I'm curious if you know that foreign policy decisions do not solely lay with congress, but both the Executive and Legislative branches play roles in that capacity. So, Obama does not necessarily need to go to Congress before normalizing relations with Cuba. This has been pretty much the standard protocol since 1787. Reagan and George H.W. Bush were two noted periods when the Executive branch was the more active arm of foreign policy in the United States.
We have Dahl who says, "Perhaps the single most important fact about Congress and its role in foreign policy, therefore, is that it rarely provides the initiative. Most often initiative springs from the executive-administrative branch." We then also have James Robinson's 22 case studies of foreign policies over 30 years where he found only three cases of legislative initiative. However the sole responsibility of negotiating international agreements does lie with the Executive branch as per Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...." You can argue all you want about the "Advice and Consent," but the President is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the foreign policy of the United States as he is also the one that nominates Ambassadors, and Consuls. He is also the one that receives foreign ministers and ambassadors, and with the Secretary of State the President manages all contact with foreign governments. Moreover, the President may also negotiate "executive agreements" with foreign governments that are not subject to Congressional approval. Finally, the Office of the President does not need to confer with "all those that voted for him," in regards to foreign policy; the Founding Fathers were fundamentally opposed to that notion in the way they constructed and framed the Constitution, and why our country is a Republic.
As far as Marco Rubio goes, his family came from Cuba before Castro came to power. They came here in 1956, Castro came to power in 1959, and it was in 1965 that it was reorganized into the Communist Party. Sure, you can argue that they came here during the revolution, and maybe they had the foresight, but Rubio was born here in the United States. Unless you're speaking to him being "closer to the issue" by virtue of his constituency, then yeah I can see your argument there. However, what's so wrong about normalizing our relations with Cuba? It's a tiny fucking little island in the Caribbean and the Missile Crisis was almost fifty years ago and this entire "Communist Boogie Man" is so played out now a days.
Really, though, I'm curious as to why you're so upset over the normalization of relations with Cuba? It seems that the people who have the biggest beef with it are the Heritage Foundation which sit there and harp on about "human rights abuses," while they say that we need to cozy up with other countries that are our "allies," but have just as bad and/or worse human rights track records than Cuba.
As far as your Crusades, the guy talks about 1-4 but forgot about 5-9 (unless there's a second part? Or people don't think 5-9 count for some reason).
