From: "MICHAEL SPITZER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One of the first news photos of Juan Miguel Gonz�lez arriving at
> Dulles International Airport to reclaim his son Eli�n showed him
> in mid-stride, so you could see the soles of his shoes. They were
> unmarred by any contact with pavement; they'd obviously been in a
> box when the plane took off from Havana. Had he bought himself a
> new pair of shoes for the trip? Unlikely, once you looked at his
> shirt-collar, which was two inches too big for his neck. Clearly
> it was the Cuban government that had decided how to present Juan
> Miguel to the American public, and that should not be surprising.
> With the collusion of the Clinton administration, they've called
> the tune of this custody battle since last Thanksgiving, when
> Eli�n was found tied to an inner tube three miles off the Florida
> coast.
If the Administration was 'calling the tune', the kid would have been returned to Cuba
last November.
> Most stunning was his description of the L�zaro Gonz�lez family
> of Miami as "distant relatives he had never seen or who had met
> him only once." Your father's brother is hardly a "distant
> relative." And "met him only once" is a dismissive way to
> describe the extraordinary two-week visit that L�zaro and Delf�n
> Gonz�lez made to Cuba in 1998, for the express purpose of
> visiting Juan Miguel and his son.
Oh, are these the same Miami relatives who now claim that Juan Miguel never had a
relationship with his own son before now?
> Said Juan Miguel Gonz�lez to
> his Cuban TV audience on the night of his arrival, "Those people
> really don't want the best for my son." That's a weird way to
> characterize the very people Juan Miguel phoned the day after
> Eli�n's departure to alert them that their nephew was on his way.
Any proof of this extraordinary assertion?
> Mr. Gonz�lez's statements since arriving from Cuba last Thursday
> to claim custody of his son have been so far removed from reality
> as to raise the possibility that he is out of his mind. But we
> pass no judgment on Mr. Gonz�lez's decency or his fitness as a
> father. We do not underestimate the pressures he is under,
> political and otherwise. NBC reported last week that Mr.
> Gonz�lez's mother, who remains in Havana, has been moved to a
> secure government building for the duration of his trip. We think
> it likely he is operating under coercion, or at least strong
> influence.
Perhaps the 'strong influence' is love of his sone, and the 'coercion' comes from the
Miami mob.
> There is another possibility, of course-that Mr. Gonz�lez is the
> sincerest of Communists. There's some evidence for this. He has
> been described in press accounts as a doorman, security guard,
> cash register operator, and the employee of a tourist agency-a
> protean job description that fits many an Interior Ministry
> secret policeman. Mr. Gonz�lez lives in a protocol house in a
> diplomatic neighborhood, of the sort the writer Gabriel Garc�a
> M�rquez lives in; he has air conditioning in a country where many
> lack electricity.
Interesting. Other anti-Castro-ites who in their attempts at keeping Elian here have
tried to paint his father as 'unfit', have
claimed his father lives in a converted garage...
But you still don't get it, that it matters not a whit what Elian's father does for a
living, as long as he makes an adequate living
to support the boy, and so is a fit parent. He deserves to have custody of his own
son. Whether he's a janitor or is a member of
Castro's cabinet doesn't matter.
> There may be a good explanation for Mr. Gonz�lez's cushy setup
> and his strange comportment in the United States. But whatever
> that explanation is, we don't yet have it, and only a court of
> law can give it to us. So why is the Clinton administration doing
> everything it can to keep this case out of a court of law?
Because when has ANY case of illegal immigration gone to a 'court of law' and NOT been
decided directly by the INS itself? Why shou
ld this kid be treated differently than any other illegal immigrant from any other
country?
> To listen to the Clinton administration, the sudden visit of Juan
> Miguel Gonz�lez, after four months' absence spent largely
> calumniating the United States, should arouse no suspicion and
> requires no explanation.
Why should it? Fathers in the U.S. go through out-of-state custody battles all the
time, and you don't see those fathers dropping
everything immediately and traveling out of state for a prolonged custody battle.
They have jobs and families to attend to back
home.
Why expect anything different from a Cuban father?
>"The law is very clear," says Attorney
> General Janet Reno. "A child who's lost his mother belongs with
> the sole surviving parent." What law is that?
Most every state law. U.S. law. Cuban law. International law.
> The INS can issue a no-exit order for anyone-including you or
> me-at its discretion. It can mandate that Eli�n stay by the very
> same authority under which it now mandates-yes, mandates-that he
> be sent back to Cuba.
Again, why should this kid be treated any differently than the thousands of, say,
Haitian refugees, many of whom are children, who
are routinely and systematically refused entry to the U.S. and returned to their own
country?
> Nor has this always been the administration's position. In the
> days following Eli�n's rescue, spokesmen for the U.S. Border
> Patrol announced that Eli�n could stay, the INS issued a
> statement that Eli�n's fate was a matter for state court (or
> family court if it came to a custody battle), and the State
> Department concurred. It's the INS that paroled Eli�n to the
> L�zaro Gonz�lez family to begin with.
For TEMPORARY custody. That mob has taken that as free license to KIDNAP the kid.
And what's the bit with not spelling out LAZARO?
And why do you ignore the fact that Lazaro Gonzalez has a long record of DUI, and that
others amongst that clan have an extensive
criminal history?
> We're beginning to see what the big rush is about. Clearly, the
> administration has cut a deal with Fidel Castro, in which Eli�n
> is a pawn. The officials involved in the case want to make sure
> that this is taken care of before anyone has a chance to find out
> what the terms of that deal are. We know certain of its
> conditions-and they're an affront to America's conscience. One
> was that Juan Miguel stay in the home of the head of the Cuban
> interests section-and by what right does our government negotiate
> with Fidel Castro about the movement of a human being on American
> soil?
The same 'right' that our government would assert if the tables were turned, and an
American citizen was on foreign soil.
You ignore the fact that if we throw the law out the window and keep the kid here,
then the U.S. loses any validity in future cases
involving American children being held in foreign countries by relatives who feel they
also will have a 'better life' in that
country than in the U.S.
How is the Elian Gonzalez case any different than if an Iranian parent took their
children, kids who were born in the U.S. of a
union between the Iranian parent and an American citizen, back to Iran to visit
relatives, and the Iranian parent suddenly died and
the relative in Iran decided they would retain custody of the American kids, because
they believe that the kids will have a better
life if raised under Iranian religious and social customs?
And would you condemn that American parent for taking 4 months to be able to arrange
his or her affairs before being able to go to
Iran, with only nebulous assurances that American parent may be able to regain custody
of his or her own children?
What would your reaction be if, after getting to Iran, that American parent stayed at
the home of an American diplomat, and the
Iranians who were arguing for retaining the children in Iran then said "See, that
parent is a pawn of The Great Satan, because that
parent is staying with a minion of The Great Satan"? What would you say if that
parent, after continual promises from the Iranian
relatives, found those same relatives continually breaking their promises and not
allowing the American parent to even see and hold
his or her own children?
> The second was that Juan Miguel be given custody of Eli�n
> with no questions asked-and by what right does our government
> deliver a 6-year-old guest of the nation to a dictatorship his
> mother died trying to escape?
The same right it uses every day to return Haitian children to the dictatorship THEY
are trying to escape.
> President Clinton,
> meanwhile, assures us that Juan Miguel is a "fit" father. On what
> grounds?
On what grounds do you assert that he is not? Prior to the mother making her
ill-fated boat escape, Juan Miguel had part-time
custody of Elian, 3 to 5 days a week while Elian's mother was at work. Even Juan
Miguel's mother-in-law says he had a good
relationship with Elian, and is a 'fit' parent.
> For all Janet Reno's pretty talk, this case is not about the rule
> of law. The administration's ultimate weapon is not the courts
> but its threat of criminal contempt charges against Eli�n's Miami
> family if they refuse to abide by executive-branch dictates.
That's the very least those Miami thugs deserve. THEY are the ones who are abusing
Elian in their cheap bid for glory and whatever
money they can milk out of it. Time and again it is amply demonstrated on the media
how they are the ones who are unfit to have
custody of the kid; witness how they parade him out to the mob outside at the least
chance; images of Elian out playing in the yard
after midnight, when he should have been inside and in bed for hours...
They tell us "Elian said he doesn't want to go to D.C...."...well, if they let a
6-year-old dictate to them in this matter, what
will they do when he says "I don't want to go to school today", "I don't want to eat
my dinner, I'd rather have candy instead", "No,
I don't want the doctor to stick a needle in my arm", "No, I don't like those cheap
shoes, I want that pair of $150 shoes
instead"...
And why ISN'T this kid in school?
> There used to be an institution that could be trusted to remain
> vigilant about the actions of Communist regimes, and to ask such
> questions about the way they operated. It was called the
> Republican party.
The same party that cries "family values"?
> It's a shame for the United States, but not just for the United
> States. Whether we like it or not, Cubans view this situation
> much as Fidel Castro does-as a straightforward power struggle.
> They'll draw the correct, if demoralizing, conclusion-that the
> one power that could have stood with them against communism
> refused to do so, whether out of cowardice or outright Communist
> sympathy.
Are these the same Cubans who have tucked their tails between their legs and fled
their own country, instead of staying and fighting
for freedom? The same Cubans who demand the U.S. fight the fight they themselves
should be fighting?
June
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
