Obama: History Will Judge Castro?

Following the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Barack Obama said this:

"History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."

I don't know what planet this President has been living on but, for him to think that somehow "history" will think differently of Castro in the future is simply ridiculous.

He murdered and jailed dissidents.  Thousand of Cubans both risked their lives and gave their lives to escape his tyranny to get to the U.S..  The regime strictly controls what Cubans read, hear on the radio, and see on state-run TV.  Human rights groups consider him and his regime abusers of its own citizens.  Outside of the Disney Land appearance of a cleaned up Havana that Fidel created for the benefit of tourists, the rest of the country lives in slum conditions and extreme poverty.  Granted they are fed, schooled, and have their health needs taken care of by the Castro regime.  However, most of the tap water is contaminated and undrinkable; putting the island residents at a serious health risk.  Multiple people live in tiny apartments with no inside bathing facilities.  And, most of the buildings on the island aren't being maintained and in near complete disrepair.

Despite all of this, Obama seems to think that history will judge Castro differently.  He is so eager to have the reestablishment of U.S.-Cuban relations as part of his legacy, that he won't even criticize an obvious brutal dictator and human rights abuser.  Is everything always about himself ?

References:

Obama: History will judge Castro: http://nypost.com/2016/11/26/obama-history-will-judge-castro/

Beyond the Tourist Façade Are Cuba’s Victims of Communism: https://panampost.com/editor/2016/05/27/cuba-beyond-the-tourist-facade-are-the-victims-of-communism/

Human rights in Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

Extreme Poverty in Cuba: Welfare in a Broke Country: http://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-in-cuba

Drinking Water in Cuba - Havana Forum - TripAdvisor: https://www.google.com/search?q=drinking+water+in+cuba&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Video: A day in the life of Havana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHBkLj5Bbq4

pb

History Is Against A Democrat President Being Elected In 2016

In terms of U.S. presidential politics, one thing is quite sure: Very rarely is an eight year reign of one political party occupying the White House, followed by another of the same party.

The fact is, that since the end of World War II, only one President, Ronald Reagan, was able to hand the reigns of  his eight-year Presidency to another of the same political party: George H.W. Bush.  I believe the only reason this happened was because Reagan was considered the best President since World War II and Americans wanted to give Republican leadership another chance.

But, other than George H.W. Bush's win, this is how the Presidency has cycled between Democrats and Republicans:

Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who served 8 years, was replaced by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.  After Eisenhower's 8 years, John Kennedy (assassinated) and Lyndon Johnson -- both Democrats -- served 8 years and, were followed by Richard Nixon, a Republican.  After 8 years of Nixon (resigning in shame) and Gerald Ford, Democrat Jimmy Carter then occupied the White House.  Four years later the 12 years of Republicans Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush were followed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Then, Clinton, after 8 years, was replaced by Republican George W. Bush; replaced 8 years later by Democrat President Barack Obama. 

In total, since the end of World War II, 6 Republican and 6 Democrats have been presidents of this country.  It appears that Americans can't take much more of one party or the other after 8 years.  Not  a glowing testament to one being better than the other.

So, for Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat hoping to be elected President in 2016, history is not on your side. Especially with Barack Obama having such low approval ratings and now being considered this country's worst President.

Reference:

Wikipedia: List of Presidents Of The United States:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Obama worst president since WWII, new poll shows. Reagan the Best: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/?page=all
 

California Chrome's Owner Has Problems With The History Of The Triple Crown

According to one of California Chrome's owners, Steve Coburn, you are a coward if you only entered your horse in the Belmont Stakes without having previously run in both the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby.  That argument falls flat when you look at the history of the "Stakes."

Horse racing is a business.  Horses are entered into high stakes races to win a lot of money.    The Belmont stakes attracts horses because the purse is so big.  Tonalist -- this year's winner -- galloped his way to a cool $800,000.  Even coming in last nets you $30,000 for your effort. Not all horses enter the Belmont because the race is so long.  That's what makes it the final litmus test for winning the Triple Crown.

In the last 95 years, the Triple Crown, has only seen 11 winners.  More than twice that number, 24, have, like California Chrome, won the Derby and the Preakness, only to come up short in the Belmont.  In each case the Crown winner, has always had to face fresh entries that passed on the Kentucky Derby or the Preakness; or, both.  For example, when Seattle Slew won in 1977, only three horses in the eight horse field had ran in the first two races and when Secretariat won in 1973, only two horses had joined him in all three races.

The winners of the Triple Crown possess stamina, speed, extraordinary talent, and not a small amount of good luck. They must be victorious in 3 major races of varying lengths in just five weeks.  And, that is against all comers; including those who are fresh and well-rested and who did not participate in the previous two jewels in the crown.  Overcoming all those difficult variables are what makes winning the Triple crown so extraordinary.  Horses lose races for many reasons; sloppy tracks, injuries, a bump, a trip, jockey error. The list is endless   That's why betting on a horse is called gambling. That's what makes any race a true horse race!

Steve Coburn needs to grow up and understand this.  He's acting like someone who thinks he was owed the win and was cheated out of it. History shows that many presumed winners of the Triple Chrome, failed when it came to winning the "Stakes."  That's the history of the Belmont and the Triple Crown and something that Coburn seems not to understand.

References:

2014 Belmont Stakes: Video Replay, Purse Earnings, California Chrome Placement: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2089730-2014-belmont-stakes-video-replay-purse-earnings-california-chrome-placement

Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing

Obama's 'Drought' Ignorance

Desperately needing to strengthen the Democrat's environmental base in advance of the 2014 elections, Obama burned tons more carbon dioxide -- more than you or I would use in our lifetimes -- by flying Air Force One and its companion plane to the West Coast in order to link California's drought to climate change.  There, awaiting the President's arrival, was an entourage of heavy, armor-plated and extremely low-mileage limousines that had been advance airlifted in a  massive gas-guzzling military cargo plane.

Then after surveying some of the dry earth in the area,  the President stepped in front of the cameras and used the California drought as an example of climate change.  He even said that science had predicted it.  After that, his entourage whisked him off to one of the 9 well-manicured and deep-green golf courses in the area that are responsible for using up 17% of all the available water in that county.

Now, it's quite rare that the always-simpatico New York Times would ever take this President to task; but, they did this time.   And, well they should.   This is because he was so off base in linking California's drought to climate change or global warming that even the "Times" couldn't hold its tongue.  As the paper pointed out, computer modeling had never predicted a drought for California.  Instead, the "state" was supposed to have warmer and much wetter weather. Further, the same scientists that didn't see the drought coming, also can't predict when it will end.

Droughts, since the history of time, are an ever occurring fact of nature. Long before the itsy-bitsy carbon footprints of this country's first pilgrims arrived here, there was the Medieval period from 900 to 1500 A.D.  During that time, California had numerous and decades long droughts. In the 1950's, it was so bad that many of the Golden State's natural lakes were mere mud puddles.  The worst drought ever in the recorded history of this country took place during the dust bowl years of the 1930's.  Maybe, this most intelligent President overlooked Steinbeck's Classic "The Grapes of Wrath".

The bottom line is that California doesn't have a climate change problem when it comes to water. They have a population problem. A water usage and planning problem and, an environmental activism problem.

If the state's population was even 10% less than it is today, the drought wouldn't be an issue. The state has not built a single, new water retention facility in the last 30 years.  Yet, during that time, their population has grown by more than 32%.  On top of that, environmentalists have forced California to dump billions of gallons of excess reservoir water into the oceans in an effort to keep a few environmentally protected habitats from being flooded.  Additionally, they have blocked  desalinization of sea water, which would provide an endless source of fresh water, because the process might adversely affect sea life. Fortunately, the state's first desalinization plant is scheduled to go on line 2016.

Once again, the politicization of climate change by using false linkages, makes it less believable.  Though, to an ideologue like Obama, that doesn't seem to matter.


References:

New York Times: Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0

Time.com: Scientists fear California's long-ago era of mega-droughts could be back: http://science.time.com/2014/01/23/hundred-years-of-dry-how-californias-drought-could-get-much-much-worse/

Drought In the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_States

The Man-Made California Drought: http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

Desalination isn't the answer to California's water problem: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/13/news/la-ol-ocean-water-desalination-20131112

Clinton Has It Wrong On Health Care

Back on November 10th, in what was another Clinton-rewrite of history, Bill Clinton urged the Senate Democrats to pass health care reform because history has taught us that "The worst thing to do is nothing." With this statement, he seems to be implying that the Democrats had a sweeping loss of Congress in 1994 because they didn't pass health care reform.

If that was true, the electorate "wouldn't" have punished them by voting them out of office. Instead, the electorate would have given the Democrats more power by electing more of them so that they could have a greater majority. And, they would have punished the Republicans for blocking health care reform. Clinton's belief that Congress flipped from Democrat to Republican because health care didn't pass is blatantly absurd.

Right now, I am starting to see articles being written by left wing opinion writers that seem to suggest Clinton was right. This wishful thinking presumes that the Democrats will maintain control of Congress if health care reform is passed is, again, absurd. It is amazing how lemming-like the left is when they hear a distortion from their former American Idol -- Bill Clinton.

When the Democrats lost Congress, they lost it in the midst of a roaring economy that had it's genesis just before Clinton took office. This Congress is totally mired in high unemployment and rising foreclosures and they have actually done nothing to resolve the situation. The Stimulus Package is a failure. Health Care Reform is starting to look like a three ring circus. Cap and Trade is on shaky ground due to ClimateGate. And, the national debt and the future of high taxation looms big under their watch. The national polls show that this Congress has the least favorable rating in the history of polling. Harry Reid is looking like he's going to be another Democratic Senate Majority Leader -- like Tom Daschle -- to lose his job.

So, why, then, would anyone think that this Congress would be safe by passing health care reform? Given all the political headwinds -- especially on the economy and spending --- it doesn't look so. But, I guess the left can hope. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Clinton told the Democratic Senators in November. My guess is that the electorate will severely punish Congress if they pass health care reform in its current form with all the costs and service cuts that are currently known. The polls are already showing a lack of support for Congress' attempt to enact any health care reforms before the economy gets going again. Obviously, this is a change they don't want from either Obama or Congress.