Obama to Normalize Relations with Cuba

Obama's going around and tidying up some Old Business these days.

Although I'm normally opposed to most of the stupid stuff he does, I'm not really against this.

The Cuba thing is a Cold War relic. I think we're all over it. It's like two people who get in an argument and stop talking to each other. After awhile, they start to forget what they were even mad about, and just go along with the "Not Talking To You" thing because no one wants to admit they can't remember why they originally got mad at each other.

I get that we didn't want Cuba to become a wealthy satellite of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In that context, the embargo made sense, but after 1991 that ceased to be a concern.

We have relations with other communist regimes (Hello China!) and other thuggish regimes who we actually consider friends (Hello Saudi Arabia!). So don't give me the argument that we can't have normal relations with Cuba because they're a repressive or communist state.

Actually, I think we'd have more influence on getting them to stop with the whole Communist thing if we engage in some trade and travel. Let Levi Strauss, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Goldman Sachs, and Koch industries go down there. They'll all be capitalists in no time.

Having said that, Cuba wants us to normalize relations. It's a bigger "get" for them that it is a "give" for us. Accordingly, as Rod Blagojevich so eloquently stated: "I’ve got this thing and it’s f----ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f---in’ nothing."

Basically, we should get something in return for granting them status.

However, Obama once again fails to negotiate. He's just doing this thing and giving them something for nothing. Whether he's refusing to negotiate for whatever reason in many contexts, the man just absolutely baffles me in his failure to understand negotiations.

Obama Really Isn't Into Attacking ISIS

After another American was beheaded in what is basically a taunt to the United States, you might have thought that the President was going to come up with a St. Crispin's Day kind of speech and make the case for why we need to destroy ISIS. I mean, at some point, when your citizens are being beheaded, you have to kind of push-back on that.

Yeah, that didn't happen.

"We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem," said Obama. (emphasis mine)

Excuse me?

I don't understand how you can say you're going to make people beheading Americans and conducting mass executions in the name of Islam a "manageable problem". These people have to be completely defeated, not made manageable.

I know that Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq. I know he doesn't want to go back and start a big fight over there. However, we're already in a fight. These people are killing Americans over there, and pretty soon, they're going to be killing Americans over here.

How is it that the President was all good with bombing in Syria and Libya, but he can't bring himself to do the same thing in Iraq?

History will not be kind to this man.

Obama's Big Mistake

Back in high school, I had a friend who was fairly smart. However, instead of working relatively hard and making great grades, he was always looking to circumvent the rules. He spent almost all of his time and energy trying to find loopholes in school rules and regulations.

More often than not, his actions would get him in trouble with teachers and administrators. He constantly pushed back against almost all authority, constantly pushing the envelope of what was allowed. Basically, he spent most of his time and energy fighting the system, rather than trying to work within the confines of the school rules.

It caused a lot of bad blood between him and the school officials over what were essentially unnecessary conflicts. He ended up graduating, but refusing to participate in the ceremony. If my friend had spent his time simply studying and working to get along with people, he would have been a top student, and he would have probably been the valedictorian, speaking at his graduation, rather than skipping it.

I see that same characteristic in our current President.

Ever since he lost his super-majority in the Senate, he's gotten absolutely nothing done. He goes on and on all the time about how the mean ol' Republicans won't work with him on anything, but the fact is, he doesn't want to work with them, either. Accordingly, our President now spends all his time trying to figure out how much he can get done without Congress. He's doing everything he can to simply avoid Congress on almost every issue. He's unilaterally changing the ACA, fighting the Halbig case so he doesn't have to ask Congress amend the law, raising the minimum wage via executive order and so on. His famous "pen and phone" line is emblematic of his mentality to simply fight/ignore the Legislative branch of our government.

This isn't how to win friends and influence Congress. (Or enact policy.) Another example is evident today, in the realm of the climate change argument.

Just today, the President has now decided that he's going to try and do some strange end run around the fact that the Senate has to ratify treaties. Apparently, the President wants to cut carbon emissions in an international treaty, but he knows the Senate won't approve it. Therefore, rather than going to the Senators and trying to cut a deal and give them something in exchange, the President is now just going to try and do what he can without the Senate.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

Our President isn't even trying to convince the Senate to go along with this. They've told him "no", but he's undeterred. He's going to try and figure out some way to enter into a treaty without actually entering into a treaty. That will be quite a trick.

If the President spent half the time actually trying to compromise and work with Congress that he spends trying to come up with ways around Congress, he might actually get something done. He needs to understand that you can't always get everything you want when there's divided government. Out of all the campaign promises he's made and broken (and there's a lot) the number one promise he's broken is that he would be a pragmatic "uniter", ending our bitter partisanship. He's absolutely done the opposite. As I referenced in my last post, steamrolling the ACA through Congress is what created the Tea Party.

For all of the soul-searching that leftists do about how our foreign aggression "creates" terrorists, they sure don't seem to realize how political aggression created the Tea Party.

But instead, this current President looks like he's going to be end up like my friend from high school. He's going to struggle against the system, and he's going to engender lots of bad blood, and ultimately, it's all going to be a big waste of time and effort, never really reaching his potential. At the rate he's going, he'll probably end up skipping graduation to go play golf.

American Journalist Executed - What Is Our Response?

In the wake of an American journalist being publicly executed by ISIS, I thought of this:

What will be the response from the United States today when one of our citizens is publicly slaughtered by a foreign power that has wrought so much death and misery on others?

What should our response be?

Commercial Airliner Shot Down In Ukraine

BREAKING: Adviser to Ukraine's Interior Minister says passenger plane carrying 295 shot down.
— The Associated Press (@AP) July 17, 2014

Not good. It sounds like people are pointing fingers at Ukrainian separatists (the pro-Russian folks) within Ukraine. However, there's going to be some finger-pointing for a little while.

However, I expect Putin to come out and say that he's now compelled to go into Ukraine and stop all of this, since Kiev clearly cannot control their own people.

I just hope there wasn't an Austrian Archduke on that airplane.

“So far, Russia has failed to take any of the steps that I have mentioned. In fact, Russia’s support for the separatists and violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty has continued.”

So, President Obama is gonna up the sanctions. Get real tough, so to speak. I guess a few travel restrictions didn't really get their attention, huh? I'm sure that this new sanction will be super-duper, tough.

NEW SANCTION: "The new measures will severely restrict access to American debt markets for the targeted companies."

Ooooooh, snap! We won't loan some Russian companies some money.

That's the kind of tough sanction that's sure to cripple the Russian Bear, because nothing says you're serious like refusing to finance your adversary. Hey, you! Quit beating up on that small kid, or I'll...I'll refuse to loan you money.

Yup. I'm sure that this set of sanctions will work. Seriously, you guys.

Poland Has Lost That Lovin' Feeling

Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski says the country's strong alliance with the U.S. "isn't worth anything" and is "even harmful because it creates a false sense of security."

Didn't the Polish used to be some of our stanchest allies? Apparently, they've lost that lovin' feeling.

I'm pretty sure that President Obama promised to "restore out standing in the world" or something like that. So what's up with getting dissed by the Polish Foreign Minister? I guess stiffing them on the ABM deal and botching the Ukraine thing hasn't helped.

Does this mean the Polish tell jokes about us now? Because that's not acceptable.

The Caskey Doctrine

In case you missed it, Obama said the Obama Doctrine was too long to explain...whatever the heck that means. I think it means he doesn't really have a plan.

Anyway, I put in my two cents over at Brad's Bar and Grille on what I thought isolationism is a bad idea. Since not everyone looks at everything on the internet, I'm re-posting it again here.

China is looking at two American allies (the Philippines and Japan) that are essentially defended by America and America’s nuclear umbrella. And now, whether or not we defend them from Chinese aggression is an open question. That’s bad – and I’ll tell you why.

Once American allies believe that our defense guarantees are a hollow gesture, they will begin to develop and secure their own defenses, and we have been taking that for granted for a long time. For instance, Europe has no defense capabilities to speak of. That’s not going to happen in perpetuity.

If the US ends up abdicating its role as the guarantor of the NATO alliance and our allies such as Japan and the Philippines, then we will be leaving space for these individual nations to develop their own forces out of necessity.

Essentially, the different nations will begin to balance against each other. That balancing will be self-perpetuating. As each nation grows its military, another nation will be forced to do the same. Japan will have to balance against China. The Baltic States will have to balance against Russia. Rinse, lather, repeat. It will grow and grow. Then we will have what will essentially be a multi-polar world in terms of military power – like in the 1920s and 1930s.

That’s bad. All of these balancing forces act in relation to each other in ways that are unpredictable. And that ultimately leads to a military confrontation, which can then catch fire.

And even if America abdicates its leadership role as the guarantor, we will still be the hegemon (lead country). We’ll be the hegemon for at least the next 50-80 years or so regardless of what we do or don't do. So, we’ll be drawn into one (or more) of these conflicts.

Accordingly, it’s in the interest of the USA to ensure that there is no conflict between two nations. Because we’ll be almost assuredly drawn in to any conflict between any European nations, Japan, China, or otherwise.

Aside from the military aspect, we want to maintain a world economic and trade system that is maintained and secured by military force if need be. But it’s much harder to secure the world’s trade if you have many, different, competing poles of power, seeking to create little places of their protection for trade. China just did this recently.

Eventually, transit such as shipping lanes and air corridors could be closed. And that leads to miscalculation by other nations…which leads to war…which we want to avoid.

That’s why we want to “get out in front” of this sort of thing. We don’t want to allow bigger, broader conflicts to come up.

The problem with isolationists who advocate “staying out of it” in certain areas of the world is that they don’t realize that “staying out of it” isn’t a permanent decision. Sooner or later, the US will be involved.

The only question is do we want to be involved up front, with minimal conflict, or do we want to wait to get dragged into a shooting war between nation states later?

That’s the Caskey Doctrine, anyway. (For whatever it’s worth.)