Monthly Archives: January 2010

Posted on by

holden and me

holden and me – cbsnews.com

I remember hearing about a controversial book when I was in 7th Grade. There was talk of banning the book from the high school reading list and even some discussions about taking it off the library shelf. Very few teachers or leaders in my small Michigan community ever discussed the issue of The Catcher in the Rye and certainly no one came to the 1951 Novel’s defense.

Between 1961 and 1982, The Catcher in the Rye was the most censored book in high schools and libraries in the United States. But all the talk about banning it made me rush out to find it. I remember nervously asking the librarian where the JD Salinger section was – I didn’t want to say the book’s name for fear of getting in trouble. The Catcher in the Rye was targeted by some schools as a book too risqué to read and certainly not appropriate for young minds. My parents certainly would not have approved of the book but I secretly read it when I was in 7th grade. I felt so rebellious and my young mind loved it. Of course, Holden’s language was shocking at the time. But Holden was brutally honest and deep. And I wanted to be deep. He was a rebel but he was one of the good guys. I wanted to be as confident as Holden.

Over the years, throughout high school, college and grad school, I would consistently re-read the story of Holden’s 3-day trip to New York City, usually reading it around Christmas time. With each reading I became more confident about my future and what life was about. Maybe my excitement had more to do with the anticipation of the coming New Year but The Catcher in the Rye made me feel more adventurous and curious about the world. With each reading I became more hopeful that the good guys would eventually win.

When I moved to New York City as an adult I often thought about Holden’s travels in the City. And more than once I considered traveling to New Hampshire to find J.D. Salinger just to tell him what an effect his book had on my young life. Periodically I would google Salinger just to see if he had been seen walking to get groceries or venturing outside his secluded home. Several years ago I even decided to visit a couple of booksellers in New York City to find out how much it would cost to purchase an original First Edition copy of The Cather in the Rye, I wish I would have purchased it then.

Salinger had many fans including President George H.W. Bush who called The Catcher in the Rye “a marvelous book” that inspired him as a young man, as well as Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon. The actors Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Tobey Maguire, John Cusak and Leonardo DiCaprio have all fought to play Holden Caulfield on the big screen. As exciting as it might have been to see Holden and Pencey Prep on stage or in the theatre, I always thought it was a fruitless attempt. Salinger writes in the first pages of The Cather in the Rye, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the movies,” Holden says.

Salinger’s years of self-imposed seclusion is reported to have produced fifteen more novels that have never been seen by the public. This week, as we mourn the author of one of the greatest novels of all time, we can be hopeful that he left us fifteen more adventures.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

robert gibbs thanks chuck todd for the great coverage

Robert Gibbs Thanks Chuck Todd For The Great Coverage

Watching Chuck Todd on The Today Show the morning after President Obama’s first State of the Union speech one would think that we have a divided Congress. If you were linked to Chuck Todd on his Facebook page during the speech then you would have also seen several status updates about watching Republicans sitting down during standing ovations or looking sour during some of the President’s policy announcements. Todd and The Today Show have completely missed the reality of Washington’s power game and have instead proven to be the go-to guy and morning show for this White House. Their consistent voice for Obama’s hope and change tour reached its climax this morning with their report on last night’s State of the Union speech.

Todd’s report, the lead story for The Today Show, focused on the few times in Obama’s speech where he tried to reach out to the Republicans. Todd never mentioned once how Obama started the speech by blaming Bush for our current problems and how he consistently blamed the previous Administration for a banking collapse, large deficits and an economy in the tank. For a President with all of the power in Washington, Obama’s speech was antagonistic and full of excuses. Someone needs to remind Todd that the President’s party overwhelmingly controls Congress and could have passed any piece of change legislation they wanted this past year. Why Todd continues to focus on the minority party is more than disturbing, it’s biased. The President’s first year has been a failure, the worst first year performance by any President, and the blame goes squarely on his own party and his ability to lead them.

While The Today Show cameras kept showing the Democrats standing and clapping for Obama’s speech and the Republicans seated, voters were led to believe that it was the Republicans fault that this past year has been a disaster in Washington.

Not to be outdone by Todd, Meredith Vieira jumped in to pile on too. Speaking with Vice President Joe Biden, Vieira asked “What risk do Republicans run if they remain the party of NO?” Biden, of course, had an answer and stayed on message by emphasizing how when the Obama Administration took office they brought America “back from the abyss”. No one challenged Biden with the facts: larger deficits, unemployment at an all-time high and his own party controlling all of Washington.

Todd and Vieira also pointed out Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s silent frustration with being called-out by the President when he mouthed the words “No, that’s not true” while the NBC cameras went to slow motion to emphasize the point. But the fact that the President of the United States was so partisan throughout his speech, blamed Bush for his problems and publicly attacked the Supreme Court on national television for their most-recent decision while they had to sit there and be silent was never mentioned on-air.

When it was Matt Lauer’s turn to jump in he also stayed on the theme that Republicans are to blame for this President’s disastrous first year and low approval ratings. Lauer emphasized the “political divide in congress right now” without pointing out that if there is a political divide then it’s because the Democrats can’t agree among themselves on what to do or how to do it.

Since Todd, Vieira and Lauer obviously don’t understand that the Democrats have unprecedented influence in Congress, here’s a reminder: there are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House; and there are 56 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate. Todd should start putting the White House and its party of power under scrutiny and stop force-feeding the American people with the White House’s message that their first year’s failure is anyone’s fault but their own.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

obama’s state of the union: “it’s not my fault…”

obama’s sotu: “it’s not my fault…”

“It’s Not My Fault But I’ll Keep Spending”

It is hard to believe a President that says “…I am not interested in re-litigating the past” after he just spent 60 minutes of his First State of the Union Address re-litigating the past and blaming Bush for his problems.

It is hard to take a President seriously when he speaks 116 words describing how he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons but only 38 words uttered on the biggest violator of those principles – Iran. It is hard to understand why Obama and his Administration have wasted this past year by not increasing the sanctions on Iran and building on the Bush Administration’s 3 UN resolutions sanctioning Iran for their continued illegal uranium enrichment.

It’s hard to take a President seriously when he says we will take the fight to al Qaeda but then brings al Qaeda to the U.S. to be tried in an American court. It’s hard to understand a President who sends the lawyers to a terrorist to tell him that he has the right to remain silent but then brags that he is tough on terrorists.

And if you thought Obama had learned a lesson from the recent Scott Brown election in Massachusetts, think again. From the moment he started his address to the Nation, Obama made it perfectly clear that all of his problems were Bush’s fault.

“One year ago I took office in the midst of 2 wars, a bad economy…” blah, blah, blah. “One year later the worst of the storm has passed but the devastation remains….,” Obama said in the first minutes of his speech. The problem with the President’s continued excuse is that since he has taken office unemployment has surged, the deficit has skyrocketed and Washington’s spending has gotten even more out of control. But to hear the President speak, his reckless spending has had nothing to do with our financial problems or highest unemployment rates in decades. But time has run out on Obama’s excuses. The American people are fed up and the President’s poll numbers are in the tank. The Democrats have had an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate and yet, Obama’s first year has been one of the worst first year’s for any President in history. For all of Obama’s big talk about change, very little has been done despite the fact that his Party controls all of Washington and has the ability to make change immediately. It doesn’t make sense for the President to blame Republicans for his first year failures. He has only his majority party to blame.

If you thought Obama was ready to stop spending billions of dollars we don’t have, think again. Tonight, Obama went on a spending spree that would make Nancy Pelosi happy. The President’s new #1 focus is now on creating jobs, he says. It’s no longer healthcare. More than 42 minutes into his speech not a word had been uttered about healthcare. But there was plenty said on how to spend your tax dollars even though we are already behind on paying our bills. There was $30 billion for community banks to give to small businesses, billions for infrastructure projects to put unions to work, millions for clean energy businesses, millions for community colleges, millions for more pell grants, millions for child care credits, billions for new home owners, millions for farmers and veterans and the list continues. While a case can be made for helping each and every one of these groups, there has been no regard for who will pay for these new programs or whether now is the time to spend this money.

As Obama’s speech continued, there was more blaming Bush for the problems and more spending from his Administration. But what was most shocking to watch was President Obama double down on partisanship. Obama wasn’t humble or conciliatory, he was antagonistic and cocky. But for a President who promised change and has the votes in Congress to deliver it, it was a disappointing night. It was more of the same from Washington.

And then an hour into his speech the President suddenly changed his tone. It was like Obama suddenly remembered that the State of Massachusetts just voted for a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. President Obama became the outreacher-in-chief. If Obama had delivered the last 20 minutes of his speech first, and cut out the political jabs from the first 60 minutes of the speech then he would have been better received.

In the end, Obama speech reminded us that he isn’t leading his party or the Nation. For a President starting his term with a massive majority in Congress and sky-high approval ratings, he has squandered a ton of political capital with nothing to show for it.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

obama’s approach is scary

newsmax.com grenell interview on foreign policy

Grenell: Obama’s Terrorism Approach ‘Scary’

Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 03:43 PM Article Font Size

By: Dan Weil

Richard Grenell, former spokesman for the U.S. Representative to the United Nations calls President Obama’s approach to terrorism “scary.”

“Here’s a guy who clearly wants to be the most popular guy in the room,” Grenell, who served President George W. Bush, told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter. “He doesn’t want to make tough decisions that anger people.”

The former diplomat criticized Obama for treating accused terrorists as civilians.

“Scott Brown, the winner of the Massachusetts senate race said it best when he said, I don’t want to give them a bunch of lawyers. I want to give these terrorists a fight. I think that’s how most Americans view this situation.”

Grenell is particularly upset that the Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was read his rights after being taken from the plane.

“Someone said to this guy who just tried to blow up a plane, ‘You have the right to remain silent,’” Grenell noted.

“I would have said you don’t have the right to remain silent. I want to go over here, and I want to knock you around mentally until you start spilling some information.”

“It’s important to find out who sent and financed Abdulmutallab, so that we can stop future threats, Grenell points out.

Discussing the situation in Haiti, he stresses that the United States must stay involved for the long term.

“We can do anything we want when we set our minds to it,” Grenell said. “We are clearly focused on Haiti right now. I think the Haitian people will benefit from that.”

The U.N. will be of no help, having failed miserably in its 17 years there, he says.

“Right now we’re just dealing in Haiti on an emergency basis. We’re going to have to quickly switch into development and operational issues.” Our government will have to weather criticism that we’re too involved with another country, Grenell says.

“If we want to change that country for the better, we’re going to have to look for some economic development. It’s a long, expensive, messy road. But in the end I think Americans will want that to happen in Haiti.”

See Video: Click on link at the top of this entry.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

new study shows susan rice isn’t engaging the un

New Study Suggests U.S. Ambassador Rice Isn’t Engaging the UN

We actually heard from Susan Rice more during the presidential campaign when she was a foreign policy adviser to then-candidate Barack Obama than we have over the last year, when she has been representing us at the UN. It has been just over one year since Rice was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the Permanent Representative to the UN and she so far has been wildly inattentive in New York. While Rice has been active in the social scene of Washington and The White House, a new study released by the uber-serious Security Council Report suggests that this past year has been the most inactive Security Council since 1991. For an Administration that promised to utilize the UN and improve our reputation around the world, its dinner-party circuit strategy isn’t making America more secure.

Much of the blame for that belongs to Rice and her habitual silence. Rice has not conducted the hard negotiations nor done the sometimes unpopular work of engaging the UN on the United States’ priority issues. When Rice does attend UN negotiations, she is all too willing to avoid confrontation. She has instead opted to spend time networking in Washington and making nice with her colleagues in New York. While other foreign Ambassadors speak fondly of Rice and her easy ways, she has been a weak negotiator for the American people.

This lack of American leadership has resulted in the general Security Council inactivity spotlighted in the new study by the Columbia University-affiliated Security Council Report.

The Report says:

“In 2009 the total number of Council decisions (resolutions and presidential statements) decreased by 26 percent from 2008. The number dropped from 113 to 83, the lowest level since 1991.

Resolutions dropped from 65 to 48 and presidential statements from 48 to 35.

This significant trend is also mirrored in a matching reduction in formal Council activity. The number of formal Council meetings decreased by 20 percent, from 243 to 194.

The number of press statements, which is one indicator of Council decision making at the informal level, also decreased by 23 percent, from 47 to 36.”

Rice has been spending several days a week in Washington with her larger than normal DC-based staff and spending less time with the 200-plus employees who work for her in New York. While Rice launched her tenure with a glamour spread in Vogue Magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz showing her kicking back in an empty Security Council Chamber, she seems to not enjoy the Chamber when it’s full of diplomats. During the recent Haiti crisis, Rice was not only absent from the Security Council vote to expand the UN’s peacekeeping operation but she also failed to call an emergency meeting in the immediate aftermath to request more help. In fact, 7 days after the Haiti earthquake left tens of thousands of people in the streets without food or shelter, it was UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that came to the Security Council to request more troops – the American Ambassador hadn’t bothered.

Rice has gambled this past year that keeping America unengaged at the UN is the best way to keep the Obama Administration and herself popular with other countries. But while the newly released report suggests that the Security Council has been cordial and pleasant in 2009, the number of crisis situations, international conflicts and peacekeeping operations haven’t decreased. No meaningful improvement has been seen to the international issues monitored by the Security Council; in fact, the study suggests that some situations have gotten worse. Without American leadership at the UN, countries just continue to talk and socialize and spend taxpayer dollars. The Security Council Report also highlights the fact that fewer decisions were made by the Security Council in 2009 than in previous years. Tough decisions are never popular to make and even less popular to force upon the UN. But the American people expect their representative to utilize the UN to further America’s priority issues and demand that their money is spent wisely.

For Rice, the UN budget reform efforts started by the Bush Administration have been too controversial to continue. Rice has avoided tough negotiations and public feuds and has made little to no effort to engage her colleagues on reforming the UN budget process. U.S. citizens pay 22% of the UN’s regular budget, 26% of the UN Peacekeeping Budget and give millions more in voluntary contributions to a plethora of other UN programs. They deserve an ambassador who doesn’t duck even a messy public fight with other countries looking to spend American taxpayers’ dollars.

According to several UN veteran reporters and some US Mission staff, Rice has been missing from crucial negotiations on Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium, too. She’s failed to build on Bush Administration progress on sanctioning Iran. While the Russians and Chinese have historically complained publicly about a vote forced upon them, in the end they voted for such resolutions. Despite multiple deadlines missed by the Iranian government, Rice and her team have so far been unsuccessful in getting a single sanctions resolution. The irony that the French are tougher than the Americans on the Iran issue has prompted former Bush Administration officials to say, “thank God for the French”.

Although Obama and Rice campaigned on the promise to restore America’s reputation internationally, they have chosen the easy path of popularity over progress. Ambassadors will always be loved at the UN when they ignore the important debates and discussions that will keep America strong and safe. It is short-sighted and dangerous to choose likability over the safety and security of those who actually pay your salary. And one sure way to weaken the UN is to placate it, neglect it and marginalize it, as Rice has done this past year. The UN and the American people deserve better.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

where has susan rice been?

breitbart.com/Where Has Susan Rice Been?

Where Has Susan Rice Been This Past Year?

This week marks the one year anniversary of Susan Rice’s confirmation by the United States Senate to represent the American people at the United Nations. Over the past 12 months, the U.S. has faced some serious foreign policy challenges such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons’ tests, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, freezing terrorists’ assets world-wide and now the on-going disaster in Haiti. But while the UN struggles to find common ground on these and other important issues, Susan Rice has chosen to spend several days of the work week over the last year in Washington, DC hanging out at the White House and not engaging seriously in New York at the UN.

Rice started off her tenure at the UN with a glamour spread in Vogue Magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz showing her kicking back in an empty Security Council Chamber. It was this silly piece that first signaled to the UN reporters and diplomats that Rice was in New York to have fun and participate in the events that Upper East Side diplomats do. While Rice does commute from Washington, DC every week, she lives in the penthouse of the Waldorf Astoria when in New York. She also has the largest Washington, DC office and staff of any U.S. Ambassador to the UN in history. She regularly attends White House social functions appearing as the Disney character “Goofy” at this year’s White House Halloween Party and attended multiple Christmas Parties at The White House this holiday season.

While Rice, like all Democrat-appointed US Ambassadors to the UN, also serves in the President’s cabinet, she has nevertheless been absent at many crucial Security Council meetings in New York during some of the world body’s most turbulent times. Rice was even missing from this week’s Security Council debate and vote to add new Peacekeepers to a beleaguered UN operation in Haiti. According to several UN veteran reporters and some US Mission staff, Rice has been missing from crucial negotiations on Iran too. They say that when Rice does attend UN negotiations, she is all too willing to avoid confrontation. The Permanent Members of the Security Council – the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China – rely on American leadership to drive issues to a close and force votes. While the Permanent Members historically complain publicly about being forced to vote or meet on certain issues, without one country driving issues to completion the UN Members will keep talking or find ways to continue fruitless discussions. After spending 8 years inside the UN and watching the Security Council debate a plethora of issues, I can personally attest to the fact that an effective American Ambassador cannot worry about being the most popular person in the room. Forcing an end to a UN debate and calling for the Security Council to vote on an issue is never popular.

Over the last year, Rice has avoided tough negotiations and public feuds at the UN and has subsequently produced very few UN resolutions on America’s priority issues. While other foreign Ambassadors speak fondly of Rice and her ability to make nice at the UN, she has been a weak negotiator for the American people. Many UN veterans have indicated that Rice’s lack of leadership on the Iranian issue in particular has forced the French Ambassador to pick up the slack in trying to forge a new Security Council resolution to increase sanctions. The irony that the French are tougher than the Americans on the Iran issue has not been lost on career State Department officials.

During the Bush Administration, much to the dismay of many UN members, the United States delegation passed several sanctions resolutions on Iran for their continued uranium enrichment. The Russians and Chinese, in particular, complained publicly about a vote forced upon them, but in the end they voted for the UN sanctions resolution. Rice and her team have so far been unsuccessful in getting even one single sanctions resolution despite having given multiple deadlines to the Iranian Government.

Rice’s weak and sporadic attention to U.S. priority issues actually damages the UN’s credibility by sending the message that U.S. tax dollars can be spent without regard to effectiveness. Americans have always demanded that the UN reform its bloated system and it has fallen to the American Ambassador to the UN to spearhead that reform. Under Rice’s leadership, the U.S. delegation has been astonishingly quiet on UN budget and reform issues. While Peacekeeping operations continue to be expanded without challenge and the UN Budget dramatically increased, Rice and her team have drawn few lines in the sand with the UN. Not surprisingly, Rice has chosen to abandon a messy public fight with other countries looking to spend American taxpayers’ dollars. The U.S. taxpayer pays 22% of the UN’s total budget and 26% of its Peacekeeping budget – more than $1 Billion every year. While the Bush Administration had some success in starting a top to bottom review of every UN mandate and program, the Rice team has dropped the effort altogether. On November 19, 2009, the U.S. Government’s General Accounting Office issued a report questioning how some of the $330 million the U.S. gave to the UN Office for Project Services’ was spent, including a citation of $200,000 to renovate a guest house. So far, Rice and her team have done very little to follow up on this and other questionable budget issues. Demanding UN reform won’t endear you to other Ambassadors, but the American people expect it.

Rice often says that she is different than her predecessors and chooses to socialize and engage her UN colleagues quietly. But the irony is that engaging the world body, as John Bolton did, gives the American people the confidence that our Representatives at the UN are watching how the money is spent and how effective the programs are being implemented. Fighting for quality UN international peacekeeping programs only strengthens the UN and allows it to do more. Reforming the UN makes it more effective and ensuring that the UN spends our money wisely enables it and us to do more for suffering people around the world. One sure way to weaken the UN is to marginalize it, placate it and not engage it as Rice has done this past year.

Perhaps the best example of how Susan Rice views her responsibilities at the UN this year is seen in her revamp of the Bush era website for her office. While previous U.S. Ambassadors to the UN have prominently displayed the American flag on their website and proudly displayed the site in red, white and blue coloring, Rice has changed the site to UN Blue, added a large UN logo and only later added a small American flag after several reporters inquired about the dramatic change and missing American stars and stripes. Rice has gambled this past year that keeping America unengaged at the UN is the best way to be the most popular Ambassador. Unfortunately, though well-liked during her sporadic visits to the UN, Rice has so far been unable to produce any meaningful progress on the world’s most troubling issues.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

reid and the democrats scramble to look clean and articulate

huff post/grenell on reid’s racial comments

Liberal Elites See No Problem With Reid

Watching Gwen Ifill, Al Sharpton and a plethora of African American news reporters and academics on MSNBC defend and excuse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial slight makes you realize why the Democratic Party can take black voters for granted. There are absolutely no consequences for liberal elites to have differing public and private views on political issues. The Democratic Party even went so far to dismiss the disparaging comments by Joe Biden about Barack Obama being clean and articulate to nominate and confirm him as Vice President at their convention. Today, the sitting Vice President stands as the symbol of liberal elite’s racial double standard.

It is troubling, however, why African American voters (and gay and lesbian voters too) give unwavering and unconditional support to a political party that ignores them once the fundraising is over. Keeping issues of race and equality squarely in the political sphere relegates the important topics to partisan bickering. Politics is a competitive sport after all.

There is also absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s recent racial remarks as compared to the last time a Majority Leader made regrettable comments. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.

Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.

What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues. Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic Party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. It’s clear that Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups and can take them for granted.

Another lesson we learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.

If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to publicly call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness. The liberal elites, however, will undoubtedly be huddling privately to discuss the matter.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

harry reid scrambles to look clean and articulate

politico.com/ richard grenell on harry reid

Two words – Trent Lott. There is absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s racial remarks. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.

Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.

What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues (see Vice President Joe Biden’s racial remarks about Obama). Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News (see Sunday’s transcript) or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups because there is no price to pay for ignoring and dismissing them.

Another lesson we have learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.

If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

hillary’s visa problem

big government.com/hillary’s visa problem

Hillary’s Visa Problem

President Obama came back to work this week after leaving the Presidency for his Hawaiian holiday vacation. Hawaii proved to be a restful retreat for the President, his team and the White House press corps who all took time off from their regular duties to enjoy the Hawaiian sun and ignore their responsibilities.

But after 10 days of tropical silence, this week there is a sudden flurry of security reviews, media statements, ass-covering and more misstatements coming out of Washington from the Obama Administration. But we still don’t know why the State Department didn’t revoke the visa of a man they knew had ties to al-qaeda.

Even the normally workaholic Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was enjoying a silent 10 nights on the matter. Taking her time to get the facts and pack up the Christmas decorations, Hillary finally came out looking like she had just landed in Yugoslavia under sniper fire. Secretary Clinton joined Janet Napolitano in glossing over the facts surrounding the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253. Not to be outdone that all went well with her agency while the boss was on vacation, Secretary Clinton said that the State Department “fully complied with the requirements set forth in the interagency process” about sharing threat information. What? Fully complied? The State Department not only failed to share the threat information with a variety of agencies but those who had the information didn’t even act upon it themselves. In fact, Several State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington, DC didn’t even do the basic tasks expected of public servants working to protect Americans.

Not only did the State Department not comply with all the requirements Secretary Clinton had said, but the State Department also violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1735 by not providing the new information they received on an al-qaeda suspect to the UN. We know that State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington had the information because someone wrote a top secret cable dated November 20, 2009 explaining that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had ties to al-qaeda. This means that the State Department had 35 days to revoke Adbulmutallab’s visa and share the information with the UN – it failed to do either.

Had the State Department shared the cable with other U.S. agencies or given the information to the UN, as required under the Chapter 7 Resolution, all Nations would have been obligated to deny entry and freeze the assets of anyone officially on the UN’s Terrorist List.

The smoking gun is the November 20 State Department cable that wasn’t acted upon. No one shared it with the Embassy visa section, other U.S. agencies or the UN. How could a top secret cable be written but not acted upon by the same Embassy that wrote it? Questions remain as to who approved the cable, where was it sent and why wasn’t a visa revoked because of the cable?

U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Sanders and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson need to answer some questions about what they did with the November 20, 2009 top secret cable containing crucial national security information. Did they ignore the fact that their Embassy identified an al-qaeda operative? Did they not check to see if a visa was already granted to this al-qaeda operative? Who all approved the visa? Who read the cable? At the very minimum, Ambassador Robin Sanders needs to tell the American people why she didn’t revoke the visa of Abdulmutallab after her team originally approved it.

What we’ve learned since Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton thought everything went as bureaucratically expected on Christmas Day is that President Obama takes surf board accidents on his vacation very seriously but is willing to delegate the safety of the American public to subordinates.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post