Opinion

0 20
Police Officer
Pretty soon it will be labeled a hate-crime to merely act civil towards the police...

Zachary Randolph, an employee for the Great American Cookies was put on suspension, for paying for an officer’s cookie.

Last Sunday, the eighteen year old employee for Great American Cookies was working at their outlet located at the Katy Mills Mall, Texas. It was then, that an on-duty cop had visited the store. Upon noticing the officer’s badge, the Randolph offered to pay for the officer with his own money. The officer then thanked the young employee and left the store shortly afterwards.

However, there was a family in line that were not quite fond of the teenager’s action. The family grew angry at Randolph and suggested that he should pay for their cookies.

It has been noted that the family approached the counter and urged the employee to buy them cookies.

Randolph’s mother described the series of event on her Facebook pose.

“Are you going to buy mine too?” they question. To this, the employee replied, “I’m sorry I bought his because he is wearing a badge.”

As per her post, things became very heated up at this point. The family went on to call Randolph racist and even threatened to “beat him up.”

“His wife threatened to go back there and slap him,” the post read. “The middle aged man sat down his little daughter and tried to come behind the counter to attack him. Thankfully his coworker defused the situation.”

“As soon as this man started the attack my son, he stepped back and walked away,” and that Randolph “said very little to this man.”

Despite the family rude behavior, it came as a shock when Randolph was fired after a complaint was made against him by the family.

As per Randolph’s mother, he was requested to meet the store’s management the next day. During the meeting Randolph was notified that he shall be suspended. “Since when does buying a police officer a cookie give anyone else a reason to attack someone,” his mother asked. “And when did a Corporation want to FIRE someone for being KIND, taking what a customer said or did, regardless of how hateful they are.”

“Great American Cookie Company you FAILED on this one……” she concluded. “Thankfully my son said he would do it again in a heartbeat.”

0 25
Green Kickback
I'm beginning to realize why all these political environmental schemes are really called "Green."

An electric car company that folded after taking millions of taxpayer dollars was founded by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, but the mainstream media is ignoring this pertinent fact. The Mississippi-based company, GreenTech, shut down in January but is back in the spotlight because this week the state’s auditor demanded the firm repay $6.4 million in public funds. Only a small Richmond, Virginia newspaper prominently reported McAuliffe’s ties to the scandal, stating in the headline that “Mississippi auditor demands $6.4M repayment from McAuliffe’s former electric car company.”

Most mainstream news outlets ignored the story altogether and a few kept McAuliffe’s name out the minimal coverage. Washington D.C.’s mainstream newspaper went with a lengthy wire service story that matter-of-factly mentions McAuliffe in the very last sentence. “Among former insiders is Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe,” the end of the article states. “He resigned as the firm’s chairman in December 2012 and said he divested his interest.” How convenient! The article omits that, as GreenTech founder, McAuliffe brokered the deal in which the company got millions in public funds by promising to invest $60 million locally and creating hundreds of new full-time jobs. That never happened and instead taxpayers got fleeced. Now Mississippi State Auditor Stacey Pickering is ordering that the money be repaid with interest and investigative costs. The exact figure is $6,360,019.60.

McAuliffe is a renowned Democratic fundraiser who made a fortune with shady investments in a telecommunications giant that went bankrupt. He started his fundraising career in Jimmy Carter’s 1979 reelection campaign and has raised big bucks for Democrats over the years, but not without controversy. McAuliffe was investigated for campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 presidential election and was deposed by the Senate committee investigating the matter. In 2002 the Virginia governor was investigated for his role in an unprecedented case of political profiteering for turning a $100,000 investment in telecommunications giant Global Crossings into an $18 million profit. The company later made the fourth-largest bankruptcy filing in history and McAuliffe insisted he only did “political work” for the company’s founder who, incidentally, donated $1 million to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library.

In 2013, McAuliffe appeared on Judicial Watch’s most corrupt politicians list and last year Judicial Watch sued the governor on behalf of Virginia voters for signing an executive order to restore voting rights to about 206,000 convicted felons. In court proceedings, Judicial Watch argued that the blanket restoration of rights to felons violates “provisions of the Virginia Constitution mandating that voting rights may only be restored on an individual basis, following a particular, individualized review and a finding of sufficient grounds for restoring such rights.” Plaintiffs alleged that their votes and the lawful votes of other Virginians will be cancelled out or diminished by felons who are not eligible to vote under Virginia’s laws and constitution.

Though his pals in the mainstream media are keeping his name out of the GreenTech scandal, McAuliffe could still be in serious trouble. The Virginia paper that reported his key role in the bankrupt electric car company points this out: “McAuliffe’s office has said the governor has had no involvement with the company since stepping down as its chairman and divesting his financial stake. But the escalating standoff in Mississippi raises the likelihood that the business deal McAuliffe brokered could be headed toward a bitter end in court. Ending his four-year term as governor with a higher national profile and record as an exuberant pitchman for Virginia, GreenTech’s unraveling could dog McAuliffe amid speculation about a 2020 presidential bid.”

0 18
Extreme Vetting
Hopefully these measures will be more useful - and less perverted - than what the TSA does!

The U.S. State Department is proposing to require all nations to supply extensive amounts of data on their citizens to allow them to properly vet all visa applicants and to be able to successfully determine whether a traveler may pose a serious threat to the United States.

An official for the U.S. State Department stated, “The U.S. government’s national security screening and vetting procedures for visitors are constantly reviewed and refined to improve security and more effectively identify individuals who could pose a threat to the United States.”

According to sources, the United States is looking for all nations to release information about those with a criminal background in particular and on those that could possibly be having ties with terrorist groups.

A cable that has reportedly been sent out to all U.S. diplomats says, “This is the first time that the U.S. Government is setting standards for the information that is required from all countries specifically in support of immigration and traveler vetting.”

The cable requested U.S. diplomats to “underscore that while it is not our goal to impose a ban on immigration benefits, including visas, for citizens of any country, these standards are designed to mitigate risk, and failure to make progress could lead to security measures by the USG, including a presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of certain categories of foreign nationals of non-compliant countries.”

It is to be noted that with the new protocol being set in place, all nations shall have fifty days to comply with the request made by the United States, and failing to do so could initiate a travel ban against the nation. “Failure to provide this information in a timely manner will require us to assume your country does not meet the standards,” the stated.

John Sandweg, a former senior Homeland Security Department highlighted that this new request by the Trump administration could strain ties with nations that refuse to provide information beyond what has already been shared with the United States. “I don’t think you can ignore the political aspects of the unpopularity of the current administration. That puts political pressure to stand up to the administration,” said John Sandweg, a former senior Homeland Security Department official.

The memo further mentioned a series of new requirement that the United States shall be expecting form countries in order to further improvise their vetting procedures. It indicated some standards that the U.S. seeks from all countries to issue or show the intent of issuing to ensure that certain individuals “are not and do not have the potential to become a terrorist safe haven.”

0 29
Blame Game
"Well, Ash, I don't have time to sit hear and listen to these complaints - I have another tropical vacation I need to be getting to..."

The former defense secretary for the Obama administration comes clean as he talks about how the Obama administration was well aware of Russia’s meddling in the elections and yet failed to do much against Russia for its meddling in the 2016 election. He stated that the administration took “some actions” against them, however, this “was not sufficient” enough to teach Russia a lesson.

While, on one side, Donald Trump Jr. is under the spotlight for his meeting with a Russian lawyer, the Obama administration too are not very far behind when it comes to building ties with Russia.

As reports revealed by the Washington Post suggested that the Obama administration was well aware of Russia’s hand in the elections, and yet they failed to take any serious measures, President Trump made complete use of this opportunity, as he tweeted, “The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?” Trump tweeted on June 23.

The president argued in a tweet he posted in June that, “The reason that President Obama did NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Clinton would win..”

This Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Dana Bash met with the former president’s defense secretary. She took this opportunity to allow the public to get a clear understanding of what the administration did or could have done to stop Russia in the near future.  Bash asked Carter, as to “why didn’t he [Obama] act?” against Russia?

It has been noted that Ash Carter was personally present in the Situation Room, as the former President was made aware of Russia’s intention in terms of the presidential election.

Carter responded by stating that the former president did take “some actions.” Whereas, the department that he managed “took a wide range of actions.”

“To me, this was part of a pattern. To me, personally, this was part of a pattern with Vladimir Putin. But I don’t think — I think it’s quite clear that was not sufficient,” Carter said.

“That’s why it’s so important to press the Russians now. If it were sufficient, Vladimir Putin’s answer to our president wouldn’t have been to cast doubt upon or ask for further intelligence from the United States,” Carter added.

“Did President Obama make a mistake in not doing more?” Bash asked Carter.

“He took some steps, no question about it. But I think you see from Vladimir Putin’s answer right now that more needs to be done,” Carter said.

“Putin is not convinced that there are going to be consequences of a magnitude for Russia, as a consequence of interfering with the U.S. election that make it unwise for him to do it in the future. That hasn’t been accomplished yet,” Carter said.

While, President Trump hasn’t quite yet set up a press conference to discuss his meeting with Vladimir Putin. However, Reuters has reported Putin stating, “I believe it would not be entirely appropriate on my part to disclose details of my discussion with Mr. Trump. He asked, I answered him. He asked pointed questions, I answered them. It seemed to me that he was satisfied with those answers.”

0 34
Immigration Victory
You know he isn't a politician because he actually gets things done!

The latest figures released by the Whitehouse paint a glowing appraisal for Donald Trump, as it shows that 30,000 criminal immigrants have been arrested by ICE officials in the past 5 months. Almost 90% of the detainees had prior convictions for arson, murder, sexual assault, and domestic violence. These are not the type of people you want coming into the United States, and it vindicates the decision of Donald Trump to tighten security on immigration.

Ever since he became president Trump has been very vocal about the need to step up vigilance on illegal immigration, and he is now carrying out everything he promised he would do. He has already signed up Executive Orders to give control to law enforcement officials about the need to clean up U.S. cities. The illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. are being identified and detained, and any new aliens trying to break into the country must try harder now.

Illegal Immigration Crackdown

Recent reports have revealed that the crackdown on illegal immigration has met with success, with reports showing a 60% fall in the number of aliens looing to cross the South West of the Border. This is indicative of the success Trump has had in only his first 6 months in office, and with stricter laws coming into place soon, the days when immigrants could take advantage of lax border patrol and control are all but over. The increase in security has greatly reduced the number of immigrants, and it has also had an impact on economic migrants and refugees.

Trumps travel ban is already being pushed through by the Supreme Court, and it is only a matter of time before the United States is going to be completely free from the refugee crisis that is threatening Europe. Countries all around the world like Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Brazil, Pakistan, and China are also cracking down on illegal immigrants, and have tightened visa laws.

The War on Dangerous Immigration

Donald Trump has got a very clear agenda, which is in stark contrast with the previous administration. He has not been elected to try and please everyone, and make friends. He believes that he is making the right decision by declaring war on immigrants, and his hardline stance has already shown positive results. This is something that the mainstream media is finding hard to fathom, since they are pushing the national consensus on immigration.

However, a recent report released by Politico suggests that 60% Americans, and around 41% Democrats are in favor of his travel ban. Now, all Trump is left to deal with is his Wall, and plans have already been set in motion to see it to completion. Trump has already notified construction architects and firms, and instructed them to come up with a way to build this wall, with an estimated budget of $21.6 billion.

Building Walls

Trump sat next to his Mexican counterpart when he was at the G20 meeting in Hamburg, and he insisted once again that he will ‘absolutely’ see Mexico pay for the construction of the wall. The administration officials have already suggested that there has been massive progress made on illegal immigration, and the discussions surrounding the building of the wall is linked closely to NAFTA renegotiations taking place.

Trump now has momentum on his side, when it comes to immigration, and if it continues its course, then he will have public support and the Democratic Party will be forced to acknowledge he was right. This has placed the Democrats into a tricky situation, because the 2018 elections are just around the corner, and if they don’t get their act together, they will not be able to take back the House from Republicans.

However, they are not concerned about Trump getting his wish with the wall, and pushing through the transfer ban, since Democrats are still going to fight Trump till the end. It confounds belief that the Democratic Party is refusing to see sense, and realize that there is already a legal process in place for immigration in the country.

It is only a matter of time before all of them join the Trump Train, and quickly become united in their efforts to defeat illegal immigration in the United States.

0 20
Fallen Heroes
Mayor de Blasio's political posturing stops for no man - and certainly for no dead man!

Mayor de Blasio, yet again proves his support and concerns towards the NYPD, as he flies out to Germany while New York mourns the death of the police officer.

“No one in uniform is surprised by de Blasio’s show of disrespect,” stated Pat Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.

As the New York City went on to mourn the death of Officer Miosotis Familia in an unprovoked attack,” Mayor de Blasio found it much more important to take a trip to Germany to praise the police force of Hamburg.

Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican who is set to run against de Blasio in the upcoming elections noted, “Unbelievable. Instead of jet-setting around the world, he should be here doing his job.”

“A police officer was murdered, street homelessness has skyrocketed and people continue to get delayed on the trains,” she added.

And that, “the mayor should be embarrassed by the way he has treated the men and women of our police department.”

Moreover, Greg Gutfeld and Eric Bolling at Fox News took turns to completely shatter de Blasio’s image as a mayor.

“You know who the worst is out of everything? Mayor Bill de Blasio,” Gutfeld said on Fox Thursday. “Without telling anybody, anybody in the city, he flew to Germany to protest. He claims the the cost was footed by Hamberg…what a horrible little man-child this is, to sneak out of the city. He leaves his city’s responsibilities to go protest. He’s such a dirtbag.”

“The city needs a leader on the issue of violence against police — not a mayor giving a speech in Europe in the wake of the murder of one of New York’s Finest.” Noted the NY Daily News.

De Blasio, on the other hand, tried to simmer down the criticism as he said during his speech at a G20 protest speech on Saturday, “My nation isn’t broken, but my nation is going through an identity crisis,” de Blasio he said to the crowd. And that “It’s on its way somewhere and I know it’s somewhere good because I see what happens in the neighborhoods in my city … I see the process of change underway.”

0 21
Sanders Trial
Will Bernie have to take the stand to defend his wife? What will he say?

The investigation into Jane Sanders’ deal for loan during her time at the Burlington College has reached new heights, as matters are set to be taken up before a grand jury. Sources have reported that up to a dozen boxes of records from Sanders time at the college have been taken into consideration. Moreover, a state official has also been called to testify in front of the grand jury; in order to identify as to whether Sanders had falsified a loan for the school, as it was going bankrupt and eventually shut down in May of 2016.

“A Vermont-based blog, VTDigger, reported last year that Jane Sanders inflated how much the small Vermont College had secured in donations, noting two instances in which a person said the amount of their financial pledge had been exaggerated on the school’s loan application,” highlights The Hill.

In the light of the case, it was noted that in her efforts to relocate the college to a new campus and to keep it up and running, Mrs. Sanders had mentioned at the time of taking out the loan that the college shall be receiving up to a million dollars in donation, which shall be put towards paying off the loans. However, lenders and trustees later discovered that the a good many of the donors had neither agreed on the set time for the donation and nor the amount of the donation, as listed on the documents presented by Mrs. Sanders at the time of taking out the loan.

At the time of obtaining the loan, Sanders presented records that “confirmed” $2.6 million in donation. And that the board based their decision on these records, “The board made the decision based on the information Jane provided,” said Adam Dantzscher, chairman of the board at time.

Charly Dickerson, a member of the board expressed that, “My gut was, this is biting off more than you can chew.” He added, “Their balance sheet was not all that strong.”

Bernie Sanders dismissed these allegations against his wife and continued to blame this as one of the Republican Party’s efforts to take him down.

“Right in the middle of my presidential campaign, I know this will shock the viewers, the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, who happened to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager, raised this issue and initiated this investigation,” Bernie Sanders told CNN.

Moreover, it has been noted that the couple has hired a D.C. based law firm to handler this case.

A spokesperson for the couple stated, “While the Obama administration was in office, I don’t think anyone thought that these baseless allegations warranted hiring a lawyer.” And that, with Trump and [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions at the helm, that’s a very different situation,” he added.

0 29
Climate Apocalypse
Nuclear power is a promising source of clean energy - which is why you won't hear a word of support for it from the Climate Fanatics...

We’ve been hearing the dire warnings for decades now, scientists and politicians issuing calls to action for us to fight the imminent threat that is Global Warming. Even just a couple of days ago, you had respected scholar Stephen Hawking saying,

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible…”

Or how about 10 years ago, when blockbuster documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” tells us,

“Today, we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous than anything we have ever faced.”

Let’s go even further back to 2001, when the IPCC released this sobering statement,

“Projected climate changes during the 21st century have the potential to lead to future large-scale and possibly irreversible changes in Earth systems resulting in impacts at continental and global scales.”

Yet here we are in 2017, still waiting for the crisis to hit. So is it any wonder that Americans are having a hard time buying the facts and figures being peddled by these so-called experts?

In fact, a recent Yale Study concluded that only 40% of Americans believe that climate change could affect them personally.

It’s difficult to deny that its getting hotter isn’t it? Those of you living in Arizona or parts of California can attest to the scorching conditions, temperatures hit 125 F in Death Valley and 121 F in Palm Springs last summer. Record breaking heat caused grounded airplanes in Phoenix and had burn centers warning us against enclosed spaces, we definitely know something’s going on right?

Maybe not, according to the latest research conducted by the NOAA, NASA, and EPA’s record keeping on climate trends. Three well respected institutions have concluded that adjustments being made to figures on global warming are, “Totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

How are they getting this data you might ask? Well there seems to be some creative accounting going on with the recorded temperatures they’re publishing. The shocking report states that the findings we’re given are, “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

With the kind of shaky methodology being used by these supposedly impartial government bodies our report ends by saying, it is impossible to conclude from the three published Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.”

In fact, this report is just the latest in a line of research promoting a healthy sense of skepticism regarding climate change.

Where do we go for real news in times like this? What do you do when it’s proving impossible to reach across the aisle and have a rational discussion with your attempts met by warnings about an impending apocalypse?

New head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, seems to have an idea that will take on all viewpoints, announcing a “red team – blue team” exercise to put the theory of climate change caused by humans to a real test. Pruitt made the announcement saying, “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.”

The discussion in question will involve a red team of scientists skeptical of climate change examining major climate reports providing necessary criticism. These reports then be defended by a blue team of scientists in favor of the climate change theory.

Former undersecretary for Energy under the Obama Administration, Steven Koonin – has championed this idea writing that it, “would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties.”

Unsurprisingly there are those arguing against this reasoned approach, with some saying that with peer reviews in place such a back and forth would only give credence to dangerous views. With one A&M University professor even referring to it as, “a fundamentally dumb idea”.

As dumb as it may seem to some, this idea is going forward. Most Americans will surely look forward to science being put under some real scrutiny for once.

0 34
Hospital Bonuses
The government exists to reward mediocrity- exactly what we need with our medical care!

A new report from the Government Accountability Office has revealed that under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), hospitals received thousands of dollars in bonuses even though they had significantly low quality scores.

The new report appears to be the latest in a series which have essentially exposed the flaws in the Obamacare program.

Initiated under Obamacare, the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing scheme was shaped in a way that it incentivized hospitals in order to effectively increase the quality of healthcare being offered and also increase efficiency.

While the scheme was supposed to reward hospitals that provided high quality medical care at lower costs, auditors at the agency discovered that hospitals that had high efficiency scores but offered drastically low quality continued to receive bonuses.

“While a majority of all hospitals received a bonus or a penalty of less than 0.5 percent each year, the percentage of hospitals receiving a bonus greater than 0.5 percent increased from 4 percent to 29 percent from fiscal year 2013 to 2017,” the report states.

It was found that in fiscal year 2017, hospitals that received a bonus even though their quality scores were well below the median, numbered 345. Additionally, auditors also found that from 2015 through 2017, almost 20 percent of all hospitals that received a bonus for maintaining high quality, had a below average quality score.

The report goes on to state that in fiscal year 2017, the average bonus awarded to all hospitals was $67,511. It should come as no surprise that this is more than double amount awarded to hospitals in 2013 when the average bonus hospitals received was $30,352.

Furthermore, it was also discovered that if a hospital did not have quality scores due to some reason, it would make their efficiency scores even higher, and because of how the agency calculated the score, such hospitals were more likely to be awarded a bonus.

“In fiscal year 2017, 68 percent of hospitals with missing domain scores received a bonus, compared to 50 percent of hospitals with all domain scores,” the report explains. “For example, in fiscal year 2017, 182 of the 345 lower quality hospitals that received a bonus (53 percent) were missing at least one quality domain score.”

“CMS signaled the importance of hospitals’ providing care at a lower cost to Medicare, and, in its weighting formula, the agency tried to find balanced consideration for quality and cost,” the report states. “Rather than achieving this balance—which would have allowed the agency to identify and reward higher quality and lower cost hospitals—CMS’s weighting formula has resulted in bonuses for some lower quality hospitals, solely due to their cost efficiency.”

Following the release of the report, the agency announced that it is considering changing the way it currently calculates the scores.

“HHS is committed to improving the quality of care across settings while also improving the efficiency of care and patient experience,” said Barbara Clark, acting assistant secretary for legislation at the agency. “HHS will examine alternatives and consider revising the formula for the calculation of hospitals’ [total performance score] consistent with relevant statutory guidance, and in a way to reduce the effect of the efficiency domain on the [total performance score].”

0 28
Castro Regime
What will it take to finally end the tyranny of the Castro Brothers? Violence, or an economic victory, or something else?

On June 16, 2017 in a speech in Miami, FL, President Trump, keeping true to his campaign promise, announced a change in the U.S. Government’s policy towards Cuba. The change rolls back many allowances that the Obama administration had agreed to, going for a more hardline approach this time.

“Effective immediately, I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba”, Trump exclaimed to the delight of the gathered crowd.

Trump feels this is necessary to limit funding to the Castro regime, forcing them into elections and transference of power to democratic forces. But he has faced stiff opposition from the Democrats as well as the media.

The Cuban regime on its part also did not hold back. After all, they stand to lose a big chunk of the income that they derive through trade and tourism.  One politician remarked that Trump’s views “contradict the majority support of American public opinion” and that he was falling into “coercive methods of the past.”

Is the policy unfair? Or is the liberal rhetoric against the President coloring people’s opinion?

Contrary to what Castro’s regime says, Cubans in America seem to support the policy. One Frank Calzon, a director of the Center for a Free Cuba went as far as to say, “Today the dismantling of Obama’s outrageous orders has begun.”

The policy change on paper is unlikely to differ significantly from what it was in Obama’s time. What people forget is that even then, majority of the elements of the US embargo from before had stayed in effect. What Obama had done was to promote an exchange of people by allowing free travel, which gave the impression that things were moving in the right direction.

People argue that it is the common Cuban who will suffer the consequences of the policy change. They say that curtailing logistic activities or tourism, both of which are key players in the Cuban economy, takes money out of the pocket of regular, hard-working Cuban families.

What they fail to understand is that both of these industries have strong connections to the ruling Cuban families. Yes, the private sector might suffer, but it’s a small price to pay for freedom.

It is also worth noting that the traveling restrictions on US citizens to Cuba are not as bad as you are led to believe. It will have an impact on the Cuban economy, surely, but Americans only made up around 7% of the total travelers that entered Cuba in 2016.

Another aspect of the new policy is that it restricts the US private sector from dealing with GAESA (Grupo de Administración Empresarial SA) or the Castro Group. GAESA monopolizes almost all major industries in Cuba, so by imposing restrictions on trading with them, Trump hopes to cut off some of their funding.

And even that’s not bad as people are making it out to be. For companies already engaged in trade or business agreements with GAESA, the policy allows exemption from the rule. Trump’s objective is quite simple. He wants to take power away from Castro and give it to the people.

“We will enforce the embargo. We will take concrete steps to ensure that investments flow directly to the people so they can open private businesses and begin to build their country’s great, great future, a country of great potential.”

The fact is that Trump’s words are sometimes harsher than his actions. His speech, although full of passion, did not contain many specifics. In reality, the new Cuba policy keeps most aspects of the last one intact.

Only time will tell how the speech and policy statements by Trump translate to paper. There is a chance that the US could impose stricter sanctions than we’re led to believe. But the opposite is more likely. There is always room to negotiate too, and as long as Cuban officials and the Trump administration keep talking, things could change.

Whether you take a positive view of things or not depends on how you view the President. Sometimes a tough stance is necessary, especially when you are dealing with someone as powerful as the Castro regime.

Social Media