President Obama let slip that he might visit Cuba if conditions are right. In Obama's language, that is the equivalent of an announcement that he is going to Cuba soon unless there is a firestorm of opposition across the country. Okay, cozying up to the Castro dictatorship in Cuba is a foolish idea in my opinion, but Obama is president and he gets to choose. The problem is that Obama tried to justify his visit by stating, among other things, that Castro "is not an ideologue". That's roughly the equivalent of Obama saying that the Sun does not rise in the east and set in the west.
Let's think about the Castro brothers. Fidel and Raul ruled Cuba for the last 55 years. During that time, there have been two constants in their government and both are ideologies. The Castros are loyal Communists and they are strident anti-Americans. The purportedly non-ideological Castro brothers have sent Cuban troops to fight with other Marxists in locations around the globe. They have enforced strict Communism inside Cuba. They have allowed no opposition. Even when Communism has not been at stake, the Castro brothers have gotten involved in the affairs of other countries if it could upset the plans of the USA. For example, right now there are Cuban troops in Syria fighting to keep Bashir al Assad in power. Cuban forces are also supporting the collapsing but stridently anti-American government of Maduro in Venezuela. Indeed, the fear is that Maduro will carry out a state coup to oust the legislature to which the people just elected an anti-Maduro majority. So both at home and abroad, the Castro brothers have spent their entire lives as ideologues.
How is it possible then that Obama could say that Castro is not an ideologue? Is this just an updated version of "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period"? No, the Castro statement is worse. With the phony Obamacare promises, Obama was talking about what would happen in the future. He was also promoting a political course of action, so some hyperbole might well be expected. Obama knew that what he was saying about Obamacare would likely not come to pass, but he said it anyway. With the Castro statement, however, Obama is just telling lies about the past and present. This is no prediction of the future; it is a lie about the current reality. It is about the worst sort of lie a president could tell; it means that the American people cannot take a word the man says at face value.
This latest lie by Obama makes me wonder when the truth went out of style for the Democrats. Just the other day, Hillary Clinton was asked if she told the families of those killed in Benghazi that their deaths were the result of a video and that the video maker would be punished. She said she had not. For three years, we have heard from those family members that Hillary had told them just that, but suddenly, in order to avoid a difficult question, Hillary lied and said she had not. Two thirds of Americans already consider Hillary dishonest, but how can anyone accept her statements on any subject? Then there's Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. His most famous lie was when he falsely announced that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes for ten years. Reid knew that was a lie, but he told it anyway in the hopes of gaining a political advantage.
It's time that the Democrats be banished to the political wilderness until they learn to be honest. We have to be able to trust those who govern us. We can disagree; that is fine. We must, however, be able to accept that those in Washington at least speak some version of the truth.
Let's think about the Castro brothers. Fidel and Raul ruled Cuba for the last 55 years. During that time, there have been two constants in their government and both are ideologies. The Castros are loyal Communists and they are strident anti-Americans. The purportedly non-ideological Castro brothers have sent Cuban troops to fight with other Marxists in locations around the globe. They have enforced strict Communism inside Cuba. They have allowed no opposition. Even when Communism has not been at stake, the Castro brothers have gotten involved in the affairs of other countries if it could upset the plans of the USA. For example, right now there are Cuban troops in Syria fighting to keep Bashir al Assad in power. Cuban forces are also supporting the collapsing but stridently anti-American government of Maduro in Venezuela. Indeed, the fear is that Maduro will carry out a state coup to oust the legislature to which the people just elected an anti-Maduro majority. So both at home and abroad, the Castro brothers have spent their entire lives as ideologues.
How is it possible then that Obama could say that Castro is not an ideologue? Is this just an updated version of "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period"? No, the Castro statement is worse. With the phony Obamacare promises, Obama was talking about what would happen in the future. He was also promoting a political course of action, so some hyperbole might well be expected. Obama knew that what he was saying about Obamacare would likely not come to pass, but he said it anyway. With the Castro statement, however, Obama is just telling lies about the past and present. This is no prediction of the future; it is a lie about the current reality. It is about the worst sort of lie a president could tell; it means that the American people cannot take a word the man says at face value.
This latest lie by Obama makes me wonder when the truth went out of style for the Democrats. Just the other day, Hillary Clinton was asked if she told the families of those killed in Benghazi that their deaths were the result of a video and that the video maker would be punished. She said she had not. For three years, we have heard from those family members that Hillary had told them just that, but suddenly, in order to avoid a difficult question, Hillary lied and said she had not. Two thirds of Americans already consider Hillary dishonest, but how can anyone accept her statements on any subject? Then there's Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. His most famous lie was when he falsely announced that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes for ten years. Reid knew that was a lie, but he told it anyway in the hopes of gaining a political advantage.
It's time that the Democrats be banished to the political wilderness until they learn to be honest. We have to be able to trust those who govern us. We can disagree; that is fine. We must, however, be able to accept that those in Washington at least speak some version of the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment