Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Some Potentially VERY Good Economic News

Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those with "skin in the game," and who likely possess the best perspective, are betting heavily on an upturn, as highlighted by Friday's Wall Street Journal:

Corporate insiders are buying stock in their own companies at a pact not seen in years, a sign they are betting on a rebound after a coronavirus-induced rout.  More than 2,800 executives and directors have purchased nearly $1.19 billion in company stock since the beginning of March.  That's the third-highest level on both an individual and dollar basis since 1988, according to the Washington Service, which provides data analytics about trading activity by insiders."

Here's why that's important:

Because insiders typically know the…[more]

March 30, 2020 • 11:02 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Obama: Cuban Information Minister? Print
By Mona Charen
Friday, April 17 2015
Castro was assigning blame for the 'hardships' Cuba has endured since the revolution to the U.S. -- and Obama was agreeing with him!

Two relatively recent photos of Barack Obama with foreign leaders reveal much about his deep-dyed leftism. The first features President Obama and democratically elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of one of America's most loyal friends. Obama looks strained. His face is stiff, and his eyes are veiled. The second is a snap of Obama at the recent Summit of the Americas in Panama. He's seated with "President" Raul Castro, leader of a bitter enemy, who has never received a single free vote. Obama is grinning, his eyes dancing with pleasure.

In contrast to the bitterness with which Obama addresses Netanyahu, he is all honey with Castro. "So I want to thank President Castro for the spirit of openness and courtesy that he has shown during our interactions. ... President Castro earlier today spoke about the significant hardships that the people of Cuba have undergone over many decades. I can say with all sincerity that the essence of my policy is to ... make sure that the people of Cuba are able to prosper and live in freedom and security. ... "

Did you catch that? Castro was assigning blame for the "hardships" Cuba has endured since the revolution to the U.S. -- and Obama was agreeing with him! It wasn't the first time. Back in December, when he first announced the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba, Obama said, "I believe in the free flow of information. Unfortunately, our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that has empowered individuals around the globe." So the U.S. embargo is responsible for the Cuban peoples' denial of the "free flow of information." Not Cuba's iron-fisted repression? A Cuban propaganda minister couldn't have put it better.

While Obama and Castro were speaking, goons from the Cuban security services beat Cuban human rights activists who had traveled to Panama City at the invitation of summit organizers. That's a ho hum story. Happens every day of the week in Cuba. But this one happened under Obama's nose, yet he didn't retreat an inch from his embrace of the man who ordered it.

Everything is forgiven when it comes to the Castros. Putting homosexuals (and later AIDS patients) in camps? Ruthlessly suppressing women? Beating and jailing those who criticize the regime? Shooting down American planes in international air space and killing three Americans? Consigning teenagers to forced labor because they were Christian or because their parents were political prisoners? Leftists of the Obama stripe wave it all away.

Look, they protest, we tried "isolating" Cuba for 50 years and it didn't work. Depends what you mean by "work." No, the embargo didn't force the Castros to stop torturing democracy activists, or to stop fomenting communist revolutions in other Latin American countries, or to stop shipping weapons to North Korea. But at least we didn't have it on our consciences, and we didn't subsidize it.

Well, they reply, we have relations with other bad actors like China and Saudi Arabia. True, the world's a savage place. But 1) we established relations with China to keep another enemy (the USSR) off balance, not because we imagined we would change the nature of the regime by being more friendly, and 2) our cooperation and "people to people" contacts with China haven't relaxed the regime's repression one iota; and 3) Saudi Arabia is no picnic, but our capacity to affect its behavior is limited.

Cuba, by contrast, was dangling by a thread economically. Read Michael Totten in City Journal on Havana. Outside of the tiny tourist zone, it looks like post-Katrina New Orleans. Cuba depended upon subventions from the USSR. When those ended, it relied on Venezuela. The latter's rapid decay (due entirely to adopting economic policies like Cuba's) combined with the oil price drop left Cuba uniquely vulnerable. Had Obama been interested in reform, he could have asked for some. A freer press? Release of political prisoners? Liberalized labor laws? He asked for and received nothing in exchange for everything the Castros wanted. Otto Reich, former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, who was born in Cuba and maintains close ties, says the Cuban regime thought it was some sort of trick. That's why the negotiations -- in which we gave everything and they gave nothing -- took 18 months. They were looking for the catch.

Who benefits from the thaw with Cuba? Not the Cuban people, who earn a maximum wage (yes, you read that correctly) of $20 per month. More trade and commerce will benefit their oppressors -- the worst regime in our hemisphere, a sworn enemy of the USA, but Obama's newest pals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mona Charen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Copyright © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following pandemics caused the largest number of deaths in the 20th Century alone?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The city of San Francisco is forbidding shoppers from carrying reusable bags into grocery stores out of fear that they could spread the coronavirus.As part of its shelter-in-place ordinance, the California city barred stores from 'permitting customers to bring their own bags, mugs, or other reusable items from home.' The city noted that transferring the bags back and forth led to unnecessary contact…[more]
 
 
—Madison Dibble, Washington Examiner
— Madison Dibble, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Have you or a member of your family contracted coronavirus or are having undiagnosed coronavirus symptoms?