Obama: Meeting With castro Is Not A Privilege That Has To Be Earned By Him.

I don’t know where to start in telling you about this article from the Trinidad Express. I’ll try to just give the highlights.
It begins with the title, Cuba in the ‘politics of change,’ Look out for Obama-Castro meeting… by alerting the reader to an Obama-castro meeting, should Obama become president, and then rails on President Bush for insulting the Cuban regime in last week’s speech, comparing his demand for free and democratic elections as a farce since he was never democratically elected in 2000. The article’s author, one Mr. or Ms. Rickey Singh, then mocks Bush for telling castro to release Cuba’s political prisoners when the United States is responsible for “gross human rights violations” in Guantanamo. (These prisoners, it should be noted, are not there for writing articles against the US government, they are there because they are terrorists, but I suppose that is not of any consequence.)
The author points out that requiring voter ID for the elections means “serious negative consequence for Democratic voters, especially of the Black American and Hispanic communities, according to reports in leading US media,” and then quotes Nancy Pelosi as saying: “The court’s decision places obstacles to the fundamental right, especially the poor, the elderly and individual with disabilities, to participate in the electoral process…”
Is it me or do other people not understand how requiring voters to show proof of who they are when they cast a vote for the President of the United States (or for anyone) not to be an obstacle to the right to vote? Are there that many people in this country who do not have a driver’s license, their voter’s card, or any other form of valid and acceptable identification? If it truly is a problem, then the Democrat and Republican groups can assist their registered voters to procure the necessary id, just like they help to get them registered to vote. But in Indiana, where the law exists, the” Democratic party and civil rights groups have failed to identify a single individual in Indiana whose right to vote was hurt by the law,” per U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.
But getting back to the title of the article, Mr./Ms. Singh explains that while Hillary Clinton wants to see if Cuba will have made any changes before she decides to have talks with the regime, if she is elected, that Obama plans to “move quickly” toward establishing direct talks with castro. Obama is quoted:

“If we (presidential candidates) think that meeting with the Cuban President(sic) is a privilege that has to be earned (by him), I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world…”

Another anti-American quote by the man who won’t wear the American flag pin because he wants his actions to show his patriotism and whose wife was never proud of her country until her husband ran for president.
You can read the whole arroz con mango HERE

8 thoughts on “Obama: Meeting With castro Is Not A Privilege That Has To Be Earned By Him.”

  1. Give Obama a break Claudia to see how he does the first 4 years… after that We can vote him out if he did not do a good job ..at least WE know he wont be running the white house for 50 years..that’s a given

  2. Great post Claudia!
    Obama states: “. . . I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world…”
    This is the typical liberal stance of placing more relevance to how we are “perceived” by the rest of the world versus doing what’s right. Resulting from a naive mentality that “if we do and act as they wish, things will ultimately work out”. When reality dictates that no matter what we do or say, there will always be those who hold strong inherent anti-american feelings. . . which render anything American “evil”, arrogant, imperialistic and negative! Unfortunately, the reality is that the USA would never win a popularity contest due to effective character smearing propaganda, therefore, we must adhere to the principle that doing what’s right, is not always popular!!
    I would like to see dialogue with Cuba handled like we would handle dialogue in a “hostage situation” … a country being held hostage for almost 50 years by the castro regime!! First and foremost, some reasonable and basic demands must be met … then dialogue may ensue!!!
    We can’t afford to give Obama a “break” so that he can break us!!!
    I wish you well 🙂 Melek
    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” ~ President Ronald Reagan

  3. I must say that the most obvious sign that the author of this article lives in a fantasy world is his (or her) forgone conclusion that Obama is going to be the next president of the United States. He has yet to win the Democratic Party nomination, let alone a general election.
    Nevertheless, like most la-la land liberals, they think that American voters would be fools NOT to vote in a leftist, liberal candidate like Obama. So in his eyes, Obama is the obvious choice for president.
    I think Hillary still has a few tricks up her sleeve and even if Obama does emerge the victor this August at the convention, he, and the Democratic party, will be so beat up and fractured, that Obama’s leftist and socialist tendencies will be but only one of the many reasons McCain will win the presidency.
    Then people such as this author will be lamenting how “stupid” America is, etc., etc.
    The only stupid ones, in my view, are the ones that continue to live in la-la land.

  4. Melek:
    Thanks! I don’t give liberals breaks.
    I hope you are right. I shudder to think what will happen if the LaLaLandians win, although I’d rather see Hillary win if McCain doesn’t. (I know, I can’t believe I said that, either.)

  5. I’d rather not vote for the “Lesser of two evils”, I encourage a third party vote, or a write-in, but never be forced to make a decision in voting in evil in itself.
    I vote Alan Keyes, who’re you guys voting for?

  6. Felix:
    I actually like a lot of what McCain says. I will always vote Republican. But if I were forced to choose between Obama and Hillary, I’d pick her. We know she’s slimy so at least there won’t be surprises. And she’s tougher than Obama. But I’m for McCain. And prayer.

  7. Felix,
    The problem with voting a third party is that there are only two parties with a realistic chance of winning. So, a vote for Alan Keyes is essentially a vote for the greater of two evils.

Comments are closed.