Lone Cuban-born rep 'amped up' to see nation liberated after emotional return 64 years in the making
EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Carlos Gimenez returned to his homeland of Cuba over the weekend for the first time in 64 years, saying he is now "more determined than ever" to see the island liberated from dictatorship.
Gimenez, R-Fla., the only Cuban-born member of Congress, joined a congressional delegation (CODEL) to the U.S.-managed Guantánamo Bay military base there, and noted the rest of the nation is still run by the iron-fisted communist government that took over when President Fulgencio Batista was overthrown by Fidel Castro in 1959.
The Gimenez family – Carlos Sr., Mitzi, Carlos and Mitzi Ann – left the country when the future Miami fire chief, Miami-Dade County mayor and congressman was just 6 years old.
"Now that I visited the only free part of Cuba, I want to make sure that the rest of the island is also free from this communist tyranny," Gimenez said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital.
Exclusive: Venezuelan Oppo Leader Joins Cuba-born Rep To Laud Trump After Biden's Maduro Oil Deal Canceled
"I was already amped up. Now I'm really amped up. ... I've always wanted it (to see Cuba liberated), but now I kind of made a pledge that I'm not going to go back until the entire island is free."
Read On The Fox News App
The congressman said his memories of Cuba remain in "20-second" video snippets in his memory and that his feelings about Cuba started welling up when he first caught the outline of the island from the plane taking the lawmakers to Guantánamo Bay.
"It dawned on me it was the first time I'd seen it in nearly 65 years – how beautiful it is – it's just a place that is so special; and to have, really, a group of thugs and dictators and oppressors ruin it – I was somewhat emotional, but then that turned to anger."
Gimenez said he could envision his grandparents living in Oriente Province – which borders Guantánamo Province.
Cuba's Meddling In Us Elections A 'Badge Of Honor' To Some Targeted Critics
The lawmaker was born in Havana but said he lived half of each year on a ranch in Manzanillo, Oriente – only a few dozen miles west of Guantánamo Bay, and on the opposite end of the island from the capital city.
"There are certain memories that just pop back in my head and have for a long, long time. And so all those came back again – I was grateful to go back. And it was emotional. But it also, I guess, incentivized me more."
However, visiting his hometown remained out of the question on the CODEL – as Gimenez described the potentially deadly security barrier between Guantánamo Bay and the rest of Cuba.
While East Berlin had Checkpoint Charlie, and North and South Korea have the DMZ restricting movement, the border between Guantánamo Bay and mainland Cuba is fortified with hundreds of thousands of landmines planted by the regime.
Representatives of the Cuban government tend to meet on a monthly basis with their U.S. counterparts at a bunker near Guantánamo Bay, but only for base management purposes rather than diplomacy, according to Gimenez.
The lawmaker learned that in the past few months, there have been no such meetings.
Top Republican Calls Usss Director's 'Sloped Roof' Defense 'Final Straw': I'm 70 And 'Could Run Around It All Day'
The CODEL, led by Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, followed an executive order from President Donald Trump directing illegal immigrant criminals to be detained at Gitmo under ICE supervision.
Rogers said in a statement the CODEL met with U.S. service members assigned to the base as well as the law enforcement officials in charge of "facilitating the removal of some of the worst criminals."
"Border security is national security, and I'm proud of the role the Department of Defense has played in protecting our nation and ending the invasion at our southern border," Rogers said.
Just over a dozen of the 780 total non-illegal-immigrant detainees since 2002 remain at Gitmo.
In 1966, Cuban workers at the base were given a choice, Gimenez said: either go back to Cuba-proper, or remain working on-base for life. About 40 of those workers are still alive in Gitmo, unable to return to their homes in the rest of Cuba. Many are in their 80s, and there is an assisted living facility for those of advanced age that remain on base, he said.
Gimenez has long advocated for a peaceful yet decisive end to the seven-decade dictatorship now led by Miguel Díaz-Canel, the handpicked successor of the late Raúl Castro, who had previously taken over from his brother.
A democratic Cuba could be the best friend to the U.S. in the Caribbean region, Gimenez said. Having Cuba under its current constitution sitting only 90 miles off the famous Southernmost Buoy in Key West is also of national security concern, many in Florida believe.
With Trump at the helm and a renewed, revamped foreign policy and national security focus, Gimenez said in the interview that "all of the pieces are in place" to move more swiftly toward ushering-in a democratic Cuba once more.
"It's a question of will. I certainly have the will -- this is the time. Now is the time," he said Monday.
"I just want to make sure that whatever I can do to make it happen."Original article source: Lone Cuban-born rep 'amped up' to see nation liberated after emotional return 64 years in the making
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Leavitt Given Snarky Nickname by Trump's Former White House Lawyer
Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb trashed Donald Trump's press secretary Karoline Leavitt as 'creepy Karoline' on Thursday after she attacked federal judges who blocked the president's tariff plans. Leavitt had opened her Thursday briefing with a tirade against what she called 'judicial overreach.' A panel of three judges ruled on Wednesday that Trump's global tariffs overstepped his authority—a decision now on hold pending appeal. Leavitt cast the panel as 'activist judges,' even though one of them was appointed by Trump himself and another by conservative hero Ronald Reagan. Asked about Leavitt's 'activist judges' remark on CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, Cobb started calling names. 'I don't think creepy Karoline, when she speaks, I don't think anybody in America really takes her seriously on a matter of substance,' Cobb said. 'I mean, she's not learned by any imagination. And I think her comments are clearly so defensive and so ill-informed that people might largely turn her out. She's wrong,' he added. 'Keep in mind, these courts are not trying to participate in international trade matters. All they're doing is ruling on whether a statute authorizes actions by a president.' 'Did Congress delegate its authority to the president under this statute?' he continued. 'And the statute in question has never in history been used in connection with tariffs. So, I think the likelihood is that this statute will be upheld and enforced in a way that precludes the president from trying to pretend that he has these all-encompassing powers.' Faithfully echoing her master's voice, Leavitt is making a habit of dismissing judges who rule against the Trump administration as politically motivated. Back in March, she labeled a judge involved in a deportation case a 'Democrat activist'—despite the fact he was originally appointed by George W. Bush. In a whiplash-inducing 24 hours, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump's sweeping import tariffs on Wednesday, only for a federal appeals court to reinstate them the next day. The lower court had ruled that the Constitution's separation of powers bars Congress from handing the president 'unbounded tariff power.' The other two judges on the panel were appointed by former presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Cobb served in the Trump White House from 2017 to 2018, overseeing the internal response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. He appears frequently in the media to discuss Trump's moves, often critically.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment
Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation's founding document. It's a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one. These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora's Box. I'd be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It's a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation. For a sense of where we might be without it, I'd recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities. As Tablet magazine reported, "74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading 'Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'" Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn't raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound. This isn't as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government's critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that's thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone's freedoms. In 1998, Great Britain approved Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It protects a citizen's "right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference." But it comes with limits and conditions. The authorities may quash such speech to "protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety," or "prevent disorder or crime," or "protect health or morals," or "maintain the authority and impartiality of judges." One may not express "views that encourage racial or religious hatred." Those are open-ended terms, which has led to bizarre prosecutions. Our First Amendment includes these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." A constitutional amendment stating "no law" is more protective than a statute with asterisks and exceptions. With the political Left devoted to limiting speech based on its fixations on race and gender and the political Right's willingness to, say, deport students who take verboten positions on the war in Gaza and malign reporters as enemies of the people, I'd hate to see how speech protections would fare in a refashioned constitution. Traditionally, the Left has taken a "living and breathing" approach, insisting its plain words and founders' intent are up for reinterpretation. Sadly, modern conservatives, who previously defended originalism, seem ready to ditch the Constitution when it hinders their policy aims. Just read their dissing of due process—as stated in the 5th and 14th amendments, when it comes to immigration policy. When asked about habeas corpus during a Senate hearing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said it's "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country." It's the opposite, as habeas corpus requires the government to explain why it's detaining people—and forbids it from holding them indefinitely. MAGA apparently believes the words of the Constitution mean the opposite of what they say. Frankly, I wouldn't want either side to be near a constitutional convention that's empowered to rewrite a document penned by men more brilliant and civic-minded than our current lot. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards," wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1927 free-speech case, Whitney v. California. "They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. … If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." We don't need to revisit the Constitution, but to uphold the protections already within it. This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment appeared first on
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House?
Elon Musk's time in the Trump administration is coming to an end after a tempestuous 129 days in which the world's richest man took an axe to government spending - stirring ample controversy along the way. Earlier this week, the South African-born billionaire, on his social media platform, X, thanked President Trump for his time at the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge. Trump announced he will host a news conference in the Oval Office on Friday with Musk, writing: "This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way." While Musk's time in government lasted little more than four months, his work with Doge upended the federal government and had an impact not just in the halls of power in Washington - but around the world. Let's take a look at some of the ways Musk has left a mark. Musk took a job with the Trump White House with one mission: to cut spending from the government as much as possible. He began with an initial target of "at least $2 trillion", which then shifted to $1tn and ultimately $150bn. To date, Doge claims to have saved $175bn through a combination of asset sales, lease and grant cancellations, "fraud and improper payment deletion", regulatory savings and a 260,000-person reduction from the 2.3 million-strong federal workforce. A BBC analysis of those figures, however, found that evidence is sometimes lacking. This mission has at times caused both chaos and controversy, including some instances in which federal judges halted mass firings and ordered employees reinstated. In other instances, the administration has been forced to backtrack on firings. In one notable instance in February, the administration stopped the firing of hundreds of federal employees working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, including some with sensitive jobs related to the US nuclear arsenal. Musk himself repeatedly acknowledged that mass firings would inevitably include mistakes. "We will make mistakes," he said in February, after his department mistook a region of Mozambique for Hamas-controlled Gaza while cutting an aid programme. "But we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes." Doge's efforts to access data also garnered controversy, particularly the department's push for access to sensitive treasury department systems that control the private information of millions of Americans. Polls show that cuts to government spending remain popular with many Americans - even if Musk's personal popularity has waned. The presence of Musk - an unelected "special government employee" with companies that count the US government as customers - in Trump's White House has also raised eyebrows, prompting questions about potential conflicts of interest. His corporate empire includes large companies that do business with US and foreign governments. SpaceX has $22 billion in US government contracts, according to the company's chief executive. Some Democrats also accused Musk of taking advantage of his position to drum up business abroad for his satellite internet services firm, Starlink. The White House was accused of helping Musk's businesses by showcasing vehicles made by Tesla - his embattled car company - on the White House lawn in March. Musk and Trump have both shrugged off any suggestion that his work with the government is conflicted or ethically problematic. Around the world, Musk's work with Doge was most felt after the vast majority - over 80% - of the US Agency for International Development's (USAID's) programmes were eliminated following a six-week review by Doge. The rest were absorbed by the State Department. The Musk and Doge-led cuts formed part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to bring overseas spending closer in line with its "America First" approach. The cuts to the agency - tasked with work such as famine detection, vaccinations and food aid in conflict areas - quickly had an impact on projects including communal kitchens in war-torn Sudan, scholarships for young Afghan women who fled the Taliban and clinics for transgender people in India. USAID also was a crucial instrument of US "soft power" around the world, leading some detractors pointing to its elimination as a sign of waning American influence on the global stage. While Musk - and Trump - have for years been accused by detractors of spreading baseless conspiracy theories, Musk's presence in the White House starkly highlighted how misinformation has crept into discourse at the highest levels of the US government. For example, Musk spread an unfounded internet theory that US gold reserves had quietly been stolen from Fort Knox in Kentucky. At one point, he floated the idea of livestreaming a visit there to ensure the gold was secured. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa More recently, Musk spread widely discredited rumours that the white Afrikaner population of South Africa is facing "genocide" in their home country. Those rumours found their way into the Oval Office earlier in May, when a meeting aimed at soothing tensions between the US and South Africa took a drastic twist after Trump presented South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with videos and articles he said were evidence of crimes against Afrikaners. Musk's work in government also showed that, despite public pledges of unity, there are tensions within the "Trump 2.0" administration. While Trump publicly - and repeatedly - backed the work of Musk and Doge, Musk's tenure was marked by reports of tension between him and members of the cabinet who felt Doge cuts were impacting their agencies. "They have a lot of respect for Elon and that he's doing this, and some disagree a little bit," Trump acknowledged in a February cabinet meeting. "If they aren't, I want them to speak up." At one point, he was asked whether any cabinet members had expressed dissatisfaction with Musk and turned to the room to ask them. No one spoke. The announcement of Musk's departure also came the same day CBS - BBC's US partner - publicised part of an interview during which Musk said he was "disappointed" by Trump's "big, beautiful" budget bill. The bill includes multi-trillion dollar tax breaks and a pledge to increase defence spending. Musk said the bill "undermines" the work of Doge to cut spending - reflecting larger tensions within the Republican Party over the path forward. Elon Musk leaves White House but says Doge will continue What is Doge and why is Musk leaving? Musk 'disappointed' by Trump's tax and spending bill How much has Elon Musk's Doge cut from US government spending?
