"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Thoughts on Cuba


Having recently returned from a week in Havana and having met a number of "average Cubans," I have some thoughts on the president's decision to establish diplomatic ties with the Castro regime. The first thing I thought of was that John Kennedy must be rolling over in his grave. Next I thought of the thousands of Cuban exiles who had their property stolen by Fidel Castro. I then thought of those "average Cubans" who have now been sentenced to another lifetime of political oppression (unless something radically changes).

Cuba is clearly an impoversihed nation. Havana is full of what were once beautiful art deco buildings which are literally crumbling and falling down. Much of it has a quaint European look, yet that look is blighted by neglect and disrepair. Frankly, I saw virtually no new construction and few buildings that looked less than 50 years old. I have been to quite a few Carribean countries, but Cuba stands out as a nation that is stagnant and slowly eroding.

One man told me that as long as they don't oppose the government, their only problem is economic. This he blamed on the US embargo. How interesting that the only way Castro's communist utopia can thrive is by opening up trade with its giant evil capitalist neighbor. It seems to me that all the world should be able to see that communism with its centralized economy is a failed system that should be scrapped once and for all. It just doesn't work.

As for the president's latest move, I came home from Cuba convinced that it would be in everyone's best interests to end the embargo. I believe that opening up Cuba to American culture and trade will indeed engender positive change. But if we want to see that change in our lifetime, then every diplomatic and economic concession to Cuba must be met with a political and religious concession by the Castro regime (and whoever follows). There must also be a firm agreement on reparations to everyone who had property stolen by Castro. I realize that today that would be like squeezing blood out of a turnip. But something needs to be in place so that as the economy grows, the Cuban exiles are fairly compensated for their losses.

What all this means is that Congress has some difficult work to do to make sure the president doesn't give away the store. With the huge drop in oil prices, we are presently in a unique position. Cuba needs us like it never has before. This gives us a lot of leverage. But we need to use that leverage to wring as much liberty as possible out of the hands of the tyrants. I fear that if Congress does not act quickly and boldly, all we will end up doing is guaranteeing the continuation of the Guevara-Castro legacy. And how sad that would be for the people of Cuba.


Thursday, December 11, 2014

Saudis change their tune


When the price of oil on the world market goes below around $50.00 a barrell, it becomes a losing proposition to pump it. In other words, it costs more to obtain the oil and ship it than it can be sold for. Back in 2008, Vice President Cheney tried to convince the Saudis to increase production enough to severely decrease the price of oil on the world market. The objective was two-fold: 1) to bring down the high prices Americans were paying for oil at the time and 2) to squeeze the economy of Iran enough that the people would rise up against the government. At the time it seemed to me like a brilliant strategy, but apparently the Saudis were not willing to accept the losses in revenue.

Today things seem to be different. In the midst of rapidly decreasing oil prices, one would think the Saudis would lower production to try to nudge the price back up. But no, they have just announced they will not decrease production. Could it be that they now see an opportunity to cripple the Iranian economy? That's what the Iranians are saying. They are calling this a "conspiracy against the region, the Muslim people and the Muslim world" (AP story today). I hope they're right.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

The case for removal


On January 20, 2012, Barack Obama said these words with his hand on a Bible, indicating that he was making an oath both to the citizens of the US and to the God of the Bible (who happens to be the true God): “I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article. I. Section. 1. of the Constitution of the United States states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” And Article. II. Section. 1. states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

The Constitution says nothing about the president having power to change a law; he is only authorized to execute the laws that are made by Congress. Yet in a speech on November 25, 2014, President Obama responded to hecklers with these incriminating words: “But what you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1. Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we're reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration law generally. The point is that though I understand why you might have yelled at me a month ago, although I disagree with some of your characterizations, it doesn’t make much sense to yell at me right now when we’re making changes.”
(Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Obama-Addresses-Hecklers-During-Chicago-Speech-283908031.html#ixzz3KhTEmw1c)

Yes, he stated publicly, “I just took an action to change the law.” He then reiterated this point by saying, “The way the change in the law works is...” and “now when we’re making changes.” These words seen to me to be tantamount to an overt admission that he has decided to no longer “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”---a blatant usurption of congressional power and a disgraceful abrogation of his sworn duty as president? Is this not a firm constitutional ground for impeachment and removal from office? Up to this point I have opposed any efforts to impeach, being unimpressed by the grounds others have asserted. But these words make the case open and shut for me. So I say, let’s give ole Joe a shot at it for the next two years. I mean, why not?