I am looking forward to my upcoming trip to Cuba in November. It is extremely important for me as I have been blessed to line up interviews with two pre-eminent scholars on topics I am covering, then Tillerson announces this!
No doubt, when traveling to another country, as citizens we rely on our State department to look out for our best interest.
I know folk who get sick drinking the water next door, or the person who loses their passport in another country!! yikes, or the person petrified to leave the neighborhood, let alone city or even the United States.
Thank god, I’m a little more calculating or willing to take measured risk. The State department’s memorandum is quite clear, then again it is a bit nebulous depending on one’s perspective.
Even prior to the announcement, within a trip already scheduled to be in DC, I had planned to visit the Cuba Embassy/Consulate. My primary purpose is to get specifics on obtaining my travel visa which is needed for entry into Cuba. My concern is the disparity in pricing of the tourist visa as if the true or only cost is $100 (from LAX) then, that is what it will be!!! Period. But, I need to justify the why, from a legitimate authority.
Now for those like me who are traveling to Cuba and also may be concerned about today’s State department announcement my suggestion is to do like I did. Step back and think rationally, then since it is tough to contact the State Department for a real conversation, you are better off contacting your CONGRESSIONAL representative. Mine was extremely knowledgeable and pleasant. And yes, I received the information I am seeking.
Today’s State Department announcement is not a mandate or a directive but more of an alert. So, while some may in fact cancel their trip, given my planning and familiarity of where I will be visiting, I am willing to take my chances and keep my schedule in place. So, as of today I have a green light.
Listed below is the announcement by the State Department in response to the issues affecting the United States Embassy in Cuba.
Actions Taken in Response to Attacks on U.S. Government Personnel in Cuba
Rex W. Tillerson Secretary of State
September 29, 2017
Over the past several months, 21 U.S. Embassy employees have suffered a variety of injuries from attacks of an unknown nature. The affected individuals have exhibited a range of physical symptoms, including ear complaints, hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue, cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping. Investigators have been unable to determine who is responsible or what is causing these attacks.
On September 29, the Department ordered the departure of non-emergency personnel assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Havana, as well as all family members. Until the Government of Cuba can ensure the safety of our diplomats in Cuba, our Embassy will be reduced to emergency personnel in order to minimize the number of diplomats at risk of exposure to harm.
In conjunction with the ordered departure of our diplomatic personnel, the Department has issued a Travel Warning advising U.S. citizens to avoid travel to Cuba and informing them of our decision to draw down our diplomatic staff. We have no reports that private U.S. citizens have been affected, but the attacks are known to have occurred in U.S. diplomatic residences and hotels frequented by U.S. citizens. The Department does not have definitive answers on the cause or source of the attacks and is unable to recommend a means to mitigate exposure.
The decision to reduce our diplomatic presence in Havana was made to ensure the safety of our personnel. We maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba, and our work in Cuba continues to be guided by the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Cuba has told us it will continue to investigate these attacks and we will continue to cooperate with them in this effort.
The health, safety, and well-being of our Embassy community is our greatest concern. We will continue to aggressively investigate these attacks until the matter is resolved.
Students attending school are required to take United States history in the eighth grade. The basic curriculum is intended to provide the fundamentals of how our government was created and how it has transitioned through the years. Sadly, not everyone who took the class received a passing grade. Or, perhaps they did at the time but as years have gone by they may have forgotten the basic tenets of what they learned, especially the facts of the United States constitution?
Protesting is a basic and fundamental privilege of citizenship.
Protesting is a basic right covered in the first amendment. It is very clear. There is never a right time to protest. The primary intent of protest is to raise awareness. In doing so, some may feel institutions, symbols or things they view as sacred are being disrespected. That is a false premise, especially with the Colin Kaepernik and the current NFL’s reaction.
Protest is meant to be disruptive. Protesting is often non-violent, but it is not to be confused as a courteous gesture or something where the protestor’s say “excuse me.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment of the United States Constitution
Is Trump allowing Puerto Rico to be his “Katrina”?
The Colin Kaepernick protest started over a year ago. Just this past week it picked up steam as Donald Trump felt it was his duty to admonish the NFL teams for showing support for Kaepernick and disrespecting the flag, the anthem and anything else determined by him to be patriotic.
In doing so, sadly Trump demonstrated his sheer ignorance of the first amendment. His public outcry was done and played out while Puerto Rico and victims of the recent hurricanes are in desperate need for government intervention. He has been stubborn to understand the genesis of the protest and instead has insisted the narrative he created is the truth; the protest disrespects the flag, the anthem and the military.
Worse, this week he and his administration have taken to the airwaves to report how well the recovery is going, specifically in Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, reporters on the ground and spread over the island have been in stark contradiction to the administration’s assessment.
“They require policy guidance from the president on what he wants them to do,” Honore said while reacting to the administration’s slow response time. “I think that’s where the gap is. Should have been moving the military last Saturday, the president was out playing golf and twittering.” Lt.Colonel (retired) Russell Honoree
The question begs for many? With human life at stake, why in the world is Trump so focused on the NFL and the player protest? Yet, while he claims such patriotism, he has never served in the military and has taken glee in criticizing and making derogatory comments about those who indeed have served or who have lost loved ones while in military service!
Is this a diversion? Has Trump found yet another wedge issue where people lose focus on his lack of legislative success? Is it a coincidence that the majority of NFL players are African-American and the obvious factor of race is quite clear? Football is a game. The current situation in Puerto Rico is real life. People have short memories but they tend to remember who was in office during natural disasters. They remember their actions, as well as their inactions.
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former NFL player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy. Colin Kaepernik, August 29, 2016
Facts get in the way
Whatever motivation Trump felt to unleash his tirade against the NFL players or his insistence to go on twitter spewing irritation of the protestor’s actions, history will be the ultimate judge. The United States is replete with examples of those who staged protest and at the time suffered tremendous public scorn. Yet, as time elapsed and their actions were better understood they took on martyrdom status and many are in the annals of historic figures.
The notion of Kaepernick disrespecting the flag might be a plausible conclusion or might make sense and convince the most patriotic person he is subject to treason.? This becomes truer for those who support Trump and his ideology. They refuse to accept anything contrary to what they believe, or have been told by Trump that it is the truth. The problem and this is where so many who blindly follow others leave you shaking your head; Kaepernick got the suggestion to kneel and continue his protest from a decorated Green Beret, Nate Boyer!!!! Now how patriotic can that be? Kaepernick headed his advice and to the chagrin of many, to this day, they have a very positive relationship. Why is this important? Because Boyer has a better understanding of the privileges of the first amendment better than Trump or those like him who feel it is okay to dismiss this basic fact. Why do they dismiss this fact? It appears the narrative does not jive with the way they see things.
“Until that flag represents what it is meant to represent, ” Colin Kaepernick, August 29, 2016
For Trump and those who support his position I would plead they do some homework and understand what and why was Colin Kaepernick protesting in the first place? To be generous they will be given one week to turn in their assignment. LOL. Second, they must study protest movements and get a handle of the strategies used in protest movements? Again, protest is not meant to be comfortable. However, as mentioned many are very peaceful.
Who qualifies as the protest police?
Who among us can claim to be the authority on acceptable protest? Donald Trump? The Military? Further, who can dictate which symbols we allegedly treasure within our society that are off-limits to protest?
While there are many traditions within our society that we treasure, over the years and surely with the Kaepernick incident those on the opposite side of whichever issue is being protest swear outright disrespect and crying foul by interpreting the actions as unacceptable.
The genesis of the Kaepernik protest
What is ironic is it appears the very people claiming the flag, the anthem or even the military is being trampled care very little of why Kaepernick protest in the first place. If they did care, surely their position may be changed as why they still may have a problem with what they view as a sacred symbol, in the final analysis they would have to conclude Kaepernick and all those who took a knee or didn’t take a knee, stood or didn’t stand, clap or didn’t clap are well within the protections of our constitution.
Donald Trump takes great pride as a successful businessperson. Some might conclude he is a master manipulator. He appears to relish in the notion of speaking for “the America people.” Perhaps, but over the past several years it has been documented his commentary is strategic in creating a divide. Oftentimes the divide is on racial lines or to stoke discontent among various groups. Yet, as mentioned those who support his ideology are swayed by the rhetoric being fomented and have been conditioned to marginalize any other perspective.
All you have to know is a person has the right to protest and does not require approval or permission!
It is also your right or reaction to dismiss or despise the method of a person’s protest. Just because you don’t approve of the method of protest, does not mean you are right and the protestor is wrong. The first amendment gives protection for both positions.
It can’t be stressed enough, assuming you are truly seeking an objective analysis on protest that it you feel the person is protesting something you hold sacred, it is your right to not support them. Period! But, you must be very careful in maligning them as in the end, you wind up trying to dictate behavior. So, you can’t claim allegiance to the Constitution while refusing the basic core of protest.