The Smartmatic Story: From Venezuela With No Love

The previous post told about the 2004 recall elections in Venezuela and the evidence of fraud in such.

The Epoch Times has published a riveting article by Roger Simon, which alludes to those elections. I encourage all to read. By the way, if you want to be informed by well-written stories, especially about the recent elections, I recommend The Epoch Times. The article below is behind the paywall, but their fees are very reasonable and worth every penny.

As you will see, if Mr. Simon cannot independently confirm something, he is upfront about it.

These are times that try men’s souls. We should be well informed. The article below helps us in that regard.

The Smartmatic Story: From Venezuela With No Love

Roger L. Simon

The Epoch Times

Many have debated, and Rudy Giuliani only vaguely explained on Lou Dobbs’ show by saying they had “different theories” of the case, why the Trump legal team separated from Sidney Powell.

Occam’s Razor has a simpler explanation: What Powell is investigating—complicated trans-national computer fraud, involving multiple countries, not just the United States, with immense implications for the democratic system worldwide—takes considerably longer to explicate and prove than the time available to question a presidential election before votes are certified and the Electoral College meets.

This was corroborated by discussions I held with two men in a position to understand a great deal of this fraud that they say originated in and still emanates to a great degree from Venezuela (with a little help from Cuban, Iranian, and Hezbollah friends, possibly others).

These men wish to remain anonymous because they fear for their safety operating in foreign territory as they frequently do.

One of them is a former CIA officer who served in the Directorate of Operations and as chief of station in several countries. The other is of Venezuelan birth and lives in the United States.

In recent years, in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others, they have worked to “flip” leaders and military personnel inside the Venezuelan and Cuban establishments, many of whom were involved with or had information about the extensive narcotics trade undertaken by those two countries as well as Iran and Hezbollah.

This billion-dollar criminal enterprise, particularly regarding Hezbollah in this instance, was on the brink of an exposure and prosecution that was ultimately ignored, as Politico reported, by the Obama administration on the urgings of the mullahs in order to protect the then-incipient Iran Deal.

Some of what these men told me can be authenticated, some not for reasons beyond anyone’s control at the moment. I leave it to readers to decide for themselves.

Nevertheless, for the record, and to understand what we are dealing with, the following members of the Venezuelan leadership are currently indicted in the United States for narcotics trafficking: President Nicolas Maduro, National Assembly leader Diosdado Cabello, petroleum minister Tareck El Aissami, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, former intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal, and Venezuelan Army Chief of Staff Vladimir Padrino.

To give an idea of the extent of the crime, notorious Mexican “narcotrafficante” El Chapo was said to be worth $1.2 billion. Diosdado Cabello, I was told by one of my informants, is worth in excess of $20 billion! That puts him up there among the richest people in the world. Mix petrodollars—Venezuela, in whatever condition, has one of the richest oil fields on the planet—with drug dollars and you have a lucrative cocktail.

Smartmatic

The two men spoke with me about the origins of the Smartmatic system, which they analogized in some respects to 9/11, mentioning that it was another example of how we tend to underestimate our adversaries, in this case their computer capabilities.

With China and Russia to worry about, Venezuela has been more or less off our radar, but, given the figures above, it shouldn’t be. Their ruling class—not their people, clearly—has enough working capital to do as much damage as anyone.

More than a mere Banana Republic, they are a growing criminal state with tentacles reaching into Colombia and across the Atlantic into one of the major parties of our NATO ally Spain, I was told.

But back to Smartmatic.

In 1998, socialist Hugo Chavez, on his way to being maximum leader for life, changed the constitution of his country, allowing him to serve a six-year term instead of five—with the caveat that if 20 percent of Venezuelans were to sign a petition demanding a recall, an election would be held.

To the surprise of Chavez, such a petition was forthcoming and his attempt to invalidate the signatures failed.

A system had to be invented to guarantee the caudillo’s victory in the forthcoming presidential recall referendum.

Enter Smartmatic, a company founded in Delaware in April 2000 by three young Venezuelan engineers.

January 2004, a Venezuelan government agency, the New York Times reported, invested $200,000 in a technology company owned by those same three.

A Businessman’s Investment

According to the gentlemen I talked with, that money came from a businessman who had been approached by Cuban intelligence to make the needed investment in the nascent Smartmatic in order to improve their technology to the necessary level.

(NB: Since Chavez, Cuban intelligence has had a near total control of significant Venezuelan actions, including the selection of Maduro to replace Chavez when he died from cancer, according to my sources.)

This same businessman, I was told, has ”flipped” and is currently under protection by one of our agencies—presumably the DEA—in a foreign country where he is giving evidence in a criminal prosecution of the Venezuelan government.

We can hope information is also being gleaned that we can all learn from. One of the regrettable aspects of the U. S. government is that our agencies like the DEA still seem to compartmentalize. As far as is known, the Department of Justice is not yet involved.

This businessman is the second to make affidavits on this matter after the Venezuelan military officer cited by Sidney Powell a couple of weeks ago.

Shortly after this businessman’s investment (August 2004), Hugo Chavez won the referendum only to have it denounced as fraudulent by local civil-rights organizations.

This last is corroborated in an extensive English-language interview by Debbie D’Souza of Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan civil rights leader and politician, who has been the subject of persecution.

Among other things, Ms. Corina Machado recounts the formation of Súmate, an ad hoc group that was able to muster the necessary signatures for the recall election in a single day (Feb. 2, 2003), garnering a total of 3 million when only 2.4 million were necessary.

But that was an extraordinarily happy interlude in the tragedy that is Venezuela. A Bolivian friend of mine, a recent visitor to the country, told me he saw starving people in their streets resembling images from the Holocaust.

Ownership

But back again to Smartmatic. Who owns it?

It’s unclear, although it putatively started in the United States (See above.) By 2006 it was used in disputed elections in Argentina, apparently to fix them, and in 2011 it was set up in the United Kingdom by no less than deputy UN secretary-general Lord Malloch-Brown, “who took up leadership positions of [George] Soros’s funds and institutes in 2007.”

Hmmm…

Equally important, a 2006 WikiLeaked email tells this story:

“Smartmatic has claimed to be of U.S. origin, but its true owners — probably elite Venezuelans of several political strains — remain hidden behind a web of holding companies in the Netherlands and Barbados. … The company is thought to be backing out of Venezuelan electoral events, focusing now on other parts of world, including the United States via its subsidiary, Sequoia.”

Beyond the initial three engineers, Smartmatic, and then Sequoia, had at least thirty anonymous investors, including, possibly, a then Venezuelan vice-president, as found in WikiLeaks’ system at CARACAS 00002063 001.2 OF 004.

Dominion

But where does Dominion fit in? Weren’t they the ones with the U. S. voting machines?

Well, in 2010, after working more than five years for Smartmatic, the former vice president, development at Sequoia who was also their chief software architect, Eric Coomer, went over to Dominion Voting Systems as vice president of U.S. engineering.

Coomer is an active participant in something called the IEEE common data format for election systems. It’s all enmeshed.

Responses by Dominion/Smartmatic/Sequoia people have been from deliberately opaque to nauseating public relations. Only true forensic computer research will solve anything, not to mention abandoning computer voting altogether (probably the right approach).

Mysteries abound, as, no doubt, Sidney Powell would agree. No matter what level of Kraken she releases, there may always be more.

One of those alleged by my sources, and one that I cannot check, is that someone high up in the Democratic National Committee is a “former” Chavista.

Sabotaging Our Election

Another surrounds a trip taken to Mexico City on Oct. 21, 2020, by Ambassador Richard Grenell—a man tremendously admired by my sources and by me.

Amb. Grenell went there to meet with Jorge Rodriquez, the brother of now Venezuelan vice-president Delcy Rodriquez (see the list of indictments above). Jorge is a man, we can assume, of tremendous wealth and something of a “power behind the throne,” as is his sister Delcy.

As the New York Times explains, amidst its predictable huffing and puffing about the State Department not having been informed of the meeting, the purpose was to negotiate the departure of Maduro and company, thus freeing the Venezuelan people from their long national nightmare.

It was a laudable goal, surely, but bound for failure for reasons unknown to Amb. Grenell. (I contacted him to discuss this, but he demurred.)

According to my sources, Rodriquez was well aware at that point that his country’s leadership was participating in the sabotage of our election through their computer system.

That made any negotiation moot, but more than that Rodriquez truly despised the United States to such an extent he would want no part of an agreement.

Grenell would have no reason to know this, said my sources, but Jorge’s hatred would have been motivated by more than the usual anti-Americanism. It had vengeance attached. Although Jorge himself could now fairly be called what’s known as a “boligarch” (today’s wealthy Venezuelan businessmen—Bolivar revolution oligarchs), his father was a communist guerrilla who, many years ago, was killed.

Jorge blames the CIA.

As I type this, word has come that Sidney Powell is about to release her first “Kraken,” concerning voter fraud in Georgia. As I wrote the other day, win, lose or draw, her grievances must be aired for our sake, but more for our children and grandchildren.

Something has gone seriously wrong.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Oscar-nominated screenwriter, co-founder of PJMedia, and now, editor-at-large for The Epoch Times. His most recent books are “The GOAT” (fiction) and “I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already” (nonfiction). Find him on Parler @rogerlsimon.

The 2004 Elections in Venezuela: Nothing New Under the Sun

The 2004 recall elections in Venezuela is the event former president Jimmy Carter stamped with the Carter Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. He went on to observe future Venezuela elections, declaring the “election process in Venezuela is the best in the world” [sic!].

Millions of people in the land of my birth were mocked and rebuked for not accepting the results, for being sore losers, for harming democracy, and worse. After all, Jimmy Carter had spoken and Venezuelans were said to respect and love him. And they did. And that made the hurt much worse: betrayal stings deepest when coming from a friend.

Given the current polemics, I’ll stick largely to “mainstream media” in their reporting on that fateful 2004 recall election in Venezuela. 

You be the judge as to any parallels.

The New York Times (NYT) reported in August 16, 2004, “We categorically reject the results,” said Henry Ramos, spokesman for the Democratic Coordinator, the umbrella of 27 political parties that opposes the government. In a televised announcement soon after the meeting, he said: “They have perpetrated a gigantic fraud against the will of the people.”

“Opposition leaders reached this morning by phone, insisted that the new computerized voting system had been tampered with …. But the O.A.S. and the Carter Center said that the results could not have been manipulated.”

NYT reported on October 29, 2006, “The federal government is investigating takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez. The inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, The Smartmatic Corporation, trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm’s operations.”

“Smartmatic was a little-known firm with no experience in voting technology before it was chosen by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country’s elections machinery ahead of a contentious referendum that confirmed Mr. Chávez as president in August 2004.” 

Suspicions were raised because the evidence, including unprecedentedly huge demonstrations [rallies] across Venezuela calling for the peaceful ouster of Chávez and the election of his opponent seemed to point to the dictator’s defeat. In Venezuela, millions marched and rallied for the opposition. The election results, with incredible precision flipped the expected results.

The shock was palpable. I still recall talking with folks who were reeling as if from a totally unexpected blow. 

It simply made no sense.

I recall mathematicians challenging the results, especially in areas where it was well known Chávez had weak support, yet the voting machines showed him running strong. The mathematicians found “a very subtle algorithm” that appeared to adjust the vote in Chávez favor.

Computer scientists and well respected pollster, Penn, Schoen & Berland, who conducted exit polling, all found evidence of vote flipping based on statistics and thorough mathematical analyses. In the case of the exit polling, which was extensive, the recall was succeeding 60-40. The certified results were the exact opposite: a “statistically impossible” 40-point swing. That is six times the margin of error in terms of vote shift. “We are talking here of many standard deviations away from the expected result. That result is about as likely as Osama Bin Laden agreeing to be on Bill O’Reilly’s show in person tomorrow night.”

Other anomalies in that election were multiple voting sites where hundreds of machines had identical voting totals, all with the exact same differential between the “Yes” and the “No” votes. Another statistical impossibility.

As added insurance for a favorable outcome, pro-Chávez groups cordoned off voting centers and allowed only their voters to cast ballots or physically assaulted anti-Chávez groups.

The New York Sun reported in February, 2007, “Astonishing as it may seem to Americans who believe the contention by Mr. Chávez that he won both elections by a landslide — 58% to 42% in the recall and 61% to 39% in the presidential election — the studies show that since 2003, Mr. Chávez has added 4.4 million favorable names to the voter list and “migrated” 2.6 million unfavorable voters to places where it was difficult or impossible for them to vote.”

Analyses were performed in 2006 and again in 2011, all concluding that the elections were fraudulent. (The generally liberal Wikipedia has a helpful article under “2004 Venezuelan recall referendum.”)

But the Carter Center was unmoved.

The McClatchy Newspapers reported on March 24, 2009 [emphases mine], “The CIA … has reported apparent vote-rigging schemes in Venezuela … and a raft of concerns about the machines’ vulnerability to tampering….”

“Appearing last month before a U. S. Election Assistance Commission field hearing in Orlando, Fla., a CIA cybersecurity expert suggested that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his allies fixed a 2004 election recount, an assertion that could further roil U. S. relations with the Latin leader.”

“In a presentation that could provide disturbing lessons for the United States, where electronic voting is becoming universal, Steve Stigall summarized what he described as attempts to use computers to undermine democratic elections in developing nations. His remarks have received no news attention ….”

“Stigall told the Election Assistance Commission … that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results.

“Susannah Goodman, the director of election reform for the citizens’ lobby Common Cause, said … ‘We can no longer ignore the fact that all of these risks are present right here at home … and must secure our election system by requiring every voter to have his or her vote recorded on a paper ballot.”

I’ve linked to the article below for readers who might be interested in learning more.

James Madison famously wrote, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…. you must … oblige [government] to control itself.” 

Hence the almost fanatical care the Founders took to create myriad checks and balances to keep civil government and its agencies in check. 

Josef Stalin is reported to have said something along these lines: “It’s not the number of votes that count, its who does the counting.”

Sadly, the Venezuelan people were unable, and are unable, to check on the officials doing the counting, including the programming of the machines.

And that is a problem.

Because men are not angels.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24530650.html

McClatchy Newspapers March, 2009 report on the CIA analyst presentation.

The 2004 recall was preceded by unprecedented rallies and demonstrations across the country.
Former U. S. president, Jimmy Carter (left) with the late Venezuelan president. Carter’s praise for the Venezuelan “election process” was effusive.

November 11: 1918 and 1620 (Written on November 11, 2020)

All the best to our veterans and their families today. 

As most Americans know, or should know, this day was once known as Armistice Day, commemorating the ceasing of hostilities of World War I (“The Great War”) at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. It was renamed “Veterans Day” in the USA in 1954. 

But that’s not the November 11 I’d like to address in this post. 

Earlier today, as I was beginning to put these thoughts on paper, my younger daughters shared a quote by Ronald Reagan: “We are never defeated unless we give up on God.” That further reminded me of today’s topic: The Mayflower Compact, which was signed on November 11, 1620, 400 years ago today. 

America’s history, including the constitutions of the 13 colonies, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the constitutions of the states simply cannot be understood if we ignore the covenantal nature of our founding.

Although 20th century historians began to insist that ours was an “Enlightenment” founding, and by that, they meant a secular founding, the truth is otherwise, and is far more interesting and meaningful. 

Some date The Enlightenment around the mid-17th century, either with Descartes’ declaration, “I think, therefore, I Am” in 1637, or Newton’s Principia Mathematica in 1687; however, the Enlightenment is mostly identified with the French philosophes and atheists such as Voltaire. Perhaps we should date it according to most French historians, somewhere between 1715 – 1789, meaning the period between the death of Louis XIV until the French Revolution.

Modern historians swoon over this period, assuring us that we inherited religious toleration, separation of church and state, not to mention our very liberties from this Age. 

But “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

The fruits of the Enlightenment are most evident in the French Revolution and its progeny, including the blood soaked South American revolutions of the 19th century, the Russian Revolution of the early 20th, and various and sundry others, mostly characterized by bloodshed, tyranny, and chaos.

For more on the French Revolution see July 14 and More on July 14

The United States owe their liberties and religious toleration and much more, not to the Enlightenment but to the Protestant Reformation. It is not for nothing that the German historian, Leopold von Ranke, wrote, “Calvin was virtually the founder of America.” American historian, George Bancroft, agreed, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”

To take only one example, the Puritan divine, Richard Baxter, wrote in 1659: 

“And where his [the ruler’s] Covenants with his people limit him, he hath no power in the exempt points: e. g. if he be restrained from raising taxes without the people’s consent, if he yet command the payment of such taxes, he doth so not by Authority: for neither God nor man did ever give him Authority thereto.”

These and words such as these were very familiar to the Founders, the preachers, and the people in the American colonies for a century before 1776.

Ambrose Serle, secretary to British General Howe in New York City, wrote to the British Secretary of State in 1776 telling him that the American Revolution was ultimately a religious war. And Serle was no ordinary observer. He knew whereof he spoke. But he was one of many who made this observation. A Hessian soldier fighting for England said, “Call this war, dearest friend, by whatsoever name you may, only call it not an American Revolution, it is nothing more nor less than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion.” A later historian, John C. Miller, who specialized in America’s early history, wrote, “To the end, the Churchmen [Church of England] believed that the Revolution was a Presbyterian-Congregationalist plot.”

There are many such references, including comments from King George himself, who believed that the rebels were Presbyterians. 

There is much, much more, but the above is enough to note the importance of the Mayflower Compact.

The Compact was signed by all on the Mayflower and predated the earliest date of the Renaissance by decades, and the more accepted dates, by a century. It was not an Enlightenment document but rather a most covenantal, Christian one.

In brief, the Mayflower was blown 300 miles off course by a storm and, instead of arriving in Virginia, she anchored off the coast of Massachusetts. And that was a major problem because they now were under no one’s immediate jurisdiction. Rebellion and “we’ll-do-as-we-please” began almost immediately to foment within her bowels.

We must remember that of the 102 passengers on the ship, only 41 were true Pilgrims, religious separatists. The others, whom the Pilgrims called “strangers”, were merchants, craftsmen, indentured servants, and orphaned children. This was the primary source of the rapidly rising anarchistic impulses.

The Pilgrims huddled together amongst themselves and drew up an agreement, a sacred “covenant,” making them a “civil body politic” and promising “just and equal laws.” They had already done this as a congregation of like-minded believers; however, they now had 61 persons who did not belong to their group. Hence, their political document which all signed, even the indentured servants.

This document was signed before they left the ship and quieted those “strangers” who were making “discontented and mutinous speeches.” It was designed to stop the impulse of every man or woman to do as he or she pleased, or to succumb to the spirit of every-man-for-himself.

The Pilgrims knew that for their colony to be successful, they needed folks to be law abiding and productive. 

And so, on November 11, 1620, 400 years ago today, the Compact was signed. 

And, in my opinion, this goes a long way to explaining why Plymouth Colony was long-lasting, remaining faithful to her Compact until 1691 when they became part of Massachusetts Bay Colony. By contrast, the famous Jamestown Colony was characterized by disastrous governments and was even abandoned in 1610, although later settled once more.

Calvin Coolidge said this about the compact, 300 years after its signing:

“The compact which they signed was an event of the greatest importance. It was the foundation of liberty based on law and order, and that tradition has been steadily upheld. They drew up a form of government which has been designated as the first real constitution of modern times. It was democratic, an acknowledgement of liberty under law and order and the giving to each person the right to participate in the government, while they promised to be obedient to the laws.

“But the really wonderful thing was that they had the power and strength of character to abide by it and live by it from that day to this. Some governments are better than others. But any form of government is better than anarchy, and any attempt to tear down government is an attempt to wreck civilization.”

The first words of the Compact are: “In the name of God, Amen.” 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, “To destroy a country, you must first cut off its roots.”

Let us commit to teaching America’s history aright to our children and grandchildren.

Reading of one of Voltaire’s works in a French salon, circa 1750.
François-Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1778)
Frequent scenes during the French Revolution.
YouTube screen grab of “celebrations” in DC after the media declared former Vice-President Joe Biden the winner in last week’s election. The similarities to the French Revolution are not coincidental nor accidental.
Image for the United States seal proposed by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. The allusion to Moses and to the Lord’s drowning of Pharaoh’s armies in the sea are unmistakable.
This collection is over 1,500 closely typed pages. One cannot be honest about our country’s founding while also ignoring her religious roots.
Replica of the Mayflower Compact. The original has been lost, but a duplicate from 1622 exists.

Yellow Fever and Juragua Iron Mines vs The United States: Trust the Experts

The prior post (The 1964 World Series) alluded to how baseball was “watched” in the mining camp in Cuba in the early 20th century. 

Few might know that the American camp had been completely burned by order of General Nelson A. Miles in 1898. 

This destruction became a court case between the Bethlehem Steel Company, represented by her subsidiary, Juragua Iron Mines, and the United States Government. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court and was decided in 1909.

The Spanish American War was one of the more momentous events in United States history. At the end of this conflict, the United States found itself with a far flung empire, albeit nothing approaching the extent or the depth of the British. Nonetheless, we now not only had protectorates in the Caribbean, we also had temporary sovereignty over the Philippines, comprised of some 7,000 islands in the Pacific. Granted: these were all temporary arrangements. However, whether pro or con, we would be less than honest if we did not admit that we as a country have not looked back since.

So, despite the war’s short duration, April to August, 1898, it was epoch-making.

In late June, American forces landed in Daiquirí and Siboney, towns situated about 2 miles apart on Cuba’s southern shores. The intent was to launch an attack on the major city of Santiago, about 14 miles east. The landing was not well executed as is suggested by a soldier’s journal:

“The horses and mules were jumped overboard from a half to a quarter mile off shore — depending upon the skipper’s digestion or his judgment — and then swam. Horses by the hundred were drowned.”

Some of the battles and campaigns were heroic, with gallantry shown on both sides.

For example, on July 1, the Americans attacked El Caney, on the outskirts of Santiago. Up to that battle, their opinion of Spanish gallantry and courage was not high, to put it charitably. They expected the Spaniards to hightail it off the hill and scamper into Santiago.

But they did not count on Spanish Brigadier General Joaquín Vara de Rey. His duty was to hold El Caney. He had no artillery, and was outnumbered 12:1. But with his 550 men, including 2 of his sons, he defended El Caney for 10 hours against the U. S. Army of 12,000 men who were far better armed. The battle raged on even after Vara de Rey was mortally wounded. His sons were already dead. The fighting was not over until 5:00 P.M. The Spanish force retreated only when it had been reduced to 84 men.

This battle proved that if properly led, the Spanish were no pushovers. Vara de Rey achieved his objective: he kept the Americans from taking Santiago, at least in his lifetime. The U. S. troops were so impressed that they buried Vara de Rey with full military honors. Spain awarded him posthumously her highest honor, the Laureate Cross of Saint Ferdinand. 

But our focus today is not on the history of the war itself, but rather on one of its events which directly related to the Bethlehem Steel Company.

To better understand the event and its sequel, we need to review, briefly, one of earth’s more frightening plagues.

Yellow fever was one of the world’s great tropical endemics. For centuries it was not known why it was prevalent in the tropical but not in the north or south temperate zones, although it sometimes flared in some of those areas as well. 

As was learned in the 20th century, yellow fever is caused by a flavivirus, which infects humans, monkeys, and some other small mammals. The virus is transmitted from animals to humans and among humans by several species of mosquitoes. The course of the disease is frightening: sudden fever, headache, backache, nausea, vomiting, and death — in up to 20% of the cases. The liver is attacked resulting in jaundice which causes the skin and eyes to appear yellow.

Although there have not been any vast outbreaks as had been seen in the 19th and earlier centuries, several areas in the late 20th century did experience yellow fever bouts, mostly due to carelessness in mosquito control, especially in areas with large monkey populations, which act as “vast natural reservoirs” holding the virus.

But none of this was known at the outbreak of the Spanish American War, although Americans were well aware of the devastation caused by the fever. In the 1790’s the fever shut down the federal government in Philadelphia, the country’s capital at the time. Nearly 10% of the city’s population died.

That would be the equivalent of 150,000 people in today’s Philadelphia.

The deadliest outbreak hit the country in 1878, killing up to 20,000 Americans in the lower Mississippi Valley, including major cities like St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans. Memphis lost about 5,000 people out of a population of 48,000, or over 10% of its inhabitants.

That would be the equivalent of about 65,000 deaths in Memphis today. 

For perspective, that’s twice the number of COVID deaths in the state of New York, the state with the highest number of such deaths, most of which were elderly with comorbidities or in nursing homes. Yellow fever attacks and kills all ages, with or without comorbidities.

As a side note: until very recently, the traditional definitions of endemic, pandemic, and epidemic, included enormous numbers of, or widespread, “deaths”. That has been removed from the more recent definitions. Now, a disease can be called a pandemic merely if many people are “affected”, however that may be defined. I am sure the reader has noticed that, with the current virus, where the world shut down based on frightening estimates of millions and millions of deaths, including 2.2 million deaths in the United States alone, we are now all focused on “cases“. We now seem to be in a “casedemic” as opposed to a pandemic.

But back to our story.

No one could explain the cause of yellow fever or how it spread.

By the time Walter Reed came on the medical scene, most medical researchers believed yellow fever was caused by bacteria in fomites, or objects that are likely to carry infection, in particular things which may have been soiled with human blood and/or excrement. But despite decades of research, no evidence supported this theory. Some thought the fever resulted from drinking river water. However, Reed disproved this hypothesis by demonstrating that enlisted men and civilians near the Potomac River did not contract the fever when they drank the water.

However, he did note that men who had a habit of walking through swampy trails at night did get infected, while those who did not take those walks escaped the disease.

About the time of the war, Reed had been reading the papers of the distinguished Cuban physician, Carlos Finlay, written some 20 years earlier. Dr. Finlay had theorized the transmission of yellow fever by insect bite, but had been unable to prove his hypothesis. He was roundly ridiculed by all the right people. But Reed was intrigued. He  travelled to Cuba at the end of the war, in 1898, commissioned to study diseases in the U. S. Army encampments during the war, typhoid fever in particular. He and his colleagues proved that contact with fecal matter and food or drink contaminated by flies caused that epidemic. The disease was quickly controlled by the implementation of sanitary measures.

In 1900, he returned to Cuba to examine tropical diseases, including yellow fever. It was during this assignment that he and his colleagues proved and confirmed the transmission by mosquitoes. This was done using volunteers who were fully informed of the risks. One of the primary researchers, Dr. Jesse William Lazear, infected himself purposefully and did not survive. The isolation camp set up to continue the research was named Camp Lazear. 

The confirmation of Dr. Finlay’s theory was a great advancement in medicine and towards the prevention of yellow  fever around the world, saving thousands of lives every year. A few years later, from 1903 onwards, this knowledge served to greatly reduce the incidence of yellow fever in Panama during the American construction of the canal. Prior to this, about 10% of the workforce had died each year from malaria and yellow fever. And a quarter century earlier, the French had resigned from building it, having lost thousands of lives due to mosquito-borne illnesses.

True to form, the Washington Post ridiculed Reed’s presentation of his findings thusly in 1900:

“Of all the silly and nonsensical rigmarole about yellow fever that has yet found its way into print — and there has been enough of it to load a fleet — the silliest beyond compare is to be found in the arguments and theories engendered by the mosquito hypothesis.”

The Post mocked that which differed from the reigning Zeitgeist. At least they reported it.

Reed was nevertheless allowed to keep pressing his case and eventually prevailed. Although he received much of the credit, he was always up front and vocal in crediting Carlos Finlay with the discovery of the vector. Reed often cited Finlay’s papers in his own articles and speeches and his personal correspondence.

In November, 1902, Reed’s appendix ruptured. He died on November 22 of that year at age 51.

Now, with that background, we return to Siboney and Daiquirí in July, 1898, a mere two years before Reed’s work. American soldiers were succumbing to yellow fever. The army’s public health expert determined that the source of the fever was in “the buildings occupied as hospitals, dwellings, and offices in Siboney.” 

The Cuban physicians who were assisting the Americans were adamant that the source was not in the buildings. But the Americans would not accept that assurance even though it came from people on the ground who had dealt with this disease far longer than they.

It was at this point that General Miles made his fateful decree: the destruction of the town of Siboney. “In thus destroying this dirty little town, we were, at least, sure of limiting the number of new cases about us ….” The buildings were burned or otherwise destroyed on the 12th of July, including property belonging to the American company, Juragua Iron Mines.

Of course, deaths did not decrease but rather increased as the fever continued to develop rapidly and overwhelm the medical resources.

Juragua sued the United States government for damages in the form of the cost of rebuilding their destroyed property.

In 1909, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the company because Cuba was technically the enemy, regardless of the fact that many Cubans fought alongside the Americans, not to mention that Juragua was an American company and their buildings, occupied by Americans. They were deemed to be enemies as well given that they were in enemy territory: “…. all persons residing in Cuba … were to be deemed enemies … including citizens of the United States there … doing business.”

Citing another case from 1887, the court declared, in a statement that would have appalled Patrick Henry, “The safety of the state in such cases overrides all consideration of private loss.” We had come a long way from 1776.

This ruling overruled the fact that the actions by the United States Army, obeying the order by General Miles, did not reduce the yellow fever decimating its forces. In fact, with eerily familiar language, the ruling stated that this was done “…. for the purpose of protecting health and lives ….” and “…. deemed necessary by the officers in command … to protect the health … and to prevent the spread of disease ….”

It did no such thing, of course. In reading the ruling, it becomes clear that the government, at least in this case, will not admit wrong, even in 1909, years after the discovery of the true vector of that epidemic. Even with testimony noting that the local physicians insisted this was not necessary nor would it work. And they were proved right.

So if other doctors disagree with the “correct” doctors, the other doctors must be considered wrong, even though they are right.

Some things never change.

My paternal grandfather, Max Albert Barnes, in Santiago, Cuba, circa 1898.
Americans and their horses arrive in Siboney in June 1898. Hundreds of mules and horses drowned.
Americans land at Daiquirí, where my father was born 19 years later. Daiquirí is about 3 miles from Siboney. The Americans quickly achieved control over the entire Daiquirí and Siboney area.
Burning of Siboney
Walter Reed circa 1900.
Carlos Finlay, Cuban Medical Doctor credited for theorizing the transmission of Yellow Fever by insect bite. This was proved 20 years later by Walter Reed who always gave credit to Finlay.
Named for Dr. Jesse William Lazear who died in becoming “Guinea Pig #!” for testing the theory of mosquito transmission.
Staff housing. These and other office and mining buildings were rebuilt, at company cost, after the burning of Siboney
Juragua Iron Mines buildings near mines, Daiquirí, Cuba
Juragua Iron Mines offices, circa 1914
Juragua Iron Mines, recreation club (left). This is where my father and his friends would come to “watch” baseball games on the manual scoreboard as told in the prior post (World Series 1964)
Juragua Iron Mines hospital, 1914

1964: Anne, The Beatles, and Beethoven; Bob Gibson and Whitey Ford — Part II: The 1964 World Series

In my earlier post “Fernando, Sears, The Yankees, and The Beatles” (here) I told of Fernando’s being a Yankees’ fan as a kid and how he and his childhood friends would run to Sears in Coral Gables to see the prior night’s baseball scores and stats. He was also a Beatles fan and would run to Sears to see where the group’s songs were on the Hit Parade.

Thinking about Fernando, led me to my childhood friend, Anne. In my prior post (here), I told of her enthusiasm for The Beatles in 1964. At the club one day that summer, she had rushed me to the shortwave radio to listen to them. 

In stream of consciousness fashion, thinking about Fernando and Anne, reminded me about the shortwave radio which reminded me of my father, who would tell us about his own childhood in Cuba where he and his friends would spend hours in the mining camp club during the baseball season to see the scoreboard of the Yankees’ games. The bartender would receive information by telegraph at the end of each inning and would walk to the board and chalk in the runs for the inning. The kids would whoop and holler whenever he’d chalk in a Yankees’ run, and groan with loud disappointment and exasperation when he’d chalk in a run for the opposing team.

With no radio, and certainly no TV, that is how they “watched” baseball in his childhood in Cuba.

By the time of my childhood, mining clubs had shortwave radios which broadcast the ball games. And, in 1964, the Big One was that year’s World Series.

The radio and also the television play by play was shared between Joe Garagiola and Phil Rizzuto in New York and Curt Gowdy and Harry Caray in St. Louis. However, in El Pao, we heard the play by play in Spanish and, unfortunately, I do not know who did so nor have I been able find it out. If a reader knows, I would very much appreciate hearing from you.

I do remember it was very colorful. One of the most memorable lines was in Game 7, when Tom Tresh came up to bat and for some reason decided to swing at a very high pitch. The Spanish broadcaster yelled out, “Estaba tumbando piñata!” [He was striking a piñata!]. The image that expression evoked is still fresh in my mind today, over 50 years later.

There were many great names of the baseball pantheon in that series: Yogi Berra, Curt Floyd, Roger Maris, Lou Brock, Mickey Mantle and more. Lesser names, but nonetheless memorable, included MVP brothers on opposing teams: Ken and Clete Boyer, for the Cardinals and Yankees, respectively. 

In the case of Mickey Mantle, this turned out to be his last World Series. By the end of it, he had played in 12, of which the Yankees had won 7.

In that year, Mantle capped his World Series career with a performance for the record books, including a Game Three, bottom of the ninth, game-winning walk-off home run. The fifth in World Series history at the time and the only one in Mantle’s storied career. It was a Mickey Mantle home run: a low pitch, met by the “Mantle turn”, driven deep, towering and majestic, into right field, well into the third deck of Yankee Stadium. The game was won with one swing of his bat. He ended the series with a .333 average, three home runs, and eight RBIs.

Mantle is still in the record books with the second most at bats — 230 (second only to his teammate, Yogi Berra, with 259), the most base on balls — 43 (Babe Ruth is second, with 33), most extra base hits — 26 (no one comes close), second most hits — 59 (second to his teammate, Yogi Berra with 71), second most World Series games — 65 (second to his teammate, Yogi Berra, with 75), and most home runs in World Series history — 18 (followed by Babe Ruth, with 15). He is highest or second highest in runs scored, RBI’s, and total bases. The only switch hitter to have won the Triple Crown, Mantle’s is a truly great record.

But by the 1964 series, Mickey Mantle was injury-plagued. The St. Louis Cardinals knew it and they strategically decided to run against him, stretching singles into doubles and doubles into triples or home runs.

Another performance for the ages was Lou Brock’s. In what turned out to have been the best trade in Cardinals history, and the worst in Cubs history, Brock was traded by the Cubs to the Cardinals in 1964. That awakened the then fading Cardinals and spurred them on to overtake the Phillies and win the National League pennant. He was one of the best hitters and base stealers in baseball history. And, much to my chagrin, he displayed his hitting prowess with painful effectiveness in the 1964 World Series. Painful to me, that is!

Lou Brock played in three World Series and his adjusted OPS (“On Base Slugging” score) for the World Series was fourth best of all time, just behind Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Reggie Jackson (“Mr. October”). In other words, although Brock was a Hall of Famer for his overall performance, he really turned on the juice in the World Series. For comparison, Mickey Mantle is not in the OPS stats for World Series play, but is in 7th place in all-time adjusted OPS career leaders, whereas Brock is not in the top twenty. 

But what a World Series performer! A World Series batting average of .391, with multi hits in 12 of his 21 World Series games, including two hits in Game 7 of the 1964 Series. He is tied, with Mickey Mantle and Eddie Collins, for 11th most all-time series multi hits games. Incredibly, Brock is tied with Eddie Collins for most stolen bases in World Series history: 14. But he did not attempt to steal a base in the 1964 Series! He stole 7 bases in 1967 and 7 more in 1968. No one else has stolen 7 bases in a World Series. As for 1964, Brock let Tim McCarver and Mike Shannon do the stealing. That was enough to defeat my team.

Nevertheless, to me, the most memorable players (besides Mickey Mantle, Lou Brock, and Tresh’s Piñata swing, that is) were Whitey Ford and Bob Gibson.

In the case of Whitey Ford, I couldn’t figure out or understand why he only played in Game One, and lost. It was many years later that I realized that he had been playing that whole season in great pain. But I did not know that nor did I think of asking my father about it. Whitey Ford was considered the archetypical Yankee: clean cut, decent, fair. Deceptively fair, that is. Meaning that just because he was fair, that did not mean he’d let you hit his pitches. 

His baseball career spanned 16 years, all with the New York Yankees. He is tied for first place for starting pitchers with the most World Series titles (6), is the all-time leader in World Series starts (22), innings pitched (146), strikeouts (94) and wins (10). In 1960 he threw 283 innings without allowing a single stolen base. Still a record.

In 1961, he won both the Cy Young and the MVP awards. The Cy Young award was introduced in 1956; many baseball connoisseurs believe he would have won easily in earlier seasons, making him a multiple Cy Young winner.  But to us kids, he just seemed like an all-around, likable, nice guy. A nice guy who did not finish last. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1974 with a career ERA of 2.745, in the top 100 of all time. He is the 4th winningest pitcher of all time, with a winning percentage of .6901. Ford demonstrates that a pitcher can be very successful even without a powerful fastball. The 1964 World Series was to have been his last. 

And he remained unseen after Game One. As a kid, that bothered and saddened me to no end.  I rooted for him until injuries finally had their way, forcing his retirement three years later, in 1967.

And then there was Bob Gibson. He pitched three games in that series: 8 innings in Game 2, which he lost against Mel Stottlemyer, 10 innings in Game 5 where he remained on the mound till the very end, picking up the win, and all 9 innings of Game 7, when I kept wishing he’d be too tired to pitch that day.

This man was a machine and even over the radio, he provoked fear. Which helps explain his being in thirteenth place with the most shutouts in baseball history. He had a 17-year career, all with the St. Louis Cardinals. A two-time World Series champion and two-time Cy Young Award winner, Bob Gibson was a fierce competitor on that mound, yet a kind, approachable individual when off the field. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1981, his first year of eligibility.

I remember watching him pitch against the Boston Red Sox in 1967. I wanted the Sox to win because they were in  the American League, which was the closest I could get to the then perpetually slumping Yankees. But I could not help but admire that powerful pitcher with the opposite side “kick” to his pitch. And there he was again, on the mound, in the last inning of the last game, picking up yet another seventh game win. He was something to behold.

Between them, they won 17 World Series games. Ford won a record-setting 10 games, but lost 8; Gibson won 7, and lost 2. Ford’s World Series ERA was 2.71 to Gibson’s 1.89. Ford’s ERA was 1.98 before his injury-plagued 1964 performance. His 10 games won record still stands. Gibson’s is in second place, tied with two other pitchers.

That year, 1964, marked the end of the Yankee dynasty. They would not play in another series till 1976, and that team was a shadow of their days of glory, in my opinion. They’ve not been the same since.

The Cardinals went on to play in the 1967 and the 1968 World Series, with Gibson pitching and Brock stealing in both. They won in 1967 on the 7th game against the Boston Red Sox and lost in 1968 on the 7th game against the Detroit Tigers. Both were exciting series, which I was able to see on television in Miami, Florida. But, to me, neither came close to the exhilarating thrill of the 1964 event.

Mickey Mantle passed away on August 13, 1995. He had returned to his childhood faith, expressing genuine repentance for his years of hard drinking and hard living. He considered himself to be a “reverse role-model”: “Don’t be like me,” he said. Whitey Ford was one of his pallbearers.

Lou Brock passed away on September 6, 2020. Roughly a month later, both Bob Gibson and Whitey Ford died on October 2 and October 8, respectively. 

At the time of his death, Whitey Ford (91) was the second oldest living member of Baseball’s Hall of Fame. 

I guess I’ll always remember the World Series of 1964.

My father did not have pictures of the scoreboard from his Cuba mining camp club. But the above is a photo from a pool hall scoreboard from my father’s era (early 20th century). The kids would sit around, waiting and anticipating someone to come up and chalk in the results of each inning. With no radio and certainly no TV, that is how they watched baseball in his area of Cuba.
View of staff cottages in mining camp in Cuba, circa 1916, a year before my father’s birth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWUFDoxAiE
Mickey Mantle’s is at about the 2-minute mark
Intimidating and effective. I used to not want him to show up because I just “knew” he’d win. But then I’d be mesmerized, along with millions of other baseball fans.
Deceptively smooth. But his pitches were so easy to miss.
Ford in his rookie year, being congratulated by Joe DiMaggio (left) and Gene Woodling for a six-hit shut out, vaulting the Yankees into first place.
Lou Brock, known as “Stolen Base Specialist”. He had an infectious smile and his exuberance was contagious.
Known as “The Perfect Baseball Player”, Mickey Mantle was a powerful switch hitter. His hard drinking and other shenanigans shortened his career for which he expressed genuine, heartfelt regret later in life.
Although this post does not quote nor use this book as a source, I mention it because it is well regarded. I do have my quibbles with it, however.  To me, it seemed Halberstam had an axe to grind, wanting to use this series as a sort of paradigm for racial issues in America. I found that unconvincing and distracting and, by the last page, I wished he had told us more about the series itself. Nevertheless, a good, easy read for baseball fans.