Murderer Che Guevara Shouldn’t Be Lionized 50 Years After His Death

Today marks 50 years since Ernesto “Che” Guevara was executed by CIA-backed Bolivian forces. Yet, our country and countless nations abroad still idolize him as a pop culture figure while whitewashing his crimes against humanity.

Here in the U.S., modern-day leftists love and worship Argentinian-born Che Guevara–who was instrumental in helping overthrow Cuba’s government to install the now-dead Fidel Castro as supreme leader there. Guevara, who was ruthless and devoted to Marxist-Leninist ideology, was responsible for overseeing the personal execution of 123 individuals (recorded thus far) without a fair trial–while communist Cuba oversaw 14,000 executions by the late 1960’s. Ultimately, Cuba has been responsible for the deaths of an estimated range of 35,000 to 141,000 people (with the medium number at 73,000 individuals) since a communist dictatorship was installed there in 1959. Freedom has yet to touch the island nation in the present day.

Guevara’s role as mass executioner for Fidel Castro drew inspiration from behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union (which viewed Cuba as a “little sister” nation). He wrote, “‘My ideological training means that I am one of those people who believe that the solution to the world’s problems is to be found behind the Iron Curtain.” Here’s more on his affinity for Karl Marx from his Notes for the Study of the Ideology of the Cuban (October 1960):

The merit of Marx is that he suddenly produces a qualitative change in the history of social thought. He interprets history, understands its dynamic, predicts the future, but in addition to predicting it (which would satisfy his scientific obligation), he expresses a revolutionary concept: the world must not only be interpreted, it must be transformed. Man ceases to be the slave and tool of his environment and converts himself into the architect of his own destiny.

Controversy is brewing across the Atlantic (and rightly so) over the decision to glorify Che Guevara’s “legacy” fifty years after his death by Ireland’s An Post. Dublin artist Jim Fitzpatrick designed a €1 stamp in Guevara’s honor. In response, prominent Cuban-American figure Ninoska Perez Castellón from Miami, Florida, told Morning Ireland it’s objectionable to feature and “celebrate a man who slaughtered so many people.”

So why would Ireland decide to lionize this murderous thug? Apparently, he boasted Irish roots and was born as Ernesto “Che” Guevara Lynch:

His father was Ernesto Guevara Lynch, a civil engineer of Irish descent.

A quote from Ernesto, “in my son’s veins flowed the blood of Irish rebels”, features on a cover envelope to accompany the stamp.

Some in Ireland’s parliament have found this decision objectionable, asking if fellow murderous thugs Pol Pot (Cambodia) and Nicholas Ceausescu (Romania) are also acceptable to display on stamps. Senator Neale Richmond is quoted as saying the following:

“Although Che Guevara seems now to be classed as a romantic revolutionary figure and that some of his political ideals might be shared by some in this country, it is my belief that he is most definitely not a suitable candidate for such an honour,” said Senator Neale Richmond, who represents Dublin and wrote in a letter to Minister Naughten.

He added, “Minister, as you will be aware, Che Guevara was a violent revolutionary whose legacy has been greatly glossed over. While I do not dispute that the Batista regime that ruled Cuba prior to the violent revolution was deplorable, what came after and the actions of Guevara where equally as heinous.”

The Irish Times approached Che Guevara’s brother, Juan Martin Guevara Lynch–who explained more about the family’s Irish roots:

“My grandmother was North American. A Lynch, but born in the US. She was born in San Francisco. The family moved from here, the province of Buenos Aires, but moved to San Francisco where she was born. But her father yes, he was born in Ireland, ” he said, continuing.

“Then on the other side the Guevaras were Basque. It is because of that our aunt always said we are the descendants of the Basque and Irish, meaning we have one steadfast idea of how things are and we are not for turning.

“With my old man a bit, yes. He used to speak about the rebellious nature of the Irish. Beyond that he liked the Irish because of their party nature; they like to drink a drop of whiskey! He was really fond of all that.

Irish roots or not, Che Guevara is not someone to celebrate. He was an unrepentant executioner, narcissist, racist, and homophobe who thrived on bloodshed as a means to usurp and retain power.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times published a piece entitled Che Guevara’s Fiery Life and Bloody Death today in response to the 50th anniversary of his death.

Fifty years ago today –October 9, 1967–Guevara was captured and shot by Bolivian forces–aided by the C.I.A. Fidel Castro praised him as a central part of the bloody coup d’etat in Cuba, calling him “the paradigm of the revolutionary” who is “everywhere there is a just cause to defend.”  He was lionized in the film The Motorcycle Diaries–and yet, Hollywood has yet to offer a counter narrative highlighting his crimes and his true brutal nature. Sad.

With the centennial year marking the start of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution coming up, it’s no surprise why Che Guevara and other brutal communist dictators are being propped up more than ever. That’s why it’s imperative to honor and commemorate the 100 million plus lives lost to global communism today and every day.

Haley’s Ultimatum on UN Human Rights and Israel: Fix It or Else…

Using the strongest words yet, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley issued what could be called an ultimatum to the UN Human Rights Council. In a speech in Geneva, Haley kept a promise she made last week.

She called on the UN to make two key changes:

  • “Act to keep the worst human rights abusers form obtaining seats on the Council.”
  • “Agenda Item Seven must be removed.” This is the permanent item that singles out Israel for condemnation.

On the first item, Haley recited a litany of abuses by sitting members of the Council, including Venezuela and Cuba. She called Cuba’s jaw-dropping hypocrisy “a reversal of the truth that would make George Orwell blush.”

She singled out Russia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea; and accused China, Burundi and Saudi Arabia of failing to “uphold the highest standards” of human rights. “They clearly do not uphold those highest standards,” she said.

Citing former Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s 2005 disbanding of the erstwhile Human Rights Commission, Haley levied the same charges against the new body that was supposed to fix the problems of the discredited body.

These problems were supposed to have been fixed when the new Council was formed. Sadly, the case against the Human Rights Council today looks an awful lot like the case against the discredited Human Rights Commission over a decade ago.

Once again, over half the current member countries fail to meet basic human rights standards as measured by Freedom House.

And she closed with an implied threat.

For our part, the United States will not sit quietly while this body, supposedly dedicated to human rights, continues to damage the cause of human rights.

She called on America’s allies–“likeminded countries”–to join her call for reform.

Let the world be on notice: We will never give up the cause of universal human rights. Whether it’s here, or in other venues, we will continue this fight.

Like the Paris Accords, the Human Rights Council is nothing more than a cover for globalists to seek legitimacy and despots to do as they please; it’s proclamations are without effect, and it statements without power. The U.S. should have nothing to do with it.

In the question and answer session following the speech, however, Haley pulled her punches.

“America does not seek to leave the Human Rights Council,” Ms. Haley said. “We seek to re-establish the council’s legitimacy.” Pressed by the audience, she would not commit to staying or leaving.

Some organizations believe that, even with these egregious problems, the U.S. should stick with the HRC.

Eight rights organizations wrote to Ms. Haley last month highlighting the importance of the United States’ leadership role and its ability to change the council’s practices and its approach toward Israel.


They pointed out that during the Bush years, America’s ability to influence the Council was at its nadir. But former President Obama’s terms helped the Council focus on other issues than Israel. One could argue that the Council didn’t see Israel as a necessary target since Obama’s own policies (and in the Security Council) seemed to take care of that checkbox.

“What is certain is that the departure of the U.S. from the Human Rights Council would only result in worse, and perhaps even pernicious, outcomes,” the rights organizations said in their letter.

Israeli officials are not so convinced. They believe (and I agree) that the structure and form of the HRC are too corrupted to be corrected from within, unless and until Haley’s demands are met.

“The US should present the Council with an ultimatum: Either Item 7 goes or we go,” Deputy Minister for Diplomacy Michael Oren told The Times of Israel in a recent interview. The organization would still be heavily biased against Israel, he added, “but at least it would not condemn us three times a year automatically.”

However, Oren said at the time that the Council cannot be reformed from the inside, urging the US to leave. “By being there, the US and like-minded countries are only legitimizing an inherently anti-Semitic organization. I don’t want to sound hyperbolic, but wanting to reform the UNHRC is like wanting to reforming the BDS [Boycott, Divest and Sanction] movement from the inside.”

The UN as a whole teeters on the brink of irrelevancy–especially in the Trump era, where multilateral cooperative deals are definitely out of favor. The HRC has zero credibility for the supposed purpose for which it was created. Why should the U.S. continue to lend it legitimacy?

Ambassador Haley, your message should be received as: Get right or America gets out.

Trump Looks To Tighten Obama’s Relaxed Relationship With Cuba

It looks as though the White House is getting ready to announce a reversal of the Obama administration’s Cuba policy. A bipartisan effort from Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bob Menedez (D-NJ) and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) has helped lead President Trump to walk back Obama’s reopening of relations with the island dictatorship.

Obama drastically changed Cuba policy during his time in office, reestablishing diplomatic relations, reopening travel, and easing restrictions on commerce with Cuba. His administration allowed all these reversals of longstanding US policy against the Communist nation without demanding concessions that would give the Cuban people freedom.

This information coming from an anti-embargo group, which spoke on the condition of anonymity, was confirmed Sunday by John Kavulich of the nonpartisan U.S. – Cuba Trade and Economic Council. “The Trump Administration has been ‘ready’ since February 2017 to announce changes, but issues unrelated to Cuba have intervened,” Kavulich said.


Trump himself has been on both sides of the issue. He told TheDC in 2015 that the “concept of opening with Cuba is fine,” but on the campaign trail he threatened to “terminate” deals that the Obama administration made with Cuba.

The campaign trail rhetoric carried over into the administration, as Trump said in a February press conference that he has “very similar views” on Cuba as Sen. Rubio.

Diaz-Balart and Rubio both appear confident that Trump will enact a roll back of the Obama-era Cuba policy.

“I have no doubt that you’re going to see in short order a different policy,” Diaz-Balart has said. Menendez has not commented publicly on any potential changes to Cuba policy since Trump took office.

Oddly enough, some of the strongest opposition to any moves by Trump to undo Obama’s policy changes seems to be coming from the president’s fellow Republicans.

A bill introduced by Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake Thursday to remove all travel restrictions with Cuba has nine Republican cosponsors.

“Recognizing the inherent right of Americans to travel to Cuba isn’t a concession to dictators, it is an expression of freedom,” Sen. Flake said in a statement. “It is Americans who are penalized by our travel ban, not the Cuban government.”

It will certainly be interesting to see whether the White House enacts a return to pre-Obama Cuba policy, but no matter what happens, the Cuban people will be no more free than they were when Obama opened the door between Cuba and the United States. And that’s the biggest shame of it all.

Barack Obama, Supporter of Infanticide, Now Supports the Murder of Adults Too

When Barack Obama stands before the Creator he gives lip service to, but doesn’t really think exists, he will be called to account for being the only member of the Illinois legislature to support infanticide. When debating the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” Obama was the only member of the state senate to speak against it and he argued that doctors should be allowed to finish the job, i.e. to kill a living, breathing child who survived the abortion. Now Barack Obama ends his Presidency endorsing and supporting the murder of adult human beings and his Creator will hold him to account for that as well.

Barack Obama is reversing a long standing American policy to allow Cuban refugees into our country if they make it to our country. The communist butchers of Cuba have long wanted this policy revoked. It is well known that many of the people who are sent back to Cuba are tortured, abused, and killed.

This is patently different than sending home an illegal alien from Mexico. That person will not be murdered by his government for fleeing. Cuban refugees are murdered by their government.

This is also a monstrous act of cowardice. Barack Obama is only doing this now, one week before leaving office, because he never has to worry about being held to account by the voters again. He no longer has to worry about trying to help Hillary Clinton win Florida.

He can now reveal himself to be the moral coward and willful idiot of a communist regime that murders its own people.

I hope Mr. Trump swiftly reverses this action.

Obama To Send Informal Delegation to Fidel Castro Funeral


Many had wondered if President Obama would make a pilgrimage to Havana for the Fidel Castro funeral next Tuesday. As it turns out, he isn’t. Even though attending state funerals is a part of the job description of the vice president, Joe Biden won’t be making the trip across the Straits of Florida either.

Obama is not totally snubbing the mourning Cubans however. The Los Angeles Times reports that the president will dispatch two informal emissaries to the communist island. Obama will send Jeffrey DeLaurentis, the Chargé d’affaires ad interim of the US embassy in Cuba, and Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy National Security Advisor, to send off the departed dictator. DeLaurentis is the top ranking US diplomat in Cuba and has been nominated to be the first US ambassador to Cuba since the fall of the Batista regime.

A fake news story had claimed that Obama had originally planned to attend the funeral personally, but had changed his mind when Donald Trump, citing an Executive Order by John F. Kennedy, threatened to have Obama arrested when Trump took office. In an article debunking the story, Snopes points out a disclaimer on the site that published the story that says, “All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney.”

Obama did issue a formal statement after Castro’s death in which he equivocated on Castro’s legacy, saying, “Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.”

Left unsaid by Obama was that Castro’s “enormous impact” included a swath of destruction and death for the island. Castro was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cubans, many of whom faced firing squads on his orders. Many thousands more were imprisoned and untold numbers fled the island. Many, including relatives of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, made new lives in the United States.

President Obama lifted the 50-year-old US embargo on Cuba in 2014. Donald Trump, whose company was accused during the campaign of violating the embargo in the 1990s, has indicated that his administration may not continue Obama’s policy of détente. In a tweet, Trump recently stated, “If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal.”

Cruz and Rubio Provide Post-Castro Clarity

As insane as I find it that some people are actually mourning Castro’s death, I must admit, it’s kinda nice to have a controversy that only marginally involves Trump, Clinton or Obama.

Nothing helps unify the left and right against each other like the death of a socialist dictator and Fidel’s demise fell at particularly timely moment. His departure to warmer climes has allowed us a break from post-election internecine warfare to focus on the lefts’ fascination with tyranny.

The perfect view of this juxtaposition can be seen by comparing the statements of Senators Rubio & Cruz (see video below) regarding Castro’s death with those of Outgoing President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.

Cruz and Rubio know of what they speak. Both are the sons of Cuban immigrants and they understand personally the nature of Fidel’s despotic legacy. Their family members quite literally bare the scars of the revolution, Castro’s broken promises and his despotic legacy.

As Senator Cruz said, mourning the loss of Fidel is akin to crying at the deaths of Pol Pot, Mao or Stalin. These despots murdered, tortured and oppressed countless people during the term of their power. Castro’s legacy is of the same type and differs only in degree.

Fidel Castro’s Bloody Legacy Cannot Be Whitewashed

Earlier today, it was announced that former Cuban dictator and avowed communist Fidel Castro died at the age of 90.

Celebrations broke out in Miami, Florida, and elsewhere as Cuban exiles rejoiced in the news. The man who wrought pain and suffering on them and their homeland is finally dead. Survivors of communism, their descendants, and other pro-freedom advocates took it to social media to remind people how brutal and inhuman Castro’s policies were:

As expected, leftist figures from across the globe offered sappy condolences to the Castro family. These included remarks from President Obama, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Canadian PM  Justin Trudeau, among many:

Why the praise for Castro if history demonstrates otherwise? Here’s a breakdown of Castro’s bloody past and his dealings:

Castro originally had the support of Americans, wrote Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. Here’s more on it:

The United States welcomed Castro’s ouster of Batista and was one of the first nations to recognize the new government in 1959. It was not until 1961 that President Eisenhower — reacting to “a long series of harassments, baseless accusations, and vilification” — broke diplomatic ties with Havana. By that point Castro had nationalized all US businesses in Cuba and confiscated American properties worth nearly $2 billion.

Castro’s policies led to the deaths of an estimated 35,000 to 141,000 Cubans from 1959-1987, per the late University of Hawaii professor RJ Rummel (who specialized in democide, or state-sanctioned murder). 73,000 Cuban deaths is the consensus number reached by the majority of experts.

Castro turned Cuba into a police state. The Guardian wrote, “While Castro became a figurehead for revolutionary armed struggle throughout and beyond Latin America, the former guerrilla was far from universally popular in his home country once he turned his hand to government. Property appropriations, restrictions on religion and crackdowns on suspected enemies left many, particularly in the old middle class, hating him – a sentiment that has spanned the generations.”

Castro was a racist, sexist, homophobe, and all-around xenophobe. Here’s more about racism in Castro’s Cuba from the NYT:

Racism in Cuba has been concealed and reinforced in part because it isn’t talked about. The government hasn’t allowed racial prejudice to be debated or confronted politically or culturally, often pretending instead as though it didn’t exist. Before 1990, black Cubans suffered a paralysis of economic mobility while, paradoxically, the government decreed the end of racism in speeches and publications. To question the extent of racial progress was tantamount to a counterrevolutionary act. This made it almost impossible to point out the obvious: racism is alive and well.

An important first step would be to finally get an accurate official count of Afro-Cubans. The black population in Cuba is far larger than the spurious numbers of the most recent censuses. The number of blacks on the street undermines, in the most obvious way, the numerical fraud that puts at less than one-fifth of the population. Many people forget that in Cuba, a drop of white blood can — if only on paper — make a mestizo, or white person, out of someone who in social reality falls into neither of those categories. Here, the nuances governing skin color are a tragicomedy that hides longstanding racial conflicts.

Before gloating over Castro’s supposed “golden” legacy, learn the actual facts about this tyrant. He is not worthy of celebrating. His legacy is tainted with blood, hatred, and disdain for freedom.

Although freedom may not come to Cubans in the immediate future, Castro’s death can serve as an impetus for them to reclaim their homeland from dictatorship. Viva Cuba Libre!

Son of Cuban Dissident Ted Cruz Schools Prankster With ‘Communist Manifesto’

At a campaign event in Indiana yesterday, U.S. Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) was met by an attendee who asked him to sign a copy of The Communist Manifesto as a joke.

Initially taken aback by the unusual request, Cruz was a good sport and decided to oblige. Here’s what came about from that exchange:


The message reads: “Millions have suffered because of this.”

Red-baiting? More like masterful trolling!

Cruz is proud to tout his anti-communist roots since he’s a son of a Cuban dissident. He knows firsthand how evil and devastating the ideology of communism was in the 20th century. (Contrary to historical revisionists, it’s still a threat in the present day–just look at college campuses and pop culture.) He understands the dangers of big government, fascism, and totalitarianism today thanks to his upbringing. His main very orange-hued challenger, however, previously denigrated victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre as rioters and has expressed admiration for Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Too many people fail to think big picture with respect to freedom versus tyranny. Socialism is sadly making a comeback among members of my generation, but it must be countered. Tyranny of all shapes and stripes should be wholly rejected in this country.

Those of us who grew up with parents who fled communism–my parents and Senator’s Cruz’ father included–see the threat of tyranny today. I recommend supporting groups like the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation to help educate our peers about the dangers of global communism. It needs to be wholly condemned like National Socialism has.