Obama Allowing Travel, Money Transfers to Cuba

I like it.

Who is the US Government to tell me where I can travel? As our Founding Fathers and Ron Paul said:"Trade freely with all nations and be allies with none." In other words, be neutral in your alliance with other countries.

Quote Geoerge Washington: "Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...." - (George Washington Farewell Address) However, George Washington was not the only Founding Father of the United States to advise neutrality in foreign affairs. Thomas Jefferson, quoting him, stated "I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." - (Thomas Jefferson 1801 former quote 1799 latter).
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)


How do you feel about this:

Obama Allowing Travel, Money Transfers to Cuba


By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – 1 hr 1 min ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is allowing Americans to make unlimited transfers of money and visits to relatives in Cuba and easing other restrictions Monday, ushering in a new era of openness toward the island nation ruled by communists for 50 years.

The formal announcement was made by presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs and, in Spanish, by Dan Restrepo, the president's top aide on Latin American policy.

"The president would like to see greater freedom for the Cuban people. There are actions that he can and has taken today to open up the flow of information to provide some important steps to help that," Gibbs said.

Gibbs said Obama is only one part of the equation, with the White House calling on Cuba to do more as well.

With the changes, Obama aims to lessen Cubans' dependence on the regime of Fidel Castro, hoping that will lead them to demand progress on political freedoms, the spokesman said. About 1.5 million Americans have relatives on the island nation that turned to communist rule in 1959 when Castro seized control.

Some U.S. lawmakers protested the changes, saying they could funnel money or goods to the Castro regime. Others, backed by business and farm groups seeing new opportunities in Cuba, wanted Obama to go farther and lift restrictions on travel by all Americans to Cuba.

Officials said Obama is keeping the decades-old U.S. trade embargo — for now, at least — arguing that that policy pressures the regime to free all political prisoners as one step toward normalized relations with the U.S.

Restrepo said U.S. policy toward Cuba "is not frozen in time." He had no timetable for when future decisions might be made.

Obama had promised to take these steps as a presidential candidate. It has been known for over a week that Obama would announce them ahead of his attendance this weekend at a Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.

"There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans," Obama said in a campaign speech last May in Miami, the heart of the Cuban-American community. "It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban-American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime."

Other steps taken Monday include expanding the things allowed in gift parcels sent to Cuba, such as clothes, personal hygiene items, seeds, fishing gear and other personal necessities.

The administration also will begin issuing licenses to allow telecommunications and other companies to provide cell phone, television and radio service to people on the island, and to allow Americans to pay for such services for their relatives there. This step requires the participation of the Cuban government, as companies can't operate there without its approval.

Last May, President George W. Bush announced a new policy that people living in the United States could include cell phones in gift parcels sent to Cubans. At the time, Bush aides said U.S. residents could pay for the cell service attached to phones they send.

However, though American cell phones with service contracts from the U.S. work on some parts of the island, service is not always reliable and depends on the phones' specifications.

Sending money to senior government and Communist Party officials remains prohibited under Obama's new policy. Restrictions imposed by the Bush administration had limited Cuban travel by Americans to just two weeks every three years. Visits were confined to immediate family members.

Francisco Hernandez, head of the exile group the Cuban American National Foundation, was once a staunch supporter of travel restrictions but backs Obama's announcement.

It will help Cubans become more independent of the state "not only in economic terms but in terms of information, and contacts with the outside world," said Hernandez, who was imprisoned by the Cuban government for nearly two years after participating in the 1961 failed Bay of Pigs invasion.

Miami travel agent Tesie Aral said her phone has been ringing nonstop in anticipation of the announcement, with a tenfold increase last Friday alone.

"People were already planning to travel more based on their ability to go every 12 months," said Aral, owner of ABC Charters. "Whether they can travel more frequently than that depends on the economy."

Also in that Miami speech nearly a year ago, Obama promised to depart from what he said had been the path of previous politicians on Cuba policy — "they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba."

"Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy," he said then. "This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century — of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba."

He also promised he would be willing to engage in direct diplomacy with Cuba, "without preconditions" but with "careful preparation" and "a clear agenda."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_cuba

Sounds like a good move to me. However my history on the subject is slim. Why were there restrictions on US citizens traveling there anyway?

CarolinaHound wrote:Sounds like a good move to me. However my history on the subject is slim. Why were there restrictions on US citizens traveling there anyway?

it happened under bush in 2004
http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/study_abroad_2/cuba_travel_restrictions

other admins with same restriction:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/cuba/travel/story/998609.html

they "why", i would imagine the us gov did not want to financially support a communist regime, by way of travel/ money spent while there.

I could understand it if they possed some sort of threat to us. But that would be no more of a threat than travel to and from Mexico is.

of course, you're right. that's why i say i like it. if cuba says i can't travel to their country, i get it. they live under an oppressive directorship. but we live in a free republic, right? butt out government; if i want to go to cuba let me be free to. understand that a communist country is the the last place on earth i would want to travel to and spend my american dollars while there. but i want to have the freedom to chose.

HotParadox wrote:of course, you're right. that's why i say i like it. if cuba says i can't travel to their country, i get it. they live under an oppressive directorship. but we live in a free republic, right? butt out government; if i want to go to cuba let me be free to. understand that a communist country is the the last place on earth i would want to travel to and spend my american dollars while there. but i want to have the freedom to chose.

As much as I hate to say it, let alone think it, all of our freedoms are being taken away by our kindly government. Which is all in our best interest they will say. The only ones that have any real freedom are those in government that have put themselves almost above the law and mostly do what they want, while we the masses do as we are told. Or else.

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:of course, you're right. that's why i say i like it. if cuba says i can't travel to their country, i get it. they live under an oppressive directorship. but we live in a free republic, right? butt out government; if i want to go to cuba let me be free to. understand that a communist country is the the last place on earth i would want to travel to and spend my american dollars while there. but i want to have the freedom to chose.

As much as I hate to say it, let alone think it, all of our freedoms are being taken away by our kindly government. Which is all in our best interest they will say. The only ones that have any real freedom are those in government that have put themselves almost above the law and mostly do what they want, while we the masses do as we are told. Or else.

Isn't it funny though? We out number them hundreds to one, but we still allow them to dictate what so called freedoms we can and can not have all out of a sense that we feel we should do what's right. And not to go by what our elected officials say would be illegal and therefore wrong. While they get to do as they please.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:of course, you're right. that's why i say i like it. if cuba says i can't travel to their country, i get it. they live under an oppressive directorship. but we live in a free republic, right? butt out government; if i want to go to cuba let me be free to. understand that a communist country is the the last place on earth i would want to travel to and spend my american dollars while there. but i want to have the freedom to chose.

As much as I hate to say it, let alone think it, all of our freedoms are being taken away by our kindly government. Which is all in our best interest they will say. The only ones that have any real freedom are those in government that have put themselves almost above the law and mostly do what they want, while we the masses do as we are told. Or else.

Isn't it funny though? We out number them hundreds to one, but we still allow them to dictate what so called freedoms we can and can not have all out of a sense that we feel we should do what's right. And not to go by what our elected officials say would be illegal and therefore wrong. While they get to do as they please.

from another thread where I posted:

There are many things that people can do to change things to what they should be. The only problem is that the people of this country have been more or less trained to be docile and fear those in power. This is not something that has started here in recent times but rather many centuries ago.

Those in power soon found out that by making the masses fear them, they could have the power to do what ever they wanted to. For example, make the witch doctor mad at you and he would put a curse on you. Now of course he was watched so he could do nothing, but those in his employ could and did without others knowing about it. So there we have fear being installed. It happened because the witch doctor said it would. And the masses not knowing any better soon fell under the spell of his so called magic by means of fear of what he might do to them if they made him mad.

Now this system has been refined and honed to perfection by the worlds politicians today. Today's witch doctor can use forces such as the FBI,CIA and the IRS. and yes they can install fear into people. You don't even have to do anything wrong, but they can sure make it seem like you did. Even though you are being framed, you could do nothing.

But there are wasy to get around it if you can find enough foloks that are willing to stand up and be counted and not back down. But I doubt it. Most folks will talk about it but will not put their name on the dotted line and expose themselves to what might happen if they did. Yep, fear is a powerful weapon indeed. All you have to do is reverse it and use it to your own advantage and you actually could do some good. But my guess is that it will never happen.

i have two words for you ot and doggieboy: ron paul. i know you guys get it, but what is wrong with the people who want what we three want and paul wants and but did not vote for him?

HotParadox wrote:i have two words for you ot and doggieboy: ron paul. i know you guys get it, but what is wrong with the people who want what we three want and paul wants and but did not vote for him?

I really do think that they are afraid. Folks have been indoctrinated into the 2 party sysem for so long they think anything else is wrong. Why, becuse the 2 party system teaches them it is.

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:i have two words for you ot and doggieboy: ron paul. i know you guys get it, but what is wrong with the people who want what we three want and paul wants and but did not vote for him?

I really do think that they are afraid. Folks have been indoctrinated into the 2 party sysem for so long they think anything else is wrong. Why, becuse the 2 party system teaches them it is.

but ot, he ran as a republican! a republican-not a third party candidate at all. the mainstream media wouldn't even give him fair airtime in the debates, if you recall, because i guess he wasn't charismatic and handsome and young enough like the others; lol@that whole concept.

HotParadox wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:i have two words for you ot and doggieboy: ron paul. i know you guys get it, but what is wrong with the people who want what we three want and paul wants and but did not vote for him?

I really do think that they are afraid. Folks have been indoctrinated into the 2 party sysem for so long they think anything else is wrong. Why, becuse the 2 party system teaches them it is.

but ot, he ran as a republican! a republican-not a third party candidate at all. the mainstream media wouldn't even give him fair airtime in the debates, if you recall, because i guess he wasn't charismatic and handsome and young enough like the others; lol@that whole concept.

Not to mention the mainstream media made a point of making those that did support him look like a bunch of redneck, gun crazy, seperationist such as those that hide in the mountains, drinking moonshine and kissing snakes as they shout bible references.

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:i have two words for you ot and doggieboy: ron paul. i know you guys get it, but what is wrong with the people who want what we three want and paul wants and but did not vote for him?

I really do think that they are afraid. Folks have been indoctrinated into the 2 party sysem for so long they think anything else is wrong. Why, becuse the 2 party system teaches them it is.

but ot, he ran as a republican! a republican-not a third party candidate at all. the mainstream media wouldn't even give him fair airtime in the debates, if you recall, because i guess he wasn't charismatic and handsome and young enough like the others; lol@that whole concept.

Not to mention the mainstream media made a point of making those that did support him look like a bunch of redneck, gun crazy, seperationist such as those that hide in the mountains, drinking moonshine and kissing snakes as they shout bible references.

He may have ran as a republican, but I think that they considered him not to be of that party because of his views. Or possibly because he scared them

what?! ot, paul's been a successful texas republican senator for years. in fact, he promised his fellow repubs that he would NOT run as a third party candidate if he did not win the primary. and he KEPT his promise. his focus was and is to restore the republican party as it was supposed to be and used to be. everybody knows he's a republican, but the media promotes pretty boys because it makes for higher ratings. and we buy into it. people should have been outraged, like us 3, that he was slighted by and mocked by the msm.

ot, you'll have fun here, forever. it's updated daily. this guy is so you:
http://www.ronpaul.com/

over 600 articles by him. have a blast:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

i agree, peregrine esp since he would, knowing him, have a great team helping him. he promises to have a savvy Administration and he is yet to break a promise, which i find amazing.