President Obama has been called every evil biblical name imaginable-Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, and the Anti-Christ.
Now Senator Rubio, while he is not calling Obama the Devil, is saying that Obama has made a deal with the political Satan himself, Fidel Castro.Rubio just penned an op-ed titled “Obama’s Faustian Bargain WithCuba” in of all media outlets, wait for it… wait for it…The New York Times
For those of you wondering what the heck a “Faustian Bargain” is, I give you this definition of the term:
take our poll - story continues belowDo you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?(2)
Completing this poll grants you access to Shark Tank updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.Faustian bargain [( fow -stee-uhn)] Faust, in the legend, traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge. To “strike a Faustian bargain” is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power.-Dictionary
Rubio, as expected, goes on to rip into President Obama over his “normalization” of relations between the U.S. and communist Cuba.
MIAMI — WHEN President Obama announced the formal re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba last week, he criticized the supposed failures of United States policy toward Cuba, which, Mr. Obama said, “hasn’t worked for 50 years.”The reality of course is that American policy is no more to blame for Cuba’s economic and political problems than it was for the Soviet Union’s bread lines or for the fact that tens of millions of Chinese still live in poverty.
The only people who are responsible for the Cuban people’s woes are their geriatric rulers, who insist on maintaining a socialist economy that almost all other countries — with the possible exception of North Korea — have realized is a failed relic of the past.
It is these dictators who also deny their people access to the Internet. It is they who direct the security services that terrorize and harass any citizen who dares speak up against the Castro regime. It is they who imprison people who attempt to defy the system and make them endure unthinkable conditions. Many have fled their homeland permanently.
Mr. Obama’s outreach has done nothing to change any of this. On Sunday, Antonio Rodiles, a prominent activist, was beaten by regime thugs, and nearly 100 others were arrested. Human Rights Watch reports that in recent months, “short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and other critics have increased dramatically.” The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, an independent human rights group, puts arbitrary detentions for political motives in May alone at 641, the most in months.
Yet Mr. Obama insists that building economic and diplomatic ties is likely to bring freedom and democracy to the island.
However, our extensive experience with transitions from Communism has shown that economic opening and diplomatic engagement do not automatically lead to political freedom. No Communist police state has ever unclenched its fist just because a McDonald’s has opened or an embassy has been established.
China began its economic opening in 1979; today it remains a one-party state, where the human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, remains in prison, along with other dissidents. Calls for political pluralism are silenced. Vietnam, too, years after throwing its doors open to American corporations, continues to be tightly controlled by the Communist Party.
For many people in both countries, the standard of living has improved, but at a price: Prospects of political freedom for regular citizens are extinguished as elites with connections to the party become economic oligarchs. Chinese Communist Party leaders and their families have become rich beyond belief, and their grip on power seems unshakable.
When we make engagement with the odious leaders of these countries our foreign policy, we make a Faustian bargain that is contrary to our national values and also to our strategic interests.
Instead of the administration’s approach — one-sided concessions that have served only to reward Cuba’s rulers despite their lack of reform — we should be stating clearly what reforms America expects before we deepen ties.
You can continue reading the op-ed here.