nav-left cat-right
cat-right

Michael Moore Salutes Our “Hispanic” Veterans

When Japan’s ferocious General Tomoyuki Yamashita (“The Tiger of Malaya”) finally emerged from his headquarters on Luzon to surrender on September 2nd 1945 he handed his pistol, samurai sword and battle flag to the nearest U.S. soldier he saw. This was staff sergeant Manuel Perez-Garcia of the 32nd Infantry Division. Perez-Garcia was born in Cuba but immigrated to the U.S. after Pearl Harbor to join the U.S. Army and volunteer for combat.

At war’s end the 82nd Airborne presented a special trophy to the U.S. soldier who had racked up the most enemy kills in the Pacific theater. Today that trophy sits prominently in Miami’s Bay of Pigs Museum, donated by the man who won it, WWI and Bay of Pigs veteran Manuel Perez Garcia (who started with the 82nd but fought in the Pacific with the 32nd.) The trophy sits alongside Yamashita’s samurai sword and battle flag—and  the three purple hearts, three bronze stars and three silver stars Mr Perez-Garcia earned in the Pacific.

Upon the Communist invasion of South Korea in June of 1950, Manuel Perez-Garcia rallied to the U.S. colors again, volunteering for the U.S. army again at age 41. It took a gracious letter from President Harry Truman himself to explain that by U.S. law Manuel was slightly overaged but mostly that, “You, sir, have served well above and beyond your duty to the nation. You’ve written a brilliant page in service to this country.” Mr Perez-Garcia’s son, Jorge, however was the right age for battle in Korea and stepped to the fore. He joined the U.S. army, made sergeant and died from a hail of Communist bullets while leading his men in Korea on May 4th 1952.

When Perez Garcia was 51 years old the Quisling Castro brothers in partnership with Soviet proxy Che Guevara were rapidly converting his native country into a Soviet satrapy. So Manuel volunteered for combat again, in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

At the time, Cuba’s enraged campesinos had risen in arms by the thousands as Castro and Che started stealing their land to build Soviet Kolkhozes, and murdering all who resisted. Alarmed by the savage insurgency, Castro and Che sent a special emissary named Flavio Bravo whimpering to their sugar-daddy Khruschev. “We are on a crusade against kulaks like you were in 1930,” whimpered this old–line Cuban Communist party member.

In short order, Soviet military “advisors,” still flush from their success against their own campesinos in the Ukrainian Holocaust were rushed to Cuba.

This anti-Stalinist rebellion 90 miles from U.S. shores and  involving ten times the number of rebels, ten times the casualties and lasting twice as long as the puerile skirmish against Batista, found no intrepid U.S. reporters anywhere near Cuba’s hills. What came to be known as The Bay of Pigs invasion was originally planned as a link-up with the Cuban resistance of the time, which was more numerous (per-capita) than the French resistance before D-Day.

At the bloody beachhead now known as the Bay of Pigs, Manuel Perez-Garcia gave the Castroites a thrashing as bad as he’d given the Japanese. These Cuban freedom-fighters battled savagely against a Soviet-trained and led force 10 times theirs’ size, inflicting casualties of 20-to-1. “They fought magnificently—and they were NOT defeated!” stressed their trainer Marine Col. Jack Hawkins, a multi-decorated veteran of Bataan, Iwo Jima and Inchon. “They simply ran out of ammunition after being abandoned by their sponsor the U.S. Government.”

“WIMPS!” sneers Michael Moore about Bay of Pigs veterans in his book “Downsize This”, “Ex-Cubans with a yellow stripe down their backs– and crybabies too!”

“Florida’s Cubans” continues Michael Moore in his book, “Downsize This,” are responsible for “sleaze in American politics. In every incident of national torment that has deflated our country for the past three decades…Cuban exiles are always present and involved.”

To fight America’s enemies, Cuban-American Manuel Perez-Garcia and his son were shipped thousands of miles to distant continents. When Senor Perez-Garcia  tried fighting an enemy every bit as rabid and murderous as Tojo or Kim Il Sung but only 90 miles away—and who had converted Perez-Garcia’s homeland into a island prison, a Soviet colony and daily playground for Che Guevara’s firing squads—he was sold down the river.

When their CIA trainer and de-facto liaison with Washington realized the Cuban freedom-fighters had been abandoned by the Best and Brightest at the Bay of Pigs, he pleaded with their commander to allow an evacuation from the doomed Bay of Pigs beachhead. “We will NOT be evacuated!” yelled that commander, Pepe San Roman, into his radio. “We came here to fight. This ends HERE!”

And so it did. Then came the real heroics. Living under a daily firing squad sentence for almost two years these men refused to sign the confession damning the “U.S. Imperialists” (the very nation, which for all they knew at the time, that had betrayed them on that beachhead.) “We will die with dignity!” responded their second-in-command Erneido Oliva to his furious Communist captors, again and again and again.

“These Cuban exiles, for all their chest-thumping and terrorism, are really just a bunch of wimps. That’s right—wimps!” stresses Michael Moore in his book “Downsize This.” His smear refers to all Cubans who escaped Castroism at the risk of their lives and at the sacrifice of all their capitalistically earned (much like Moore’s) property. But the rotund filmmaker singles out the Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters for particular scorn.

A guilt-stricken JFK finally ransomed back the Bay of Pigs prisoners. Hundreds of these promptly joined the U.S. Army and many volunteered for action in Vietnam. One of these was named Felix Sosa-Camejo.

By the day Mr. Sosa-Camejo died while rescuing a wounded comrade, he’d already been awarded 12 medals, including the Bronze Star, three Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts. I’ll quote from his official citation:

“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.”

From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American veteran and his Band-of-Brothers as “wimps and crybabies with yellow lines down their back.”

Humberto Fontova is the author of four books, including Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant and Exposing the Real Che Guevara. Visit hfontova.com

Don’t Get Rid of the Electoral College

Ever since Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the 2000 presidential election, there has been a major push to abandon the Electoral College system. Superficially, there is a sense that the election was unfair and everyone’s vote did not count equally. Three or four times in history we have elected a president who did not win the popular vote. The election of the president is determined by the Electoral College, not a national popular vote. In every state but two, Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as they have U.S. Senators and Representatives. This results in smaller states having more electoral votes proportionate to their populations, and larger states having less. Since smaller states tend to be more conservative, this makes it more likely that a Democrat could win the popular vote by winning large urban areas in big states, while still losing the election.

Realizing they can rig the system, Democrats are advocating replacing our current system with the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV). They would get around the difficulty of amending the Constitution by instead having states voluntarily enter into a compact to participate. States would agree to assign all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the total popular vote across the country, not just within that state. As soon as enough states pass this legislation and surpass half the electoral votes, 270, it will go into effect. Currently eight states and the District of Columbia have joined, totaling 132 electoral votes so far.

The problem with choosing mass democracy over electing educated representatives to make most political decisions can be summed up in the well-known expression, “Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” The reason we have checks and balances is to avoid tyranny of the majority. Our country has lasted long and excelled because we were not established as a mass democracy. The U.S. was founded as a republican democracy – a representative government. We elect leaders to make decisions for us because not all of us have time to spend delving into political issues to fully understand them. James Madison in Federalist No. 10 explained why the Constitution established electoral representation and not direct representation, “…by enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests…”

Determining who would make the best candidate for the most important office in the country is not necessarily something that needs to be equally weighted among every person. In fact, in the past, several states did not have a popular vote for president, but allowed the state legislatures to choose the electors. The Constitution does not prescribe how the president is elected, other than leaving it up to the state legislatures to determine how to select the electors.

Ensuring one vote per person does not require ensuring one vote per issue or topic. We elect people to various political offices all the time, who then select other people for additional political positions based on criteria they select, not based on additional votes from the rest of us. This is no different.

The move to a national popular vote is supported by far left groups including the ACLU, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters and Common Cause, which receives funding from George Soros and the Tides Foundation. The President Pro Tempore of the Delaware Senate, Anthony DeLuca, has declared that once NPV goes into effect, we will never elect another Republican president. Tom Golisano, the billionaire spokesperson bankrolling the movement, is a seven-figure donor to the Democratic Party. He has cleverly hired Republican lobbyists like former Senator Fred Thompson to popularize it.

The NPV website is full of convoluted, deceptive arguments that dance around the real issue of direct democracy. The “myths” section simply denies everything. It claims that small states and federalism will not be harmed, and muddles the distinction between a republic and a democracy.

Shawn Steele, former chairman of the California Republican Party, is leading Republican opposition to NPV. The RNC passed a unanimous 168-person resolution this summer opposing NPV. California, the most recent state to adopt NPV, passed it without a single Republican State Senator voting in favor.

Some Republicans are getting excited about a variation of modifying the Electoral College being considered in Pennsylvania, which has already been adopted in Maine and Nebraska. Pennsylvania’s Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) is leading the effort and Pennsylvania’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett has indicated he will probably sign the bill. Under the modified system, one electoral vote is awarded to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district, and the remaining two electors are awarded to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Due to the makeup of Pennsylvania, which has given all of its electoral votes to Democrats since 1988, the change would likely favor Republicans. So far there has only been one election where Maine or Nebraska has not given all of their electoral votes to one candidate, in 2008.

The proposed system in Pennsylvania does not change the fact that since Congressional districts are different sizes, one person’s vote in a district will appear to have more or less weight than someone’s vote in another district. Candidates who win the popular vote in the state could still lose a majority of its electoral votes.

The primary problem with the proposed changes in Pennsylvania is that voting will become heavily influenced by gerrymandering. A state that leans Republican could find itself giving a majority of its electoral votes to Democrats if districts become gerrymandered to favor Democrats. Redistricting and gerrymandering will increase.  States, on the other hand, have had established boundaries for years. Pennsylvania State GOP Chairman Rob Gleason opposes the changes. Save our States, a project of the Freedom Foundation think tank in Washington state that is dedicated to saving the Electoral College, opposes NPV but is ambivalent about the proposed changes in Pennsylvania.

Meddling with the Electoral College is a bad idea. It would decentralize elections and nationalize politics. A national popular vote would transfer voting power to large urban cities favoring Democrats. Even the New York Times has editorialized against tampering with the Electoral College, not wanting a solution favoring Republicans like that being proposed in Pennsylvania.

If direct democracy is such a good idea, then why not get rid of the U.S. Senate? It is the same concept. No matter how small a state’s population, it has two U.S. Senators. This is for good reason. We allot a larger proportion of representation to smaller states in order to provide them with adequate representation. Otherwise the heavily dense urban areas of larger states would bulldoze over the interests of smaller, more rural states. Don’t be fooled by the hype. The Electoral College’s system of representative democracy and federalism is the backbone of this country, not mob rule.

Rachel Alexander is the co-editor of the Intellectual Conservative.

Estados Unidos en la Era Obama: ¿Superpotencia o felpudo?

A veces tenemos la evidencia frente a nuestras narices y hace falta querer estar ciego para no verla. El ataque de septiembre contra la embajada de Estados Unidos en Kabul el 13 de septiembre, que ahora se ha vinculado a agentes del servicio secreto pakistaní, es sin duda un buen ejemplo de ello.

Sufrir un ataque a manos de terroristas apoyados por alguien que supuestamente es un aliado es haber tocado fondo. Como Lisa Curtis de Heritage correctamente enfatiza, la administración Obama tiene que dejar absolutamente claro que eso ha marcado un cambio en las reglas del juego de las relaciones entre Pakistán y Estados Unidos. Si no es así, nuestro gran país será percibido como un actor cada vez más débil ante el público extranjero.

Desafortunadamente, este es solo uno en una larga serie de insultos y desaires de extranjeros que la Casa Blanca de Obama parece haberse acostumbrado a recibir. “Vale más ser amado que temido” ha sido siempre el modus operandipreferido del presidente. Por desgracia, su discurso ante la Asamblea General de la ONU fue un fracaso en ambos aspectos la semana pasada.

Tan poco respeto despierta el Presidente de Estados Unidos ahora que no hubo forma de disuadir a los palestinos para que abandonaran su táctica en la ONU. No suficiente con eso, el presidente francés, Nicolas Sarkozy, no tuvo problema alguno en declarar su rotundo rechazo a la posición americana contra el reconocimiento en la ONU de un Estado palestino, y todo ello sucedió solo 4 discursos después de que el presidente Obama hubiera hablado desde ese mismo podio. Este desaire habría sido inconcebible apenas hace unos años.

Y si de amor se trata, bueno, aquí tiene lo que el exvocero del Departamento de Estado P.J. Crowley escribió el lunes en la web de la BBC sobre la política para Medio Oriente de la administración Obama: “El fracaso fue llegar a Nueva York, en medio de un cambio histórico y transformativo, para abordar la solicitud palestina para ser Estado y no tener nada más que ofrecer que una amenaza de veto”.

Y Crowley amargamente comentaba sobre el discurso de Obama en El Cairo, tocando un punto contra el que Hillary Clinton había arremetido durante la campaña de las primarias demócratas: “Esta es una prueba. La paz es difícil. Pero si la única respuesta es un veto, entonces lo del Cairo ya no representa la política de Estados Unidos. Era solo un discurso”.

Lamentablemente, el “Era solo un discurso” es aplicable a la mayor parte de las iniciativas diplomáticas del gobierno de Obama y que se remonta al desafortunado intento en los primeros meses de la presidencia Obama para conseguir traer los Juegos Olímpicos de 2012 a Chicago, su ciudad natal. Prácticamente en un arranque, sin preparación adecuada, el presidente y la primera dama de Estados Unidos se subieron a un avión  para hacer una visita relámpago a Copenhague donde el Comité Olímpico se reunía. A pesar del ampliamente admirado discurso del presidente, Chicago ni siquiera llegó a la ronda final de los aspirantes. El ganador final fue Londres, cuyos funcionarios habían estado preparando el caso desde hacía años. El desaire que sufrió el presidente de Estados Unidos era tan predecible como autoinfligido. Y fue el presagio de desaires por venir.

Será el trabajo duro pero necesario del próximo presidente de Estados Unidos —sea quien sea— restaurar el prestigio y la credibilidad internacional de Estados Unidos. Mantener la fuerza militar de la nación, reforzar su diplomacia internacional y usar la diplomacia pública para recordar al mundo los logros y la influencia de Estados Unidos deben ser parte de esa tarea.

Propiedad de Libertad.org

Helle C. Dale is the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Fellow in Public Diplomacy studies. Her current work focuses on the U.S. government’s institutions and programs for strategic outreach to the public of foreign countries, as well as more traditional diplomacy, critical elements in American global leadership and in the war of ideas against violent extremism.

10 Reasons Why Latinos Should Support Newt Gingrich for President

Newt Gingrich believes in the American dream for everyone. He is the one Republican candidate who talks consistently about the importance of enacting policies that allow more Latinos to realize the American dream. Gingrich is the one Republican candidate who is leading the way for more Latinos to take positions of leadership in America and the Republican Party.Here are 10 reasons why Latinos should support Newt Gingrich for president:

1. Latinos owe Obama nothing

Barack Obama promised to create more and better jobs for Latinos. He promised to fix the economy, to increase educational opportunities for our children and to solve the immigration quagmire. None of these promises were kept, and Latinos are worse off than before. That’s why Latino support for Obama has plummeted. Just because Obama is a Democrat, doesn’t mean he deserves our blind loyalty.

2. Newt Gingrich shares our conservative values

Latinos believe in family, in God, in country and in life – so much so that we protect it. We believe in good, honest, hard work. We don’t believe in handouts, just an equal opportunity to prove ourselves. We believe in patriotism and putting country before self. These values are Newt’s values and the ties that bind us.

3. Newt Gingrich knows the importance of the Latino community

50 million Latinos comprise 16% of our country’s population today. Half of our country’s population growth in the next 20 years will be generated by the growth in the Latino population. Latinos have become a key driver of our nation’s future. While the other candidates seem oblivious to this fact, Newt Gingrich has been working hard for many years to include American Hispanics in the overall conversation for a better America.

4. Newt Gingrich will fix the economy

When the economy sours, everything breaks down. People lose their jobs and stop buying. When people quit buying, the people who make the products they would have bought also lose their jobs. People without jobs pay fewer taxes so the government has less money when the unemployed need more help. So the government borrows more and goes into deeper debt. It then pays more interest, leaving even fewer dollars to help the unemployed. This domino effect must be stopped. Newt Gingrich will focus on growing the economy by instilling confidence in America and creating opportunity for those who generate jobs. He will grow the small business sector by creating financing opportunities, cutting both taxes and unnecessary regulations.

5. Newt Gingrich will create more jobs

Hispanic unemployment is 11.6% compared to the already high 9.1% nationally. When Newt Gingrich fixes the economy, jobs – including Latino jobs – will come back. Newt Gingrich is a steadfast supporter of NAFTA, and CAFTA – measures that will help make America #1 in job creation once again.

6. Newt Gingrich will make education a top priority

Our current system of education is failing all Americans, including Latinos. America has gone from #1 to #9 in educational achievement and is falling further behind. Newt Gingrich will reverse this trend by preparing our children for successful careers and productive lives starting at pre-K. He will inspire students, parents and their teachers to set the highest expectations possible. He will reward educators’ best work.

7. Newt Gingrich will tackle immigration head on

For almost four years, Barack Obama has kept immigration on the back burner, breaking his promise to address it in his first year in office. Newt Gingrich will tackle the issue and fix it. His plan starts with securing our borders and is based on a multi-step platform for issuance of more work permits to create legal workers. It will also provide a secure employment verification system and immediate deportation of criminals. All this can be implemented while respecting the sanctity and dignity of each human life.

8. Newt Gingrich has a record of Hispanic inclusion

In 2004 Newt Gingrich launched his first Spanish website Newt.org/paralatinos. In 2009 he launched TheAmericano.com, the first conservative bilingual website for American Hispanics. For the past five years, he has been writing columns for Spanish newspapers and holding roundtables with Latino leaders across the country. Newt Gingrich has studied Spanish for over five years and is becoming an accomplished Spanish speaker.

9. Newt Gingrich will keep us safe

Since 9/11, America has been on high alert. Our American men and women in our military have done our country proud. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are gone but the threat remains. Newt Gingrich will focus on keeping our country safe and strong while refocusing military priorities and spending only on the resources we truly need.

10. Newt Gingrich has the experience America needs

Barrack Obama’s inexperience in Washington has brought our government to a virtual standstill. America needs a president who has fought and won in the legislative arena and has the experience to lead. Past mistakes have made Newt Gingrich wiser. He is known for his keen intellect, effective leadership and bravery in the line of fire. He cuts through complicated issues to the core of the problem and will not let either political extreme dictate the future of our country.

Lionel is the founder of Sosa, Bromley, Aguilar & Associates, now Bromley Communications, the largest Hispanic advertising agency in the U.S. He has been Hispanic Media Consultant in seven Republican presidential campaigns beginning in 1980. He is a recognized expert in Hispanic consumer and voter behavior. Lionel was named‚ One of the 25 most influential Hispanics in America‚ by Time Magazine in 2005 and is a member of the Texas Business Hall of Fame.

What Obama Won’t Tell Latinos at La Raza Conference

Here’s what you won’t hear from the President when he addresses the largest Latino advocacy organization’s annual conference today:

Latino unemployment is in double digits [1] following a failed stimulus bill [2].

Nearly one out of every two [3] Latinos will fail to receive a high school diploma, despite the federal government’s control over education policy in the past 50 years.

Unfettered government spending has led the national deficit to balloon to nearly $13 trillion, jeopardizing American economic security and quality of life[4].’

Instead, President Obama is likely to use this opportunity before the receptive audience at the National Council of La Raza [5] to recycle stale excuses and promises. The President will blame the previous Administration for the country’s pathetic economy and seek to portray conservatives as the enemy [6]. The President will ask the Latino community to continue supporting his policies of increased taxing in order to pay for more government programs we cannot afford, all the while racking up even more debt.

Rather than looking to empower Latino communities, the President will encourage the audience to depend more and more on the government. From education to health care to energy policy, the President’s remarks will largely center on how the government is best suited to run more and more aspects of our lives.

The allure of an endless goodie bag of government programs and services is an attractive sell, particularly when coupled with the race-baiting and victimization that liberals have been so keen to perfect.

Unfortunately, liberals (including many in the Latino lobby) choose to ignore the fact that our country’s wealth was not built on government spending but by innovation, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise.

In fact, a recent poll [7] commissioned by Generation Opportunity seems to confirm that Hispanics—particularly young Hispanics—understand this. They indicated that they prefer “reducing federal spending to raising taxes on individuals in order to balance the federal budget.”

While immigration is likely to figure prominently in this weekend’s discussions and forums, don’t expect any of the speakers to tell the audience how the President’s failed economic policies are likely to replicate the very same conditions here [8] that countless Hispanic immigrants fled Latin America to escape.

This is especially timely as the U.S. finds itself at a critical crossroads in deciding how to reduce the national deficit to prevent bequeathing our children and grandchildren back-breaking debt. Rather than urging fiscal restraint, the President will likely pepper his speech with the word “investment”—to argue for greater government spending without explaining how he intends to pay for the growing bill.

Latinos, like the rest of the country, need a leaner and less intrusive federal government to pave the way for a much-needed economic recovery. The economic mobility that continues to elude so many Latinos will not be achieved by depending more and more on the federal government.

That’s the harsh reality that will likely be missing from the gathering.


Israel Ortega serves as The Heritage Foundation’s chief spokesman to Spanish-language media, including print, radio, television and online. And as editor of Heritage’s new Libertad (libertad.org), Ortega is responsible for producing content for and promoting what he envisions as the premier Spanish website for conservative commentary, analysis and research.

Fatherly control on grandfathers’ funds

When people give up money in order to save for the upcoming, the least they expect to have in the future is the same amount of capital or more, not less. The Bismarckian pension system, diffused all over the world, nowadays works exactly the opposite. Beneficiaries are not getting what they expect making this collective capitalization scheme bear with all kinds of difficulties.

It faces a political problem given that the government has the monopoly of the Social Security and it occasionally uses the workers’ money for political purposes. The monthly contributions workers make by law go to a common fund that governments are meant to merely “administrate”, but that sometimes they employ for other purposes leaving no funds for the future.

In Ecuador, for example, the government has always counted on this fund to invest in public bonds or whatever other investment the incumbent administration chooses. Certainly, employees feel entitled to all the benefits that politicians have promised them, but sometimes they don’t get them. For instance, in order to extend the submission of benefits to workers, Spain is one of many countries to recently strategically plan for baby boomers by delaying pension collection. This is an example of measures governments take when they don’t have the payback.[1] Currently, the U.S. is short $1.26 trillion in paying for public employee pensions and other retirement benefits.[2]

Also, the system deals with a demographical trouble as the world’s trend is to have aging societies: while born rates are decreasing, medicine and technology is extending life expectancy.[3] This results in less active workers contributing to the financing of an increasing demand on elderly pensions.