Senator Menendez In The Crosshairs Over Cuba
Senator Menendez has found himself in opposition to his own party over American policy toward Cuba. Democrats in Congress are seeking to lift travel restrictions to the island nation; clearly with an eye toward ultimately lifting the embargo on Cuba which has been in place for some 50 years now. Senator Menendez, rightfully, is standing up for the Cuban people.
Lest we forget – and apparently all too many are so willing – Cuba is a tyrannical, oppressive regime. The Cuban people have no freedom. Everything they do is controlled by the state. My words couldn’t nearly do as must justice to the horrid conditions Cubans live in, so I give you these from someone who has actually lived it:
Only a Cuban (or someone who has lived there long enough) can have a fair idea how twisted, perverse and paranoid that system is. I could write pages about this, but I’ll put it very simple.
Nothing on Earth, I mean no money, no riches, anything is worth nothing when there is no freedom……The state controls everything, down to cellular level, the press, the mass media, education, what our children read, and learn. They indoctrinate children from kindergarten, all the way up. Not even Hitler’s nazis were so imaginative.
They control who you are, what you say, what you feel, what you do, what you eat, what you watch, where you work. They make all the decisions for you. They want Cubans to hang their brains to dry. They keep them “informed”, by hiding everything the whole world says, complete censorship. Why would Cubans need free access to Internet, if we can do a better job? Cubans have no access to internet, no international news, because everything coming from outside is wrong. “We” are right.
I have always found very hard to understand why most foreigners who “support” the regime in one way or another have never wondered if they would accept that type of lives in their countries of origin, for themselves.
Yet, liberals in Congress – and even some misguided Republicans like Senator Richard Lugar – are in favor of easing travel restrictions. Some even are blaming the U.S. for the lack of change in Cuba. This is ludicrous thinking as there is no one else to blame for the conditions in Cuba than Castro himself.
If we are to open travel and trade with Cuba it will not save the Cuban people. It will only strengthen the Castro regime as it lines its pockets and use these resources to continue to its oppression against its own people. While openness to changing American policy toward Cuba may be well-intentioned, it is horribly misguided.
For his part, Senator Menendez has remained steadfast.
In a lengthy speech from the Senate floor this month, Menendez shot back at Lugar: “Over the years, millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, among others, have visited Cuba, invested in Cuba, spent billions of dollars, signed trade agreements and engaged politically. And what has been the result of all of that money and all of that engagement? The regime has not opened up; on the contrary, it has used resources to become more oppressive.”
Unfortunately, Obama and Congressional Democrats appear to be committed to undoing the only real leverage we have against the Castro regime; to the detriment of the very people we are trying to help.
This may not be the best bill, but we need dramatic change towards our policy with Cuba, ignoring a problem does not make it go away.
And so what if we freely trade with this cruel regime, we do it with dozens of other countries around the world, Saudi Arabia, China and now you can add Afghanistan which just legalized Rape.
Like Cuba is some colossal threat to the U.S.?
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pmThe question with Cuba should not be how we can help the Cuban people. This is the same giberish liberals use to justify welfare spending at home.
The test for how we should deal with Cuba is: is Cuba a security threat to the United States? If the answer is yes, as it was during Soviet times, then blockade and invasion should be on the table.
If on the other hand, Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States, then it is immoral for the American government to block Americans from freely trading and interacting with Cuba.
The fact that Cuba wishes to harm the United States is an insufficient basis for holding it to be an actual (as opposed to potential) threat. From what I can tell, Cuba no longer poses a direct threat to the United States. It certainly does not seem to pose as big a threat as say, Mexico right now – and we have a free trade agreement with that country.
I would be reluctant to lift the sanctions and military embargo without further information from military minds more knowledgeable than I am about Cuba. But from my vantage point, it appears that it may be time to declare victory and move on to more imminent threats.
The only caveat I have to that last paragraph is the ideological victory that liberals wish to give to any communist they can at the expense of the United States. I’m not sure how much of a danger such an ideological defeat represents in and of itself as opposed to signifying a defeat we have already suffered but not yet acknowledged.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pmyeah, we can buy Cuban goods with pennies on the dollar and really make a killing back here in the States! grub grub grub greed greed greed nothing immoral about that!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 pmMellish:
What goods do we want to buy from Cuba? The communists have even destroyed the cigar industry. What would we purchase from them – health care services?
They would need to do what SE Asia did over the past thirty years in order for use to buy their goods at pennies on the dollar.
But even if we could – what on earth is immoral about that?
A voluntary trade that makes both parties better off by definition helps everyone. But you and your socialist ilk are so obsessed with destroying the strong that you will not tolerate gains to the poor unless they are accompanied by losses to the strong.
Nothing moral about that!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 pmRelax Ed, I was just winding you up. Our arguments have gotten tiresome but I’m glad to see you’ve still got your motor running! Take care of yourself dear fellow!
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 pmRED China is an extremely tyrannical oppressive regime. The Chinese people have no freedom. Everything they do is controlled by the state. Yet WE the US, has RED China buying our loans, most the the goods bought by the US in made & imported from China! Priests & Christians are put in prisions. China is DRASTICALLY BUILDING up their military, especially their NUKES! People form the US in great numbers visit China, but the US can’t even buy sugar from Cuba. Why the double standard? The world trades with Cuba except for the US. Castro is a animal, and his past is horrific! However in the past decade who has been more tyrannical and dangerous, China or Cuba? It’s not even close. Even the Pope has visited Cuba!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 amEd Mazlish is correct – it is immoral for my government to unjustly infringe my freedom to visit Cuba.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 amThank you fore the praise George – though my statement was not quite as unqualified as you imply. RWR’s raising of Red China is the reason I qualified my statement. Had we maintained a Cuba type embargo on China, it is highly unlikely that they could have transformed into the threat they are today, even if they had opened their economy to the rest of the world. Thus, it is at least arguable that we should not repeat that mistake (if it was a mistake).
I suspect that the real threat from CHina is the same one we have in all other parts of the world” moral weakness that prevents the US from asserting its own “selfish” interests. Consequently, I do not think the openning up to China has been a net negative. I suspect that if we had leaders that were truly self-confident in America, who believed that America was better than other countries and that America had no need to appease other countries that China’s growing strength would be nothing more than a (dangerous) annoyance at best.
If we had leaders like that, we would not need to fear any other country (whether China or Cuba) nor would we need an embargo (unless there was an actual war).
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 amWith Russian resurgence and Russia’s anti-American actions on the rise, Cuba has again become a Russian stooge, and therefore a threat to America. The Russians plan to base nuclear-armed bombers there to threaten America with nuclear and conventional weapons.
It would therefore be a catastrophic error for America to abolish the embargo or the other restrictions, whatever George the Commielover says. The restrictions currently on the books shall remain until ALL of the following conditions are met: 1) all Cuban political prisoners are released 2) Cubans receive democratic political freedoms 3) the Cuban government schedules transparent, pluralist, internationally-supervised elections.
Until those conditions are fulfilled, whatever action America takes AGAINST Cuba is justified, including a military invasion, if need be. Cuba should not be allowed to be a base for Russian bombers.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 amFor somebody who despises political tyrants like the Castro Brothers, he sure didn’t mind being a political tyrant in the 13th Congressional District for thirteen years now, did he?
Furthermore, he was born in New York so what the hell does he care?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 amPoor logic. I was not born in America, France, Britain nor Israel. Does that mean that I shouldn’t care for those countries? Of course it doesn’t.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 amThe point is, Bob Menendez is a hypocrite. He spent his entire political career voting against tax cuts, promoting big government, and destroying the livelihood of those that oppopse him politically.
The overwhelming majority of Cubans are conservatives for a reason. They risked life and limb to escape socialist tyranny for the opportunity to be free and have a much better quality of life. Bob Menendez doesn’t know that plight and therefore, merely talks a good game to score political points.
You’d be hardpressed to find many more politicians in New Jersey who are a bigger enemy of the American way than Bob Menendez.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 amZbigniew:
The following comments are offered in a spirit of debate, not disagreement.
There is a difference between a potential threat and an actual threat. Russia may have plans to use Cuba as a stooge for future belligerent military actions, but even your post does not say that is happening now. Given that we were able to immediately detect the placement of Soviet missles in Cuba half a century ago during the Cuban Missle Crisis, I seriously doubt that our spy technology would delay us from knowing when the potential became an actual by more than a negligible amount of time. Consequently, it is not necessary to prophylactically treat all potential threats as actual threats worthy of immediate action.
There is one enormous difference between the resurgent Russian Bear/New Left and Soviet Communism. That difference is that there was an ideological, intellectual component to communism that is completely lacking from the brute force of the left today. Fifty years ago, a communist would have proudly answered my questions about guns posed to Mr. Ambrosia, Mr. Mellish and others by saying “selfish individuals may be unhappy, but society has a right to sacrifice selfish individuals to make a better world.” Today, the left still advocates the rule of brute force as it did under communism, but there is absolutely no ideological or intellectual justification for it – it is just pure, naked brute force (which is why they never answer my questions about guns). Without the ideological or intellectual justification that communism had, I do not see it as the overwhelming, powerful threat that Soviet Communism was. It is still a threat, just not nearly of the same magnitude. I’m not sure that the lesser threat warrants a blockade and government imposed economic boycott (closing embassises and political ostracism by our government would be entirely appropriate, so long as it was clear to people like Mr. Ajjan that they traveled to dictatorships like Cuba and traded with them at their own peril, and that the U.S. government wouold not and could not protect them if they so chose to do so).
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 amDino:
Of course Menendez is a hypocrite – he is a crusader for a political philosophy that upholds death as its ultimate standard of the good. When you advocate policies that lead inexorably to death, any life advancing action you take is hypocritical.
Zbigniew is correct that it is beside the point to attack Menendez’s hypocrisy. Attack his anti-freedom positions – there is so much material there that you will not have time to attack his hypocrisy.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 amLots of interesting points.
Here’s the thing. The push for lifting these restrictions is premised on a belief that a) our current policy hasn’t worked and b) opening up trade could lead to Cuba moving toward freedom and democracy.
However, other countries have ben trading with Cuba for years. No change.
As was pointed out, we trade a lot with China. Has that regime changed its ways because their markets are open?
Look, I understand that our policy is inconconsistent. Points made above that I acknowledge. But we shouldn’t have a cookie cutter approach either.
America still has a role in the world to promote freedom and democracy. Easing restrictions on Cuba will not do the Cuban people any good.
Further, I think Ziggy’s points should give us more reason to pause.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 amMike:
In what way has our current policy not worked? Cuba is absolutely no threat to us today. There are no Soviet missles there, and there is no standing army and naval armada waiting to invade America from Cuban shores.
Opening up trade may or may not lead Cuba toward freedom and democracy, but that is not our moral duty. Just as the practical demonstration of the differences between East Berlin and West Berlin (and other Iron Curtain Countries close to the divider) ultimately brought down communism, the Cuban people have enough contact with Westerners (and relatives who have fled to America) to know the differences. They need to step up and earn their freedom themselves.
Whule I agree that America should be a shining example to the world and that we should support democratic movements, I do not think we should set up a global welfare statement whose currency is freedom.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 am“Global welfare state” not “Global welfare statement”
Sorry about those typos and the couple of others.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 amEd, the argument from those who want to ease restrictions is that the trade embargo has not led to freedom for the Cuban people.
Obviously, it succeeded in terms of neutralizing the communist threat.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 amMike:
I am glad I brought up the point about the golbal welfare state for freedom, because your last post directly brings that front and center.
The Cuban are not enslaved by the embargo. They are enslaved by their government. America has ZERO responsibility for the lack of freedom in Cuba. The success of America no more enslaves the Cuban people than the success of the rich within America impoverishes the poor.
The freedom of any particular people is not America’s responsibility, separate and apart from whether their dictatorial government poses a military threat to America.
America should not be opposed to other people being free. But lack of trade with America is not the reason is not the reason the Cuban people are not free.
The issue must come down to: is Cuba a military threat to America? If it is, then blockade and economic boycott are appropriate. If not, then I think the American government should adopt a position similar to say, our position with Zimbabwe: a travel advisory warning Americans to stay away because their safety cannot be guaranteed, and explicit withdrawal of any promise (implicit or explicit) by the US government to protect the economic interests of businesses that choose to trade there, so that such businesses know they are also acting at their own peril.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 amyour site is very great!!!
September 11th, 2009 at 5:40 amGreat site, thanks
September 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm