Tag Archives: communists

national news

When did GOP surrender its anti-Russia standing?

Those of us who are old enough to remember such things must be wondering: What has become of the Republican Party’s historic animosity toward Russia?

The party of Ike, Nixon and Reagan has become squishier than the Democrats were during those earlier eras. Russia — which once was known as the Soviet Union — attacked our electoral system in 2016. They did with malicious intent to disrupt our process and sow discontent among Americans about the integrity of our voting system.

They have succeeded.

Democrats now are incensed. Republicans? They are silent.

Democrats are pushing for measures in Congress that would strengthen electoral integrity and security. Republican leaders are blocking it.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller III told the nation that Russians not only attacked our 2016 electoral system in “sweeping” and “systematic” fashion, but are in the process of attacking our system at this moment.

The GOP leadership in Congress — and in the White House — are acting as if, “Hey, no big deal!”

History reminds us that in the days of Dwight Eisenhower, we shored up our military to counter the Soviet Union’s aspirations to become he world’s greatest power. Then came Richard Nixon, the noted communist-hater who made no apologies for his hatred and mistrust of the Soviet leadership. After that, the nation heard Ronald Reagan refer to the USSR as the “evil empire” and once joked into an open mic that he had just “outlawed Russia; bombing begins in five minutes.”

These days the equation has been flipped on its ear. Republicans give Russians a pass on the attack they have launched on our electoral system. Democrats have become the hardliners.

I believe this is a manifestation of the Donald Trump Era of national politics. What once was “normal” no longer is normal. Conduct we used to abhor has become part of what we believe is a “new normal.”

Russian attacks on our political system that used to become fodder for Republican politicians’ ire have become reasons for them to zip their lips. They say nothing. Meanwhile, the Democrats have become the hardliners.

What gives?

International news

About those human rights abuses …

BBqKETv

U.S. foreign policy abounds with hypocrisy.

We support some nations while opposing others, citing issues in those nations we oppose that are commonplace in the nations with which we are friendly.

I bring to you … Cuba.

President Barack Obama is visiting the island nation, becoming the first U.S. president to set foot in Cuba since Calvin Coolidge.

His foes back home keep yammering about the human rights abuses that the communists in Havana are guilty of committing. Why, we can’t allow Americans to travel freely there; we can’t commence trade with Cuba; we can’t let our guard down.

What’s the deal, then, with other nations with which we have reasonably healthy relationships?

The People’s Republic of China? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Vietnam?

Sure, we have differences with many nations around he world, including those I’ve just mentioned.

But the communists who run governments in China and Vietnam treat their citizens badly whenever they speak out against their leaders. The Saudis refuse to grant full rights of citizenship to roughly half of their citizenry; I refer, of course, to women. What’s more, the Saudis are known to execute criminals in public.

My point is simply this: Let’s stop the griping about Cuba’s human rights record, suggesting that it’s a disqualifier for U.S.-Cuba relations. Yes, let’s keep the pressure on Cuba to do better.

We can bring the change we want there by engaging them fully.

 

International news

Obama set to meet Castro

President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro are going to attend a meeting together this weekend.

They’ll shake hands. They’ll talk to each other. They’ll likely exchange an idea or two about the changing relationship between their two countries. And much of the world will be hanging on every look, gesture and spoken word.

Is this a big deal? Yes. But perhaps not for reasons that some have given for it.

Obama, Raúl Castro get ready for historic meeting

This won’t be a meeting between equals. Obama is head of state of the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power. Castro heads a third-rate, Third World nation that folks once thought posed some sort of threat to the United States of America.

Cuba never really did pose that threat. What danger existed essentially evaporated right along with the Soviet Union in 1991. Still, U.S. and Cuban relations remained frozen in time.

That’s changing now that Obama and Castro have agreed to proceed toward normalization. The economic, travel and diplomatic embargoes are going to end in due course. Cuba will get to become an actual neighbor of the United States.

The leaders will meet at the Summit of the Americas. They shook hands briefly at a memorial service for the great Nelson Mandela a couple of years ago. This meeting is supposed to signal the start of a new relationship.

Yes, critics chide Obama for ignoring Cuba’s human rights issues. Sure thing. As if we don’t have diplomatic ties with other nations around the world with dubious human rights reputations. Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Pakistan, the People’s Republic of China — they all come to mind. I believe it was President Reagan who followed what was called a policy of “constructive engagement” with South Africa when that nation was operating under its apartheid policy that denied its black majority any rights of citizenship.

This meeting is long overdue. The Cuban Missile Crisis has receded into history. Raul Castro’s brother, Fidel, has retired from his lifetime job as president, is in frail health and appears to no longer be the commanding presence in the island nation.

The time arrived long ago for the nations to establish a formal relationship.

It’s good that Barack Obama and Raul Castro are going to that important step together.

national news, political news

Actually, Mr. Mayor, I heard you clearly

Rudy Guiliani has tried to explain his harsh criticism of Barack Obama by saying that his bluntness got in the way of his message.

He writes in the Wall Street Journal: “My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn’t love America notwithstanding, I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart.”

Well, OK. I heard his remarks. I’ve read them carefully. I think I understand exactly what he said and the message he intended to convey.

For the record, the former New York mayor was speaking at an event honoring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who’s considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination next year. Guiliani decided to say that the president “doesn’t love America.” Then he went on to say he didn’t question the president’s patriotism.

Those statements seem to be mutually exclusive. A patriot, by definition, loves his country. Am I missing something? I don’t think so.

The former mayor — a one-time candidate for the GOP presidential nomination — went on at some length to tell his audience that the president has a “different” view of the nation from, well, others.

A day or two later, Guiliani tried to counter criticism from some that his attacks were racially motivated, saying that the president was raised by a “white mother.” Someone will have to explain that one to me.

Then he mentioned that young Barack was brought up with “communist influences.” Huh?

I heard the former mayor clearly. I think I know what he intended to say. He’s a well-educated, usually well-spoken man who’s used to the limelight. He undoubtedly wasn’t suffering from stage fright at that dinner the other evening.

He simply was mistaken to the max in his assessment of the president’s love of country.