Some sanity from Jeffrey Lord and Andrew McCarthy over the perfectly legitimate questions that Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Louis Gohmert (Tex.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Thomas Rooney (Fla.), and Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) are asking about the latest liberal pin-up girl Huma Abedin. Male Republican members of Congress were too busy falling over themselves in showing how chivalrous they are in sucking up to Abedin to consider the actual facts raised. We do not have proof that her ties to Islamist opponents of America, combined with her access to sensitive information and influence on the secretary of state, represent a risk to our national security, but we certainly have probable cause to ask questions.
Abedin checks the boxes to be untouchably politically correct—pretty, exotic, female, liberal, and glamorous (OMG! She’s been featured in Vogue!). If she weren’t, could she get a U.S. government security clearance?
(Neither could her boss’s boss, President Obama, what with his admitted drug use, foreign ties, and association with radicals, if he were a mere bureaucrat and not an elected or politically appointed official.)
We suppose that David Maraniss was taken aback when observers of President Obama found sections of his latest, apparently well-reported, book consistent with their critiques of Obama’s world view. Lest polite society fear that Maraniss has fallen off of the politically-correct reservation, he felt compelled to take to the Washington Post to reassure us.
Meanwhile, an excellent piece by David Gelernter sums it up: “What keeps this failed president above water?” “His biggest asset is being black.”
We loathe the “Olympic movement.” That fact that it even ascribes that moniker to itself is evidence of its rot to the core—the corruption, venality, hypocrisy, and arrogance displayed by Olympic officials at the international levels rival those even of the United Nations.
So we found this article confusing: “The IOC suspended Kuwait in 2010, saying there was evidence of political interference in the country’s sports movement,” but has resolved the issue so Kuwaiti athletes were allowed to compete under their own flag in 2012.
That point is hard to understand. Are we to believe that Kuwait in 2010 was the only example in the world of “political interference in the country’s sports movement” or a lack of “independence of its sports movement”? For all Gulf Cooperation Council countries, at a minimum, there is no difference between the public and private sectors when it comes to athletic development (or any other endeavor). Olympic participation is completely controlled by the government.
How about the example of Greece. How can that country’s Olympic Committee get away with kicking Voula Papachristou off of its Olympic team for a “racist” tweet? Her case was steeped in political maneuvering. Opinion leaders in Greece had targeted her for some time as a “known racist” and a notorious “supporter of right-wing political parties.” So, in her case, the Olympic ban was basically an attempt to hound such a person out of mainstream society.
Another example of comical TSA incompetence. Nothing new there, though this story seems to have had a happy ending, or should have. A couple was initially told that their 18-month-old baby was on the “no fly list.” After a mix-up and, no doubt, some less-than-cordial treatment, “Eventually, the couple were given their boarding passes back.”
Any normal traveler would leave in a huff, get on the plane, and resume her planned vacation. No harm, no foul. But, in this case, “The family decided to leave the airport rather than return to the flight.” That’s the end of the article.
Might there be more going on here? The family, including a mother in a hijab, will no doubt sic both the “civil rights” police and their tort lawyer on the airline, airport, and TSA. The fact that this story was in the newspaper in the first place is the first clue. Heaven forbid someone should just get on with her life if she has the opportunity to play the victim.
Utterly sloppy—not to mention scurrilous—reporting in this “News Analysis” in the Times:
Mr. Obama and his detail have been keenly aware of the risks inherent in the job of protecting the first black president and his family. That has been true since Mr. Obama started receiving Secret Service protection in the spring of 2007, nine months before the Democratic primaries began.
The article does not provide any further “analysis” of such racially-motivated threats to the president. The first sentence is a complete non sequitur, but we can suppose that New York Times reporters are so inured to the narrative of America as an institutionally racist country that they casually refer to “inherent” “risks” without any substantiation. Even if we grant that the Secret Service felt the need for an abundance of caution, due to the candidate’s race, in spring 2007, we don’t see any evidence on which anyone—except, perhaps, the usual suspects such as the Southern Poverty Law Center—can legitimately assert that President Obama faces more “risks” than any other president by virtue of his race. Yet the Times article mentions this in passing as if it’s an established fact.