‎”In the Race for the White House, I would rather go down swinging with Newt than stuttering with Romney.” ~Michael Reagan

We’re going to take a closer look at this issue in the weeks ahead. If this is true, then we have the leftist Daniel Ortega government to thank for it. The Ortega government, bordering on regime, has trampled rule of law, private property rights, and fundamental freedoms to remain in power. It will hijack the democratic processes even more so if it means remaining in power.

Where is the Obama Administration Latin American team on this and related issues in the region?  Obama’s key Western Hemisphere advisors have failed to have a coherent, U.S.-centric focused policy toward the region. They, too, will have to share some of the blame for the problems in Central America, especially if Nicaragua continues to slide and anti-communist groups start to re-organize.

Many of the establishment scholars in the DC-area think tanks will deny that there is a problem. These are the same folks who argued just a few years ago, but have since changed their tune, that there is no “Iran problem” in the Americas. More to come.

Featured in today's Washington Post Express newspaper.

When it comes to U.S.-Cuba matters, I’ve seen a lot in this area since I moved here in the 1990s. Some of it serious, others  like this latest gem, downright bizarre. These people are either totally ignorant or, more likely, are going out of their way to make a political statement that they do not support U.S. economic sanctions on the Cuban regime.

The owners of Cuba Libre — a place one does not go to if you wish to try authentic Cuban cuisine — are hosting Chefs from Cuba to razzle dazzle DC-area foodies. ¿Que? The event is titled, Pop Up Paladeres. Follow this link if you want to learn more about what Paladares are all about.

This takes “people to people” contact under U.S. law to a whole new level. Frankly, I am not sure that this is a proper use of general license authorities under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.  And, guess what, later this year for a paltry $4,500 you can travel to Cuba in April to partake in a “Pop Up Paladar” in Havana.

This is truly surreal.  Folks in Cuba can barely make ends meet, much less, well, eat. Lobster? Boar chops? Likely never seen any of this on a Cuban table these days in Cuba (nor in Miami by the way). Events such as these are made-to-order for DC these days. There are political prisoners on hunger strike in Castro’s jails — some have already died. Here is the latest one, very close to death. Then again, most folk in this town have no idea whats happening outside the beltway, much less in an island 90 miles from U.S. shores.

For my friends in the area, my hope is that you save your money and not dine at Cuba Libre Restaurant. I made the mistake of trying this place in Philly a few years ago because a client had invited. I kept my counsel. The food was not good and, as I learned at the restaurant, the politics even worse.

P.S., “Arroz Con Mango,” literally means Rice with Mango. It is a Spanish expression I grew up hearing meaning, what a mess … kind of the Obama Administration’s policy in Latin America, Cuba included.

From this outpost, there should be no issue whatsoever that the U.S. should adopt a space security roadmap designed by U.S. diplomatic, intelligence, and military experts, not the Europeans. EU input? As needed. The Europeans would not even be in outer space but for massive domestic subsidies and U.S. technological support.

While this position may rattle folks that advocate joint exploration of space, a noble endeavor that should be pursued, cooperation has its limits. We know best what is in our national interest, even in the heavens. Let’s hope the Obama team has that focus in mind as it plumbs this issue further.

The only “prime directive” they should concentrate on is what is best for U.S. security — even if that means defensive weapons in outer space.

I have no idea what it must feel like to chase down terrorists who are trying to kill me, and hopefully never will. Soliders who’ve been in battle say that it is a feeling unlike any other, the stresses of which folks here in DC, unless they’ve served in that theatre, will never understand.

What these Marines did does not concern me whatsoever. This is an internal matter for our military to deal with and, I hope, the commanding officiers show some restraint in how these men are reprimanded. The Secretary of State should have shown some more restraint in her remarks, rather than feeding the anti-U.S. liberal media feeding frenzy.

What some of us find truly offensive, and truly “deplorable”, is that unbeknownst to most Americans, the Obama Administration has been in peace negotiations with the Taliban. This is a sure recipe for long-term disaster that will lead to regional instability. You cannot win this battle with a Drone War. But the Obama Administration never had the will to win. Negotiating a false peace with terrorists is the logical outcome.

Want to “discover Cuba’s fascinating people and culture,” well you can now book a trip through one of the largest non-profit entities in the United States, National Geographic. The equestrian 1%ers, if they are so inclined to invest time and money on this trip, can learn about an “innovative project in promoting equine care.” Really?! Let’s hope National Geographic lawyers have done their due diligence. Among other things, any use (i.e., trafficking) of properties in Cuba that were owned by U.S. persons could generate political and legal interest by claim holders here in the United States.

Then there is the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian Institution that, for a mere $5,450 you are promised a “10-day cultural exchange program in Cuba includes research areas where Smithsonian curators have collaborated with their Cuban counterparts.” If you have more money to spend, more will be tacked on to your junket. Five thousand dollars to travel to Cuba?! I think Smithsonian lawyers may have some explaining to do when its Congressional overseers at the Committee on House Administration as well as the Senate Rules Committee start to ask serious questions about these trips.

But the one particular trip that really caught my attention was a journey sponsored by the Hofstra University School of Law. For about $4,500, law students will travel to Cuba to participate in a class, “field trips” included, titled “Cuba Field Study: Export Laws and Export Controls.” ¿Que? Is this serious? A quick scan of the schedule and you will soon see. For example, on their first full day in Cuba, April Fool’s Day no less, students are scheduled to do the following:

Field Trips: Havana walking tour in the morning, lunch, regional tour on a bus in the afternoon, and visit to the Hemingway Museum

That’s it. What about the class time on export controls on Day One? Not sure what touring the Hemingway Museum has to do with export controls.

For those of your who do not follow these issues on a regular basis, some background is in order. Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. Has been since 1982. You can learn more about why countries are added to this list by visiting the State Department’s website. There are legal and political consequences stemming from the designation and, fortunately, it is a small list of countries. Cuba also also has been subject to comprehensive economic sanctions for some time that, among other things, clearly ban tourism travel.

Why a law school thinks teaching a class on export controls in a state sponsor of terrorism is a good idea is beyond me. Are Cuban regime officials going to be allowed to sit in? Are U.S. citizens going to educate the regime on how our export and sanctions law operate? Nowhere on the law school website does it clearly say that Cuba is under a comprehensive embargo pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), among many other federal laws. This tells me that folks at the law school oppose U.S. policy and will likely use the venue to mock U.S. laws or, worse, teach folks about the Constitutional “loopholes” that can be used to get around U.S. laws.

No one who travels to Cuba from the United States is allowed to see the truth about what life is like on the island.  Travelers are shielded from the political beatings of Cuban opposition leaders. Americans are not allowed anywhere near Cuba’s political jails where dissidents and freedom fighters rot away and are tortured. Child labor and prostitution, ignored. The regime’s anti-American stance is modified at all times to attract more and more dollars that are desperately needed to remain in power.

All of these “educational” and “people to people” excursions to Cuba are nothing but tourism travel. There are many more groups planning similar trips. They should not be allowed under U.S. law or the regulations. With regards to the export controls seminar it is, on so many levels, simply reckless. Cuba is a Potemkin Village 90 miles from the United States. Americans will see what the regime wants them to see. Nothing else. If you want to learn about U.S. export control laws, a very important topic at that, save your money and come to DC for a few weeks.

P.S., if you happen to be one of the law students at Hofstra and you cannot afford the trip, the law school is facilitating financing, courtesy of the U.S. Government taxpayer, through the federal student loan program

China remains a threat to U.S. national security and it will do so for some time. Even Jon Huntsman, the borderline Republican who served a Ambassador to China says so. Huntsman by the way has no chance of securing the GOP nomination for President. He is an accomplished fellow but there is no room in the party right now for Rockefeller Republicans. Anyhow, back to China. Over at the China Hearsay blog, lawyer Stan Abrams penned a piece recently that raises some good points, but misses the mark when it comes to the China card. “In Quest for Yahoo, Alibaba Goes Full Power Jew in D.C.,” Abrams makes many outlandish statements including this gem:

anti-China rhetoric is rampant not only in D.C. these days, but across the nation as know-nothing, smarmy douchenozzles (i.e. Republican candidates) vie for high offices in the 2012 elections.

We’ll leave the politics for another post, but I think he’s spent one year to many in the People’s Republic of China. What really makes no sense is his contextualization of the CFIUS process and a proposed Chinese investment in a technology company that is part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. For those of you that do not know a lot about the CFIUS review process, follow this link. The Cliff Notes summary of the CFIUS process is as follows: a government review of foreign investment in the U.S. to make sure our competitors and rivals do not get access to things they can use against us some day.

Abrams’s blog talks about the proposed acquisition by the Chinese Internet-based business Alibaba Group, along with other unnamed investors, of the U.S.-based Yahoo! Inc. As a high-tech entity that possesses personal information about millions of U.S. citizens, as well as part of our nation’s technology and Internet backbone, this acquisition should receive closer scrutiny by the CFIUS review process, among other checks that include our export control laws. According to Abrams he has …

shot down the idea that Alibaba has close ties with the Chinese government or military [...] and questioned whether a CFIUS rejection would simply be an excuse for protectionism. On the whole, I think that a rejection based on national security would be a joke, and I can’t think of any other reason that would justify blowing up a Yahoo acquisition.

You can read his post here. I tried to find the back up for his arguments on the site but could not do so.

While Abrams and other pro-China trade folks claim otherwise, the Alibaba Group has been heavily subsidized by the Chinese government and has many links to the Chinese military. The onus is on the Alibaba Group to show otherwise. If they do not have such links, then why take issue with a review process that will only take about a month or so to complete?

The CFIUS regulations are not the most complex, however, the process can become politically charged, rather quickly. But if the folks at Alibaba think CFIUS is their only problem, I’d take a closer look at our export control laws. Start with our Export Administration Regulations (EAR). There are several categories likely impacted by this proposed transaction. The national security Committees of the U.S. Congress should also be of concern (that could be why they retained a lobbying firm as well).

Last month a bipartisan investigation was initiated by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that will review the national security threats posed by Chinese telecommunications companies working in the United States or seeking to do business in our country. Among other things, the investigation will “review the extent to which these companies provide the Chinese government an opportunity for greater foreign espionage, threaten our critical infrastructure, and further the opportunity for Chinese economic espionage.” Read more about it here. It is reportedly going to take a look at this proposed Alibaba transaction, among many others.

You do not need to wait for the HPSCI investigation to end to read about the China threat to our high-tech sector. There is plenty out there in the public domain. I recommend you start with a report published by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), “Foreign Spies Stealing US Economic Secrets in Cyberspace: Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, 2009-2011.” Alibabi and other Chinese companies can hire all the high-priced lawyers and lobbyists they want, this will not change the facts that there are significant issues that need to be addressed in these proposed transactions. And that no Member of Congress, no matter how hard the lawyers and lobbyist try, will bend to accommodate where U.S. security is at stake, especially in a post-09/11/01 world.

Foreign companies seeking to do business in the United States, no matter the country of origin, will continue to see increased CFIUS and other regulatory reviews for years to come. If Alibaba were our firm’s client, the last thing I recommend that they do is engage in a traditional DC shuffle. Hiring high-priced lobbyists, no matter how well connected or qualified, cannot overcome the legal, regulatory, and political hurdles that these transactions can pose to U.S. national security. Trying to game the system is not the way to win the debate of ideas. Opening your books and being 100% transparent is the way to go.

A final note to Abrams. Just because some of us believe foreign companies should be subjected to CFIUS reviews, this does not make us protectionist. Not only is it the law, but also common sense. As Americans, I’d like to think our high-tech products are only going to people and countries that we trust; folks that will protect them from falling into the wrong hands or be used against us. When it comes to China, it is not a Democratic or Republican thing, but an American imperative to be focused on these issues. We cannot afford another Loral/Hughes crisis.