Category Archives: Foreign Policy

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CUBAN POLICY

On Friday, June 16, President Donald Trump ordered tighter restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba, plus a clampdown on U.S. business dealings with the Island country’s military. According to fortune.com, Trump said that, “with God’s help a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve.

In a speech in Miami, the administration indicated that it plans to roll back certain parts of former President Barack Obama’s historic opening to the communist country.

However, Obama re-opened the U.S. embassy in Havana, and Trump plans to leave it open.

Trump’s revised Cuban policy, a new presidential directive, calls for stricter enforcement of a longtime ban on Americans going to Cuba as tourists, and seeks to prevent U.S. dollars from being used to fund what the new U.S. administration sees as a repressive military-dominated government.

Also, according to fortune.com, the president faced pressure from U.S. businesses and even some Republicans to avoid turning back completely, the directives Obama set in place with the communist regime. Thus, while the president has changed some things about Obama’s agreement with Cuba, Trump’s Cuban policy has also left some things in place.

The new Cuban policy bans most U.S. business transactions with the Armed Forces Business Enterprises Group, a Cuban conglomerate involved in all sectors of the economy, but makes some exceptions, including for air and sea travel. Also, the administration has no intention of disrupting existing business ventures such as one struck under Obama by Starwood Hotels, which is owned by Marriott International, Inc., to manage a historic Havana hotel.

According to the Washington Examiner, Americans will still be able to travel to Cuba under approved categories without first checking with the federal government. However, the president intends to eliminate the “people to people” travel to Cuba program on an individual basis. Under the Obama administration, individuals could assert on their own to go to Cuba by indicating, individually, that their trip was educational in nature. According to the White House, the president thinks that the type of arrangement instituted by Obama would make it too easy for people to visit Cuba as tourists, which is still illegal under U.S. law. Supporters of the ban say tourism helps direct dollars to the repressive government on the island. However, the “people to people” traveling in groups will still be allowed.

Also, President Trump does not plan to reinstate the limits on the amount of the island’s coveted rum and cigars that Americans can bring home for personal use.

According to the Washington Examiner, the President vowed to reverse the Obama administration’s policies toward Cuba that have enriched the Cuban military regime and increased the repression on the island, per one official.

Trump’s readjustment of the United States policy toward Cuba targets the repressive members of the Cuban military government, as one official put it, and not the Cuban people.

Officials said that the tighter new Cuban policy should be seen by Cuba as pressure aimed at getting Cuba to expedite the release of U.S. fugitives living in Cuba, respect human rights, and move toward free and fair elections.

Trump’s new Cuban policy will also keep in place Obama’s decision to end the “wet foot, dry foot” policy, which gave Cubans a path toward permanent residency if they arrived in the United States. Obama said at the time that the policy unfairly gave preference to one group of immigrants over others.

Note: The information in this article was taken from fortune.com and washingtonexaminer.com.

Facebooktwitter

OCCUPY DEMOCRATS, A LYING CORRUPT ORGANIZATION – PART FOUR

I know that I said Part Three of my series on the Occupy Democrats organization would be the last. Well, I guess I lied, and let’s face it, I’m not the only one who has lied. Seriously, though, this one dropped right into my lap and I couldn’t pass it up.

How Democrats can compare these incidents to Benghazi is not understandable.

In my newsfeed on Facebook, another Meme from Occupy Democrats appeared listing the U.S. Embassy attacks which took place while George W. Bush was president, and stating that there were zero investigations by Republicans, and zero fake outrage on Fox News. The meme was titled, “Bush’s Benghazi.”

Attacks on embassies and consulates have always taken place, but what makes Benghazi different is not that the consulate itself was attacked, it’s the actions or rather lack of actions by the current president, the Secretary of State, and others when Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, notified the State Department that the consulate was under attack, and requested additional protection for himself and those working at the consulate. How that was handled, and the whereabouts of the current president and the Secretary of State during the attack was called into questioning. Also called into questioning, were the actions of the president and the Secretary of State, in efforts to avoid being scrutinized, attempted to blame the attacks on an anti-Muslim video.

The established facts and the outcome of the investigations into the Benghazi attacks are not the subject of this post. Rather, the subject of this post is the liberal spin, excuse me, liberal lies regarding other embassy attacks.

The following are the embassy or consulate attacks that Occupy Democrats consider comparable to Benghazi, but in reality, are no way related.

  • December 15, 2001: Unidentified assailants gunned down a Nepalese security guard of the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.
  • March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru, killing nine people and injuring 32. The U.S. State Department reported no American casualties, injuries, or damage.
  • June 14, 2002: A suicide bombing in front of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, left 12 dead and 52 injured.
  • July, 30, 2004: Two people, including a suicide bomber, were killed and one person was injured as a suicide bomber set off an explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbedistan. The Israeli Embassy and the Uzbedistan Prosecutor General’s Office in Tashkent were also attacked in related incidents.
  • October, 24, 2004: Edward Seitz, the assistant regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, died in a mortar of possible rocket attack at Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport. An American soldier was also injured. He was believed to be the first U.S. diplomat killed following the March 2003 U.S. led invasion.
  • December 7, 2004: Gunmen belonging to al-Qaida in the Arabian Pensinsula stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, triggering a bloody four-hour siege that left nine dead. One American was slightly injured in the assault.
  • September 12, 2006: Islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria with hand grenades, rifles, and a vehicle rigged with explo9sives. One guard and the four attackers died.
  • July 8, 2007: Two Iraqi U.S. Embassy workers were killed when the wife went to deliver a ransom for her husband who had been kidnapped in Baghdad. One of the couple’s bodyguards was killed in the filed ransoming.
  • July, 9, 2008: Four unknown gunmen killed three Turkish police at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
  • September 17, 2008: Suspected al-Qaida militants disguised as security forces detonated vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, fired rocket propelled grenades, rockets and firearms on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. A suicide bomber also blew himself up at the embassy. Six Yemeni police, four civilians, including an American civilian, and six attackers were killed while six others were wounded in the attacked.
  • November 27, 2008: A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing four civilians in addition to the suicide bomber and wounding 18 others. The embassy was hosting a Thanksgiving Day event as Americans and other foreigners were arriving at the venue at the time of the attack.

As any sane person should be able to ascertain, none of the above incidents are even similar to the events surrounding the Benghazi attacks. The fact that liberals could even make such a comparison, leaves me confused. But again, they are liberals. They don’t care about facts. Furthermore, they appear incapable of thinking thing through.

Their inability to think things through by liberals used to mystify me. But, long after trying to discern liberal logic, I just might be getting it. They think they’re so smart because they have the academicians in their corner. They’re not smart at all, though. Maybe those academicians can read a textbook, take a test on the subject matter of that textbook, and make an “A.” Maybe they can study subjects and teach those subjects to students where those students range from age six to sixty. They have total control over those students, and the protection from the real world in their brick and mortar classrooms where they are seldom challenged.

Of course, the liberal population is comprised of more than just academicians. Artists, including writers, painters, and musicians, are generally liberal leaning, as well as non-political government workers, plaintiffs’ trial lawyers, and union members.

Be that as it may, until liberals are able to differentiate the above from tragedies like Benghazi and have the liberal media on their side, meaningful dialog will never take place.

Facebooktwitter

EMBASSY ATTACKS TAKING PLACE DURING GEORGE W. BUSH’S PRESIDENCY

With so many investigations into the embassy attack at Benghazi which took place on September 11, 2012, liberals often ask where was the outrage by the GOP and where was Fox News with regard to the thirteen embassy attacks that happened during the presidency of George W. Bush?

As you can see, the following is a list of the embassy bombings taking place during Bush’s term, including the number of folks killed, courtesy of the Huffington Post. The image also indicates that there were no Republicans outraged and sixty total deaths.

List if Enbasst Attacks on George W. Bush's Watch.

The title of the Huff Post article is “13 Benghazis that Occurred on Bush’s Watch without a Peep from Fox News.” Other left wing sites picked this up.

  1. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: January 22, 2022, Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people were killed, but none of them were Americans.
  2. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: June 14, 2002, Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51. None were American.
  3. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: October 12, 2002: Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices were bombed as a part of a string of “Bali Combings.” No fatalities.
  4. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: February 28, 2005: Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fir upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed, but none of them were Americans.
  5. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: May 12, 2005, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people, including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb. After numerous State Department warnings, and Saudi Arabia investigating al Qaeda for a potential planned attack, three defense compounds were assaulted with car bombs and armed attackers. Nine defense contractors were killed. President Bush immediately called the attack part of the “war on terror,” and two of the attackers that survived the raid were killed by Saudi police forces.
  6. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: July 30, 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people. None were Americans.
  7. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: December 6, 2004, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people were killed, none of them were Americans.
  8. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. So, one U.S. Diplomat was killed. Finally something that’s like Benghazi, except that the Ambassador wasn’t missing, he was killed instantly. There wasn’t an eight hour long siege, an AWOL president and Secretary of State, or service personnel hung out to dry with no rescue attempt. It wasn’t a recent warzone, and there weren’t requests for additional security turned down. Also no one falsely blamed a video for causing a non-existent protest.
  9. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: September 12, 2006, Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb, and a truck bomb. Four people were killed and 13 were wounded. None were American.
  10. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle, fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
  11. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: March 18, 2008. Sana’a Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two. None were American.
  12. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: July 9, 2008. Instanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate. Six people were killed, but none of them were Americans.
  13. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: September 17, 2008. Sana’a Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people were killed, including an American student and her husband. This was the second attack on this embassy in seven months. In reality, none were Americans. This last one is contradictory, no embassy officials were killed or missing, and the killings took place in a matter of minutes.

Was this an attempt by the Huffington Post and other websites to mislead the American public? Or was it an attempt at persuading Americans to dismiss further inquiry into how the Benghazi terror attack was handled and reported to the public?

While I can’t say this for sure, it looks like President Bush was on top of things when these incidents took place, not hiding out someplace.

If President Obama had been forthright and if there was evidence that Secretary Clinton had responded in a timely manner, taking steps to send the requested security, and Benghazi still happened, I can guarantee you, there would have been little or no investigation into possible wrongdoing by the president of the secretary.

A special thanks goes to IJReview.com for the information contained in this article.

Facebooktwitter

FINAL BENGHAZI REPORT RELEASED

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final Benghazi report  early this morning (Tuesday, June 28, 2016).

The final Benghazi report was comprised of approximately 800 pages of investigations and conclusions and suggests that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats from the most significant terror attack on the U.S. since 9/11/2001. The report also illustrates how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public regarding the cause of the attack.

Democrat members of the House, who always maintained that the investigation was politically motivated, produced a report finding no wrongdoing by the Secretary of State and the Obama Administration.

According to Breitbart, for over two years, the Democrats refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation, claiming everything had been asked and answered. They said that the committee had found nothing new.

Libya-640x480

New insights to the investigation from the final Benghazi report included, but are not limited to the following:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed, almost 8 hours after the attacks began.
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 pm, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases, “if any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “will not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli of Benghazi.”
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times.
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution.
  • Five of the ten action items from the 7:30 pm meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. There was no mention from the agents on the ground about a video.
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others, “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted over inflammatory videos.”
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated that the FBI had already begun looking at all sorts of evidence and the FBI has a lead in this investigation. But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating, “McDonough apparently told the Secure Video Teleconference group today that everyone was required to “shut their pie holes” about the Benghazi attacks in light of the FBI investigation.
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Easter Affairs, State Department wrote, “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department responded, “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department wrote, “WH very worked about politics. This was all their doing.”
  • Former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, bluntly told the committee an intelligence failure occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director, Michael Morell, also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks.

To read the full list, go to: Committee releases last Benghazi Report, slams Clinton,

Now, according to the Huffington Post, the House Republicans Spent Millions of Dollars on Benghazi Committee to Exonerate Clinton. In other words, their report found nothing. That’s quite a spin.

But, according to the Conservative Tribune, moments after the committee released its final report of the Behghazi investigation, Hillary Clinton pulled a classic liberal stunt by attempting to change the subject. Attempting to change the subject is a technique by liberals when they have no arguments to make in order to throw the conservative counterpart off. If there was nothing new in the report as the Huffington Post claims, why would she find it necessary to change the subject? Shouldn’t she be celebrating and pointing out to everyone just how disingenuous Republicans are.

In addition to studying the above bulleted points, I suggest that you go to Breitbart’s website (above link) and read all of the bulleted points yourself.

Note: A special thanks to Brietbart.com for much of the information contained in this post.

Facebooktwitter

INITIAL THOUGHTS ON THE IMPACT OF BREXIT

After a not so great night’s sleep, I wake up to the news that the people of Great Britain had voted to break away from the European Union in order to be a sovereign nation, the process termed, Brexit. Polls indicated that the voters would lean toward staying with the EU and the current president of the United States spoke against pulling out.

When I first heard the news, I have to admit that I wondered what this would do to my investment portfolio. Would I be able to continue pursuing my dreams or would I have to get a day job and put my dreams on hold? That remains to be seen.

Once I got over the above selfish hump, my mind went racing. The stalwart British culture that we still kind of depend upon for civility was no more. So many immigrants were allowed to pour into England to the extent that the great city of London was no longer recognizable. Much of London no longer resembled the London that we grew up with…the Beatles, Westminster Abbey, London Bridge, the Tower of Big Ben, and Piccadilly Circus. Instead, parts of London resembled the Middle East and the West Indies.

In April, President Obama spoke to the American people indicating that breaking away from the EU would be a huge mistake. The current president indicated that he only wanted to negotiate trade agreements with the EU and not separate countries. Before becoming part of the EU, Great Britain was an exceptional country, along with the United States of America. It’s obvious that Great Britain wants to return to being an exceptional nation. However the current president of the United States wants the USA to remain on a status quo with everyone else, no exceptionalism. So does presumed Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton.

While the current president and the Democrat nominee for president want the United States to remain on even keep with other countries around the globe, presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump wants to make American great again. In other words, he wants this nation to once again become the greatest nation on earth.

With the good people of Great Britain voting to take back their country, how will the American people vote in November? Will they also vote to take back our country, to secure our borders, to insist that those immigrants who desire to come to America be prepared to assimilate to the American way of life? If you want to be a part of the United States of America and go through the process of becoming an American the right way, we want you, and we’re proud that you’re an American.

Will other EU countries follow suit? What will happen to the European Union as we know it today? Presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump commented on Brexit while in Scotland, indicating that there are parallels to the situation in the U.S. and people want to take their country back. Judge Jeanine Pirro or Fox Cable News agreed with Trump indicating that the vote means that people want a nation-state.

In addition  to President Barak Obama indicating  that he was opposed to Great Britain breaking away from the EU, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and British Prime minister, David Cameron were against it also.

As a Christian who follows scripture, including scripture about the end times, I’m wondering  how this incorporates into biblical prophecy? These are questions which have yet to be answered, and I am anxious to hear biblical scholar and expert, Dr. David Jeremiah’s thoughts on this. How will it affect our own presidential election in November?

As this scenario continues to unfold, I will be posting about what’s taking place as well as my own thoughts.

Facebooktwitter