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.

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.

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?

Egregious subsidies

According to the Urban Institute as reported in USA Today, in 2016 more than 7 million people will be receiving health insurance subsidies under Obamacare. "On average, the subsidies pay more than 75% of premium costs, or about $4,700 per year." That adds up to $32,9000,000,000.00. Where will this money come from? Primarily from the taxes of people not receiving subsidies. Please help me understand this injustice, Mr. Gruber.

The atheist's explanation

The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). It goes on to say that on the sixth day, “God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:27). But those who choose not to believe the Bible have an alternative explanation. It goes something like this: “In the beginning was nothing. Nothing then caused nothing to explode, which resulted in something. Over the course of time, something became stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, carbon, water, electricity, rocks, trees, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, mammals, and human beings. And then some of those human beings inexplicably came up with the idea that a divine being called “God” created it all.”

Smartest man in the room?

“This is what happens at the end of wars,” President Barack Obama boasted when asked about swapping Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban terrorists. “That was true for George Washington, that was true for Abraham Lincoln, and that was true for FDR. That’s been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that’s the right thing to do.” Is it really?

This statement demonstrates that the most powerful man in the world lacks even a grade school knowledge of American History; specifically as it relates to three of our most famous presidents. Then again, perhaps we shouldn’t expect too much from a man who was educated at an Ivy League school.

So what’s wrong with his statements, you wonder? In a word, everything!

First of all, George Washington did not become president until six years after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783. By 1789 there were no longer any prisoners for him to exchange. Second, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in mid April of 1865. And since the Civil War did not end until the following month, clearly he was still dead at that time. He therefore made no deals to exchange prisoners after the war. In fact, after the war ended, all prisoners on both sides were simply set free to go home. And third, FDR died of a stroke before the end of WWII. And like Lincoln, he stayed dead after the war ended, so he could not have done what the president says he did. You may recall that Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, ending World War II. And he made no deal for prisoners; we simply went in and released them where necessary.

So none of the presidents that Obama noted were in office at the end of those wars, which makes it impossible for them to have arranged any sort of prisoner swap, let alone a 5 for 1 deal. It should also be pointed out that deserters and traitors were shot, hanged, or imprisoned during all three of the aforementioned wars.

What is even more amazing than the starling ignorance of the president is that he has managed to surround himself with a staff that is just as poorly educated, including members of the fawning mainstream media, who failed to call him out on his ridiculous justification.

Self-contradictory presidential statement

In his speech on the eve of 9/11, President Obama made a statement that is blatantly self-contradictory. It struck me that way when I first heard it, but I thought I would let it lie for a few days and see if anyone in the media picked up on it. But alas, I haven’t heard anyone on CNN or Fox News mention it, nor have I read about it in any online news source. So here I go. The statement was, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

The particular part that is self-contradictory is his assertion that ISIS/ISIL “has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” My question is: all who stand in its way to do what? The very fact that ISIS is “on its way” somewhere indicates that it has a vision. But what is that vision? It seems to me they have made it quite clear. In fact, this vision is expressed in its name. If we use the name Obama prefers, this terrorist organization calls it’s the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This indicates that its vision is to establish a state governed by a caliph where Shariah law is administered. Moreover, the territory of this state will consist of Iraq plus Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, and the Sinai Peninsula (the Levant).

To describe the vision of ISIS/ISIL as merely slaughtering people is like saying the vision of an offensive line is to block the defensive line. No, the vision of an offensive line is to enable the guy with the ball to get a touchdown. The vision is scoring and ultimately winning. Blocking is merely the means to an end. For the president to tell the American people that ISIS/ISIL has no end game and cannot see anything beyond its current murderous rampage through Iraq is dangerously deceptive.

Here is the speech I would have given: “My fellow Americans, ISIS has a vision of turning the entire area that currently consists of Iraq, Syria, Jordan Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, and Sinai into an Islamic state under Shariah law and they will stop at nothing to accomplish this. As far as they are concerned, anyone who opposes them is expendable and should be killed in a horrific way, thus instilling fear in all others who dare to oppose them. And because they will stop at nothing to achieve their vision, I say they must be stopped. And to do so is going to require overwhelming military power.

"Now I would be glad to have the assistance of other nations, especially the Europeans, but if no one else is willing step up, then America will go it alone. Why? Because these people take the Koran literally and believe they have a solemn responsibility to bring the entire world under subjection to Allah, which has been the ultimate goal of Islam from its founding. After Muhammad died in 632, his Islamic armies swept across Arabia, north African, and the Middle East, spreading Islam at the edge of the sword. The only thing that stopped them from taking Europe was Charles Martel’s victory at the Battle of Tours in 732 and the intervention of John Sobieski and his Polish army in 1683 at the gates of Vienna. But our European friends better wake up and realize that the Muslim world has never given up on their goal of conquering Europe for Allah. ISIS has already announced that one of their immediate goals is taking Italy and Spain. My fellow Americans, once Europe has fallen, we will ne next. They are already encouraging their jihadist brethren to attack us right here in the homeland. It’s just a matter of time.

"This is why ISIS must be stopped now. Every day that goes by they become more entrenched in the territory that have already taken, which is an area about the size of New England. And even though they have recently had a couple of setbacks, they have nevertheless had enough victories to attract thousands of new followers. Since this past spring their army has grown from around 800 to over 30,000. Folks, time is of the essence. These people have shown that in there minds there is no such thing as a civilian. They have beheaded two Americans who had nothing to do with our military, and they have killed thousands of Syrians and Iraqis solely because they stood in the way of achieving their vision. Therefore, when we attack them, we will do it from the position that there are no civilians. We will attack them with overwhelming fire power. This is what we did in Dresden to defeat Naziism and this is what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring the Imperial Japanese army to its knees. Sadly, the cost of destroying an evil ideology is often the death of many people who never really bought into it.

"I confess to you today that I should have left a strong residual force in Iraq, but I can’t undue my mistakes of the past. So my fellow Americans, it’s back to Iraq we go. And by the way, I am also instructing the Army Corp of Engineers to immediately begin constructing an impassible fence across our entire southern border. I am also ordering increased surveillance of our northern border, and I’m asking Congress to double the size of our Coast Guard. Furthermore, I am beginning an immediate process for deporting every person within our borders who did not enter our country through proper legal channels. Let the whole world know that from this day forth, if you enter the United States illegally, you will not receive one penny of assistance and you will not be welcome here."

         

OK, it's time they change their name

Yes, it's high time that the owners of the New York Yankees change the name of their team. Here is why.

According to Wikipedia: The origin of the term is uncertain. In 1758, British General James Wolfe made the earliest recorded use of the word Yankee to refer to people from what was to become the United States, referring to the New England soldiers under his command as Yankees: "I can afford you two companies of Yankees, and the more because they are better for ranging and scouting than either work or vigilance".[5] Later British use of the word often was derogatory, as in a cartoon of 1775 ridiculing "Yankee" soldiers.[5]

The word Yankee is a variation that could have referred to the Dutch Americans.[7] Michael Quinion and Patrick Hanks argue that the term refers to the Dutch pet name Janneke[9] or Janke[10] ("Johnny"), which – owing to the Dutch pronunciation of J as the English Y – would be Anglicized as "Yankee". Quinion and Hanks posit it was "used as a nickname for a Dutch-speaking American in colonial times" and could have grown to include non-Dutch colonists as well.[9]

H. L. Mencken derived it from the slur "John Cheese", applied by the English colonists to the Dutch – "Here comes a John Cheese"[11] – owing to the importance of their dairy cultivation, which introduced the black-and-white dairy cow from Friesland and North Holland to America in the mid-1600s. The modern Dutch for John Cheese is Jan Kaas but this would be spoken Jan Kees in some dialects.[10]

According to Cecil Adams: “The origins of "Yankee" have been fiercely debated throughout the history of the Republic, and to this day the Oxford English Dictionary says the source of the word is "unascertained." Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation was advanced by H.L. Mencken, the well-known newsman-scholar (and don't tell me that isn't an unusual combination), who argued that Yankee derives from the expression Jan Kaas, literally "John Cheese." This supposedly was a derogatory nickname bestowed on the Dutch by the Germans and the Flemish in the 1600s. (Wisconsin cheeseheads can undoubtedly relate.)

The English later applied the term to Dutch pirates, and later still Dutch settlers in New York applied it to English settlers in Connecticut, who were known for their piratical trading practices. During the French and Indian War the British general James Wolfe took to referring derisively to the native New Englanders in his army as Yankees."

Why should the New York baseball team continue to use a name that is so disparaging to the Dutch settlers of New York state and their descendants. To hell with the legacy of Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, Mantle, and Jeter, I demand that the Yankees change their name immediately. In fact, I will no longer use this ethnic slur in any future published commentaries. So there!     

Who said this?

“I will submit today an official complaint to the federal court against the president of the Republic for committing a clear constitutional violation for the sake of political calculations.”

Was is 1) Jefferson Davis, 2) John Boehner, or 3) Nouri al-Maliki?

Enough said...