Trudeau And Couillard Continue To Miss The Mark: What Is Wrong With Our Leaders?

"Marco Rubio ‏@marcorubio Nov 26

Marco Rubio Retweeted CanadianPM

Is this a real statement or a parody? Because if this is a real 

statement from the PM of Canada it is shameful & embarrassing."

Once again, Liberals are playing bull shit moral relativism. This time it was Quebec premier Phillippe Couillard:

"Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is also at the summit, defended Trudeau, calling his statement about Castro's death "well-balanced."

"Yes, his accomplishments will be in various tones of grey — some white, some black — but historians will have to decide this," Couillard told reporters Sunday. "I see no controversy in describing him as a giant of the 20th century."

No, it was not balanced. It was unbalanced - and weak.

Giant? He was more of a B-list tyrant (who lived long) where real monsters like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler are concerned are concerned. He 'seems' like a giant because leftists cheered him on for 'challenging' American imperialism.

The bottom line is he - sigh again I repeat - impoverished, tortured, displaced and murdered millions of Cubans while stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from them. HE CREATED A PARANOID POLICE STATE. I could not talk to a Cuban without them looking over their shoulders. It was troubling to say the least.

Is this the 'grey tones' you refer to Phillippe? I'm sorry but I can't address these people as Premiers or PM's if this is their moral outlook.

That he gave some crumbs by way of a sub-par medical system and propagandized education DOES NOT translate into 'tones of grey'. As if they could not be given such advances in a free society. You assholes would never accept living in such conditions so why even remotely tolerate it? 

There is but ONE proper way for free peoples to look at this: He was a dictator who brought death and misery. If you think otherwise, it's because you've fallen for the romantic bull shit or you're a flat out communist with no regard for human life.

Humanity gained by subtraction here.

WOULD EITHER OF YOU LIVE UNDER HIS REGIME? WOULD YOU ASK YOUR FAMILY TO DO SO?

I think we know the answer to this so KNOCK IT OFF and be principled. The mere fact people risked their lives to escape should be enough to give pause, no?

What is wrong with you people and moral and intellectual compasses? 

I have no problem with saying 'fuck him' for what he did to people. 

Mr. Couillard, maybe you need to come and talk to my Cuban-American friends before you open your mouth.

But forget what I think:

"Fidel Castro seized power promising to bring freedom and prosperity to Cuba, but his communist regime turned it into an impoverished island prison. Over six decades, millions of Cubans were forced to flee their own country, and those accused of opposing the regime were routinely jailed and even killed.

"Sadly, Fidel Castro's death does not mean freedom for the Cuban people or justice for the democratic activists, religious leaders, and political opponents he and his brother have jailed and persecuted. The dictator has died, but the dictatorship has not. And one thing is clear, history will not absolve Fidel Castro; it will remember him as an evil, murderous dictator who inflicted misery and suffering on his own people."The future of Cuba ultimately remains in the hands of the Cuban people, and now more than ever Congress and the new administration must stand with them against their brutal rulers and support their struggle for freedom and basic human rights." Marco Rubio.

I'll go with Rubio's take - and a close friend of mine whose middle-class family lost everything in the 1950s to that prick - over Frick and Frack.

Contrast that reality to this tone deaf stupidity by Jill Stein:

Dr. Jill Stein 

✔@DrJillStein

Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire. Presente!

I stand by my assertion communists, progressives, Marxists and socialists are profoundly evil and anti-human.

*******

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law, 1850

********

Comment from Internet:

"This is one of those illuminating events that reveal how a lot of 'liberals' actually view the government. It's not about some 'contract' between people and the state. It's not about protecting liberties, respecting universal rights, providing impartial justice. There's nothing reminiscent of Hobbes or Locke or Montesquieu or Paine or Mill in any of these commentaries. It's purely about the state as an instrument of change. And if that entails violence and oppression? Well duh, those are the means available to the state. The state exists, it can do these great wide scale things, so what ultimately matters is whether it is successful. Castro killed and imprisoned the citizens he was supposed to serve? He had no regard for their rights? At least he got them to read (state-approved material)!

And the leaders damn themselves most of all. The people elected by liberal democracies make clear that they don't judge each other (and thus themselves) by their fidelity to liberal principles. It's about how much of a mark the person left on the world. Cuba was not "determinedly independent," Higgins. Castro was, and the Cuban people had to endure it. It couldn't be clearer that these people judge leadership according to that leader's personal characteristics and triumphs, and not their adherence to the liberal justification for authority."

*****

Justin admits Fidel was a dictator....but....

You know there's always a but with progressives. I'm for free speech...but....

Anyway.

He was no dictator - even though I've referred to him as such myself. I prefer tyrant because a tyrant's power is absolute.

Alina Fernandez (Castro's daughter who was critical of him) explains in this excellent write up on Castro in The Miami Herald:

“Strictly speaking, Fidel is a tyrant. I have looked up the two words in the dictionary. A dictator is ‘a person who is granted absolute powers to face a national emergency on a temporary basis.’ A tyrant is an ‘absolute ruler unrestrained by law, who usurps people’s rights.’ ”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117186483.html#storylink=cpy