The Islamic State in the Levant

We have labeled the Islamic State in the Levant, (ISIL DAESH or ISIS) as a terrorist organization. I am not choosing to take issue with that. I have to believe that what they are doing is committing acts of terror in wholesale killings and other atrocities. Additionally, they are urging adherents to their cause to commit acts of terror globally—usually without any help from them and any planning. Because they are in a war in their own region.

The United States is bombing them from the skies, presumably without any ground controllers to call in these airstrikes. While our planes and bombs are more accurate today than they were during WW II, without ground controllers, our accuracy is limited. The military briefings may show pinpoint airstrikes, but those are the rounds that looked good. They edit out all those who may have killed civilians and non-combatants. The US military doesn't like to look bad.

So, we're fighting the bad guys, or the terrorists, but it is very important to know why they are "bad guys," or "terrorists." Firstly, the name of the group is important, "The Islamic State in the Levant." We are calling them transnational but the national borders that were drawn were drawn up by an Englishman and a Frenchman just after WW I. They used existing maps and a straight edge to draw nice, neat borders where there were no rivers or natural borders. ISIL is "transnational" because they don't recognize the borders drawn by these two Europeans. I do not believe they are transnational in the same way that al-Qaida is.

ISIL are, essentially, Sunni Muslims. The Sunni used to run Iraq and provided a neat foil that the United States used to offset Shi'ia Iran. Until GW Bush. I recall that when the Governor of Texas was running for President, he seemed to have considerable problems understanding anything about foreign policy and could not locate many countries on a map. Quickly, as his lack of any semblance of understanding about anything outside of the United States became apparent, his campaign trotted out Condoleeza Rice, a well-respected associate professor of Political Science at Stanford University to paper over Candidate Bush's frightening lack of knowledge.

As President, it is pretty apparent that the addition of Condi Rice to his team offered little in the way of security based on any kind of understanding of the world as it was in 2001. The Bush administration completely ignored the warnings given by the outgoing Clinton administration about al-Qaida and Osama bin-Ladin, and Bush, himself ignored the Presidential briefing he received that a terrorist strike was imminent 36 days before 9/11. Today, former members of that administration continue to lie about the significance of that briefing and also continue to suggest that it had no relevance to the 9/11 attacks.

Condi Rice was never able to get GW Bush's attention appropriately focused on the reality of the world outside of the United States during his two terms and the blunders he made during those eight years will continue to harm the United States for decades to come.

Bush never appreciated the nature of Iraq. It was a country that was held together by a dictatorship who was a member of a minority population in that country. The only way Saddam Hussein could hold the nation of Iraq together was by appealing to nationalism and by finding an external power that his country could unite over. For a while, that was Iran from September 1980 to August 1988 during a war with that nation. Then, after the first Gulf War (during Poppy Bush's administration) it was the United States. Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant but, at least he was under control.

So we invaded. And the end result was a government that L. Paul Bremer helped to set up, which did not provide any guaranteed role for the Sunni population (which he had thrown out of work). Nuri al-Maliki immediately got to work, shoving all Sunni out of any position in government and proceeded to allow the Kurds to begin the formation of a Kurdistan in Iraq. It is not official, but their autonomy was traded for allowing al-Maliki to run things as he wished. And he wished to disenfranchise all Sunni in his county.

No hope

This created a situation of no hope for the Sunni population, who had previously made up the government and the heads of the military in the country. And, when you have a minority in a country that has no hope, you have created a perfect situation for an insurgency and a terrorist force inside of your own country.

Condi Rice had no effect on GW Bush's ignorance.

When we took over Iraq, we failed to even post guards on the many arsenals in that country. As a result, they were looted—initially to fight us, but later to begin the Iraqi Civil War. The Sunni have no trust for the Shi'ia in the country. Of course this is reciprocal. The Sunni were hardly kissing cousins to the Shi'ia when they had power under Saddam Hussein.

So, with the state of affairs in neighboring Syria, many Sunni must have thought that they ought to do what the Kurds did: Create a nation based on their background. This is probably what ought to have been done after WW I and the Bush administration ought to have known better than to "cleanse" the government of Sunnis. But, remember, GW Bush was "the decider," and his decisions were based on nothing more than his ignorance.

When you have an oppressed minority, you hope that they will become a "Loyal Opposition" and try to have their views heard via the ballot box. But what the Bush administration created was the seeds of a "Disloyal Opposition," dedicated to the overthrow of that government by force. And they have declared their own state (in the same way that the South declared their own state during our Civil War). The difference here is that it spreads into Syria as well as Iraq, redrawing borders.

I would ask that the United States begin talks with these terrorists—not to reward their terror but to either try to get them to be a Loyal Opposition, like we did in Northern Ireland or, alternatively to create their own nation, which eschews terror. Terror is the act of desperation. But I think that United States and Nuri al-Maliki may have driven them to that.

The War in Iraq

American troops approach the hideout of Saddam Hussein's sons

Why are we rehashing the war in Iraq? It is all in the past. And, in that several people running for President have all jumped in and disqualified themselves as potential leaders, that should count for something.Instead, it's re-opening a debate that we never had prior to the war in Iraq.

We were supposed to have had that debate BEFORE committing troops, not this many years on.

Fact is, what the Bush administration did was wrong, pure and simple. I knew it at the time, I know now. We all know now. And, a bunch of Republican candidates have all tried to re-argue everything. Thus disqualifying themselves. In fact, this should disqualify them from holding any elected office.

The war in Iraq is not the CIA's fault. The CIA had very few assets in Iraq because we didn't have any kind of a diplomatic relationship with them. Just like the CIA has no assets in North Korea. So, in every report to the President, they always offered the "we believe with very limited assurance that…" This means, "we are speculating." Just like, today, we are speculating that North Korea does not yet have the capability of launching a submarine-based missile. We don't have a "mole" in North Korea who knows for certain because the CIA has zero to very few assets in that country.

Saddam Hussein pulled out of his spider hole

The war in Iraq was a personal vendetta between the Bush family and the al-Tikriti family (Saddam Hussein's family). Saddam Hussein chose to try to send a hit squad after Poppy Bush and it was not successful. GW Bush thought he'd use the entire United States military to kill Saddam Hussein and he was successful. Then, after doing that, he didn't know what to do with the country. He also didn't know how to help New Orleans or Mobile Bay recover from Katrina, either. He was incompetent.

Iraqi soldiers graduate from basic training
after being trained by United States military advisers

We trained the Iraqi army. This was back during the war. The first thing is that we got rid of the all-ready trained army that Saddam Hussein had put together (because they were disloyal to the United States). Then, we accepted applications from people who were kept out of Saddam Hussein's army because they might have been disloyal to Saddam Hussein. Then, we "trained them." And, we had them all trained up before we left Iraq. And we left Iraq after GW Bush had signed an agreement with Nuri al-Maliki's government to GET out. So, the exit from Iraq was something that President Obama faithfully executed due to prior agreements with a generally hostile government in Iraq that wanted us out.

Today, Iraq is in a crisis. But President Obama did not create this crisis. It was created when Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot drew boundary lines and created countries in the wake of WW I after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They created an Iraq with several different ethnic groups that Saddam Hussein held together using fear, brutality and a kind of strange nationalism based on hating the outsider (Iran, the US, Israel…)

Iraqi insurgents

When we marched into Iraq, I had previously educated myself about that country—we were there under Poppy Bush. I knew that they had several different ethnic groups and those groups didn't get along. Saddam Hussein's Baathists were running the show and they were the Sunni minority, based in the north and west of the country. Since they were the army and the government, they had control.

It was always a given that Iraq would descend into a civil war. The three main ethnic groups don't get along and won't unless they have a dictatorship. And al-Maliki made sure that the government in Iraq was all Shi'ia. The Bush appointee to run Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, had previously "cleaned out" the Sunnis, preventing them from holding any jobs in the military or the government and setting up a system that would create Sunni-Shi'ia conflict that would result in civil war. For members of the Bush administration to claim that they didn't know this would happen is a confession of complete incompetence. But we all ready knew they were incompetent. The primary focus of the Bush administration was to please those big corporations that made the most money from the war in Iraq, Halliburton, GE, Boeing, GM, General Dynamics and so on. This would also please the American oil companies for whom the Bush administration hoped would get extremely lucrative contracts to drill, produce oil and refine oil in the oil-rich nation of Iraq. The al-Maliki government didn't play along, though and awarded those contracts to companies from outside of the United States. The only ones who did play along were the Kurds.

Saddam Hussein statue toppled in Firdos Square
at the same time, an effigy of GW Bush is being
burned by Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers
but we didn't have a video camera on that.

We tried to re-fight the Vietnam war when John McCain ran for President. I thought that was really foolish. We made mistakes in Vietnam but McCain tried to re-fight it and declare failure a success. Unhappily, Vietnam's mistakes were the result of the failures of two administrations, one Democrat and the other Republican. The Iraq fiasco was not the result of the failure of the Obama administration. He, largely, followed what the Bush administration left him with—an agreement to get out.

So, now we're "training the Iraqi army" again. Remember, we did this before. We spent untold millions of dollars training them (instead of rebuilding New Orleans, instead of paying for a prescription plan for seniors, instead of rebuilding our infrastructure, instead of funding schools). If we are training them again, we are picking the Shi'ia side in a civil war. And we are doing this because the only way the Sunnis could possibly challenge the Shi'ia is to create a terrorist organization: ISIL (DASH, ISIS).

I am not an isolationist. But I would ask that we clearly define why we are so interested in the Iraqi civil war. Granted, our invasion certainly did create it, but after Bush and al-Maliki did everything in their power to plant the seeds of this civil war, we ought to simply recognize Kurdistan (our only friends there) and encourage the Sunnis to form their own political entity that we will recognize as a separate country—if they will agree to eschew terrorism.

The result will be three countries. Which is the way it ought to have been after WW I. Now, the Sunnis don't particularly like us because of Bremer, but if we promised them a country and recognition, they might stop the terrorist gambit.

2016 And America

Firstly I will make no prediction. But I do want to make a statement.

America, the land of the free, the home of the brave is at a crossroads. We have been here before. We have an opportunity to choose our future and we have an opportunity to make our government stand up and notice us. And there is only one way we can do this.

Firstly, government is wasteful. But it is mostly wasteful of time, not taxpayer money. Some would have you believe it's the latter and not the former. But there are a few things to remember:

Any time a politician holds a press conference, that politician is not doing anything. It's a waste of time and it is an attempt to call attention to herself or himself. Frequently, it's an attempt to call attention to how good that politician is because of what they have done. But what they are doing in that moment is having a press conference, which does nothing. So, when they all trot out and address cameras, they are wasting time.

To insist that government be less wasteful is foolish. This simply will never happen. Complaining that government is wasteful is usually done in a press conference, which is—itself—wasteful.

We can decide for the collective good, or we can serve those who prefer that we do not organize for our own benefit. What I mean by this is that you, the reader, are certainly not in the top 1%. The top 1% doesn't read my blog. They don't read blogs. They have "people" to do that for them. Here is what the collective good is: Something that serves the largest majority of us in the United States and that is the Middle Class.

Since the Middle Classes pay most of the taxes in any nation, they should be corrective, in nature, urging moderation in our government. Instead, though, our government has been taken over by radicals of all sides who insist on non-government. What is non-government? It is refusal to compromise.

Here is how compromise works: I want my roads to be straight. You want your forest and you want it intact. If we refuse to compromise, your forest remains under threat and my road does not get built. If we compromise, you get most of your forest and I get my road with a curve that is not too bad. But with no government, you get no result. So, when we are voting, we need to vote on members of Congress and a President who will compromise. Electing a politician who proudly says I won't compromise means you get no government, as nothing happens.

So, as you listen to the candidates, think about how they are talking about an appropriate compromise. If you choose to vote for them and they have told you they will never compromise on certain issues or on anything, then you are voting for no government. There will be no positive change during a government of no-compromise.

Listen to their speeches in their entireties, not just the soundbites that are endlessly played on the news channels or the evening news shows. Ask yourself how much is this person ready co compromise, to work for me and to expand the middle class? Listen to the debates—and realize that winning is not everything. Ask yourself how this person will help your life get better, personally.

As to recent history, I offer praise to our current President. He has overseen us stepping back from what would have been a second Great Depression. Stock market recovered all losses. Unemployment is as low as it was in 2001. Not everything is rosy, but we are better off then we were 7 years ago.

The Conversation

Okay, the political season is heating up and I just saw a post stating that Hillary Clinton is now completely shut down, complete with an article about her issues with her emails while Secretary of State. The other one I saw was a photo of Senator Ted Cruz with the caption, "The Great White Dope."

Here are the facts: Hillary Clinton is not currently running for President. And, if she is considering a run, she has got to be wondering, "Do I want to wade into this personal attack-fest? Really??" Obviously, Senator Cruz has decided. And he has waded in. And despite the caption, people who know the Senator know he's no pushover in a debate.

To be honest, I believe a President Cruz would end America as I know it. He honestly believes that, in order to lead, one must refuse all compromise and all thought of compromise. That's four to eight years of gridlock in the Executive—which is not generally known for gridlock. I think he would veto the first thirty bills sent him from Congress—unless they perfectly lined up with his extremist stance.

But I am very happy he is running. He is a very intelligent person, a real serious debater and would be very open to multiple Presidential debates as well as debates to win his party's nomination. And we need this. We need to know what the policies will be after President Obama leaves office. We need to discuss policy and not personality and the only thing we're doing in politics is attacking the person.

Today, I saw a posting claiming that President Obama is breaking the laws. The article behind the post utterly fails to cite one single law the President has broken, then goes on to suggest impeachment. I would urge the writer to write his congressman and also to cite the law the President has broken. The House of Representatives is empowered to impeach a President "for high crimes and misdemeanors," as it says in the Constitution. The result is a trial in the Senate.

Seeing as how President Obama does have a law degree and he used to teach Constitutional Law, I doubt the claim is true. But the claim is yet another attempt to stop any conversation about policies in the United States. Laws come from policy and we, the American People need to consider policies that will affect us. Because you had better believe that big corporations do—they regularly write laws they would like to say, hand them to congresspeople and then lobby the congresspeople to pass them.

Do you want an increase in the minimum wage in America? Do you want the federal government to be involved in taking care of Americans, like those in Oklahoma who just lost their homes to an early tornado? Do you want to see our Veterans (and we just made a whole lot of them in Iraq and Afghanistan) taken care of with a VA that works for them? What policies do you want our government to pass into law?

Attacking individuals because they are bad or mad is not policy and is not the kind of a discussion that we need to have as we go forward towards 2016.

"He has done nothing"

Today, my daughter asked me why people have claimed that President Obama "has done nothing." I have seen this comment spring up lately and have wondered at it. After all, it was President Obama who, in his first 100 days, got a stimulus bill through the House and the Senate, managed to eke the Affordable Care Act by a Republican-controlled (with a 40 out of 100-vote "majority") Senate and has taken a "can do" attitude with respect to America being a strong nation. Our unemployment is down, stocks on Wall Street have recovered and it looks like the housing market is slowly recovering.

Yet Republicans say that Obama has done nothing. But they complained bitterly about him when he did do something (with a largely Democratic legislature) and they freak out whenever he does something with his Executive Power (calling him a dictator or something worse). They claim that he has violated the Constitution, violated our laws and have pretended that they can practice Diplomacy, when that is the prerogative of the Executive (and not of the Speaker of the House who invited an Israeli politician to use the US House and Senate as a backdrop for his re-election campaign; and not the 47 Republican senators who signed on to Freshman Senator Tom Cotton's nastygram to the Ayatollah in Iran).

If President Obama is "doing nothing," why are Republicans rushing around trying to stop what he is doing? If this President has been a "do-nothing" President, why is it that they're trying to repeal his laws?

I suppose Mitch McConnell initiated this whole stance. As a Senator, Obama ran for President with the promise to try to engage the other side. In fact, he wanted to engage everyone, promising to sit down with Iran and discuss differences if that was offered. Republicans had a real problem with that. But McConnell's entire goal was to make this President fail. And when he did not fail to be re-elected, he has persisted in trying to make this Presidency fail—to deny him a legacy, deny him any shred of a hope that he might be seen as a good President by historians. And the entire Republican caucus in Washington has followed suit.

Could it possibly be because his predecessor actually was the worst President in modern US history? Could it be that Mitch McConnell actually acknowledges that? I do note that many members of the Bush administration have been desperately trying to "rehabilitate" the 8 years of a doctrine that justified the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Pre-emptive attack on Iraq), the complete rejection of the Geneva Accords on torture (a treaty that was negotiated by the Executive and passed through two-thirds of the Senate), the mishandling of a natural disaster followed by an outright refusal to rebuild a major American city while we were wasting money arming an Iraqi army that quickly disintegrated into a civil war.

Oh yes, the previous administration did a lot of things. And each thing they did seemed to be worse than the last. It seemed that every week there was another wholesale attack on an America that stands for Americans, our freedoms, civil liberties, pluralistic society and the ability of Americans to achieve a standard of living better than that of our parents.

If you want to hear complaints about this administration from me, I would ask that the President fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Prison, the US's only Constitution-Free zone. He also passed the Republican plan for increasing US citizens' access to healthcare. Tested by Republican Governor Romney in Massachusetts and first proposed by Newt Gingrich as an answer to Hillary Clinton's proposal for a single-payer system, it is flawed but will never be fixed as long as there is a Republican majority in either house of Congress. The passage of this Republican plan by Democrats was a futile attempt to get at least one Republican to vote in favor of the plan. They ought to have simply passed a Single-Payer system—it would have invited fewer lawsuits.

But to claim that this President has done nothing assumes stupidity in the listener. This President has done more for the American people than the previous President. After all, if this President hasn't done anything, then why oppose everything he has done, claim that he has done illegal things and try to undo legislation that he has passed?

Of Williams and Bloom

Brian Williams at an NBC Christmas Party in 2005

I worked at NBC for over 9 years and was present at the transition between Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. I also did a considerable amount of work for the Today Show. I was there during the run-up to the Iraq War and during that war and I was there as Osama bin-Ladin was allowed to escape from the mountains in Tora Bora by President Bush, who refused to authorize the personnel needed to capture the head of al-Qaida.

The News is full of Williams "mis-remembering" an incident in Iraq where a helicopter was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade. Williams has apologized but I take issue with his mis-remembering. The story he told became fictionalized when Williams began to think that NBC Nightly News is all about him. It isn't.

Truth be told, NBC did lose an embedded correspondent in Iraq. David Bloom wasn't felled by a bullet or any hostile action. Instead, David Bloom died due to a blood clot he developed while sitting in a very tight legs-folded position in an armored personnel carrier for many hours at a stretch. Bloom had just gotten off the phone with his wife, stood up and went for a walk. It is said he took about ten steps and keeled over. There was heroism—medics were on him in a flash and tried to save his life, but Bloom was probably dead as soon as he hit the ground. After David died, the only embedded correspondent that NBC had was Bloom's cameraman, and that same cameraman had been at Ground Zero with reporter Rehema Ellis for 48 hours. NBC pressed the cameraman into providing news reports in Iraq until they could get another correspondent into Iraq.

Weekend Today Correspondent David Bloom

That correspondent was Brian Williams. I don't want to take away anything from Williams reporting in Iraq. He did a good job and, because NBC included both the network with their morning "news" show and the evening news show, as well as Dateline and also MSNBC, the reporting for the network was a 24-hour operation. Reporters in Iraq would usually do something for the Today Show during the first hour of the broadcast at 7:00 AM, which is 3:00 PM in Iraq. At the time, Don Imus was on MSNBC, so there was no need for a live correspondent during that show.

But as soon as the Today Show was out of their news cycle, or off the air, MSNBC would pick up reporting as needed or as events happened. MSNBC was all done on the cheap, so the edited segments from the Today Show or NBC Nightly News were re-aired on MSNBC and reporters in the field would simply talk over a satellite hookup to people on the anchor desk. After that, it was generally do a report for NBC Nightly News, which means a full day of having your cameraman get material you need, write a report and, maybe, stay up until about 2:30 AM to do a live satellite hookup with NBC Nightly News. It's a long day.

Williams is an engaging person, is very intelligent and was quick to thank me if I had facts that could be used to enhance his reporting. I cannot comprehend how a person of that intelligence could "mis-remember" an incident. I remember everything I did on September 11, 2001 and the weeks afterwards. I remember the time I spent at NBC. Those memories are from a very enjoyable and intense time in my career and they are unforgettable.

So how could Williams fictionalize an event that did not happen to him?

"It's all about the correspondent"

Because Williams is being told that "it's all about him." One of the things I had to do at NBC was edit interviews done by Katie Couric for the Today Show. Katie is not the kind of person who likes to work all that much and she thinks she can "wing it" when it comes to facts. Booking producers would send reams of information to Couric prior to her interviewing people for the Today Show, and Couric would look at none of it. Finally, the Today Show got smart and had Couric do the interviews after the show was finished "live to tape" and editors would cut the taped interviews to make sure that Couric didn't embarrass herself. With Couric, it was "all about her," and she proved that when she took over the CBS Evening News anchor desk (where Walter Cronkite sat) and caused that network to lose horribly in the evening news ratings. It wasn't about Couric then and it isn't about Williams today.

In making up this story, Williams has completely lost sight about what journalism is. You tell the story as it happened, not as you might make it up for a good read in a fictionalized novel. We have all read novels where the hero does wonderful deeds and is admired for it. It is understandable that Williams wants to be admired, but he simply did not come under fire, like NBC's cameraman did. And Williams would have remembered it.

He has apologized to the "brave men and women in the US military." We talk long and hard about those "brave men and women," and they become a political football we can throw around, accusing the other political party of not supporting the troops. Fact is, if America were to support our troops, we'd have a first-rate Veterans' healthcare network where there would be no waiting list to get seen. Williams should report on that, rather than make up stories that are all about Williams. And, if Williams wants to support our troops, then he should give a significant amount of his income every year to the Wounded Warrior Project.

I disagree that Brian Williams "misremembered" anything about his experience in Iraq. Because his story changed with the telling. And it changed for one purpose and one purpose only: To place Brian Williams, intrepid anchor for NBC Nightly News into that rare position of those correspondents who had risked their lives to get the news out.

Brian Williams did risk his life. He went into a war zone. That's enough. You don't have to also come under fire to say you risked your life. But that was not enough for Williams. He fictionalized his experience in Iraq so that it looks like his life was at considerable risk, so much so that he could have lost it. That is not something one forgets. That is not something one "mis-remembers."

Williams has taken his reputation and has risked it as much as his life would have been at risk had the events he "mis-remembered" (actually fictionalized) happened. That's pretty sad. I challenge Williams to actually support the "brave men and women in the US military." Even though he has publicly humiliated himself, some good could come of this. I challenge Brian to donate a significant portion of his income from NBC to the Wounded Warrior Project.

Rubio Cannot be President

Were he not Cuban, he would be an illegal alien

It's a fact and he has been covering it up for years. Marco Rubio was born in Cuba and, in 1972 was "feet dry" when his parents brought him to the United States. And it's a big secret about his birth record. I have never seen his birth record that says he was born in the United States, and I'll bet you haven't, either.

I suspect that his parents faked his papers when he was little and there has been no official inquiry because of this chicanery.

Since Rubio is actually Cuban, he cannot understand how real Americans feel, because Cubans are used to dictatorships—They have lived under dictators for many generations (Batista was a dictator before Castro was). Marco Rubio intends to bring Cuban-style dictatorship to the United States.

When questioned about these facts, Rubio stated:

"The real essence of my family's story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro's Cuba forever and permanently settled here. The essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place; and why they had to stay."

But, since he's a Republican, he's getting a pass on the whole immigrant status. Nobody has questioned his origins because he has toed the party line so perfectly, voting for all of the things Republicans stand for, all the while waiting for his chance to be our Commander in Chief (actually Generalissimo).

He says he's Roman Catholic, but that's a "religion of convenience," as from age 8 to age 11 he was seen attending a Mormon church in Las Vegas. He currently attends a Baptist church. Of course, everyone knows that, as a Communist, he does not believe in God.

Rubio's First Moves as Supreme Leader-For-Life

Rubio intends to first abolish Congress, as soon as he is sworn in. Since Congress is mostly Republican, it will probably be a bloodless coup, but there may be a few Democrats who could get in the way, notably Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. There may have to be some "Second Amendment Solutions" to their persistent whining about being the representatives of the people and their states.

Next, he'll set his mother's father, Pedro Victor Garcia, up as a special advisor. You may not have heard much about Garcia—he has lived here illegally since 1962. Garcia studied revolutionary tactics at the Instituto Superior Pedagogico Enrique Jose Varona, La Havana, which provides revolutionaries with specific training in taking over countries from the inside. He was instrumental in Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela, a Cuban client state.
With Garcia set up in a position of power, all of his deportation worries will be over.

False Opposition

President Obama has started normalizing relations with the Castros, and Rubio came out with a statement "opposing" that. But his statements to the US State Department are at odds with his supposed opposition. In a letter he wrote to Secretary of State Kerry, he stated:

"I want to see a free and democratic Cuba in the near future…I intend to look for tangible signs of progress in the President's New Cuba Policy."

In essence, he sees this as a positive and he is looking for new progress. This is at odds with all of his other statements, he cannot be trusted.

Where Are His Papers?

There are no naturalization papers for Marco Rubio and I have never seen his Birth Certificate. This proves he was born in Cuba and is not allowed to be President according to our Constitution. But watch, Republicans will put him on the ticket because some very close to him want a Cuban-style Dictatorship here. And the coverup continues…