“Slap me again! HARDER!! You’re turning me ON!”(says U.S.)


That’s U.S. Amb. Hugo Llorens on the left and Manuel Zelaya on the right (just in case you mistook them for Scarlet O’Hara on the left and Rhett Butler on the right (the morning after he swooped her up, and hauled her up the stairs!)

“Those Americans,” snickered, Brazilian pres. Janio Quadros in 1961 as he watched in bemusement as Fidel made monkeys of the Best and Brightest, “they’re like women; the more you slap ’em around the more you get out of them.”

P.S. (Ladies please! that’s NOT MY QUIP! I’m quoting the Brazilian guy!)

Officials of a nation who stood side by side with the U.S. in helping rid Central America of Castro-Soviet terrorism in the 1980’s, who sent troops to fight (and bleed and die) alongside our Marines and GIs in Iraq, and whose fully democratic gov. is trying to save one of the U.S.’ most important military bases from being turned over to Hugo Chavez–head officials of this national group just had their U.S. visas yanked by Hillary’s State Dept. !

Meanwhile the U.S. amb. (see pic.) chums it up in Managua with the man hell-bent on giving the U.S. base to Chavez–this lovefest took place yesterday in Sandinista Managua. The choicest stanza in the Sandinista national anthem refers to the U.S. as “the enemy of humanity!”




12 thoughts on ““Slap me again! HARDER!! You’re turning me ON!”(says U.S.)

  1. This Hugo Llorens is such a shame to us. Here is this man who formed part of the Peter Pan exodus. His parents smuggled him out of Cuba to protect him from communist indoctrination and, yet, he is helping a pro-castroite monkey like Zelayas. Outrageous and shameful.

    I don’t know what it is with Cuban-Americans. I have never seen a group of people with so many turncoats within its own ranks. There are just so many of us, particularly, journalists and academians, and, yes, as we see now, ambassadors, who are pro-castroites that it can make one sick.

  2. It seems Hugo is rather aroused, I mean, impressed by all that thick, lustrous, manly hair (even if it is dyed). Maybe Zelaya has promised him that, if he’s a good little go-between, he’ll let him run his fingers through it when he’s back in power.

    As for bad-seed Cubans or Cuban-Americans, don’t get me started. Let’s just say we have serious issues in that department. Cuba didn’t implode and stay in the hole for half a century for nothing. Even poor, backward countries that never got nearly as far as we did haven’t sunk so low. But hey, look at the bright side: there’s a new role model for Joe Garcia.

  3. Here is Hugo talking about Cuba – obviously another commie prick. I mean c’mon – he even starts his piece by quoting von Mises:

    Not long after the previous version of this paper was published (State 1998), the Washington Times quoted the Cuban Interests Section’s objections to the statistical presentation found in the study (Carter 1998). It did not
    dispute the statistics themselves, the majority of which are reported by the Cuban government itself to multilateral institutions discussed earlier. Rather, a spokesman asserted that the statistics did not take into account the social achievements of the revolution in relation to the distribution of wealth. For example, he said, “Before the revolution, the rich had more food and the poor had less.” This statement is, of course, indisputable, but it leaves unanswered how a society in which virtually everyone is poor is preferable to one in which some people are poor, others are middle class, and still others are rich.

    In fact, the Cuban government’s focus on the relative fairness of Cuban society today reminds us of socialist claims during the post-World War II period, as reported by the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises:

    The Marxians used to recommend socialism on the ground that it would multiply productivity and bring unprecedented material wealth to everybody. Only lately have they changed their tactics. They declare that the Russian worker is happier than the American worker in spite of the fact that his standard of living is much lower; the knowledge that he lives under a fair social system compensates by far for all his material hardships (1966, p. 679n).

    Mises goes on to note that “this haughty indifference with regard to material well-being is a privilege reserved to ivory-tower intellectuals, secluded from reality… ” Most Cubans, if given the choice, would prefer the opportunity at a better life under capitalism over the “fairness” in
    poverty guaranteed by the Castro government. Perhaps that is why Fidel Castro steadfastly refuses to hold fair and free democratic elections. He realizes that if he were to do so, he would lose, just as his Nicaraguan companero Daniel Ortega was defeated in 1990 and again in 1996.

    As we have already stated, the chances that the living standards of Cubans will improve under the current regime relative to living standards elsewhere in the hemisphere are remote. This bleak outlook contrasts strongly with the
    optimism of the 1950s. The opening paragraphs of the 1,000-plus-page study of Cuba by the economic mission organized by the World Bank (1951, p. 3) read:

    Cuba today faces both a problem and an opportunity. Her problem is to reduce her dependence on sugar, not by producing less sugar but by developing additional enterprises. Her opportunity is that her present prosperity
    offers her the means to do so by further diversifying her economy. Ample, unused human and material resources are available in Cuba with which her people might increase the nation’s output, broaden its economic base and create a better standard of living for the population as a whole. Also, at the present time, Cuba has a financial potential of her own, which-if it can be effectively tapped-is adequate for her development.

    That such optimistic words would open a publication dedicated to a discussion of the socioeconomic problems in a country is striking. Today, by contrast, sound economic policies have been eschewed in favor of anti-U.S. diatribes, which government and party functionaries have repeated with
    sufficient frequency to divert the world’s attention from the degree to which their own actions are responsible for the material deprivation suffered by the Cuban people. That the government continues to show such indifference to the material poverty outlined in this study, steadfastly
    holding to a completely discredited economic model-and at the same time calling capitalism unsustainable!-constitutes the saddest chapter in the history of the once great Cuban nation.

  4. Well, Cardinal, maybe he’s a schizophrenic. Or maybe he’s simply doing exactly what he’s been told to do by Obama and Hillary, which I suppose is what ambassadors generally do.

  5. He is an FSO – he’s doing his job. Sucks ass but he is. To color him a Chavista is either ignorant or malicious.

  6. However, to color his boss Obama as a Chavista is a rather different story. Yeah, Llorens is “doing his job,” but it appears he’s not exactly reluctant about it, but rather enthusiastic, not to say eager. Maybe he’s simply thinking of his career, which is hardly unheard of in politics. Still, I have a feeling Armando Valladares, who was also an ambassador, would not have been quite so gung-ho in his efforts on behalf of Chavismo, I mean Zelaya.

  7. It is much easier to be an Ambassador working for Ronnie than working for O. In addition Llorens is a career FSO, Valladares was not. Valladares’ job was to rip other countries for Human Rights abuse – RR selected him just to prove a point. Llorens’ job is to best protect the national interests of the US and serve the President of the US.

    I don’t agree with the lead he has taken in this but I understand why he has. It is why I didn’t become an FSO. This is what you sign up for when you go in – they make that very clear to you.

  8. If any American should know the true story on the Honduras situation, it’s Llorens. If he doesn’t, he’s incompetent and unfit for his job. If he does, even though he cannot publicly go against Obama’s wishes, it’s his responsibility to educate the White House and recommend what he thinks is best. His pro-Zelaya stance is too enthusiastic and energetic for comfort. Either he’s personally for Zelaya, which is indefensible, or he’s simply going all out to please and impress the boss by doing what he figures the boss wants–and screw Honduras. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look good, no matter how you slice it.

    When Earl Smith was US Ambassador to Cuba, at a critical time when Cuba’s fate hung in the balance, he did what he could to communicate the truth to Washington and prevent the disaster, even though the State Department was in the tank for Castro and he knew it. It’s all documented in his book The Fourth Floor. He failed, but he acted honorably, and he did not betray his job or his responsibility to his government. I really doubt the same is true of Llorens, or at least, it sure as hell doesn’t look like it.

  9. In Honduras (and parts of Miami) it’s no secret that Llorens is a business partner of Zelaya. (big Construction firm in San Pedro Sula.)

    Zelaya is no more an idealogue than Llorens–they’re both scoundrels from central casting. Chavez bought Zelaya with drug money and he’s spreading it around.

    But…but…but..I thought U.S. bullying of poor little Latin American nations in order to protect the business interests of U.S. diplomatic big-wigs (think Arbenz, Allen Dulles United Fruit in Guatemala) was an utterly fiendish scheme??!!–the very paradigm of “Yankee Imperialism”??!!

    Apparently not when that diplomat works for Democrats.


  10. Well, well. Starting to shape up now, isn’t it? Two chaps in ‘business’ together. Is it construction? Dope? Heaven forfend.

    If we look backward then project the lines forward, might the trajectory suggest these intrepid biz partners likely must kick some of the proceeds upstairs to their chicago mentors?

    What’s that quaint old windy city saying? “Cut me in or cut it out”? Is that it? Is that the thing?

    They put it to music yet? Will they make students sing it?

    Right. Sorry. Let’s not give these chivatos any ideas…..

    Yeah, I know. I be’s so young. Yet so cynical.

    Paul Vincent Zecchino
    Manacynicalismo Key, Florida
    01 August, 2009

    “Is that it? Is that the thing?”
    – ‘Bobby’ Blaine,
    “HEIST”, c. 2002
    David Mamet

Comments are closed.