Remembering Reagan on the 71st anniversary of his 39th birthday: What he did to end tyranny in Cuba

Ronald Wilson Reagan born 110 years ago today on February 6, 1911.

Ronald Reagan was born 110 years ago today in Tampico, Illinois on February 6, 1911. Today, at the Reagan Library the Reagan Foundation broadcast an online celebration observing the 40th President's birthday with a wreath laying ceremony at his tomb. Moments like these give one time to reflect.

My earliest political memories dimly recalled Nixon, and Ford but more complete memories began with the Carter Administration, and the dramatic change that occurred with President Reagan's administration from the afternoon of January 20, 1981 to the morning of January 20, 1989.

In my first year at Florida International University, I had joined the College Republicans, and at the age of 19 on June 29, 1988 at the Omni International Hotel to support the Senate candidacy of Connie Mack an event was held were I was able to meet and listen to President Ronald Reagan, and came away deeply impressed. He gave a wide ranging speech that included foreign policy and meeting with Cuban- American leaders, and he spoke truths that still resonate and hold true today. Below is an excerpt from the speech.

"And let's talk for a moment about foreign policy. Let me offer here a simple, straightforward message: No more Vietnams, no more Nicaraguas, no more Bay of Pigs. Never again! Connie Mack and I stand with the Nicaraguan resistance. We will not rest until we've won for them the full support they need and until they've won for themselves the genuine democracy and freedom for which they've so bravely struggled. By supporting courageous freedom fighters around the world, we're shining a light on the path out from Communism, and nowhere has that light shone brighter than in Afghanistan. And isn't it time we apply the lessons of Afghanistan in Nicaragua and show the same commitment to freedom fighters in our own hemisphere as we do to others in distant lands?

I just came from a meeting with Cuban-American leaders, and I want to tell you what I told them. In Communist Cuba, a man like Armando Valladares is considered a criminal. In the United States, we're honored to have him represent our nation before the world. In Communist Cuba, a man like Ramon Puig is labeled an enemy of the Government. In the United States, he's a respected citizen and a hero. And while Havana spreads communism, terror, and death in Central America, many Cuban-Americans like Dr. Manuel Alzugaray are providing food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance to the victims of Communist aggression.

So, yes, there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Governments of the United States and Cuba; it is the gulf between freedom and tyranny. And as far as this administration is concerned, freedom for Cuba, liberty for her people, is a nonnegotiable demand. And so long as Cuba remains an inhuman Communist dungeon, so long as it exports terrorism and revolution in the Western Hemisphere; has some 60,000 military, secret police, and other personnel propping up brutal Communist dictatorships around the world; and, yes, so long as Cuba is used as the personal instrument of Fidel Castro's violent anti-Americanism -- there cannot and must not be any normalization of relations with Cuba."

Critics of Reagan's policy on Cuba have to downplay both its concrete actions and achievements.

Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981 and re-imposed the Cuba travel ban, toughened economic sanctions undoing Jimmy Carter's detente with Fidel Castro, in 1982 placed the Castro regime on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and started Radio Marti to break through the communist monopoly with uncensored information for Cubans on the island. 

President Reagan was an unapologetic anti-communist who empowered dissidents and engaged in acts of solidarity to underscore their importance.

Ronald Reagan backed the creation of a Radio Free Cuba to break Castro regime's information monopoly over Cubans beginning in 1981. In a 1983 address, President Reagan explained the importance of getting the truth to oppressed peoples:

The Soviets are terrified of the truth. They understand well and they dread the meaning of St. John's words: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." The truth is mankind's best hope for a better world. That's why in times like this, few assets are more important than the Voice of America and Radio Liberty, our primary means of getting the truth to the Russian people.[...]  We've repeatedly urged the Congress to support our long-term modernization program and our proposal for a new radio station, Radio Marti, for broadcasting to Cuba. The sums involved are modest, but for whatever reason this critical program has not been enacted. Today I'm appealing to the Congress: Help us get the truth through. Help us strengthen our international broadcasting effort by supporting increased funding for the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and by authorizing the establishment of Radio Marti.

He signed it into law in October 1983. When it finally went on the air full time in 1985 Radio Free Cuba had come into existence named Radio Marti. This radio station transmitting uncensored information to Cuba marked a before and after inside the island nation. At the time President Reagan hoped that Radio Marti would ''help defuse the war hysteria on which much of current Cuban Government policy is predicated.'' The Hoover Institution in 1989 listed it as one of a 100 conservative victories.

The State Department placed Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism on March 1, 1982 because of the dictatorship's involvement in cocaine trafficking and arms smuggling to communist guerrilla groups in Colombia.

The Reagan Administration pursued engagement both with the Castro regime and the Cuban people, and unlike others, before and after, did not confuse the two. Reagan tasked Ambassador Vernon Walters as his special envoy, sending him in 1982 to meet for six hours with Fidel Castro in Cuba. As was the case with the Soviet Union, the Cuban counterparts took part in a frank discussion that did not sugarcoat the nature of their regime.

25 years after the Castro regime came to power on January 5, 1984 President Reagan addressed the Cuban people over Radio Marti, in its early broadcasts. Below is the message he delivered.

“On behalf of the people of the United States, I would like to extend New Year’s greetings to the people of Cuba.

We know you’re marking a historic anniversary on your island. Twenty-five years ago, during these early January days, you were celebrating what all of us hoped was the dawn of a new era of freedom. Most Cubans welcomed the prospects for democracy and liberty which the leaders of the Cuban revolution had promised.

Such a free and democratic Cuba would have been warmly welcomed by our own people. We’re neighbors in a hemisphere that has been characterized by the quest for human freedom. Government which rests upon the consent of the governed is a cardinal principle that enshrines the dignity of every individual. We share many of the same ideals, especially a common longing for a world of peace and justice. We are both proud peoples, proud of what we’ve achieved through our own efforts.

But tragically, the promises made to you have not been kept. Since 1959 you’ve been called upon to make one sacrifice after another. And for what? Doing without has not brought you a more abundant life. It has not brought you peace… It has not won freedom for your people – freedom to speak your opinions, to travel where and when you wish, to work in independent unions and to openly proclaim your faith in God…

In the meantime, over half a million of your fellow citizens have migrated to the United States, where their talents and hard work have made a major contribution to our society. We welcomed them and we’re proud of their success. But we have to wonder: what would Cuba’s economy be like today if those people had been allowed to use their great talent, drive and energy to help you create prosperity on your island?

The most important question remains: Where is Cuba heading? If it were heading towards greater welfare and freedom for your people, that would be wonderful. But we know prisoners of conscience, convicted for their political activities, have been languishing in Cuban prisons, deprived of all freedom for nearly a quarter of a century…

You may not be aware of some of these things… That’s because you are systematically denied access to facts and opinions which do not agree with your government’s official view. But why are your leaders so unwilling to let you hear what others think and say? If the power of truth is on their side, why should they need to censor anyone’s views? Think about that…

The objective of the Radio Martí program will be simple and straightforward: tell the truth about Cuba to the Cuban people. We want you to know what you haven’t been told…

These are not pleasant questions but they deserve answers. I hope you’ll contemplate them with care. At the beginning of this new year, let us hope that the future will be kinder than the past. And may that better future begin soon for all you in Cuba.

Feliz Año Nuevo y que Dios te bendiga [Happy New Year and God bless you].

The Reagan Administration did not stop there, but named former Cuban prisoner of conscience Armando Valladares Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and made human rights in Cuba a priority. Reagan presented an interim report to members of the Cuban American community.

The end result was that for the first and last time Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN Human Rights Commission were able to visit Cuban political prisoners, and assess the human rights situation in the country.

In the 1987 documentary Nobody Listened, directed by Néstor Almendros and Jorge Ulla the world was introduced to Ricardo Bofill, one of the founders of the Cuban human rights movement, and the nonviolent human rights movement overall on the big screen. Dr. Bofill is interviewed and discusses his circumstances as a dissident in Cuba engaged in the battle of ideas:

"I can't understand the hatred towards me. Because, really in the only field I’ve done battle, is the field of ideas. In this field I’ve had no response just prison and the police. And I don’t know why because the revolution controls all mass media. They have editorials, journalists, even many writers in the world. I don’t know why the response, time and again, has been jail. The response should come in the field I fight in, with ideas. I was arrested again in 1983. On that occasion, I was sentenced to 17 years in jail accused of activities in the Cuban Committee for Human Rights and the last period of prison began. For reasons of health and others I know not of in 1985 I was placed in the status I’m now in which is “conditional liberty with restriction of movement.”

Fidel Castro was asked the name of the human rights defender in another interview. The Cuban dictator dismissed his importance, but it is obvious in the context of his answer that he knew very well who this lone activist was, and viewed him as a threat.

President Ronald Reagan received Dr. Ricardo Bofill in Nov 1988.

In 1988 Ricardo Bofill was forced out of the country by the dictatorship, but continued his human rights work from exile in Miami, while Gustavo Arcos remained and continued to represent the movement in Cuba. In late November 1988 he was being received by President Ronald Reagan in the White House.

These are a just a few of the reasons that Cuban Americans fondly remember the 40th President of the United States, and continue to honor his memory.

 

Cubans not exceptional in Latin America. Nicaraguans and Venezuelans are also fleeing communism

Setting the record straight on Cuban exceptionalism

Cubans and Cuban Americans of all ages celebrate Fidel Castro's death in 2016.

The February 5, 2020 article by Rebecca Bodenheimer titled “Analysis: Beyond Cuban exceptionalism and toward the 2020 elections” is “problematic” on several levels and circulating on the internet and needs a response.

First, it misrepresents Cuban-Americans and events in the island. The photograph at the top of the page of her article claims that “Cuban Americans protest Raul Castro leaving office.” The fact of the matter is that Cuban Americans are protesting because Raul Castro remains in power and Miguel Diaz Canel is a puppet and not a real political leader. Hence the protest sign that reads “Raul Castro thwarts the peoples will for self-rule.”

Second, there have been other refugee exoduses in Latin America. There are over 1.272 million Cubans in the United States. It is true that for decades Cubans had been the exception to the rule of immigrants from Latin America. They were political refugees fleeing a communist dictatorship. However, there were also political refugees fleeing Guatemala due to a civil war (involving Marxist guerillas with Cuban aide) between 1960 and 1996 with a total today of 1.364 million Guatemalans. Civil war in El Salvador (again with guerrillas backed by the Castro regime) erupted in the mid-1970s and lasted for 12 years with 1.387 million El Salvadorians now in the United States.

In 1979 when Marxists took over in Nicaragua with the Sandinistas sparking a huge exodus to neighboring countries and to the United States. However, Nicaragua being a smaller country the numbers were smaller than the Cuban exodus. Today there are 405,601 Nicaraguans in the United States, but those numbers will rise with the Ortega regime cracking down on dissent (again with help from the Castro regime). But the Castro takeover in Venezuela, first with Chavez and continued with Maduro, has led to an exodus that dwarfs in absolute numbers, all others with over 3 million in mid-2019 and on track to reach five million. Venezuelans are topping asylum claims to the United States. If you ask Venezuelans you will find that many will point out the negative role of the Castro regime in helping cause this disaster.

Third, Venezuelans are the largest group of refugees fleeing communism in Latin America and seeking asylum in the United States.  Bodenheimer identifies “Cuban migrants” as “one of the largest groups seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border in recent years”, but the top group are Venezuelans. Special programs were created for Cuban refugees because their situation was unique. When one leaves Cuba, especially in the early years of the Castro regime, one was not able to return and their property was confiscated. It did not matter if you rich or poor, you were left with nothing when arriving in the United States after the regime consolidated.

Sadly, Bodenheimer is partially right but for the wrong reasons. Cubans fleeing the island are political refugees fleeing a communist dictatorship, but they are no longer exceptional in the Americas because Nicaraguans, and many more Venezuelans are also fleeing their respective communist regimes. Many of them are also moving to Florida. They also need assistance and special programs to prevent a humanitarian crisis.

Fourth, this is not preferential treatment, but dealing with human tragedies created by communist dictatorships. The U.S. in the past assisted Eastern European refugees, Vietnamese boat people, Cuban refugees, and today should be doing the same with Nicaraguan and Venezuelans refugees.

Fifth, Bodenheimer calls Fidel Castro’s communist regime socialist. Cuba is not Sweden, it has more in common with North Korea.

Ignoring that reality and the negative role it has played and is playing in this hemisphere is seriously problematic. The Castro dictatorship, like their North Korean counterpart, should not be normalized because it has been around for six decades. Bodenheimer plays the race card highlighting the first wave of refugees, which she claims were immigrants, as “wealthy and white,” raising the question of their political status when she says “these Cubans were treated not as economic migrants, but political refugees fleeing a repressive dictatorship.” Nor does she mention that later waves reflected the racial demographics on the island.

Long time allies: Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro in North Korea

Despite her claims, and that of unidentified experts, Cubans continue to suffer under a totalitarian dictatorship that systematically denies them of all their human rights. Furthermore, many Cuban “migrants” are not able to return to their homeland because of arbitrary restrictions of the Castro dictatorship. This is something that Mexicans and most Central Americans (with the possible exception of Nicaraguans) do not have to suffer.

Sixth, Bodenheimer makes the astounding claim that “Cuba is one of the least violent countries in the hemisphere.” Unlike the rest of Central America there is no legal free press in Cuba, and reporting on crime, health epidemics and other matters embarrassing to the regime are forbidden and invite prison and forced exile. How would one know what the actual levels of violence are? We do know that in the past Cubans have been shot by government snipers, their bodies pulled out with gaff hooks by agents of the Castro regime for trying to leave. Cubans on rafts in the high seas have had sand bags dropped on them for trying to leave. We also know that they have sunk a boatload of refugees for trying to leave.

We also know that when a government dissident tried to get a school reopened that she ended up the victim of a machete attack in May 2015, and a friend who warned her that the regime was going to harm her, was also killed. This woman, Sirley Avila Leon, fled Cuba for her life in November 2016.

Sirley Avila Leon lost her hand and use of her knees in 2015

Seventh, the claim that Cuban Americans have not backed other Latin American refugees and migrants is a libelous lie.

The 1997 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act or NACARA was sponsored by Cuban American member of Congress Lincoln Diaz-Balart and co-sponsored by Cuban American members of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Robert Menendez that provided protections to Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans.

Cuban-American members of Congress, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz Balart and Robert Menendez also co-sponsored the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in 1998 that provided protections to Haitian migrants.

Immigration champions: Lincoln Diaz Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Robert Menendez

Eighth, Ms. Bodenheimer’s negative view of Cuban Americans is probably that they view with horror Latin Americans in the United States who wear Che Guevara t-shirts and express a positive view of the Castro dictatorship. This cools victims of the Castro dictatorship to their Latino counterparts. To expect Cuban-Americans not to push back and warn other Latin Americans of this folly is unrealistic.

The author quotes Cuban American sociologist Guillermo Grenier saying that Cubans have never viewed themselves as “illegals.” Question for Ms. Bodenheimer what Latin American migrant self identifies as “illegal”?

Ms. Bodenheimer also tries to frame the Cuban American vote within the immigration debate, ignoring the Obama Administration’s normalization of relations with the Castro dictatorship that involved the freeing of Cuban spies that had murdered four Cuban Americans in 1996.

Furthermore, many Cuban Americans were terrified when President Obama issued a presidential directive in October 2016 that instructed U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the Castro regime’s state security services.  Many remembered the 1998 WASP spy net work and their plan to carry out bombing campaigns and assassinations in South Florida.

This had much more to do with the Cuban American vote for Trump then immigration, and considering that the Democratic candidates today want to return to that policy it is more than likely that the President will do equally as well with Cuban Americans in 2020 or better.


The first individual in 2016 that told me in Spanish: “Sorry John, but Trump has to win was a middle-aged black Cuban who arrived in the United States in the early 2000s.”

Ms. Bodenheimer may want to look at Cuba and Venezuela policy to see what is driving Cuban American voters. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama understood this and ran as pro-sanctions candidates and did well in Florida. Hillary Clinton ran as an anti-sanctions pro-engagement candidate and lost the state.

Cubans are not exceptional, because Nicaraguans also vote Republican because of their anti-communism, and so will many Venezuelans when they get their citizenship.

Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans have a common foe.

The vote by Miami's Cuban Americans was a referendum on Obama's Cuba policy

My last word on the 2016 election

On December 16, 2016 The Miami Herald published a story with a headline reading as a question: Was vote by Miami’s Cuban community a referendum on Obama’s policy?  that was two separate articles in one. The first part contained statements by elected representatives affirming that the Cuban American vote was a referendum on Obama's Cuba policy. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. stated it simply: “Within the Cuban-American community, the presidential election results demonstrate a direct rebuke of Obama’s Cuba policy reversal.”

The rest of the article read like a press release from the anti-Embargo lobby that ignored some essential facts contained within the polls cited. Prior to Donald Trump changing his position on September 17, 2016 from lukewarm support for Obama Cuba policy to promising to roll it back his support ranged from 35 to 37% based on two polls takes months apart. The FIU Cuba Poll was taken between July 11 and August 12, 2016 with a random sample of 1,000 Cuban Americans residing in Miami - Dade County. According to Tim Padgett in his September 15, 2016 article  "FIU Poll Of Miami Cubans Shows Strong Support For Obama Normalization Policy" only 35% of Cuban Americans were going to vote for Donald Trump according to the poll with a margin of error of 3 percent. This number tracks with the 37% support for Donald Trump in the Moreno Poll of 400 likely Miami-Dade Cuban American voters conducted between April 21 - 23, 2016 that had a three point margin of error.

The Bendixen-Amandi poll with +/- 3.99 margin of error conducted between October 15 - 17, 2016 placed Trump's support among Cuban Americans at 47%. I have raised questions in the past about Bendixen - Amandi and their shilling for the anti-embargo crowd, but even here looking at a 10 to 12 point shift demonstrates that the before and after on the Trump Cuba policy shift did have an impact.

Even more telling is what the Clinton campaign did after Trump shifted on Cuba policy airing radio advertisements in early October 2016 accusing Mr. Trump of violating the Cuban embargo.  The Trump candidacy should not be simply compared with previous Republican presidential candidates because the others had supported maintaining sanctions on the Castro regime throughout the entire campaign. Another factor was that with the exception of Kerry in 2004 since 1992 the Democratic candidates for president including Obama in 2008 and 2012 have also supported sanctions. However the actions taken by the Obama Administration on Cuba in October of 2016 placed Cuba on the campaign agenda and Trump's change on Cuba policy created a stark contrast with Hillary Clinton that helped him win more Cuban American votes.

Following the election a precinct analysis looking at where Cuban Americans voted the most in the 2016 election concluded that 58% of Cuban Americans voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. There has been an effort by Cuban Americans who have vigorously supported Obama's Cuba policy to downplay the Cuban American vote and the impact of the new Cuba policy on that vote.

Cuba policy and the 2016 election in Florida

"Soon someone will come out with another push poll telling us Cuban Americans support Obama Cuba policy. Forget polls and watch the elections." - Frank Calzon, over twitter on November 8, 2016

Bay of Pigs Veterans endorsed Donald Trump

The usual suspects are trying to diminish the message sent by Cuban American voters this past Tuesday. The argument made is that Miami-Dade County went massively for Hillary Clinton and at the same time use a poll circulated by the radical National Council of La Raza called Latino Decisions to claim that Cuban Americans voted massively Democrat, but they have an ideological agenda not served by Trump doing better than expected among "Latinos." Furthermore they claim that votes for Trump were not necessarily related to Cuba policy but the facts say otherwise.

First the well respected Pew Research Center placed Latino support for Donald Trump at 29% who outperformed Mitt Romney (who got 27% in 2012). According to exit polls Trump got 54% of the Cuban American vote, but the actual vote may have been higher.

Secondly, the turn out in Miami-Dade County was due to the Hillary Clinton campaign having a fully developed Get Out the Vote Effort and infrastructure that got out more of the vote than Obama in 2012. The Trump campaign did not have that but still Donald Trump in 2016 got slightly more votes than Mitt Romney got in 2012 (333,666 vs 332,981).

However what is left out in this "analysis" is that statewide the margin that won Donald Trump Florida and the presidency was just 119,970 votes. It also ignores how critics of President Obama's Cuba policy won big in Miami-Dade County.

Donald Trump, perhaps looking at the same flawed polls claiming that Cuban Americans supported Obama's Cuba policy gave it luke warm support and in May of 2016 was polling 33% among Cuban Americans. This changed radically in mid September when Mr. Trump contrasted himself from Hillary Clinton promising to overturn Obama's Cuba policy if human rights did not improve on the island. His change on Cuba policy was welcomed by Congressman Mario Diaz - Balart.

How the Hillary Clinton campaign responded during the past two months: downplaying her anti-embargo position, a hit piece in Newsweek and putting out radio ads accusing Trump of violating the Cuban Embargo and partisans going after him with the same message on social media. This was obviously done to peel off Cuban American support. They of course ignored that President Bill Clinton in the 1990s like President Barack Obama today was encouraging businesses to explore business opportunities in Cuba, loosening economic sanctions and shook hands with a Castro.

Today in Florida, I pledged to stand with the people of Cuba and Venezuela in their fight against oppression- cont: https://t.co/8eELqk2wUw

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 8, 2016

Mr. Trump responded by doubling down and pledging his support for a free Cuba and in October he was endorsed by the Bay of Pigs Veteran Association. This was the first time in the organization's history that they had endorsed a presidential candidate. Over twitter both he and Governor Mike Pence tweeted their support for freedom in Cuba.

.@realDonaldTrump will repeal Obama's Executive Orders on Cuba & continue the embargo until there is real political & religious freedom

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) November 5, 2016

The Obama administration issuing a Presidential policy directive on United States-Cuba Normalization on October 14th that called for US intelligence agencies to share information with the Castro dictatorship's secret police outraged many. Add to that the failure of the Obama administration to defend current US law at the United Nations by abstaining in a vote on the Cuban embargo and repeating regime talking points angered many. By October 27, 2016 polls placed the Cuban American vote at 52% which was a 15 point shift.

There was a final factor that was death of Janet Reno on the eve of the election brought back the traumatic Elian Gonzalez episode to many Cuban Americans in Miami. On that same day Mary O'Grady asked in The Wall Street Journal: "Will Obama's Cuba Policy Lose Florida for Clinton?" and the answer a day later was, despite the claims of the anti-embargo lobby and the National Council of La Raza, was an unequivocal yes.

Obama's Cuba policy and Hillary Clinton's strident support for it were profoundly unpopular with Cuban American voters and contributed to a Trump victory in Florida on November 8th.

Like it or not the claims made by some that the Cuban American community had changed and politicians could support rapprochement with the Castro regime and not suffer on election day were wrong and contributed 29 electoral votes to President Elect Donald Trump.

Consider the following breakdown. Pew placed the number of Cuban American voters in 2012 at 771,000. The Associated Press in a video report offered a lower estimate for the Cuban American vote citing a source that said 8% of over 8 million votes in FL would be Cuban American which would total 640,000.

Using the above numbers and looking at the shift in support for Donald Trump in May 2016 when he supported Obama's Cuba policy and was getting between 33% and 37% of the Cuban American vote compared to October 2016 when he rejected the White House's Cuba policy and saw his support rise to 52%.

Lowest range of Cuban American support shifting before and after was 96,000 votes and the highest range was 146,490. The average of the two was 121,245 votes. Considering that Mr. Trump won Florida by just 119,970 and the importance of this shift in the Cuban vote over Cuba policy shows that it was decisive in delivering the 270 electoral votes.

Conclusion: Obama Cuba policy cost Hillary Clinton the White House.

Clinton, Trump, Cuba and the 2016 Election

Trumps words and actions versus Clinton's words and actions on Cuba, the rule of law and the 2016 election

The Cuba embargo has become an issue in the 2016 election

In June of 2014 the New York Post reported on Hillary Clinton’s address to the Council of Foreign Relations while promoting her book, “Hard Choices” where she declared “The embargo is Castro’s best friend,” and that the regime was using it as an excuse” to blames all of its problems on the United States.  

In a previous book, Living History, she describes an exchange with Raul Castro’s wife in 1995 on pages 314-315 offered a different perspective: “I climbed aboard the bus and spotted an empty seat next to an amiable-looking lady with white hair. She looked familiar but I couldn’t remember who she was. Probing for clues, I asked her how long it had taken her to reach Paraguay (which would give me an idea of her country’s geographical location) and how things were going in her homeland:  “Fine,” she said stone-faced. “Except for the embargo.” I had managed to seat myself next to Vilma Espin, Fidel Castro’s sister-in-law who was representing him at the Conference.”

The dictatorship viscerally wants all sanctions eliminated in order to be completely legitimized internationally and to obtain additional financial credits. The claim that the Castro regime wants the embargo to continue is an absurdity when one considers that all the spies for the Cuban dictatorship uncovered by U.S. counter-intelligence were pushing an anti-embargo agenda within the U.S. government, academy and media.

Secretary Clinton might want to ask herself why her brother in law Roger Clinton was paid $30,000 by Cuba Travel Services in 2000 to lobby his brother, President Clinton to loosen government restrictions on travel to Cuba. Roger Clinton may have violated the law when he failed to register as a lobbyist in this matter.

A close Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe, in 2010 traveled to Cuba to do business with the dictatorship, but could not produce the paperwork with the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to obtain a license to travel to Cuba, saying they no longer had copies. At the time when journalists requested copies of the paperwork from OFAC they were told by an OFAC spokesman that "the office does not comment on specific licenses."  Apparently an exception was made with Donald Trump.

When Secretary Clinton on July 31, 2015 went to Florida International University to make a speech in which she called for the lifting of the embargo on the Castro regime stating “Engagement is not a gift to the Castros – it’s a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession – it’s a beacon. Lifting the embargo doesn’t set back the advance of freedom – it advances freedom where it is most desperately needed,” she failed to make a simple gesture. A few hundred yards from where the former Secretary of State spoke there was a monument to the thousands of victims of the Castro regime, but she did not visit it.

History contradicts her analysis. The only time the Castro regime permitted the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Cuban prisons, and Amnesty International to visit Cuba was in the late 1980s after Ronald Reagan took a hard line on human rights violations in Cuba at the United Nations, rolled back the Carter Administration’s 1977 opening of the travel embargo in 1982, toughened economic sanctions, and began broadcasting uncensored news to Cuba over Radio Marti.  

The Clinton Administration engaged in unilateral concessions to the Castro regime and ended up with a mass exodus in 1994, a worsening human rights situation in Cuba, four young humanitarians murdered in an act of state terrorism over international airspace ordered by Fidel and Raul Castro on February 24, 1996. Despite all of this Bill Clinton refused to enforce the law tightening sanctions in 1996 in response to the shoot down, shook hands with Fidel Castro in 2000 and opened up trade with the Castro regime. In 2015 former President Clinton warmly greeted and met with Raul Castro despite his role in the murder of American citizens.

Some of what Newsweek missed in their Cuba reporting and the 2016 election

Meanwhile the Obama policy that Hillary Clinton championed in 2014 and 2015 has not had the desired results.  Human rights violations are at record levels in Cuba, there is a mass exodus of Cubans fleeing the island not seeing a future there  with the U.S. legitimizing the regime and assisting in a generational succession, and the U.S. is more isolated than ever in Latin America with its embrace of the Castro regime alienating it from democrats. The Colombian peace initiative, backed by the Obama administration, mediated by Raul Castro in Havana was rejected by the Colombian people in a national vote. The situation in Venezuela has descended into crisis as Nicaragua slides into dictatorship.

Not to mention that what Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration call “engagement” and advancing freedom” in practice has meant American companies such as Starwood trafficking in stolen properties, and Cuban Americans discriminated against by American corporations such as Carnival and American Airlines to satisfy the whims of the Castro dictatorship. Unfortunately opening up business with the Castro dictatorship has been a long term objective of Hillary Clinton most likely pushed on her by her donors. 

These positions have had consequences in the 2016 election in Florida after Mr. Trump switched positions on Cuba policy, abandoning his previous support of the Obama administration in this area.

Young millennials at Florida International University in Miami were outside picketing against Secretary Clinton protesting her anti-embargo speech on July 31, 2015 and harassed by the police, who did not want the youthful protesters to be visible, and tried unsuccessfully to corral them in a designated protest zone. Nevertheless an FIU poll appeared on September 14, 2016 claiming that a majority of Cuban Americans no longer supported the embargo.

Two days later on September 16, 2016 Donald Trump announced that he would roll back the unilateral concessions made by the Obama administration and tighten the economic embargo if the human rights situation didn’t dramatically improve and all political prisoners freed. Havana rejected the offer. Polls began to tighten in Florida and crowds of Cuban Americans met with candidate Trump in Little Havana chanting his name. It was a good start after spending more than a year on the same page as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Cuba policy.

One sided hit piece on Trump ignored Clinton's Castro connections

This appears to have led the Clinton campaign to mount an offensive to block what inroads Mr. Trump could make in the Cuban community that could make the difference in a tight race in Florida.

Less than two weeks later on September 29^th Newsweek broke a story that Trump may have violated the embargo in 1998 and Hillary Clinton began attacking him with radio advertisements, without mentioning her own anti-embargo position. Nor did she mention that Trump enterprises in 1998 like many businesses today hired a consulting firm to explore opportunities in Cuba because the Clinton administration was encouraging it at the time. Mr. Trump began to lose ground in Florida to Secretary Clinton when he did not provide context to the events of 1998 in a sustained manner. Meanwhile staunch Cuba embargo supporter Senator Marco Rubio is doing much better in the polls.

All of this may explain why many Cuban exile leaders have not taken the red meat dished out by the Clinton Campaign. At the same time Cuban Americans maintain a healthy dose of skepticism with both campaigns, but unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has a track record not just of words but also actions that could impact her support among Cuban Americans, but this would require a Trump campaign in Florida that could seize the initiative and so far that has not happened. Meanwhile the members of the Latin American Builders Association have endorsed Secretary Clinton despite the above facts.

However, this obvious manipulation by the Clinton campaign can be quickly neutralized by the Trump campaign by a sustained advertising campaign highlighting on Spanish radio and TV in the South Florida market the contrast between him and Secretary Clinton on this issue. This would place Secretary Clinton in the unenviable position of either continuing to support the Obama administration Cuba policy's many failures or distancing herself from it with a pledge to empower Cubans and not the Castro dictatorship as the current policy does. 

In the post-mortem of this election the Cuban American vote in South Florida will be worthy of study and analysis.