By now most everyone has found out about the present administration’s decision to change the way how we deal with Cuba.  There are some that would argue that the embargo placed by President Kennedy is stifling to the nation-island, but if that here are a few interesting points that most people do not consider when attempting to prove their point:

• Past the American embargo, most (if not the rest) of the world allows unrestricted relations with Cuba.  In fact, Cuba is a popular vacation destination and many nations (including both of our neighbors – Canada and Mexico) have active economic trade with it.  Despite this fact, the majority of Cubans live in abject poverty with stifled opportunities to progress (unless, of course, they decided to become obedient to  “The Revolution”.)
• While Cuba may boast of its great infrastructures, the quality of life is (at best) substandard.  Even if you were to feign loyalty to the ongoing regime, the reality would still strike you in the face: just try driving on the wonderfully paved streets of La Havana.  (Sarcasm, folks; really.)
• The list continues, but honestly, I want to keep this post short.

In all fairness, this new change was to be expected;  President Obama’s stance has been nothing short of being an obvious turn to the left.  In his desire to appease a promising voter base, our new stance on Cuba imposes certain problems that will plague us for years to come, some of them which will be evident in the near future.  Some would argue that Cuba is not an ally to the surging Russian posturing in Latin America; such logic demonstrates sophistry, regardless who it comes from, be it a diplomat, scholar, or political strategist.

But what does all this have to do with Senator Mel Martinez (R, FL)?  Plenty.

Senator Martinez is quoted by a Central Florida radio station yesterday afternoon saying that the policy change “…is good news for Cuban families separated by a lack of freedom in Cuba.”  While one is sympathetic with the reality that has been nothing but a strain to Cuban-based families, how does he reconcile the fact that we are now going to give Cuba a greater amount funds?  In the same interview, he acknowledges that there should be limits on how much can be given to Cuban family members, but how does that help?  Its tantamount to telling a bully “hey, punch him all you want, just don’t knock out his teeth.”

Truth be told, I can’t speak in the interest of any Cuban, exiled or resident, since my Hispanic heritage comes from another part of Latin America, but as a citizen who is really concerned about how we are sleeping on the wheel while the rest of Latin American is falling under the influence of the Chinese and Russians, I expect much better from Senator Martinez.  A lot of his fellow expatriates are making significant sacrifices and for him to undermine their efforts by assuaging their yearning to reconnect with family is irresponsible.   Instead of following a flawed ideology, why not be the leader that you are supposed to be?

It may be true that you do not intend to run for office next year, but regardless, you are a United States Senator and as such, a leader to your constituents and especially to your fellow Cuban-Americans, or did you forget that?

Senator, perhaps you should just resign and let us follow someone else, someone who has the ideals of a free and democratic Cuba in mind.

Here are a few observations and thoughts hours away from high noon, 20 January 2009 – what will be the beginning of a new American executive quadrennial period.

1. For many liberals and emotive secular progressives, America is suddenly deserving of their admiration and pride.

For conservatives and American traditionalists, this country has always been admirable and deserving of unmitigated loyalty.

2. All of those who swore that they would move elsewhere after the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 no longer seem to want to be expatriated.

Those of us who worry and oppose the oncoming socialist implementation that has been promoted by Mr. Obama throughout his campaign will remain here to watch and actively oppose his less-than-favorable initiatives, whichever they may be.

3. In the months after the election, many marketers substituted some form of active civics where there was once contempt and ridicule for the chief executive of the United States; conservatives and most traditionalists have always displayed some form of civic awareness and action.

4. It is becoming all too apparent that the oncoming administration will attempt to defy the laws of economics to take us out our present economic reality. Given an option, the last thing most of the political right will do is embrace the oncoming mass welfare proposed by Mr. Obama and his ilk.

5. In the midst of a lack of mass appeal, celebrities and progressives thank God others are willing to be in the armed service of the United States. Most of their political counterparts have no hesitation to be those who will serve in said service.

5a. Members of the Obama administration, including chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel have noted an active interest in the implementation of some form of required “common national service”, a concept that is very close to conscription. Ironically, the last two presidents who initiated drafts were democrats; but no worries: people eventually blame republicans and the right for those kind of tactics. Go ask Nixon. Oh wait: too late.

And now for something completely different: the french word for “left” is “gauche”.

N’être pas gauche. Don’t be gauche.