On Tuesday, terrorists conducted suicide attacks in Belgium, killing upwards of 31 people and at least 160 injured. The terrorist operators chose to detonate their suicide gear in the crowded Maelbeek Metro Station in Brussels, and also at Zaventem International Airport. This horrific event was no doubt some sort of retaliation for Belgium's aggressive efforts to assist the French authorities in identifying, locating and apprehending terror suspects who are using Belgium as a safe haven. Only three days ago, Belgian police apprehended one of the individuals suspected of direct involvement in last year's Paris attacks. I have nothing but admiration and support for the law enforcement authorities in Belgium and France. Over the previous four months, a great deal of attention has been generated regarding the issue of national security, as everyday French (and Belgian) citizens have to consider just how safe rheir families really are. Sadly, we aren't discussing Europeans on vacation who inadvertently got caught up in local violence. The people of Europe are obliged to have public discourse regarding the safety of their own communities. This is a very sobering time for resiidents of Avila, Spain, or Cork Ireland, or maybe Schlitters, Austria, who have basically always been able to assume the relative security of their neighborhoods and villages, at least as far as foreign threats go. The world has become a much smaller place, and liberal immigration laws and the lack of enforcement has provided those persons who harbor latent resentment towards anything from the west, to move in next door. That reality is no longer worth the argument. These people had to come from somewhere, which makes the continued debate regarding refugees from Syria even more important.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the terror attacks in Belgium, is the predictable, toothless response of the United States. President Barsck Obama, who just happens to be visiting Cuba (enjoying Cuba Libres and good seafood while political prisoners and no doubt a number of U.S. citizens, starve in the Havana jail), tossed out the tired "our thoughts and prayers" comment to the press, and then continued his original speech, which was so ideologically leftist that Che Guevara saluted from the grave. It is so difficult to accept (but we must, at least for the next nine months) the direction we are taking with regards to Socialist Cuba, when at the same time the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to embarrass Israeli President Netanyahu and create difficulties between our nations. In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had been in DC or Durban when the news from Brussels first broke. President Obama has laid down the law, policy-wise. ISIS does not pose a threat to the United States, and any effort by the United States to take a leadership role in the fight against ISIS would be innappropriate. This hardline "laissez faire" approach to international terror is living our European allies in a bit of a fix. In 2008, when Barack Obama took office, the leaders of Europe were tripping over each other to be the first to be best friends with the first African-American President of the United States. This sickening lovesick attitude (which pervades amongst the people of Europe as well), was on display in foreign relations, as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands were perfectly willing to grt in line behind whatever policy Obama thought best. Examples include the terrible New Start Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, which was supported by Europe, the lack of spine in dealing with Russian threats against Nato expansion, and the never-ending sanctions regime put in place to force Russia to end its support of murdering thugs and guerillas in Ukraine. Where has that policy gotten us? Nowhere, except we have to change our maps to correctly show Crimea as again a province of Russia.
Now that the leaders of Europe have lined up their equities alongside Obama, they impatiently wait for the United States to step up and show some aggressive leadership in the fight against this evil plague that continues to expand and continues to kill. Sadly Monsieur Hollande, Frau Merkel, and Mr. Cameron will have to wait at least until late January 2017. Unless ISIS conducts a major terrorist operation within the United States, the European nations, as they are doing with the refugee crisis, will have to formulate policy sans the U.S.A. The Obama Administration's wilingness to wait until the bad guys strike us domestically before we recognize them (and all Islamic Extremists) as the enemy is a terrible mistake, and very well may prove costly. For a month or so, it appeared that possibly Russia and Vladimir Putin might be willing to take the lead in the campaign to destroy this group, but we found out, not surprisingly, that all Putin wanted was to strengthen the bargaining position of Russia's Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad. So the free world continues to look for a champion, someone who will rain destruction on these thugs. As things stand, ISIS has no opposition to its expansion into Africa (through Boko Haram and al-Shabaab), Latin America and Southest Asia. Militarily, ISIS appears to have no problem fighting the Iraqi Armed Forces to a stand-still (even with air support and ad hoc special forces ops for Iraq). Now that the Russians have stepped things down in Syria, ISIS feels no real threat or pressure. I fear that this summer may bring tragedy to many people; I pray everyday to be wrong.
Showing posts with label Havana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Havana. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Saturday, December 20, 2014
In One Fell Swoop, Rand Paul Has Lost Me
Link: Rand Paul Supports Relations With Cuba
Politics can be very unpredictable. This morning I woke up, believing that Senator Rand Paul would most likely be my choice for the GOP nomination for President in 2016. President Obama normalizes relations with Cuba, Rand Paul supports Obama's actions, and I'm through with Senator Paul. It wasn't just Paul's announcement that he supported President Obama. What really changed my mind were Paul's comments regarding the issue.
The link that I have included provides all of the comments from Senator Paul which have caused me to rethink my support. Rand Paul claims that sanctions on Cuba have failed. What, exactly, did Paul expect the sanctions to achieve? Our diplomatic and economic non-involvement with Cuba has to do with the foreign and domestic policies of the government in Havana, not some effort to create a democracy. The United States has the same sovereign right to chose its trade partners as does every other member of the United Nations. If we chose not to trade with Cuba, then that is our business, and Cuba is free to find other, more sympathetic regimes with which to carry on trade. Rand Paul also claimed that U.S. sanctions on Cuba hurt the Cuban people. Absolute HORSE SHIT. Its crap like that which makes me question how I could have ever supported this man for political office. Cuba is what it is because of the repressive, leftist/fascist rule of Fidel Castro, not because of the United States. Not surprisingly, Havana has an expensive, elite neighborhood, with mansions and all the trappings of wealth. Who lives there? the cronies and sycophants of Castro, that's who. Socialism in the best circumstances will eventually collapse upon itself, and in a poor, underdeveloped nation with very little industry or infrastructure? People are never really given the opportunity to better their lives. It's impossible to generate wealth when what little the government receives is stolen or spent on military escapades in South America and Angola. Tell me, Senator Paul, as an American, is it my fault that Castro chose to pay for Cuban Mig fighters and tanks in Angola instead of food on the tables of Cuban families? I have grown to expect President Obama to blame the American people for the ills of foreigners, but hearing it from Rand Paul was really disappointing. Newsflash: endemic poverty in Cuba is not the fault, or the responsibility of the United States.
On Thursday, during a radio interview, Rand Paul commented that, “When we first opened up trade with China we were thinking it was a bad idea. But you know over time I’ve come to believe — and many conservatives have come to believe — that trading with China is actually the best way to ultimately defeat communism, and it makes us less likely to fight.” Lets take a look at this picture, shall we? Since President Richard Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 (and threw Taiwan right under a speeding bus), and we have become progressively more economically involved with China, communism has somehow suffered? Not according to reality, Senator Paul. The Chinese economy, with our assistance, has become an international monster that has a special taste for all things American. The Chinese have made an art form out of buying up our debt, not to mention millions of acres of real estate all over the United States. Since relations with the United States improved, the Chinese military has greatly improved its offensive capacity and its missile delivery systems. Much of that missile technology came from the United States. And a quick look around the current Chinese political environment, the Communist Party is just as much an immoveable object as it always was, and the Red Army has become much more active in espionage and international banking. As for the Chinese government's dedication to the basic principles of Communism, I only have to look at Tibet and the more western provinces to remind myself what the Chinese government really thinks about open, political dialogue. Basically, the Chinese still do not enjoy the freedom to worship as they please. The education system is tightly controlled by the government, textbooks are total propaganda, and teachers are almost as left-wing as they are in American schools. Also, it is highly discouraged (some would say illegal), to have more than a certain, approved number of children. The political system does not allow for dissent, nor does the average Chinese citizen get to participate in a representative electoral process. The government controls the media and all aspects of the internet. So how, exactly, have we been "defeating" Communism with our economic and diplomatic embrace? I don't see it. No doubt a growing middle-class exists in China, but it is a segment of the population that does not question authority. The truth is, Senator Paul, that we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become even more entrenched and powerful by forgoing economic and political isolation. The mouthpiece of the Party continues to look for opportunities to threaten and insult the United States. This China that Senator Rand brags about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea's lifeline. China could shut down Kim Jong-Un and free the people of North Korea in a heartbeat. But they won't. Let me tell you what China WILL do. The Chinese government will export nuclear technology to terrorist states, and also create an elaborate system of spying using Chinese citizens studying at U.S. Universities who just happen to have contracts for research projects with the U.S. Department of Defense. And spying at the laboratories in New Mexico is another example of Communist China's love for Democracy.
Lets move away from the criticism of Rand Paul and continue the discussion of Cuba. Today, President Obama gave away the kitchen sink without getting anything in return. Just last month, the Cuban regime was denounced for continuing to illegally jail Alan Gross, a U.S. Aid worker who was in Cuba to assist the poor. That government, which jails protesters, refuses to reform, controls all aspects of the lives of the Cuban people, and embraces any political movement that expresses anti-American sentiment, shouldn't exist in our sphere of national security, let alone gain diplomatic recognition. Cuba has not had a real election in over 60 years, and the government that has been squatting in Havana all that time, has been recognized by the Obama Administration. Would Obama have recognized apartheid South Africa? To be honest, if this decision had been debated in Congress and vetted through our tried and trusted legislative system of checks and balances, and passed a vote, I wouldn't complain. I might express my disagreement, but I would continue to be proud that our system was still functioning as intended. Instead we have one man making a decision that used to be important enough for full Congressional consideration. How far is this going to go? First immigration Amnesty, now normalizing relations with Cuba. What's next? Returning Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?
Politics can be very unpredictable. This morning I woke up, believing that Senator Rand Paul would most likely be my choice for the GOP nomination for President in 2016. President Obama normalizes relations with Cuba, Rand Paul supports Obama's actions, and I'm through with Senator Paul. It wasn't just Paul's announcement that he supported President Obama. What really changed my mind were Paul's comments regarding the issue.
The link that I have included provides all of the comments from Senator Paul which have caused me to rethink my support. Rand Paul claims that sanctions on Cuba have failed. What, exactly, did Paul expect the sanctions to achieve? Our diplomatic and economic non-involvement with Cuba has to do with the foreign and domestic policies of the government in Havana, not some effort to create a democracy. The United States has the same sovereign right to chose its trade partners as does every other member of the United Nations. If we chose not to trade with Cuba, then that is our business, and Cuba is free to find other, more sympathetic regimes with which to carry on trade. Rand Paul also claimed that U.S. sanctions on Cuba hurt the Cuban people. Absolute HORSE SHIT. Its crap like that which makes me question how I could have ever supported this man for political office. Cuba is what it is because of the repressive, leftist/fascist rule of Fidel Castro, not because of the United States. Not surprisingly, Havana has an expensive, elite neighborhood, with mansions and all the trappings of wealth. Who lives there? the cronies and sycophants of Castro, that's who. Socialism in the best circumstances will eventually collapse upon itself, and in a poor, underdeveloped nation with very little industry or infrastructure? People are never really given the opportunity to better their lives. It's impossible to generate wealth when what little the government receives is stolen or spent on military escapades in South America and Angola. Tell me, Senator Paul, as an American, is it my fault that Castro chose to pay for Cuban Mig fighters and tanks in Angola instead of food on the tables of Cuban families? I have grown to expect President Obama to blame the American people for the ills of foreigners, but hearing it from Rand Paul was really disappointing. Newsflash: endemic poverty in Cuba is not the fault, or the responsibility of the United States.
On Thursday, during a radio interview, Rand Paul commented that, “When we first opened up trade with China we were thinking it was a bad idea. But you know over time I’ve come to believe — and many conservatives have come to believe — that trading with China is actually the best way to ultimately defeat communism, and it makes us less likely to fight.” Lets take a look at this picture, shall we? Since President Richard Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 (and threw Taiwan right under a speeding bus), and we have become progressively more economically involved with China, communism has somehow suffered? Not according to reality, Senator Paul. The Chinese economy, with our assistance, has become an international monster that has a special taste for all things American. The Chinese have made an art form out of buying up our debt, not to mention millions of acres of real estate all over the United States. Since relations with the United States improved, the Chinese military has greatly improved its offensive capacity and its missile delivery systems. Much of that missile technology came from the United States. And a quick look around the current Chinese political environment, the Communist Party is just as much an immoveable object as it always was, and the Red Army has become much more active in espionage and international banking. As for the Chinese government's dedication to the basic principles of Communism, I only have to look at Tibet and the more western provinces to remind myself what the Chinese government really thinks about open, political dialogue. Basically, the Chinese still do not enjoy the freedom to worship as they please. The education system is tightly controlled by the government, textbooks are total propaganda, and teachers are almost as left-wing as they are in American schools. Also, it is highly discouraged (some would say illegal), to have more than a certain, approved number of children. The political system does not allow for dissent, nor does the average Chinese citizen get to participate in a representative electoral process. The government controls the media and all aspects of the internet. So how, exactly, have we been "defeating" Communism with our economic and diplomatic embrace? I don't see it. No doubt a growing middle-class exists in China, but it is a segment of the population that does not question authority. The truth is, Senator Paul, that we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become even more entrenched and powerful by forgoing economic and political isolation. The mouthpiece of the Party continues to look for opportunities to threaten and insult the United States. This China that Senator Rand brags about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea's lifeline. China could shut down Kim Jong-Un and free the people of North Korea in a heartbeat. But they won't. Let me tell you what China WILL do. The Chinese government will export nuclear technology to terrorist states, and also create an elaborate system of spying using Chinese citizens studying at U.S. Universities who just happen to have contracts for research projects with the U.S. Department of Defense. And spying at the laboratories in New Mexico is another example of Communist China's love for Democracy.
Lets move away from the criticism of Rand Paul and continue the discussion of Cuba. Today, President Obama gave away the kitchen sink without getting anything in return. Just last month, the Cuban regime was denounced for continuing to illegally jail Alan Gross, a U.S. Aid worker who was in Cuba to assist the poor. That government, which jails protesters, refuses to reform, controls all aspects of the lives of the Cuban people, and embraces any political movement that expresses anti-American sentiment, shouldn't exist in our sphere of national security, let alone gain diplomatic recognition. Cuba has not had a real election in over 60 years, and the government that has been squatting in Havana all that time, has been recognized by the Obama Administration. Would Obama have recognized apartheid South Africa? To be honest, if this decision had been debated in Congress and vetted through our tried and trusted legislative system of checks and balances, and passed a vote, I wouldn't complain. I might express my disagreement, but I would continue to be proud that our system was still functioning as intended. Instead we have one man making a decision that used to be important enough for full Congressional consideration. How far is this going to go? First immigration Amnesty, now normalizing relations with Cuba. What's next? Returning Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)