WHAT COUNTRY IS THIS???

It's 5 a.m. in the morning. You have been sitting in your house, worried that they will come and take your loved one away.

Then the telephone rings, and a friend, that is in the house with you answers it, and you figure that the officials of the government, just may possibly, wait until legal procedures are completed, where you will get a chance to present your case.

Then, suddenly, without warning, there is a commotion, outside your door, then someone announces they are the government authorities, and then busts the door down, and storms in to your house. With guns at the ready, and masks covering their faces, they push you aside, and begin searching the house, for that one person.

When they find them, they are carried out of the house, amidst crying, and hysteria, they are put in to a vehicle, where the driver is also in a ski mask, and whisked away.

Does this scene sound familiar?? If you would say, it sounds like what happened in Nazi Germany, when they were looking for Jews, you would be right on the money. Because that is exactly how they did it, except, there were no legal procedures to follow. Yet, the scene that I just described, is what happened, not in Nazi Germany, not in some communistic, or socialist society, or in some other places, where people have no freedoms. This scene, took place, right here in the US, in Florida, in a place called 'Little Havana', when, as one person called them, 'Jack Booted thugs' from the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), broke in to a house and literally kidnapped the 6 year old little boy, that was staying there, with relatives.
What is so special about this little boy???

Well, his saga began back around Thanksgiving, when he was discovered, floating in the ocean, on a raft, or some other flotation device, and rescued by some fishermen. Whether there were others with him, at that time, I am not certain, but I believe there were.

Anyway, it was discovered, that he, and his mother, had fled Cuba, to come to the US, when their boat capsized, and the mother drowned.

Since the fishermen were Americans, he was brought to the US, where it was discovered that he had relatives here, that the mother was coming to live with. All, would seem to be fine. The relatives could get the child and take care of him.

That's when a problem arose.

Apparently, the little boy, had a father, still in Cuba. And since the father, was his legal, next of kin, there was a question of, would it be legal for the US, to keep a child from a parent, even though that parent, lived in a country, where living conditions, and form of government, were totally against what we consider conducive to the well being of this little boy.

Should the boy be returned to his father, where it is said, that all children, especially boys, are the 'property' (their words, not mine) of the state, or be allowed to stay here, where he can have freedom, the reason his mother was bringing him here, in the first place.

Almost from the get-go, people on both sides of the issue, began to speak out.

Those that were on the side of him staying here, were saying, 'that is why his mother risked, and ultimately, lost her life, so that this little boy, could enjoy the freedoms of the American dream. to send him back, would dishonor the wishes of his mother. After all, the father, and mother, have been separated for years, and he had no active part in the boy's life, for more than 3 years.'

On the other hand, were the arguments that, 'no matter what we think is best for the child, parental rights, are part of what this nation, is about, and to take, or keep, a child from a parent, says that we don't believe in following our own laws. Besides, look at the 'religious right' always talking about 'family values', yet they want to keep him here, thus breaking up the family.'

Good arguments on both sides. And to be frank with you, I have a hard time making a decision in this matter. But, I would hope that the legal system, would reach a decision that would be beneficial to the child. That is what we have it for, in the first place.

Well, from that point, the Clinton administration, just made a mess out of the whole thing. They acted like the infamous 'keystone kops.' No one knew what the other was doing, while the head man, Clinton, was trying to appease Fidel Castro, who was using this situation, to embarrass the US, and its policies towards his country.

First, they were going to let him stay, until Castro got in the picture. Then, they decided to send him back. Then they decided to let the courts decide, after pressure from the Cuban community arose strong and united.

Well, amidst all of the hoopla surrounding the boy, ominous things began to surface.

Janet Reno, the Attorney General, began to take the side of the young boy, and wanted him to stay here. Then, she changed her mind, after his grand mothers from Cuba, came here to see him.

It was about that time that, President Clinton, finally made the statement that the boy should be returned to his father. Janet Reno, reversed herself, to go along with the president.

The vice president, took the stance that the boy should stay.

Many people, saw this, as his trying to appease the Cuban American community in Florida, so he could rely on their votes in the fall elections.

Things began to unravel for the administration, when the father, finally, after nearly three months, came to the US, supposedly to see his son.

The Clinton administration, attempted to setup a meeting between the child and his dad, but plans fell through.

With lawyers on both sides, trying to get the matter resolved, things began to get ugly.

Every time someone would come to the house where the boy was staying, crowds of protesters, protesting the administration's stance to return the boy to Cuba, literally prevented them from even getting in to the house.

With the courts, appearing to be ready to grant the boy the privilege of staying where he was, until a full hearing could be set up, and the boy's father, in Washington, making a plea to the administration, and Castro, mocking the US, for its hypocritical politics, on this issue, the administration, acted.

Under the guise of negotiating, they had planned an early morning raid on the house, to, what they called, 'extract' the boy, and give him to his father.

Their timing, was either a coincidence, or deliberately set, on the most holiest holiday weekends of the year, the Saturday, between Good Friday, and Easter.

During that time, a lot of people are participating in their religious activities, and the congress, and senators, as well as the president, are all on holiday break, and can't be contacted.

So, after the operation took place, no one could contact anyone to complain. It was said, and I am saying up front, that this is hearsay, that someone asked the president, if he planned to go in and take the boy out of the house, and he replied, 'no.' Seems like I have heard something like that before, when he was asked something, he said no, but he did it, anyway.

So now, the boy is with his father, here in the US, until the father can arrange for his return home. And until that time, no one has been able to see the boy. They are only getting photographs of him and his father.

It seems funny to me, but in Florida, where the boy was with his relatives, the press had free access to him. By that I mean he was outside all the time, and they were filming him and talking to him, even though he stayed in the yard, behind a fence. One reporter, who was chosen by the group of reporters, actually got to go inside the house, and talk with him and his relatives, then come out and report to the others, the things she observed.

Now, he is isolated from just about everyone, and no one knows what is going on.

The funny part is, the press, is always talking about 'freedom of the press' when it comes to information being withheld from them. They go to court, and sue, all the time.

In Florida, they didn't have to do any of that, because of their accessibility to the boy.

But, where he is now, they aren't being allowed to see him at all, and they aren't complaining.

If a Republican president had done something like what this administration did, and locked him away from the press, they would have stormed the courts, demanding to have access to him. But, because it is Clinton, no problem. This shows the bias of the press, and whose side they are on, and it isn't our side.

Next time you see the press attacking Republicans, conservatives, the 'religious right' or anybody else for that matter, think about what's happening here.

*****************************************************************************

APRIL, 2000


HOME PAGE

TRACT LIST

NEWSLETTERS

TAPE LIST