarmac.

“It was quite a ways,’’ her son said, but “hurting herself was the least of her worries.’’

Born Carmen Griñan in Santiago de Cuba in 1926, Santana died on Feb. 28 at her home in Westchester, four days before she would have turned 85. Her son found her in a lounge chair in front of the television after she failed to answer the phone.

“You get premonitions,’’ he said. “I saw the lighting like it was night and the TV on. She looked like she was sleeping, but when I touched her, she was cold.’’

Santana’s peaceful death ended a life of hard work and struggle. She was born to an unwed mother. Her father died when Santana was in her teens, leaving her enough money to attend nursing school.

Married in 1954, she’d divorced by the time she left her island homeland. She took menial jobs in Miami – in a model airplane factory and a nursing home — as she worked toward an R.N. certification.

That accomplished, she worked at Pan American and Northshore hospitals, and later for a nursing agency.

Santana kept working while undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments for breast cancer in the 1980s, and during a silent heart attack in 2003, Norman Santana said.

“She was very strong. She never took a penny from anyone…She was very spiritual and very Catholic.’’

Nor did she hide her distain for Fidel Castro, her son said, paying the price when she announced her intention to emigrate.

“Growing up over there, I would have to be taken to grandmother’s house because my mother was working at night, midnight shift, or go to the rural areas as punishment. She was marked as a ‘worm.’ ?”

Their first six months in South Florida, Santana and her son stayed with a friend in Hialeah. Then, they moved in with Santana’s half-brother, who sponsored them.

Her mother was able to join them in 1973. She lived another six years.

“We made the right move,’’ said Norman, who works for the Miami-Dade school board. “We always knew that.’’

When his mother became a United States citizen in 1986, “it was very a emotional matter. She loved this country.’’

Norman Santana remembers the day he landed in Miami – in a suit and tie — and a vague feeling of embarrassment at his mother’s dramatic gesture. He was young, he said, and didn’t really understand the significance.

On the plane, “she was frantic until she saw it was moving to the left and could not be called back to the tarmac. She crossed herself and said, ‘I’ll never see you again.’ She vowed she would never go back.’’

And she never did. Carmen Santana was buried in Miami.

Most of you have probably heard the story from Canada of 13-month-old Joseph Maraachli (Baby Joseph) who suffers from a severe neurological disorder with virtually no chance of long-term survival. A battle between Baby Joseph's family and the government, represented by the hospital, has been ongoing for weeks now, with the family wanting a tracheotomy performed on their son in order so they can take him home to spend his remaining days with loved ones, and the Ontario courts ordering the ventilator be removed without the tracheotomy procedure, leading to death in minutes.

Some are comparing this case to the Terri Schiavo one from 2005. There are key differences. The Schiavo case was a family dispute between Terri's husband and her parents and siblings. The Florida courts decided which family member had the right to determine Terri's fate. In Baby Joseph's case, the family is in agreement and it's the government of Ontario through a court ruling that is making the decision despite the family's wishes. Disturbing, to say the least.

LifeSiteNews has a good summary of the latest events here.

Readers can decide for themselves whether this action by the Ontario courts and the hospital is indicative of what government-run health care can turn into, but it should give people on both sides something to think about. After all, the family of a 13-month-old baby should have every reasonable right to decide how they want their son to spend its remaining days, not the government.

Hello, readers! It's been a while since I've posted at Babalú Blog, and it's good to be back here posting. I hope to pop my head in here on a more regular basis.

The following is an amalgamation of several recent posts at my blog, Searching for Signs, on the Wisconsin union protests and the rights of public unions.

As a federal government employee who enjoys the benefits of a non-negotiable pension plan in which my contribution is matched by my employer (i.e. you), I’m not going to trash public employee pension plans. Public service workers at all levels benefit the common good in many ways and should be justly compensated (key word here being justly).

Nor will I trash all public unions. Government workers deserve to be treated fairly just as much as private workers. So, no, this will not be an across-the-board-union-bashing post. The issue here, as we all know, is how much influence and power public unions ought to have.

For those of you who watched the O'Reilly Factor show last Friday, Bill O'Reilly started the show with the revelation that federal unions have little to no bargaining rights when it comes to pensions and wages. O'Reilly was referring to a Wall Street Journal column written by Kimberly Strassel (I link to the Snow Report Blog which has the full column versus the WSJ site which requires a subscription to view it in its entirety) which laid out President Obama's "predicament" vis-a-vis Wisconsin and other states' public union rights (emphasis mine):

The union horde is spreading, from Madison to Indianapolis to a state capital near you. And yet the Democratic and union bigwigs engineering the outrage haven’t directed their angry multitudes at what is arguably the most “hostile workplace” in the nation: Washington, D.C.

It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.

This is, after all, the president who has berated Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees, calling the very idea an “assault on unions.” This is also the president who has sicced his political arm, Organizing for America, on Madison, allowing the group to fill buses and plan rallies. Ah, but it’s easy to throw rocks when you live in a stone (White) house.

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.” Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues. Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.

Scott Walker, eat your heart out.

Basically, Obama has no legs to stand on in standing up for union protesters in Wisconsin and elsewhere, thanks to Jimmy Carter and his Civil Service Reform Act in 1978 which stripped federal unions of virtually all bargaining rights for benefits and wages.

Going back to the central question of the level of power and influence public unions should have, the answer is: the same as any other union. That is, proportionate and fair to all sides. It's pretty clear to me that Gov. Scott Walker's proposal puts Wisconsin public sector bargaining rights closer to those of their federal counterparts. Most wage and benefit bargaining is rightfully off-the-table for federal employees because of the obvious ease in which abuse can take place whenever public unions use taxpayer money to leverage a "better deal" against the state. All you have to consider is the scam being run by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state teacher’s union (in particular, read pages 3-6). Other bargaining rights that directly involve working conditions and employee performance (things that also matter), stay intact.

Those public unions who are careful stewards of public monies and interests are to be commended, and I feel bad for those groups because they are also victims here.

Next time you hear a pro-union person claiming that folks like Scott Walker are threatening to eliminate unions altogether, remember the damage some unions have already done. Therefore, it makes total sense, in this day and always, to strip away anything that would give public unions the ability to use and abuse their influence and power for their own benefit and NOT for the benefit of the people. Everything else is on the table.

The Miami Herald's Fabiola Santiago has a good story on the expatriation to Spain of the Cuban dissident prisoners. It's worth a read, particularly for those who think that the prisoners had a real choice of whether to stay in Cuba or go to Spain.

Here's a telling section of the article:

Some of the released prisoners consider their expatriation ``a deportation'' and showed a Miami Herald reporter how their passports had been marked ``salida definitiva'' -- final exit -- while the passports of children and adolescents were labeled emigrantes, meaning that they could return to Cuba some day.

The entire article can be found below the fold.

By Fabila Santiago

MADRID -- Packed into a hostel named Welcome that advertises lodging for about $18 a night -- the same as a cab ride to this industrial hub 10 miles away from the city center -- the 11 freed Cuban prisoners who arrived this week with their families face an uncertain future in a country reeling from economic woes.

The ex-prisoners are not euphoric, as one might expect newly freed men to be, and despite the crisp white shirt, dress slacks, leather shoes and striped tie with which the Cuban government put them on a plane to the Spanish capital, the men look weathered by their whirlwind transatlantic flight and seven years of incarceration in windowless cells alongside common prisoners.

``I can't enjoy anything. I can't feel free as long as there is a political prisoner in Cuba. How can I be happy with all I left behind?'' asks Mijail Barzaga Lugo, 43, who served time in four different prisons for filing news reports about life in Cuba to CubaNet and Radio Martí.

Barzaga and the others are part of a group of 75 independent journalists and peaceful dissidents jailed in the massive crackdown of 2003 known as the Black Spring. These 11 freed prisoners are the first of 52 scheduled to be released and expatriated to Spain in the next four months under an agreement negotiated by the Spanish government and the island's highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal Jaime Ortega. Two others from the group of 75 -- the poet and columnist Raul Rivero, released in 2005, and Alejandro Gonzalez Raga, released in 2008 -- also were resettled here.

Besides Barzaga, those who arrived between Tuesday and Thursday were Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso, Lester Gonzalez, Omar Ruiz, Antonio Villareal, Julio Cesar Galvez, Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, Pablo Pacheco, Omar Rodriguez Saludes, Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, and Luis Milan. All were accompanied by family members, some of them members of the support group Ladies in White, who marched every Sunday in Havana to demand the prisoners' freedom.

MAKING HEADLINES

In Madrid, the ex-prisoners' arrival has shared the top headlines with the Spanish president and parliament, engaged in a heated public debate about the precarious state of the economy. Only the joy of winning the World Cup in soccer has lifted the spirits of Spaniards, who face high unemployment, failing businesses, rising costs of living, and increasing immigration from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

But the new refugees, grateful to be free if not ebullient, have captured the nation's attention with their stories of life in Cuba's prisons and the nature of the ``crimes'' for which they got 15- and 20-year terms: running a library out of their homes; writing or broadcasting press reports; organizing a peaceful religious dissident group, organizing a news agency.

Paneche was a plastic surgeon who specialized in treating burn victims. Milan was a member of the religious dissident movement Movimiento Cristiano Liberación. Rodriguez had set up an independent news agency. Ricardo Gonzalez was a correspondent for Reporters Without Borders. Galvez -- who asked for ``peace, liberty and democracy'' for Cuba at a press conference as soon as he arrived -- filed reports for Voice of America and El Nuevo Herald in Miami.

Pacheco, who has family in Miami and hopes to live there, wrote a blog from the provincial prison of Canaletas in Ciego de Avila with the help of outsiders by smuggling out the information.

He saw his blog, Voices Behind the Bars, for the first time after he arrived at the hostel on Tuesday and signed on to the Internet on one of two computers in the lobby.

TEARS OF JOY

``I cried,'' Pacheco said, his eyes watering again. ``I'm so grateful to the people on the outside who helped me achieve that.''

Some of the freed prisoners' family members also served time in prison for defending human rights and openly opposing the Castro government.

``My body is here, but my heart and my mind are in Cuba,'' said Belkis Barzaga Lugo, 46, who served a year in a Matanzas prison for holding a sign that said ``Freedom for Cuba's Political Prisoners'' during a 2000 procession to a Havana church by devotees of Santa Bárbara, one of Cuba's most revered saints. A security officer had visited her house and warned her against any public demonstrations at the religious event.

Two years after she was freed, her brother Mijail, named after a Russian chess champion by their old-guard communist father, was accused of being ``a mercenary'' and sentenced to 15 years in prison for reporting Cuba news to the outside world. Belkis became one of the marching Ladies in White, and now has followed her brother to Spain. But not without another fight with Cuban authorities who, at the last minute, told Mijail that his sister could not leave with her 7-year-old daughter because her father had not signed for her release. The family, in contact with the father, knew that not to be true.

Cardinal Ortega, who is personally making the calls to the prisoners to announce their freedom and offer passage to Spain, according to the prisoners, had promised Mijail that he would leave with all of his family members.

``I said I wouldn't leave and the signature appeared,'' Mijail Barzaga Lugo said. ``It was a last trick to hurt us.''

In prison, all of the men developed illnesses, particularly digestive disorders. They used a hole in the ground in their cells to relieve themselves and slept on metal beds with thin foam mattresses.

``I lost a lot of eyesight from being locked up in a cell painted floor to ceiling in bright white,'' Barzaga said. Some are seriously ill with an immune system disease caused by malnourishment.

``We co-existed with rats, cockroaches, scorpions -- and I have to say it, with s---, señores, with excrement,'' Galvez said at a televised press conference held Wednesday at the Asociación de Prensa de Madrid.

CAN'T GO HOME

Some of the released prisoners consider their expatriation ``a deportation'' and showed a Miami Herald reporter how their passports had been marked ``salida definitiva'' -- final exit -- while the passports of children and adolescents were labeled emigrantes, meaning that they could return to Cuba some day.

Worse yet, the status in Spain of the freed prisoners and their families is far from certain. There are legal consequences depending on whether they choose political refugee or immigrant status, and they were confused as to whose legal advice they should trust on the issue. The hostel is only a way-station.

They get tickets for three meals a day and tokens to do laundry from the Red Cross. They have no air conditioning in their tiny rooms and temperatures during the day reach almost 100 degrees. The rooms have three twin beds each and they share bathrooms out in the hallway. There are two babies in the group, one a newborn who is breast-fed by her mother in the bustling lobby, the only space with air conditioning.

On Friday afternoon, Carlos P. Quintela, a director with the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami, visited the freed prisoners and brought them a message of gratitude and a donation from a Cuban-American in the United States to help them begin a new life.

``You are the mambises of the 21st Century and we are grateful for all you have done on behalf of the freedom of Cuba,'' he told the prisoners, evoking the freedom-fighters of the 19th Century independence war against Spain.

There's talk that the Spanish government wants to relocate the former prisoners to Málaga and Valencia, but members of the Cuban community in Madrid who have been visiting the prisoners oppose relocation because they'll be far from their tight-knit support system.

CANDY AND SUPPORT

On Saturday, Gonzalez Raga, the Madrid-based ex-prisoner who now runs the support group www.presospoliticoscubanos.com and has been at the hostel everyday, brought the children sweets and tried to cheer them up with a little party to celebrate their new life. ``Just a little something to get their minds off the sad things,'' he said.

``Everybody pays attention to them now because they're news,'' said Blanca Reyes, a Ladies in White founder and wife of Rivero, the poet and journalist, who visits the newly arrived ex-prisoners every day. ``It's their future when they're away from the limelight and alone that's uncertain.''

Those of you who live in South Florida have probably heard about the controversy surrounding last week's meeting of the Miami GOP Executive Committee in which District 25 Republican candidate Paul Crespo was confronted by local police after his 2+ minute speech.

For those of you outside of South Florida, here's a quick primer:

Paul Crespo, local radio commentator and regular guest on Spanish-language current event programs, president of Civica Americana, and former Miami Herald contributor who was "released" from that duty in 2006 in the infamous Oscar Corral TV/Radio Marti "conflict of interest" fiasco, is running against two other candidates; Marili Cancio and David Rivera. Rivera is a current member of the Florida House and the Executive Director of the Miami-Dade County GOP. Name and party recognition make Rivera the current favorite to win the GOP primary.

At the GOP Executive Meeting last month, each candidate was given two minutes to speak. Paul Crespo went slightly over his two-minute time, spending the extra time "respectfully" asking for David Rivera's resignation from his Miami-Dade GOP leadership position. Shortly after Crespo stepped off the podium, he was confronted by at least two local police officers for what in all indications was merely for speaking over his time limit.

The Shark Tank is all over this story and has a video released by Crespo which shows that Miami-Dade GOP leadership may have played a direct role in asking police officers to approach Crespo after his speech.

If the video even remotely captures the true events which unfolded that evening, it's a huge shame to the GOP leadership in Miami-Dade County and a prime reflection of the spreading of the political-establishment-cancer from Washington to other precincts. This incident needs to get out beyond South Florida because it illustrates the corruption in our political establishment, regardless of party, and why we need to get behind candidates who aren't beholden to their political parties.

Here's the link once again to the video released by Crespo's camp. Take a close look at it and decide for yourself.

We've certainly had our differences with the Estefans over certain issues and events, but on this day, Gloria Estefan deserves our praise for taking a firm and public stand for human rights in Cuba.

Go here to read about Gloria's march for solidarity with the Ladies in White.

In thinking of today's anniversary of the Cuban Black Spring crackdown, I arrive at a very non-political concept: the concept of human suffering. Christians believe that suffering is an essential part of our human existence, not as a exercise in masochism, but as a way to reflect on our imperfections and get closer to God. It's a very complicated concept and one that I've just barely begun to scratch the surface on.

The brave journalists, dissidents and political prisoners who languish or have perished in Cuban jails can probably write books on the Christian concept of suffering. It's their extraordinary courage, conviction and selflessness that triggers their suffering, and they're willing to go through it for the greater good of their cause.

In this season of Lent in which Christians reflect and give up certain things, I can't think of a better modern-day example of our brothers and sisters in Cuba who know that their cause is a righteous one but have to give up so much for it.

As Marco Rubio continues to face heavy scrutiny over everything from his record on taxes and illegal immigration, to his use of a GOP credit card in which all charged personal expenses were paid back by Rubio, his record as a lobbyist and past associations with controversial figures like Ray Samson, it's understandable and even expected that the next step will be for some to create a wedge between Rubio and his core constituent base.

This article in National Journal.com explores the supposed lack of support from Florida Cuban-Americans towards Rubio. To be honest, the article raises some interesting points which merit our consideration.

Marco Rubio was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents, became the first Cuban-American speaker of the Florida House, and he takes a hard line on U.S. policy towards Havana. Rubio leads Gov. Charlie Crist by approximately 28 percentage points in the race for the GOP Senate nomination, and in a matchup with Rep. Kendrick Meek, the presumptive Democratic nominee, he wins by 5 points.

So with Marco Rubio poised to become the nation's third Cuban-American senator, why haven't the rainmakers in Florida's Cuban-American donor community rallied to his side?

His challenges begin with the US-Cuba Democracy PAC. The Florida-based lobbying group is prolific, contributing more than $760,000 to congressional candidates in 2008. In this cycle, it had donated $225,000 to 111 House and Senate candidates across the political spectrum as of Feb. 21, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Rubio is not one of them.

Instead, the PAC has thrown in its lot with Meek, already having given him $7,500 -- more than any other Senate candidate and as much as it gave Reps. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and Albio Sires, D-N.J., the top House recipients.

Mauricio Claver-Carone, the director for US-Cuba Democracy PAC's Washington operations, stressed that the committee has nothing against Rubio. At a December panel discussion hosted by the committee, Rubio, Crist and Meek all toed the same anti-Castro line, he noted. So then why Meek?

"He's the only one who's been in Congress and has a long track record of being an outspoken advocate for human rights and a strong Cuba policy," Claver-Carone said. "Charlie and Marco are great, and they would be great members of Congress, but they haven't had that yet. They've talked about it and they've advocated, but never from a legislative perspective."

Claver-Carone added that the PAC follows an "incumbency rule" in its giving and considers Meek an incumbent of sorts since he is currently in the House. But the PAC gave $7,000 to former Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., in his 2004 campaign to become the first Cuban-American senator, even though Martinez had never served in Congress.

The 25 Cuban-Americans who make up US-Cuba Democracy PAC's board, which includes some of the biggest rainmakers in South Florida, haven't rallied behind Rubio either. As of the end of the fourth quarter 2009, its board members had donated $31,200 to Crist, $14,950 to Meek, and $73,800 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, but just $8,150 to Rubio.

The donation numbers for the first quarter of 2010 are not yet available, and several members of the board did not return phone calls about their donations.

Rubio, despite his dominance in the polls, trails both Crist and Meek in cash on hand. Rubio had around $2 million in his coffers at the end of 2009, while Meek had $3.37 million and Crist had $7.56 million.

Does Rubio have a Cuban-American problem? No recent polls have broken down Cuban-American support for Rubio and Crist. But a Public Policy Polling survey released March 10 shows Crist faring better than Rubio with Hispanics in a general election matchup. Crist wins Hispanic voters -- Cuban-Americans account for close to half of Florida's Hispanic vote -- by a 43-22 margin over Meek in a potential matchup. Rubio, meanwhile, trails Meek by a 48-35 gap among Hispanics. Both Republicans would defeat Meek, according to the poll, but Crist enjoys a wider margin of victory, thanks in part to this differential.

Crist has a history of electoral success with this group: He won 70 percent of Cuban-American voters in his 2006 race for the governor's mansion.

Alex Burgos, a spokesman for Rubio's campaign, said he is confident his candidate has Cuban-American support.

"Marco is a product of this community," he said. "He is the proud son of Cuban exiles."

Still, while Rubio would love to carry the Cuban vote, Little Havana isn't his base. His most strident supporters have largely been white conservatives -- including Tea Partiers nationally. They are the ones who shook the rafters at his CPAC speech last month and continue to pour money into his coffers with one-day online fundraising drives, or "money bombs." Moderate Floridians still favor Crist, but among self-described conservative voters, Rubio trounces the governor by a 69-12 margin in the PPP poll.

Rubio, meanwhile, has taken stances at odds with the Latino community. He is against any immigration reform bill that provides a path to citizenship for the nation's 12 million illegal aliens; a spokesman said Rubio believes the 1986 amnesty was "a mistake." He also opposes counting undocumented immigrants in the Census for the purposes of federal aid and congressional reapportionment.

That stance drew a stern rebuke from Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. The organization honored Rubio in 2007 when he became the first Cuban-American leader of the Florida House, but "that was a very different Marco Rubio," Vargas told the Miami Herald last week.

"I know that in visiting Florida there has been some significant disappointment in the positions he's taken," Vargas told NationalJournal.com.

Cuban-Americans who want Washington to take a hard line with Havana need allies in Congress more than ever. One of Congress' most outspoken advocates for the Cuban embargo, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., announced last month that he will not run for re-election. Former Sen. Martinez, another strong anti-Castro voice, resigned in September before the end of his term.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, has tried to offer Havana an olive branch by loosening travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans. The US-Cuba Democracy PAC and other hardliners want Havana to release political prisoners and legalize opposition political parties before Washington offers any carrots.

It's worth noting that Crist has had problems in South Florida, too. Diaz-Balart and his brother, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R), who are two of Congress' most anti-Castro members, pulled their endorsement of Crist in December. At the time, Lincoln Diaz-Balart remarked cryptically, "We take our endorsements seriously, but the governor knows why we withdrew and he left us with no alternative."

Is there a rift between influential Florida Cuban-Americans and Marco Rubio? I believe it depends on how loyal the individual is to the GOP establishment, and especially to Charlie Crist. Party loyalty is a big factor, IMO. For example, Al Cardenas, former Florida GOP Chairman, supports Crist. It's easy for party partisans to forget that primaries can be just as rough-and-tumble and nasty as general races, and the establishment/incumbent frequently has no qualms about eating their young in order to remain in power.

Also, the article didn't mention Cuban-American David Rivera's (state representative and Miami-Dade GOP Chairman) support of Rubio. One would think Rivera's endorsement would be at least somewhat noteworthy.

Nevertheless, the article's numbers showing the US-Cuba Democracy PAC's relative lack of support for Rubio does raise some eyebrows. Mauricio Claver-Carone's assertion that the PAC supports members of Congress with an established track record on Cuba is understandable, and likely FL Democratic Senate candidate Kendrick Meek has been deserving of their credit in this regard.  On the other hand, lack of congressional experience didn't stop the PAC from backing Mel Martinez in 2004. Perhaps they will wait until the general election to throw more weight at Rubio. We'll see.

The point where the National Journal's analysis falls flat on its face on is in recent polls indicating that Florida Hispanics favor Crist over Rubio, somehow suggesting that this is reflective of Cuban-Americans. We can't tell for sure until we see a specific poll which separates Cuban-Americans from other Hispanics, but if you consider that Cuban-Americans typically vote out of step with the rest of Florida Hispanics (see the 2008 presidential election), these polls don't say much about where Cuban-Americans stand on Rubio.

UPDATE 835 PM EDT: Erik Maza at the Miami New Times covered similar ground in a story back in February.

Although, as Val posted yesterday, the South Florida media has been largely silent on the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, its two big daily newspapers have not.

Here's the Miami Herald's editorial from yesterday. And the South Florida Sun-Sentinel's published today can be found here.

Kathleen Hughes' Wall Street Journal article on her Cuban-American husband Daniel Bethencourt's return to his childhood home in Havana during a recent family trip to Cuba is a familiar one to many Cuban-Americans. However, no matter how familiar these stories of seeing relatives for the first time in 50 years, or seeing your childhood home decades and a revolution later may be, they never fail to touch the hearts of even those who've never set foot in Cuba but can only begin to imagine the emotions they stir in those who lived and lost.

I encourage everyone to read the article here. Make sure you check out the pictures and slide show.

There is one aspect of the article I want to point out, and I'll start with the following quote from the señora who lives in Dan Bethencourt's childhood home in the Vedado district:

When we were ready to go, Ms. Ordaz seemed shaken. "I always knew you would come back," she told Dan in Spanish, looking at him very directly. "This is your house. If you want this house, it's yours."

What a powerful statement. A statement that humanizes the complex web that is everything Cuba. Old family friends living in a comfortable home in Havana for 50 years willing to give up the home the displaced owners had entrusted them with. No matter how one may interpret the motivations and intentions of such an offer, it speaks volumes about the fact that despite the evil reshaping of an island, no single person can directly change the human spirit.

I realize that I may depart from some of the esteemed collaborators and readers of this blog on the issue of family visits to Cuba. I am in favor of the Obama adminstration's loosening of travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans, but perhaps not for all the same reasons as Obama. To me, it's the simple humanity of being able to visit a relative or a sick, dying parent, brother or aunt, not because it will change or transform the Cuban people.

Mrs. Ordaz's "this is your house" statement to Dan Bethencourt illustrates how flawed the concept of "people-to-people contacts" triggering change really is. It also shows how paternalistic that attitude is. "Those poor Cubans don't know right from wrong. Let's flood the island with family, friends and American tourists and show them the light". How absurd does that sound in light of the many experiences Cuban-Americans like Bethencourt have had with their relatives in Cuba?

As I stated earlier, no single person, not even a (f)idel (c)astro, can take away the essential, basic nature of our human spirit. Cubans, like anyone else, know the difference between right and wrong. They're fully aware of what they have and don't have. What they do with that knowledge is eventually up to them.

OK, folks. Brace yourselves.

In an interesting and winding op-ed piece in the Miami Herald, Marifeli Perez-Stable tries to make her point on why the European Union's "Common Position" (CP) on Cuba should be eliminated. I won't bother with the back-and-forth arguments Perez-Stable lays out in trying to look at the issue from both sides (if that's at all possible from her standpoint). I will, however, point out her conclusion which even the most strident among us would have a very hard time arguing against:

Cuban leaders themselves are, of course, the problem. Neither sticks nor carrots works with them. If Spain fails to have the CP lifted or if it succeeds and Havana again turns down European economic cooperation, then they win once more. Screaming from the barricades is what they do best no matter how dearly it costs the Cuban people in freedom and treasure.

That, my friends, is the bottom line. Even if I have to hold my nose a little, Perez-Stable concludes her hard-to-follow piece with a large dose of reality.

A nice column by Myriam Marquez of the Miami Herald (yes, THAT Herald) published last Sunday reminding us that evil can't be negotiated with:

Piggy-backing a little off Val's post below, I'd like to highlight a couple of telling quotes from the Herald article Val references (BTW, the Herald piece is about as balanced as we can hope for from the MSM).

Most of the article is made up of rather mundane accounts of Cuban musicians receiving under-the-table payments for performances and the now familiar U.S./Cuba regulations. However, towards the end, this quote appears that made fireballs shoot out of my eyes on a cloudy Sunday morning:

Alberto González, spokesman for the Cuban diplomatic mission in Washington, said the island musicians' U.S. tours have the benefit of ``allowing Americans to learn the value of Cuba's culture, which in one way or another has been vetoed here.''

As for not allowing exile musicians to play in Cuba, González added, ``what we don't accept is that specific artists go to Cuba to stage a provocation.''

Thank the Lord that this disgusting comment was quickly followed by sanity:

``Provocation? I say it's a provocation to present these groups in a city full of people who have escaped that dictatorship,'' said (Paquito) D'Rivera.

As far as "people-to-people contacts" and cultural exchange is concerned, people can say all they want about the "intransigent, insufferable, loud-mouthed exiles" in Miami who live to harass those poor souls who's only heartfelt desire is to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with the Cuban regime. What is obvious to anyone - at least anyone with a fair and objective mind - is that by allowing (really, stomaching) the presence of groups like Los Van Van in the heart of Cuban exile, it clearly shows who's the only party that's playing honest.

I'll let Omer Padrillo-Cid close this post with the plain truth taken straight from the article:

Omer Padrillo-Cid, vice presidente of Eventus Entertainment, added: ``We'll be able to talk about a `cultural exchange' when the music of Celia Cruz, Gloria Estefan and Willy Chirino is heard on Cuban radio.''

(Cross-posted from Searching for Signs)

The difference between confidence and arrogance, to me, can be summed up rather simply. Confidence is walking the walk; not only trusting your beliefs but acting them out. It does not step on toes or send mixed signals because words and action intersect. Arrogance is all talk and little action; failing to follow through on overbearing or overblown rhetoric because of the sheer impossibility or impracticability of it. It confuses and tramples on our basic sense of reason instead of inspiring true belief.

President Obama exhibited lots of arrogance in his State of the Union speech tonight. In many instances, it was a roller-coaster ride that defied logic. On the one hand he decries the excessive spending of the past decade, then on the other goes ahead and lauds Stimulus 1 as he lays out plans for Stimulus 2. That’s the same Stimulus 1 that has done little (putting it nicely) to even begin solving our economic problems. Obama talks about all the jobs Stimulus 1 has created, yet ignores the fact that we’re still losing, not gaining, jobs. All this delivered with a smirk that was matched by his #2 and #3 sitting behind him (oh how I pine for the days when Nancy Pelosi looked downright mortified sitting next to Dick Cheney and behind George W. Bush).

President Obama talked about a need for bipartisanship, especially on health insurance reform. “Stop saying no, give me some ideas and I’ll listen”, he basically challenged Republicans while willfully ignoring the bills Republicans literally waved in his face last summer. Just a thought, but perhaps Obama should take his own advice on the “not saying no” part. And that’s not even considering how Obama appears to be hunkering down when most Americans want him to back off (don’t be fooled by the cooling down he mentioned…he won’t give up on health reform).

Obama criticized special interests and Washington itself for the lack of trust in government. That’s fine and well, but let’s start with the pro-Obama special interests in the health care debate. Or we can start with opening up hearings the way he promised us a year ago.

And let’s not even get into his “no tax increases on 95% of working Americans” line. Lots of talk, no substance or proof of results. That’s arrogance.

The height of Obama’s arrogance, however, had to be when he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance reform, right in front of the justices themselves. So much for that partnership and leadership he calls for, but fails to practice when the teleprompter is turned off.

Cuba hasn't escaped the chilly temperatures which have invaded Florida the past several days. But that's not all that's cold in Havana.

Remember the promise of better U.S. - Cuba relations in the age of Obama? Well, according to Reuters, you can pretty much forget about that.

After a year of relative civility and cautious praise for Obama, Cuban leaders are again angrily upbraiding Washington over the arrest of an American contractor in Havana last month and over Cuba's objection to being included in a U.S. list of nations considered "state sponsors of terrorism."

Cuba protested to the top U.S. diplomat in Havana against its "unjust" inclusion on the list, which will mean extra security measures for U.S.-bound air passengers from Cuba following a botched Christmas Day bomb attack aboard a U.S.-bound airliner.

Havana has also revived accusations of hostile U.S. spying and "subversion" by saying the contractor, who it says was arrested last month for distributing satellite communications equipment to Cuban dissidents, worked for "American secret services." Washington denies the man was a spy.

Most of here weren't so naive to think that Cuba would change, even if Obama wants to do more (which so far he hasn't). No one in Cuba is that naive, either. Listen to the Cuban Foreign Minister:

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez last month slammed Obama as "imperial" and "arrogant," using terms that were often hurled by Havana at his predecessor George W. Bush.

The article continues with predictable quotes from folks like Phil Peters and John Parke Wright, but one thing (still) remains clear: no matter how much hope and change you want, if the other side isn't willing to go along, it's useless.

Let's see if Cuba really uses the five spies as a bargaining chip to release the American contractor imprisoned in Cuba. If and when that happens, perhaps the undecided out there will realize who the devil is and always has been in this 50-year dance.

(This is the latest revision of a Veteran's Day piece I posted back in 2005 and 2007)

Veteran's Day has always held a special place in my heart. I'm far from being alone in feeling this way, but please allow me to feel a sense of personal pride on this day. The reason for this is that my father is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

As a youngster, I heard many of my father's Vietnam stories and his frighteningly detailed accounts of combat. The most harrowing account was of the day one of his platoon-mates set off a booby-trap, sending shrapnel flying through the air. My dad was fortunate and blessed to survive that day with relatively minor injuries. I heard about my dad's stay in an Army hospital and hearing the screams of other wounded soldiers writhing in pain. Some of those young men didn't survive the night. I also remember my father recounting our short time in Ft. Hood, Texas where he served the remainder of his time in the United States Army (I was barely a toddler when we lived in Ft. Hood, otherwise the tragedy of last week would have resonated that much more with me).

Our family was blessed to have met other Cuban-American veterans and their families during my dad's service in the U.S. Army. It undoubtedly made our stay in a place far away from Miami much more like home. My memories are also rich with all the stories my dad and his fellow Cuban-American veterans shared years later at picnics, birthdays and long weekends at the beach.  Needless to say, I have always felt an immense sense of pride for these men. There is no higher honor than serving your country and being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.

What makes my father and his group of veterans even more special is that they weren't born in the United States. They were born in Cuba and escaped the island prison in the same way that so many did back in the early years of "the revolution". They were teenagers and young adults in their 20s, their futures suspended because of exile. These folks eventually chose to serve their adopted country against a foe much like the one they and their families fled from just a few years before. While many Americans protested and even left the country, these foreign-born men embraced the opportunity to defend freedom.

As I mentioned above, there is no higher honor than serving your country. There is one exception, however: serving your adopted country.

In Miami, there are at least four organizations of Cuban-Americans who have served the United States of America in the Armed Forces. These are:

- Veterans of Foreign War Jose Marti Post 10212
- American Legion Capt. Felix Sosa-Camejo Post 346
- Vietnam Veterans of America Candido Molinet Chapter 620
- Cuban-American Veterans Organization

I'd like to bring special attention to the name Felix Sosa-Camejo. Here's some information on Capt. Sosa-Camejo courtesy of this statement read before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 2006:

(Felix Sosa-Camejo) came here, to Miami, as a 20 year-old refugee from Castro’s regime and enlisted in the Army in 1963. Serving for five years, Captain Sosa-Camejo earned 12 citations, including the Bronze Star, three Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts. On February 13, 1968, in the heat of the Tet Offensive on the streets of Hue, his platoon was pinned down by enemy fire and unable to reach a wounded comrade. With disregard for his safety, Captain Sosa-Camejo ran through the intense enemy fire and pulled the wounded man to safety. This action would earn Captain Sosa-Camejo his second Bronze Star and would cost him his life.

Our very own Humberto Fontova wrote this about Capt. Sosa-Camejo back in 2006:

“On February 13, 1968, the lead platoon was hit by an enemy bunker complex manned by approximately forty North Vietnamese Regulars. Upon initial contact the point man was wounded and lay approximately 10 meters in front of the center bunker. The platoon was unable to move forward and extract the wounded man due to the heavy volume of fire being laid down from the enemy bunker complex.“Captain Sosa-Camejo immediately moved into the firing line and directed the fire against the enemy bunker. With disregard for his safety, Captain Sosa-Camejo ran through the intense enemy fire and pulled the wounded point man to safety. After ensuring that the wounded man was receiving medical treatment, Captain Sosa-Camejo returned to the fire fight and again exposed himself to the intense enemy fire by single handedly assaulting the center bunker with grenades killing the two NVA soldiers manning the bunker. As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo’s valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.”

Next time you hear someone complain about Cuban-Americans' alleged (and blatantly false) lack of devotion for their adopted country; next time you hear an immigrant complain about this country, you might want to share these stories with them.

Below the fold is a copy of a speech by former U.S. Representative Dante Fascell in commemoration of the VFW Jose Marti Post's 20th anniversary back in 1991. It serves as a good reminder of one of the many sacrifices made by Cuban-Americans. Please take the time to read it, it's well worth the time.

To all veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, and especially to our Cuban-Americans vets, my deepest gratitude and respect for what you've done and for what you stand for.

If there's anything that's been positive about all the pro-dialogue and openness attitude toward Cuba in the era of Obama, it's that more and more people are beginning to realize what we crazy exiles have known all along:

Dealing with castro, Inc. isn't the same as dealing with your neighbor or your local businessperson.

As further evidence to support this, I present to you this article in the Miami Herald which describes Bill Richardson's futile attempt to get Cuba to talk to us.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has an old idea that's been tried before, which even its supporters say won't work: Create a team of exiles to dialogue with the Cuban government.

Richardson pitched the idea to top Cuban officials while on a recent trip to the island, and he's already approached Cuban-American leaders who have agreed to participate, he told The Miami Herald in an interview.

He won't say whom.

The Cubans here went for it. The ones on the island -- not so much.

``They weren't crazy about the idea,'' Richardson said. ``They didn't reject it. They said, `We always have dialogue,' but you can't have dialogue without those who have the political clout.''

Richardson, a former candidate for president, visited Cuba in late August on a trade mission. He returned advocating more legalized travel to the island, and saying that the Cuban government must do its part, too.

His trip was met with eye-rolls in some sectors of Miami, where even the people who promote dialogue said the plan would probably flop.

``I saw in the Cubans a lack of flexibility,'' Richardson said. ``I told them, `Look, there has to be reciprocity. You can't just want the embargo lifted and Radio Martí issues dealt with and an end to Guanánamo and you guys don't do anything.' Let the Cubans take some steps.''

His dialogue suggestion goes back some 30 years, when a Cuban-American banker named Bernardo Benes secretly negotiated the release of 3,600 political prisoners -- and became a pariah for it.

There was a time in this community that just advocating such missions got you bombed and shot.

``Maybe Richardson is bored,'' Benes said. ``I applaud him.''

Benes said Richardson first approached him with that idea in 1997, the morning after Richardson was named the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. That was a year after Richardson, then a U.S. representative, had met with Fidel Castro and negotiated the release of three Cuban political prisoners.

In 1994, three Cuban Americans flew to Madrid, Cuba and New York to meet with the Cuban foreign minister. That year, a local delegation attended the first migration conference there, which erupted in controversy in South Florida.

Attorney Alfredo Durán, who met with the Cuban foreign minister in 1994, said the challenge with negotiating with Havana is that they refuse to set an agenda.

``I refuse to act like a seal and applaud,'' Durán said. ``They don't want an agenda, and they really don't want to deal with Cuban Americans.''

But Durán supports Richardson's idea anyway, as does activist Ramón Saúl Sánchez. ``Our experience has been that the government never talks to real members of the opposition,'' Sánchez said. ``They try to have dialogue that is basically a monologue. But if there is will by the government of Cuba to dialogue, then you can rest assured you will find courage among exiles to do the same.''

Bay of Pigs veteran and dialogue advocate Marcelino Miyares said the trick is to start talks with ``easy'' topics like humanitarian issues.

``The Cuban government has never agreed to talk to the opposition inside or outside Cuba, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying,'' said Miyares, spokesman for Consenso Cubano, a moderate exile organization. ` ``The only problem with Richardson is that he's too public,'' Miyares said. ``This type of thing historically is done in a third country, almost in secret.''

Critics say the idea is a waste of time cooked up by a politician dodging personal problems.

Richardson was forced to withdraw his nomination as U.S. secretary of commerce this year over a federal investigation into how a political donor landed a lucrative transportation contract.

``You cannot substitute dialogue with political prisoners in Cuba with dialogue with an ad hoc group of Cuban Americans,'' said Orlando Gutiérrez, National Secretary of the Democratic Directorate, a human rights group here.

``I think now he's seeking publicity and commercial and entrepreneurial opportunities for New Mexico. He's had bad publicity and needs good publicity with this diplomatic stuff.''

Jaime Suchlicki, who heads the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban and Cuban American Studies, said Richardson is underestimating how little Raúl Castro cares about the exile community.

``What does Raúl care about Cuban Americans?'' Suchlicki said. ``He has Venezuela, the Chinese just gave him $600 million, and Iran and the Russians gave him millions. What does he need Cuban Americans for?''

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called Richardson's proposal ``one of the lamest'' ideas she's ever heard.

Amnesty International released a report earlier this week indicating that the U.S. and its embargo is responsible for the deterioration of health in Cuba. I was going to post some personal thoughts on this, but after reading this piece by Sylvia Longmire at Dallas-based Examiner.com, I figured I'd let her explain instead:

Unfortunately, the Amnesty report leaves out two very important details regarding Cuba’s purchases of medicines from the US—the ability to pay, and the willingness to buy.

Read Longmire's entire article here.

Before I sign off, here's a small snippet of the Amnesty International report that should raise more than a few red flags:

Amnesty International has been unable to document at first hand the effects of the embargo on the enjoyment of these rights due to the organization’s lack of access to Cuba. The information in this report is based mostly on reports from UN agencies and programmes operating in Cuba, included in the reports of the UN Secretary-General that have been submitted to the UN General Assembly on a yearly basis since 1994. Reports on the human rights situation in Cuba from other UN sources, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, development agencies working in Cuba and human rights organizations have also been considered in order to assess the impact of the embargo on the economic and social rights of Cubans.

I'd love to insert my friend Humberto's signature sign-off here, but I'm afraid this type of "analysis" is all too REAL.