USING FEAR TO STRIKE AT CUBAN TOURISM

USING FEAR TO STRIKE AT CUBAN TOURISM
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

The mysterious case of the alleged “acoustic attacks” against US diplomatic personnel in Cuba turns out to have been a media maneuver aimed at damaging tourism as part of the blockade against the island. One of Cuba’s greatest attractions for foreign tourism is the guarantee of security offered by the island to visitors from any part of the world. Another is the high level of public health in Cuba, one of the highest in the Western Hemisphere with health indicators comparable to those of the most developed nations.
In addition to the exceptional conditions with which the island has been endowed by nature, the popular revolution of 1959 has
incorporated the dsocial conditions of peace and harmony that the visitor appreciates from the first moment of their stay in Cuba. More than half a century of possessive paranoia, aggravated by the economic, commercial and financial blockade, have not been able to counteract the enormous achievements of socialism, even if they have postponed or limited many revolutionary economic and social advances in the country.
Basque journalist José Manzaneda, coordinator of the Cubainformación website, a channel that broadcasts news, reports and commentaries on the island from Spain, has denounced the media’s objective against Cuba over the campaign of alleged sonic attacks.
Manzaneda remembers that it was the Argentine newspaper “Clarín”, among many other media, who published a report two years ago from the Associated Press. Its focus was on an American traveler who felt “a sudden loss of feeling in his four extremities, in the same hotel where some affected diplomats were staying.”
Then there’s the growing interest among students, the sector of American visitors that has grown the most in Cuba –118% in the first half of the year– given that conventional tourism is still prohibited by the US blockade, Diario de Cuba, half-financed by the governments of the United States and Spain, wrote: “There are signs that students and retirees (from the U.S.) plan to cancel their trips to the island”, since neither “Washington nor Havana have been able to prevent the attacks, which could generate an uncontrollable crisis”. El Nuevo Herald, a mouthpiece for the extreme right-wing Cubans in Miami, assured its readers that Raúl Castro is turning a diplomatic crisis into an economic, potentially destabilizing one.
Agencies and media collaborated in this way with the objective of the White House that came to life on September 29. That was when, recognizing that ti was “not aware” of the origin of the supposed acoustic attacks, it officially recommended not traveling to the island.
“Coming from the government of a country where every year 30,000 people die by firearms, more than a thousand by police, and 31% of the world’s mass shootings are recorded, this alarm seems like a joke in bad taste,” says Manzaneda.
The extreme-right of Cuban origin of the Republican party, which, in exchange for its vote on other matters, already manages Donald Trump’a Cuba policy. It seeks to reverse the growth experienced through the trips of Americans to the island and damage the income from them which it brings to the Cuban economy.
In line with this campaign, the conservative Washington Examiner asked the House of Representatives to demand that Cuba “evaluate security at its ten international airports.” This is an inadmissible interference that seeks to reduce the number of visitors from the US, in this case by canceling the regular flights authorized by the Obama
administration.
However, RESPECT, the largest US association of travel promoters in Cuba, rejected –as unnecessary and counterproductive– the “security warning” issued by the State Department, arguing that Cuba is a “safe destination.”
The Spanish newspaper El País followed with an interview with Thomas Shannon, US Undersecretary of State. He held Cuba responsible for everything that had happened, but without clarifying what he was referring to, and without contributing any element to such an unusual story. Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s current spoiled scion, seems to be, according to analysts, the one who is behind the nefarious campaign about “sonic attacks” in Cuba.
Everything indicates that, now, the tactic chosen by the right, at the service of imperialism, is to generate fear more than to legislate against Cuba. This is because, since for the former they have the concurrence –conscious or unconscious– of powerful international agencies and media, so much so that, for the second, they run the risk of increasing the division in the Republican ranks in Congress. Let it be known then that all this diabolical mischief of sonic attacks is nothing more than another element of the blockade against Cuba that this past November 1, was condemned almost unanimously by the world community in the UN for the 26th consecutive year. November 2 of 2017.

Advertisements

FIFTY YEARS SINCE THE OCTOBER MISSILE CRISIS

FIFTY YEARS SINCE THE OCTOBER MISSILE CRISIS
By Manuel E. Yepe

Translated and edited for CubaNews by Walter Lippmann.
http://walterlippmann.com/fifty-years-since-the-october-missile-crisis/

For the average American citizen, and most of humanity subjected to the US media dictatorship, the origin of the Missile Crisis in October 1962 is that the Soviet Union decided to place missiles with atomic warheads in Cuba to threaten U.S.

But in order to understand the reason for the October Crisis, it is necessary to assess its antecedents. This is because, in the different versions of the circumstances one can understand the real reasons for the presence of the missiles in Cuba and, without that, it is not possible to understand the crisis itself.

It was the continued aggression of the United States against the island and the dangers that these actions foreshadowed because of Kennedy’s conviction that Cuba had to be charged on a large scale by the defeat of Playa Giron, where the extreme cause of tensions between the two countries.

The leadership of the Cuban revolution accepted the installation of the rockets as a measure to make Washington relinquish its plans for extreme violence against Cuba. They were convinced that in doing so they complied with a principle of internationalist solidarity with the socialist camp and, in particular, with the USSR.

On October 16, 1962, Washington drew up plans to militarily occupy Cuba and establish an interim government led by a “military commander and governor” of the United States during the 1962 missile crisis, according to recently declassified government documents issued one week by the National Security Archive (NSA) of George Washington University.

Proclamation number one of the Military Government that would have been constituted would establish that “every person who is in the occupied territory must obey immediately and without questions all the laws and orders promulgated by the military government”. He warned that “resistance to the United States Armed Forces will be punished with force. Offenders will be treated severely. ” He said, however, that “those who remain peaceful and fulfill all the orders of the military command, will be subjected to a repression no greater that prescribed by the military exigencies”.

The proclamation stated that “once Castro’s aggressive regime is completely destroyed” and Washington has installed a new government “that responds to the needs of the people of Cuba”, US forces “will withdraw and the traditional friendship of the United States and the government of Cuba will be assured once again. “

Cuban and American historians are preparing a book to be published by Editorial GEO, from the Cuban History Institute, with abundant original documents and maps. It’s edited by American journalists William Burr and Peter Kornbluh, who provide abundant information about that event which put the world on the brink of a third world war.

To prepare the Cuban population for the invasion, the US military planned to launch thousands of leaflets on Cuban cities and fields. Initially the leaflets would report that “the US military has temporarily taken over their country.” Then they would warn the population that “they should stay inside their houses” because “everything that moves will be considered a target of our bullets.”

On 28 October, final preparations for the US invasion and occupation of Cuba were halted when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced that he was withdrawing the missiles from the island. That decision was, according to US media sources, the result of a secret agreement, under which the Soviet missiles in Cuba would be withdrawn in exchange for President Kennedy’s commitment to remove US Jupiter missiles from Turkey.

“The settlement of the missile crisis certainly avoided what would have become the bloodiest military confrontation in Latin American history, between the ‘Northern Colossus’ and a revolutionary Caribbean nation,” according to Peter Kornbluh, who heads the Cuba documentation project at the National Security Archives.

Ignored by the US intelligence community, according to Kornbluh, was the fact that, “in addition to intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Soviets had transported tactical field nuclear weapons to Cuba and planned to deploy them against an invading US force.”

Documents related to the Cuban occupation were recently obtained by the NSA-accredited archival analyst, William Burr, by formulating a series of petitions to the United States Navy, as established for the Re-declassification Requests Mandatory (MDR).

October 20, 2017.

FIFTY YEARS SINCE THE OCTOBER MISSILE CRISIS

FIFTY YEARS SINCE THE OCTOBER MISSILE CRISIS
By Manuel E. Yepe

For the average American citizen, and most of humanity subjected to the US media dictatorship, the origin of the Missile Crisis in October 1962 is that the Soviet Union decided to place missiles with atomic warheads in Cuba to threaten U.S.

But in order to understand the reason for the October Crisis, it is necessary to assess its antecedents. This is because, in the different versions of the circumstances one can understand the real reasons for the presence of the missiles in Cuba and, without that, it is not possible to understand the crisis itself.

It was the continued aggression of the United States against the island and the dangers that these actions foreshadowed because of Kennedy’s conviction that Cuba had to be charged on a large scale by the defeat of Playa Giron, where the extreme cause of tensions between the two countries.

The leadership of the Cuban revolution accepted the installation of the rockets as a measure to make Washington relinquish its plans for extreme violence against Cuba. They were convinced that in doing so they complied with a principle of internationalist solidarity with the socialist camp and, in particular, with the USSR.

On October 16, 1962, Washington drew up plans to militarily occupy Cuba and establish an interim government led by a “military commander and governor” of the United States during the 1962 missile crisis, according to recently declassified government documents issued one week by the National Security Archive (NSA) of George Washington University.

Proclamation number one of the Military Government that would have been constituted would establish that “every person who is in the occupied territory must obey immediately and without questions all the laws and orders promulgated by the military government”. He warned that “resistance to the United States Armed Forces will be punished with force. Offenders will be treated severely. ” He said, however, that “those who remain peaceful and fulfill all the orders of the military command, will be subjected to a repression no greater that prescribed by the military exigencies”.

The proclamation stated that “once Castro’s aggressive regime is completely destroyed” and Washington has installed a new government “that responds to the needs of the people of Cuba”, US forces “will withdraw and the traditional friendship of the United States and the government of Cuba will be assured once again. “

Cuban and American historians are preparing a book to be published by Editorial GEO, from the Cuban History Institute, with abundant original documents and maps. It’s edited by American journalists William Burr and Peter Kornbluh, who provide abundant information about that event which put the world on the brink of a third world war.

To prepare the Cuban population for the invasion, the US military planned to launch thousands of leaflets on Cuban cities and fields. Initially the leaflets would report that “the US military has temporarily taken over their country.” Then they would warn the population that “they should stay inside their houses” because “everything that moves will be considered a target of our bullets.”

On 28 October, final preparations for the US invasion and occupation of Cuba were halted when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced that he was withdrawing the missiles from the island. That decision was, according to US media sources, the result of a secret agreement, under which the Soviet missiles in Cuba would be withdrawn in exchange for President Kennedy’s commitment to remove US Jupiter missiles from Turkey.

“The settlement of the missile crisis certainly avoided what would have become the bloodiest military confrontation in Latin American history, between the ‘Northern Colossus’ and a revolutionary Caribbean nation,” according to Peter Kornbluh, who heads the Cuba documentation project at the National Security Archives.

Ignored by the US intelligence community, according to Kornbluh, was the fact that, “in addition to intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Soviets had transported tactical field nuclear weapons to Cuba and planned to deploy them against an invading US force.”

Documents related to the Cuban occupation were recently obtained by the NSA-accredited archival analyst, William Burr, by formulating a series of petitions to the United States Navy, as established for the Re-declassification Requests Mandatory (MDR).

October 20, 2017.

CHÁVEZ WAS TO BOLÍVAR AS FIDEL WAS TO MARTÍ

CHÁVEZ WAS TO BOLÍVAR AS FIDEL WAS TO MARTÍ
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Distant in time but so similar in their ideas that the dates cannot separate their lives, Bolívar and Marti were born, as if by history’s mandate, to serve the noblest ideals of the emancipation of Latin America. Three–quarters of a century after Simon Bolívar’s death, Jose Marti warned that what the Liberator had not been able to do was yet to be done, and so he dedicated his enormous talent to it and gave his life for it.
Cuba’s national hero soon realized that America was not what the great Venezuelan had dreamed of. He knew that the misery and inequality of the continent stemmed from the unjust administration of the freedom that the great Bolívar had won for America.
Bolívar and Marti dreamed, each in his time, of the impregnable union and integration of the peoples that had won independence from Spain. The Gran Colombia unveiled to Bolívar as much as to Marti the idea of uprooting from the Cubans the divisions that had ruined the 10–year War “in order to avoid, through the independence of Cuba, that the United States would fall, with full force, on the peoples of our America.” Marti founded the Cuban Revolutionary Party to correct that evil, which would, like a merger of wills lead to Cuban independence from Spain. That is why he remembered Bolívar when he repeatedly spoke in his effort to add consciousness and arms to the will for
independence.
Thanks to the unity that Marti had forged in the revolutionary ranks, when the United States –without being called upon by the Cubans to do so– intervened in Cuba’s war for independence. A Cuban victory was near and inevitable; the patriotic sentiments in the island were too strong to be ignored. The seed of Marti’s patriotism had germinated and its fruitfulness could not be frustrated by converting Cuba into a colony, not even by means of pseudo-independence.
In his longing for freedom, for a Cuba that was still enslaved, Marti remembered Bolívar, more than half a century after his death, as “a truly extraordinary man”. Martí wondered, for himself and his audience, what place the Liberator would hold in Hispanic American history.
Almost a century after Marti’s founding of the Cuban Revolutionary Party, and almost two years after the birth of the Liberator, in 1982, Venezuelan captain Hugo Chávez endorsed the words of the Cuban apostle when he said “Bolívar still has something to do in America”, referring to Bolívar ‘s unfinished work on the continent.
“Because what Bolívar did not do, remains without being done today,” emphasized captain Hugo Chavez. And he went on: “But there sits Bolivar , watchful and frowning, on the rock of creation in the sky of America, with the Inca beside him, and the bundle of flags at his feet. There he is, still wearing his campaign boots… “
Where will Bolívar go? Marti had asked many decades before. And the answer seems to have been heard clearly by the young and idealistic Captain Hugo Chavez: “Arm in arm with men, to defend the land where humanity will be most blessed and beautiful, from the new greed and the stubborn old spirit!”
On the 109th anniversary of José Marti’s death in combat, on May 19, 2004, Hugo Chavez, then president of Venezuela, recalled the decision that accompanied the Cuban hero “building the homeland that was stolen and denied to us many times”.
Chavez, while imprisoned in the barracks in Venezuela, was able to read Martí, and the imprint of the Cuban leader was marked in his soul. He showed the imprint that the Cuban apostle left on him when he acknowledged in him, “a value bordering on audacity, temerity and glory. Marti had never fought in wars, arms in hand, but it was he who armed the Revolution, traveled the Caribbean, even the United States, seeking support. He brought together ideas and logistics, united the different trends that existed in Cuba; but, as he had not fought until then, he wanted to go to fight … “.
And fighting, he gave his life to his homeland, not without first confessing –in an unfinished letter to his Mexican friend Manuel Mercado– that all that he had done in his life with his life was to prevent, with Cuba’s independence, that the United States fell, with all its great force on the nations of “our America”.
On July 26, 1953, Fidel Castro credited Marti, with the merit of having conceived, organized and directed the assault on the Moncada Barracks. This opened the revolutionary process that led to today’s Cuban reality. Similarly, the call to the Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement, coming from the hand and mind of Hugo Chavez, brought a new hope for Latin America which has always recognized Bolívar as its true promoter.
September 28, 2017.

SOVIET OCTOBER IN YANKEE IMAGINATION

SOVIET OCTOBER IN YANKEE IMAGINATION
By Manuel E. Yepe

Translated and edited for CubaNews by Walter Lippmann.
http://walterlippmann.com/soviet-october-in-the-yankee-imagination/

A century after the seizure of power by the Bolshevik Party led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Leon Trotsky, the current validity of the ideas of the Russian Revolution of October 1917 can be seen in the orientation of the struggles waged by the peoples of the whole against capitalist exploitation.

October cleared the roads to human liberation that Marxism had identified and discovered in other new ways. It led the nation to achieve great successes in economic, politics, culture, social justice and defense, to make backward Russia a world power in a short time.

October allowed the efforts and sacrifices of the peoples of the Soviet Union to reach the level of economic, military and scientific development that brought about a bipolarity of the world in which the nations of the planet could rest their hopes of progress. The United States was no exception.

In January 1919, Lenin invited the left wing of the Socialist Party of America (SPA) to join the newly-created Communist International in Moscow. In the spring of that year this wing took control of the whole party displacing its previous leadership, which was smaller and of social-democratic orientation.

From its origins, the SPA suffered attacks from several state governments and from the US federal government itself. It feared a repeat of the revolts that were taking place on European soil. In the United States, between the end of 1919 and January 1920, the “red terror” led the United States Attorney General to order the arrest of thousands of communists, with the Sedition Act of 1918 as a legal basis.

During the Great Depression of 1929, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) multiplied its pacts with small union groups. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as president also meant the renewal of the unions and increased in them the influence of the CPUSA.

During this period, the CPUSA was distinguished by its defense of the Second Spanish Republic, a victim of the Francoist uprising that led to the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Leftists from all over the world joined to defend the Republic, providing funds for medical care and in many cases volunteering in the International Brigades. The CPUSA provided the first members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which, in addition to supporting the Republican government of Spain, was the first military force made of US-made military force in which blacks and whites were integrated in the same ranks, with the same rights and obligations.

When the United States Communist Party (CPUSA) was formed in 1919, the Washington government had long suppressed the Socialists because they had opposed American intervention in World War I and made a campaign against military service. As of January 1920, the new target of persecution was the communists who began to be massively imprisoned. The CPUSA was forced into hiding and had to change its name several times to avoid arrest of its cadres and militants.

In the 1930s, the FBI persecuted Nazis and Communists under suspicion that they intended to launch an armed revolt against the federal government. In 1940, laws that made it illegal to hold a favorable opinion to overthrow the government came into force.

In 1941, when the United States was about to enter the world war in Europe and Japan, the Roosevelt government accused 29 members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), then political allied with the Fourth International, of sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government. The FBI raided the offices of the SWP and formed a grand jury for the trial. The accused used the process to proclaim their socialist principles from the dock, rejected the imperialist war and refuted the presentation of the socialist revolution as a conspiracy or coup.

The United States’ entry into World War II in December 1941 forced an alliance with the Soviet Union that enabled the recruitment of communist militants into the US military. At the end of the Second World War, in 1945, and the beginning of the Cold War against the USSR, the official US “truce” with the CPUSA ended and an
anti-communist psychosis was exacerbated by the alleged discovery of “Soviet espionage networks” and the denunciation of a growing power of the communists in the industrial trade union sector. Then came the McCarthy or witch-hunt period, one of the most shameful episodes in the legal history of the United States, which included the political murder of the couple Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, of sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government a hate crime that still cries out for justice.

August 31, 2017.

VENEZUELA REJECTS VIOLENCE…AND WINS

VENEZUELA REJECTS VIOLENCE…AND WINS
BY MANUEL E. YEPE
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY WALTER LIPPMANN.
http://walterlippmann.com/venezuela-rejects-violence-and-wins/ For US imperialism and the continental right, July 30th in Venezuela should be a conclusive political lesson. It should also be a lesson for the organizers of the media campaigns against popular processes. Their reliability has been demonstrated by the mass exercise of their rights by a mature and determined population who rejects them. The election on that day of the members of the Constituent National Assembly (ANC), according to the Constitution and the laws of the country, involved an enthusiastic participation of more than 8,090,230 Venezuelans –41.53% of the electoral roll– who said yes to Constituent Assembly and the Bolivarian revolution.
The President of the United States threatened the Venezuelans with an increase in economic sanctions. The election would certainly take place, no doubt assuming that the people, intimidated, would repudiate the democratic act and refrain from participating in it.
But, on the contrary, Trump’s threats and terrorist actions against the voters stimulated their attendance because patriotic motivation was added.
The Bolivarian government called on democratic and peace-loving people to be alert to this new interventionist escalation of US imperialism. They called for a categorical rejection of the violent, fascist, racist and criminal actions of the Venezuelan opposition who are so afraid of this democratic, legal, sovereign, peaceful and civilized act .
For his part, the angry American president, who has been forced to move all his chips at the same time to coincide with other serious clashes unleashed separately against Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. This has led Washington to impose sanctions on Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, according to a statement from the US Treasury Department.
The statement specifies that all assets of President Maduro which are or may be under US jurisdiction will be frozen. In addition, US citizens will be prohibited from any agreement with Maduro. He, in turn, has reiterated that, as President of Venezuela, he does not have to answer to anyone but Venezuela’s women and men.
The Venezuelan president has described the day [of the election] as the “biggest” of the Bolivarian Revolution and has based its success on the option that made the peace proposal his banner of struggle in such complex circumstances.
Maduro stressed that, until the last moment, he kept the doors open for the Venezuelan opposition, which did not cease to call for violence and destabilizing actions on election day. He revealed that a delegation of his government had been meeting for several weeks with opposition leaders. Among these he mentioned the President of the Parliament, Julio Borges, to try to add them to the constituent assembly initiative. “Two weeks ago I proposed to the opposition that they register for the Constituent Assembly. But they did not accept,” said the leader.
“In the last six weeks, there have been direct talks between the delegations of the Democratic Unity Roundtable and a delegation presided over by Jorge Rodríguez, Delcy Rodríguez and Elías Jaua,” head of state Nicolas Maduro announced Saturday.
To reach an agreement to publish a statement approved by all parties of the MUD,” said the First Minister. He added that the leadership of the right “wanted to be registered before the National Electoral Council (CNE) for the elections of governors and governors. I called on them to get into the Constituent Assembly and they were afraid.” The meetings held were kept hidden at the request of the opposition sector.
President Maduro spoke at Bolívar Plaza in the city of Caracas, after the National Electoral Council (CNE) issued the first bulletin with results. The Venezuelan president stated that the Constituent National Assembly had been born amid great popular legitimacy. “Not only does the Constituente have power, but it has the strength of legitimacy, the moral force of a people who heroically, warlike, came out to vote, to say: we want peace and tranquility,” said Maduro.
“The newly-elected Constituent Assembly had the support of a people who were not intimidated by the destabilizing climate that the Venezuelan opposition intended to create. It is the largest vote that the Revolution has had in all electoral history. The one who has eyes that sees and the one who has ears that hear,” said the president. July 31, 2017.

Manuel E. Yepe. VENEZUELA ON THE CUBAN ROAD

VENEZUELA ON THE CUBAN ROAD
By Manuel E. Yepe
https://englishmanuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann

“Venezuela may be marching along the Cuban road, according to congressmen” is the title given by NBC-News to Suzanne Gamboa’s article dated Washington D.C. On July 19, 2017, citing words from New Jersey Democratic senator Bob Menendez, a vehement promoter of the genocidal blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba for more than half a century.
“Castro has condemned his own people to poverty, hunger and immense suffering, while accumulating wealth and power,” this corrupt politician declared, without blushing. He’s had a criminal trial for corruption pending since 2015 that has seriously disturbed his political career in U.S. The trial against Menéndez is scheduled for the period in which the election process will take place that will elect his replacement in a Senate seat the Democratic party does not want to lose. This has led Menéndez to conceal, as far as possible, his legal situation.
Many of the members of the US Congress who are now focusing their attention on the situation in Venezuela are of Cuban descent. It is not that they were born on the island but that they were formed in the heat of hatred for the island’s national independence and socialism. The extreme right of the United States and the oligarchies across the continent have played a key role in this struggle. Many are from Florida, Texas and New York, where the largest population of Venezuelan immigrants can be found.
Another American politician who has a leading role in the development of the current US right-wing campaign against Venezuela because of it’s winning back positions won in recent decades by the continent’s anti-imperialist left. That is Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida.
Rubio played a significant role in the maneuver of the Venezuelan pro-imperialist opposition –which ended in failure two weeks ago– to call on Venezuelans to participate in an illegal “plebiscite”, which –except in the extremely pro-imperialist milieus– was totally obscured by the effort by the Venezuelan government which confirmed broad popular support for the process of choosing the Constituent Assembly on July 30.
Marco Rubio gained notoriety for his participation in the show recently starring President Trump in Miami to announce the
implementation of new US government provisions against Cuba. He gave those of Cuban for several years to take financially approve the U.S. establishment’s multi-million dollar campaign of hatred against Cuba. With this, he moved up in the ranks of his party and gained strong economic support until arriving at the first ranks of national policy like the “Cuban-American of extreme right”. He was among the possible Republican candidates for the presidency and lost in a hard race against the current president, Donald Trump.
Rubio had a serious setback when, at a certain moment in the representation of a false native identity, it was discovered that not only had he not been born in Cuba, but that he had not even been in his alleged country of origin.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, in May 1971, when the Cuban revolution had been in power for more than a decade. His parents were Cuban immigrants who left Cuba in 1956, under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.From a Catholic family, Rubio
made an abrupt switch of faith. After his first Catholic communion in 1984, and his marriage, also Catholic, he became a Mormon, soon afterwards became a Catholic again and later he went to the Baptist church until he returned to Catholicism.
Rubio is in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In 2010, he won a position in the United States Senate as a favorite candidate of the Tea Party movement, a political formation that is located to the right of the political spectrum, but is not formally linked to the Republican party.
His candidacy for the Senate has been tarnished by unfinished investigations into embezzlement of Republican party funds.
He competed for the Republican presidential nomination during the 2016 primaries, until he finally decided to withdraw from the race because of his defeat by politician and tycoon Donald Trump in Florida, the state of which he is a senator.
It is quite logical that in the struggles for its definitive independence there are many similarities between the current political processes of Venezuela and Cuba, as well as between the independence aspirations of all the Latin American countries that have in common the objective of liberating themselves from the condition of semi-colonies of the United States.
July 29, 2017.

AT WHAT MOMENT IS VENEZUELA IN ITS STRUGGLE

AT WHAT MOMENT IS VENEZUELA IN ITS STRUGGLE
By Manuel E. Yepe.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

The opposition called for a plebiscite for the same first Sunday July 1. However it is illegal because it does not have the endorsement of the CNE, the only body legally authorized to carry out any electoral process in the country. It has a subversive character, and was designed to prevent the electoral process for the Constituent Assembly. Neither in the national constitution nor in any other Venezuelan law is the plebiscite a method of popular consultation.

But at what point is the struggle to consolidate the Bolivarian revolutionary process initiated by Hugo Chávez in the
interest of the full assumption by the Venezuelan people of
sovereignty over the natural wealth, history and future of that Caribbean and South American nation?

The National Directorate of the Bolivar and Zamora Revolutionary Current (CRBZ) of the Socialist Party [the PSUV: Partido
Socialista Unido de Venezuela] in a communiqué made public on July 3 in progress declares that the conflict in Venezuela is at a new level, not because of the will of the revolution, but
because it was imposed by the coup plan in progress after two months of unsuccessful coup attempts.

The strategy is drawn up by the US State Department, the US
Defense Department’s Southern Command headquartered in
Miami and the Venezuelan economic and political right. To date, it has been observed using the deployment of different putschist weapons: the communicational, the psychological, the
international, the economic, the institutional, and violence. They have tried and advanced each of them, as part of the fourth generation war, which combines the different forms of war. His greatest weakness has always been the lack of popular support.

It is in the institutional environment in which more work and beat today, betting on eventual fractures in the Chavista block.

Given its lack of popular support, the right has opted to
implement several tactics at a time. One is to push the economy to raise prices, shorten and attack points of food supply and transportation in order to deepen the economic difficulties of humble people to push it to plunder.

Another is based on deploying clashes to siege entire cities for several days, leaving behind a trail of death, destruction,
looting, fire, terror and other images that hit the social
fabric, reports the CRBZ.

The radical aspect of the right-wing war is explained by the despair and the class character of the conflict. They seek
desperately to regain political control and to lapse the
historical project that is the Bolivarian revolution.

“Faced with this scenario, it is essential to maintain the
unity of Chavismo, to defend the revolution not only from the State, but also from the popular protagonism, involving people in the organized protection of institutions, territories, hospitals, food centers. To ensure that doctors, workers, comuneros and neighbors, take care of their spaces so that the right does not destroy what the people have built in the exercise of
participatory democracy and safeguard their conquests for so many years.

The other great purpose of Chavismo is to arrive on July 30, having started a process of participation and debate around the National Constituent Assembly. “We must activate
assemblies in the territories, recreate politics from the
grassroots, listen to criticism, build spaces for exchange that are not only to applaud leaders and repeat the same. That
exercise will allow us to call the vote to the majorities on July 30 and have better conditions to face the next steps. “

Chavismo proposes to provide urgent answers to the material
demands of people: gas, price stabilization, supply, drugs. And not from an electoral perspective, but from the imperative need to respond to needs that multiply in the territories and that are breeding ground for discontent, abstention and depoliticization.

“We are in a decisive month,” the Chavistas reckon,
“the right, by US design, will do everything possible to
attempt its final assault. The revolution has the strength to resist and keep moving forward. It is necessary to use all those forces, in particular that of the protagonism of the people“.

July 17, 2017.

A TRADITION OF SLANDER AGAINST RUSSIA

A TRADITION OF SLANDER AGAINST RUSSIA
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.

A rich journalistic work by Edward S. Herman, was published by Monthly Review in its July-August 2017 issue. It provides abundant information about the campaign to demonize Russia that has been a central goal of the New York Times (NYT) and the United States media as a whole for a century.
False news about Russia is a tradition that goes back, at least, to the period of the October 1917 Revolution. In a study of New York Times and the mainstream US media (MSM) coverage, of the Russian revolution, the then-prestigious journalists Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, both conservatives, wrote in March 1920 New that, “from the point of view of professional journalism, the disclosure about the Russian revolution has been little What a disaster “.
Lippmann and Merz showed the strong editorial bias in the news as evidence that the editors wanted the defeat of the Communists. In pursuit of that impression, they denounced atrocities that had not happened and predicted the imminent collapse of the Bolsheviks at least 91 times. There was an uncritical acceptance by the official parties, and confidence in the statements of some unidentified “higher authorities”.
This lying manipulation of the news became usual practice in the NYT between 1917 and 1920 was often repeated in subsequent years. The Soviet Union became the enemy target until World War II, and the NYT was always hostile to Russia. At the end of World War II, and since the Soviet Union was an important military power that would soon be a rival of the United States in the use of nuclear energy for military purposes, the Cold War began.
According to Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus of the University of Pennsylvania, “Anti-communism became the American religion and the Soviet Union began to be accused of aspiring to conquer the world and in to be in need of containment. With this ideology set out and well-established by US plans for its own global expansion, the Communist threat would now serve to justify the sustained growth of its military-industrial complex and its repeated interventions to counter the alleged aggressions of the so-called “evil empire”. One of the first and most flagrant cases of lies about this type of Russian threat was used to justify the overthrow of Guatemala’s legitimate progressive government in 1954. This was conducted by a mercenary army funded, organized and led by the United States that invaded the country from Nicaragua, then ruled by the dictatorship of the Somozas, who were faithful servants of the United States. Herman explains that “the action was prompted by the reforms of the government of Jacobo Arbenz which had the audacity to pass a law that allowed the formation of trade unions, and planned to buy (based on their tax declarations) and distribute to farmers some untilled land that was owned by United Fruit and other large landowners. The United States, which had supported the previous dictatorship of Jose Ubico during its 14 years, could not withstand this democratic challenge. The elected government, led by Jacobo Arbenz, was immediately accused of a series of evil deeds, and harassed for having favored taking the Guatemalan government down the Moscow road.
After Arbenz’s overthrow, a right-wing dictatorship faithful to Washington’s dictates in the country was installed. Historian Ronald Schneider, after studying more than 50,000 documents seized from purportedly-communist sources in Guatemala. He demonstrated before a court that, not only had the Communists never controlled the country, but the Soviet Union was too preoccupied with its internal problems to care about Central America.
In 2011, more than half a century later, Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom had to apologize for the “great crime of the violent overthrow of the Arbenz government in 1954 …”. However, there has never been an apology or even recognition by the United States of its role In the great crime, nor by the NYT’s editors for their complicity. During the war against Vietnam, there was an infinite number of false and misleading news stories in the NYT, as in the American press in general, whose editorial lines were systematically supportive of the politics of war.
The situation recently created around alleged links with Russia in the Trump campaign indicates that the Pentagon, the CIA, the liberal Democrats and the rest of the members of the war party have won a major skirmish in the fight for or against permanent war, says Herman. July 20, 2017.

Memories of a Mercenary

MEMORIES OF A MERCENARY
By Manuel E. Yepe

http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation by Walter Lippmann.
http://walterlippmann.com/memories-of-a-mercenary/

In recent days, a book written by a Cuban who has been a mercenary in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been published in the United States and has played dissimilar roles in that criminal organization’s actions not only in the Washington battle against his Home country, but also to other infamous plans of the agency in other parts of the world and in the United States, including the latter, to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The American magazine Newsweek, in its May 28, 2017 issue, publishes a review by journalist Jefferson Morley on the book “Trained to Kill: The CIA Secrets about His Plans Against Castro, Kennedy and Che,” written by his ex Operative agent Antonio Veciana.

The terrorist “exploits” of this mercenary were widely known in Cuba and recognized by the American press, but the value of the infamies confessed by Veciana is that he adds elements to the multiple versions of the CIA’s leading role in the assassination of Kennedy .

According to Veciana, in 1960, he worked as an official of the Cuban government when, having already tried to subvert it from within, he stole official funds and used the money to finance attacks against government offices, factories and warehouses.

Two years later, he used his position in the government to distribute propaganda falsely announcing that the government planned to take custody of school-age children with the purpose of provoking panic in Cuban families and having some send their children to the United States , where they would be welcomed by the Catholic Church in South Florida. The operation was called Peter Pan, it separated 14,000 Cuban children from their families and was described in the press as “a disinterested effort to rescue the victims of communist oppression.”

Controller of Veciana for the operation was “Maurice Bishop” whose real name was David Atlee Phillips, who would become Head of the Division of the CIA for the Western Hemisphere until his retirement in 1975.

After the failure of Bay of Pigs, at Playa Girón, Phillips expressed his contempt for Kennedy, explains Veciana. After JFK’s peaceful conclusion to the missile crisis, Phillips created Alpha-66, a terrorist organization to attack Cuban targets that became a CIA instrument to pressure Kennedy with his actions.

In March 1963, Veciana and his group attacked a Russian merchant ship headed for Cuba, generating headlines around the world. Phillips sought to humiliate the Russians and embarrass JFK to take more aggressive action against Cuba. But Kennedy downplayed the issue and “Castro’s enemies, including Phillips, became even more furious,” Veciana says.

Veciana confirms how she met Kennedy’s alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, in the lobby of the Southland Center, the tallest building in Dallas, where he was introduced by Bishop.

“That was full of people, but Bishop, standing in a corner, was talking to a young man, pale, insubstantial. When he introduced me, I do not remember if he did it by his name (he might have said, ‘Tony, this is Lee. Lee, this is Tony.) But what I’m sure of is that Lee did not say anything. “

Following the assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963, Oswald was arrested, and his face was broadcast on television. “I recognized him immediately,” writes Veciana. “He was, without a doubt, the same pale, insignificant young man I had seen eleven weeks before” in the company of Maurice Bishop. “

Veciana recalls that early in 1964 the agency man asked if a cousin of his who was a Cuban intelligence officer would be willing to state that he had conspired with Oswald before JFK was killed. Phillips offered to pay for such testimony, but Veciana replied that his cousin was communist and could not be bought.

A decade later, in 1975, when the JFK investigation was reopened, a congressional investigator, knowing that Veciana had worked for the CIA, approached him to learn more about how the agency collaborated with Cuban exiles. Veciana told her the story of her work with Bishop, including meeting with Oswald. Arrangements were made for an artist to draw a picture of Bishop based on Veciana’s description and the result was a portrait that closely resembled Phillips. Veciana was then taken to Washington for a meeting with Phillips, but he pretended not to know Veciana who, out of fear of reprisals from the CIA denied that Bishop and Phillips were the same person. “A lie that I have maintained until today”, emphasizes Veciana.

Certainly, in the confessions of this bloodthirsty terrorist there are elements that contribute data to the clarification of some half truths and manipulations in the criminal history of the USA.

June 5, 2017.