Obama Betrays Cuba; Iran, North Korea Next On The Trifecta

Somewhere on the internets, I predicted that if the 2014 midterm national elections were a disaster for the Democrats, the Dear Leader, President Obama, would be even more extreme and as one of the extreme acts would re institute diplomatic relations with Red Cuba, Red Korea and Iran.
Well, well, well, what do we have here?!
Seemingly right on schedule, the Dear Leader, President Obama, announced yesterday that he was going to change course on Red Cuba and restore full diplomatic relations claiming that the 50+ years of an economic embargo had in fact "failed" and that Cuban "isolation" has not worked.
Well, I will take on the economic embargo first.
Of course it does not work when Red Cuba has relations with most of the nations of the world including the other two North American nations of Canada and Mexico. Does anyone think that Red Cuba does not have trade with these two nations? In fact and indeed the United States does have very limited economic ties with the regime of the Castro Bros. (Fidel and Raul).
But the economic rationale does not help because everything, I mean everything, runs through the clutches of the Castro Bros.
As noted here in this blog post by Mauricio Claver-Carone on the Huffington Post, It is a very complex way to do business with Cuba. But one thing is clear. It is ALL done thought the Castro Bros. and or other state entities. Mr. Claver-Carone notes that all trade to be done through the state and or it's entities is enshrined in article 18 of the Cuban constitution of 1976. Here is the article:

ARTICLE 18

The State directs and controls foreign commerce.
The law establishes the State institutions and authorities empowered to:
create foreign commerce enterprises;

standardize and regulate export and import operations; and

determine the natural or juridical persons with the legal capacity to engage in said

export and import operations, and to negotiate commercial agreements.
Even Red China, with a mix of crony capitalism is less doctrinaire than the Castro's Red Cuba.
What Mr. Claver-Carone does explain is about the so-called "private sector" or "self-employed" sector that is neither private nor self-employed.
Basically, those that can become "self-employed" do not have the same rights that one would have in an open market. Again, in Mr. Claver-Carone's words:

Cuba's military and intelligence services control and run the conglomerates of Cuba. The "self-employment" sector represents a very small part of the island's economy and it is important, in the debate over sanctions, to understand its nature and limits. During economic crises, the Castro regime typically authorizes a host of services that Cubans can be licensed to provide, keeping at least a portion of what they may be paid. The world's news media refers to these jobs as "private enterprise," which implies "private ownership." Yet Cuba's "self-employed" licensees have no ownership rights whatsoever - be it to their artistic or "intellectual" outputs, commodity they produce, or personal service they offer. Licensees have no legal entity (hence business) to transfer, sell or leverage. They don't even own the equipment essential to their self-employment. More to the point, licensees have no right to engage in foreign trade, seek or receive foreign investments. Effectually licensees continue to work for the state -- and when the state decides such jobs are no longer needed, licensees are shut down without recourse.

Essentially, the people that are supposed to be "self-employed" work for the state, again that being the Castro Bros. With such strict guidelines, there is no such thing as a truly self-employed worker in Red Cuba. There is no such thing as any private enterprise as we understand it in the West.
Which leads to the obvious of why now is not the right time to re institute relations with Cuba.
Because it is the ultimate economic lifeline to the Castro Bros. They will be the ones to determine if McDonalds or Starbucks will be available to the slew of American tourists that diplomatic relations are supposed to lead to. They will get the massive kickbacks. And they will still be in power.
As far as isolation, no, Red Cuba has not been all that isolated in the diplomatic world. Most of the nations in the world have some kind of diplomatic relations with Cuba. In all 105 nations and or pseudo nations have embassies in Havana. Only the United States has an interest section through the embassy of Switzerland. Out of the 105 nations that have relations with Red Cuba many are what can be characterized as market or free market nations. The European Union has relations. Individual nations include France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom. Australia and New Zealand have relations. Missing from the list is Israel. But "Palestine" has an "embassy" in Cuba.
So, how many of these nations have trade relations with the communist regime?
Or the better way to phrase the question is how can Cuba maintain it's communist government when it has become a discredited ideology?
Well, Red Cuba still has extensive trade with Russia, no longer a communist nation. Russia is still Cuba's largest trading partner.
But if you look at this, seven and a half nations (Sorry, Red China is not a free nation but at least has crony capitalism), are capitalist, market-driven economies. Oh, and for extra measure, do you know the major food exporter to Red Cuba is . . .wait for it . . .the United States!
Now I know that a lot of people will retort that we have diplomatic relations with very unsavory nations and why not with Cuba? Some will claim that the reason Republicans won't change on the issue is because it "exploits" the Cuban exile community. No, there is no exploitation. The fact is that the Cuban community is divided on whether full diplomatic relations are a good idea or not.
If Cuba was in fact showing signs that the Communist party was relinquishing power and a democracy was going to take it's place, the United States can and should help in that development. But there is not one bit of any indication that the Castro Bros. will end their totalitarian grip on Cuba.
And yet, the Dear Leader, President Obama, feels inclined that now is the time to reinstate diplomatic relations and prop up the communist system, and by extension, the Castro Bros.
It's mystifying to say the least.
But we know that relations with Cuba are going to change.
The real question is what nation is next for the Obama Trifecta. Will it be Iran or North Korea?

A Weekend Palate Cleanser: The Assault On Home Ownership Begins

Just when one thinks that the left might want to keep certain policies to themselves, we have to thank Ryan Cooper writing in The Week for beginning the assault on home ownership.
Yes, Mr. Cooper thinks that the American Dream of striving for home ownership is pretty bad. The really bad thing about home ownership is that it separates the haves from the have nots. No really, it does.
If you want Karl Marx 101, it is right here in this one sentence:

Homeownership has long been the way American society has divided itself into a responsible, stable bourgeoisie (owners) and an undisciplined rabble (renters). The divide used to be along stark, overtly racial lines, enforced by white supremacist terrorism, but nowadays the distinction is a bit more subtle.

Yes, you who are fortunate to be home owners and myself are bourgeoisie. And dammit, we maintain our bourgeois lifestyle by overt racism and even terrorism. I'm sorry, that was before. No, no, no. It's no longer so overt.
You must read all at the link to get the flavor of Mr. Cooper and ho at a level he does not really understand why home ownership is why America is the way she is.
First, some personal background.
As I am pushing 50 years old, Mrs. RVFTLC and I are pretty new homeowners. This May 15 will be our three-year anniversary as home owners. Before that we were renters. Yes, in many ways, renting is easy. All we have to do us write a check to our landlord once a month and that is it. Maybe included in the rent are utilities. Maybe not. And when one rents, if something goes wrong, like plumbing, or any other thing that is wrong, call the landlord. When the landlord feels like it, they will call someone to go over and take a look at the problem. And that person will notify the landlord. They determine if a total repair is going to be made or not. And renting one can choose an apartment, a condominium, a town home or even a home. Why if it is a home, don't worry about how the front yard looks. The landlord will send a gardener maybe every week or more likely twice a month. But you can't do anything YOU want to the front yard. Nor the back yard. Nor inside the domicile. You can't paint any wall willy nilly. And maybe you have to use approved nails by the landlord to hang your wall coverings, pictures, photos and the like. You can't choose carpet or hardwood floors. It's up to the landlord.
See, renting is great if you don't mind having most of your freedoms at the cost of the whim of a landlord. Or if you don't mind getting things done on a landlord's schedule and not your own.
But what is the wonder of home ownership?
Well, even though you are paying a mortgage for up to 30 years, it is yours. And the most obvious is that the mortgage payment never changes. The only way it does if one chooses to refinance the loan at a lower interest rate. Which lowers one's payment. Get it. It never goes up and can go down.
Now when Mrs. RVFTLC and I bought our current abode nearly three years ago, we decided that we did not want the work of owning a single-family dwelling. So we saw our dream, a town home. It is a compromise because of the way that it is layed out. It is in eight sections of about six to eight units each. And they have a detached garage, a little back yard, the unit and a little front yard. Perfect for our needs. As I alluded to, we belong to an HOA or Home Owner's Association. So it is our monthly mortgage and HOA payment. In three years no payment hike. Our HOA has only gone up $20 or an average of about $6.75c a year. The year before we moved, our rent went up $50. And was more than our two payments here combined.
And one thing that our current federal tax system does is give tax incentive to home ownership. Whether or not that is a good thing or not is for another time and another post.
By allotting a mortgage deduction for home ownership and improvements, I can assure you we have already recouped our investment by breaking even, federal tax wise. Even Mr. Cooper acknowledges that but in a snarky, disingenuous way. From Mr. Cooper:

The most prevalent is the mortgage interest deduction, which racked up a bill of $100 billion in 2009.

Don't you like how Mr. Cooper implies a cost? There is not a cost but $100,000,000,000 that does not go into the politician's pockets in Washington. It ends up staying in the local economies and taxes end up being collected locally rather than in Washington. So there is not a cost but not a redistribution of wealth either.
Speaking of taxes, being a home owner means that one has to pay property taxes.
And in California, for a roughly $300,000 home (yeah, there are some, but this is just a figure to use) the annual property tax is roughly $3,700. And in Los Angeles county there are special districts that the property tax goes to such as flood control, county parks, our local library. There are 11 extra assessments which adds roughly about $500 more to our property tax bill. So yes, being a home owner has the perk of paying for many services that renters do not directly pay for.
Something to think about, eh Mr. Cooper?
Without homeowners, who would pay for schools? Flood control districts? Storm drain channels? Community colleges? Shall I go on?
Here is something to think about.
In the United States, as of 2009, the home ownership rate was 67%. a majority of Americans. And yes, it is true as Mr. Cooper points out, many homeowners are underwater because of the housing bubble bursting in 2007. But unlike the gloom and doom of the millions that he mentions (and I have to doubt that broad number), one of the aspects of the investment into a home is for the long run. In other words, one can buy a home at $300,000 and stay in it 20 years. And maybe in that time, the value will go down. but at 20 years, if you sell it you will more than likely sell it at a profit. Yes if one buys a home just as an investment, it does take a lot of work into researching all case scenarios.
And while Mr. Cooper bashes some of the subsidies and or federal tax breaks as for the rich, again the fact is that the Home Mortgage Deduction is why at this point many, many American families have not been victims of the housing bubble.
What Mr. Cooper fails to point out is why the last bubble occurred.
It is due to the fact that pressure was put on lenders by the federal government to provide loans to people that were not prepared for home ownership. Down payments were a bare minimum. The lenders made all kind of exceptions and were encouraged to do so. Regrettably, this was to try to get more minority families into home ownership. No, not regretting that it was aimed at minorities. The regret is that is why many of the lenders were called predatory. It would have been beneficial to have the potential home buyers have more of a down payment. It would have been a good thing for the lender to have poor credit risks clean up their credit problems before they proceeded with their loans. In many cases, they did not.
Before we continue, home ownership is NOT for everybody for a lot of reasons. One is mobility and especially among younger, generally college graduates. For many of those will have to for job prospects. Another is that for some people, home ownership is not their American dream. Many of those are single people. And they are probably more interested in long-term travelling. They do not want to be tied down with having to deal with what home ownership brings. And most of all, there are those that can not afford it and all of the above is OK.
What Mr. Cooper does not explain in his piece is who should be homeowners, What kind of society will it be if most of the homes were owned by a few and the majority were forced to be renters? Is he comfortable with maybe five people owning 95% of homes in any given substantial city?
He does not say.
What Mr. Cooper does suggest is that there really should be no difference between a home owner and the renter:

Most of all, though, there is simply no reason for home ownership to occupy the cultural perch that it does. Renting is just as legitimate a form of paying for shelter as buying.

No, a home that is bought is not just for shelter. If you put it to that level, what you end up with is something along these lines.

This is what housing looked like in the old Soviet Union. Many cities and towns have rows, rows and endless rows of this kind of simple housing. Because since it was owned by the state and it really is for shelter after all, it does not have to look like anything, oh I don't know, unique. Individual.
And the dirty secret that Mr. Cooper will not tell you is that is what his idea on home ownership lead to. The abolition of private property and that includes and is eventually home ownership.
If Mr. Cooper went that far in this piece, he would be called a socialist nut-job. What he is doing is setting up the idea that home ownership is something of a bygone era. That renting is OK. Who cares? It's just shelter after all. What is the big deal?
The big deal is that private property and home ownership are the bulwarks of the American experience.
And people like Ryan Cooper see that as an affront. And he has begun the conversation that is the assault on home ownership.

Sen. Marco Rubio Speaks Truth About Red Cuba

I meant to write about this awesome speech on the senate floor by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in which he schools commie sympathizer, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) about his recent trip to Red Cuba and touting the socialist medicine as people like Sen. Harkin are wont to do.

 

Sen. Harkin gave a speech on the senate floor touting how wonderful life is in Red Cuba. No surprise there really. And what do you think was the starting point of life in Red Cuba?

What else but the wonders of government-ran and controlled health care. Remember, not only is health care "free", but so is medical school.

Quick thought here. The late Venezuela dictator President Hugo Chavez went to Red Cuba for medical treatment for his cancer that eventually killed him. I guess you get what you pay for with "free" health care.

I do not know how many more times I have to do this, but once again I must refer you to this post that I wrote way back in 2009 about the left's claim that health care is a "right". In that post I went to explain the truth of "free", government-controlled health care the real Cuban citizen has to endure. And also once again, I will link you to The Real Cuba and explaining what the real average Cuban citizen has to deal with in their paradisaical health care system.

I know that there are enough people saying that I am those who oppose the Castro family and their reign of terror are basically full of it. People like Sen. Harkin would probably be one of those. So I would ask those people and Sen. Harkin is this.

Am I really seeing a hospital or clinic that the average Cuban would get to go to? I have found this web site that shows this as the conditions most Cubans endure in health care delivery. What of it? Are there really separate facilities for the foreigners and the Communist party elite?

They are legitimate questions if you really want to know. See how the hosts respond and act accordingly.

I highlight the health care argument that the Castro-enablers like Sen. Harkin always trot out as a way to get chummy with the Red Cubans. We who oppose government-ran health care also point this out as an argument against such a program.

But I do recommend that you actually watch Sen. Rubio eviscerate the likes of Sen. Harkin right on the senate floor. If you can not, then do read the speech here at Hotair.com.

I know, I know, many of my fellow conservatives will cite Sen. Rubio and his role in trying to get something done on so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. That is enough to turn you against him. Normally I would agree. But I think there was something for him to try to be a part of the negotiations. He, knowingly or unknowingly, showed the flaws of the so-called reform and he was the only one that wanted to try to get stricter enforcement. Without that, he walked away. Rightfully so. On that, I give him a pass for it has not come up again and that too is because he has not pushed it.

The speech shows the passion that is why Sen. Rubio caught my eye way back in 2010 when he announced his campaign for the United States senate. He was backed by the Tea Party and still today this is one of the best wins we had that year. The GOP establishment backed one Charlie Christ and poo-pooed Mr. Rubio. Oh yeah, note that Mr. Christ did not win the GOP nomination and ran and "independent" campaign for the senate seat. And lost. Mr. Rubio had 49% of the vote in a three-man race. And today, surprise, Mr. Christ is running for the Democrat nomination for governor.

Sen. Rubio gave one of the best speeches on the senate floor in years. No, it was not a filibuster or a long oratorical session. It was less than 15 minutes with minimal notes but facts on his side.

Sen. Rubio spoke the truth about Red Cuba and is a great voice for America in the United States senate.