The Congressional Black Caucus Is Out Of Touch

The New York Daily News’ S.E. Cupp said it best: the Congressional Black Caucus “…practically every month seems to find new ways to demonstrate how irrelevant and out of touch it is.” This year alone, the CBC seems to be trying really hard to throw itself on the proverbial ash heap of history.

First it was the visit to Cuba and praising of Fidel Castro’s brother, Raul Castro. Then there was the investigation of one of the caucus’ more prominent members, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) for a conflict of interest for steering bailout money to a bank she and her husband had a financial interest in. And who can forget efforts by members of the CBC- and ally Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee- to get a bailout for minority-owned radio stations? The original effort, which happened in May, carried into December when members said they would not support certain financial regulations if minority-owned broadcasters were not given specific attention.

Obviously, the name of the Congressional Black Caucus highlights their support for a particular group of Americans. Were their goal to assist what Waters called “most vulnerable of our population,” I would disagree with their avenue and tactics to help black Americans but still hold great respect for their goal. However, it is clear that is not their intent.

According to Cupp, President Obama’s Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, said, “I don’t think the President believes that we should address only one part of the unemployment rate.” The president and Gibbs have it exactly right. It is grievous fact that black Americans have an unemployment rate of over 15%, versus 10% for all of America, but the president has to worry about 100% of over 300 million Americans, not just the approximately 13% of black Americans in the country. (Of course, he seems to be trying to help the less-than-one percent of Americans who are CEOs of insurance companies…)

Unfortunately, Frank caved to the CBC, and is using part of last year’s bailout funds for the caucus’ pet projects, something that is actually illegal, as Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) pointed out recently. TARP, officially known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was stipulated in last year’s bill to “be used automatically to pay down the federal budget deficit,” according to Gregg. Given this fact, it appears the CBC, Frank and the majority of Congress might be on the path to continuing to break the very financial laws they passed only 14 months ago.

Passing laws and getting money for constituents and special interest groups is nothing new, of course, though generally they follow the law. Unfortunately, the CBC and others in Congress are sidestepping the law and using billions of dollars for their interests- note, not for America’s- against the very laws they passed to “save” our economy. I think we should hold them and every other Congressman who supports using the TARP funds for more than its initial intent(s) accountable both at the voter’s booth and in every media possible until we reach the voter’s booth.

Of course, there is always impeachment, if some feel that is the best venue to hold our representatives accountable. I’m not certain that would work en masse, or be necessary or appropriate, though I support it in specific circumstances.

Obama?s National Security Strategy is NO LONGER FUNNY

A few weeks back, I joked with friends about Secretary Hillary Clinton?s explosion over a mistranslated question from a young man who was asking how the President felt about a particular situation, but the Secretary thought he was asking what Former President Bill Clinton thought.? What I found to be particularly funny about that situation was the fact that it was the first time that the Obama Administration was willing to take a strong stance on something regarding foreign affairs.? No strong stance when Iran killed Pro-democracy demonstrators; no strong stance when North Korea launched missiles after being asked not to by the international community; hell, our President claims to need to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and now he can?t even decide on that!? Nevertheless, this administration will NOT tolerate the degrading of our Secretary of State by inquiring as to her husband?s thoughts? though that wasn?t even the case.

So my friends and I shared a few laughs: It is no longer funny now.

One can point out the interesting infatuation America?s enemies had for President Obama?s electoral outcome.? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent President Obama a warm letter of congratulations following his election win; President Chavez made the comment at the UN this past week that the podium no longer smelled of ?sulfur? as it had following President Bush, but rather ?smelled of Hope;? and just recently Cuban President Fidel Castro praised President Obama?s climate change policy.? To be fair, criticism of the President over others? applause for him is unfair, because we can?t choose the people who root for us.? Remember the nefarious David Duke?s endorsement of former President Ronald Reagan?? Rather, Conservatives and moderates, and people with half a mind for foreign policy (which discredits failed National Security Advisor Brzezinsky and his call to shoot down Israeli jets), need to start addressing our President?s austere manner in which he seems to be throwing allies under the bus.? The Czech Republic, Poland and Israel are now starting the club for countries unpleasantly surprised by the new direction of American international relations.? I cannot help to point out that even if the United States didlegitimately believe it strategically necessary to drop the compact with Poland regarding our missile defense shield, the?timing and manner in?which we did it demonstrates our willingness to be more diplomatic with enemies, and less so with our friends.? Despite these grievances, the particular situation?that needs to be immediately addressed?is the growing hostilities in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is at its tipping point.? What happens in the coming months is going to decide the outcome of our endeavor, one way or another.? We must listen to General McChrystal?s request for more troops in order to fully exercise his comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy, we must give our forces over there all of the equipment and personnel they need and we must throw the gauntlet down onto the rocky terrain?to demonstrate?that we are willing to do what it takes to win this battle.? If we fail to do these things, then we will?fail at winning the war.? We cannot win a war based on the perception and respect of an indigenous population that knows only to follow a regime that demands respect, if we are to continue to look weak and emasculated.? Sadly, this is due not only to our soft-bellied liberal friends, but a toned-down effort in Afghanistan was fairly-recently advocated by leading Conservative intellectual George Will.? Almost everyone in favor of de-escalation (including Paleoconservatives, George Will and some liberals to name a few) advocates a replacement?policy of limited off-shore presence and limited direct action.

There is something romantic about special operations forces and the idea of limited engagement.? Special operations is what we see in the movies and read in books; the former tending to exaggerate the ease of which such Direct Action missions are carried out.? We enjoy the movies with Chuck Norris and Charlie Sheen (and one of my personal favorites, the opening scene from Air Force One) that embellish the Direct Action capabilities of our Special Operations Forces and give no regard to their more important uses.? Foreign Internal Defense, Civil Affairs, and force multiplying aspects of SOF community are considered by those in the military and in policy the most important.? General McChrystal, a prior Special Operator, knows this and that is why he is advocating a policy that turns conventional units into units that will be better able to carry out these three important missions.? You cannot do this with Navy ships, Tomahawks, and DA missions alone.

There is one more thing that should be addressed; that carries a weight of importance equivalent to the outcome of the mission through tactics.? Imagine yourself overseas in Afghanistan at this moment, or imagine a loved one there currently.? For many, the latter scenario is not far from reality.? How are our troops and their families supposed to carry out a mission when even their own President’s fortitude is flailing?? It is one thing to second guess strategy, but President Obama is second guessing intent and necessity; leaving anyone over there in a sort of?purgatory, because what has now been planted into the hearts and heads of our men and women is a feeling so dichotomous to hope, they are left asking themselves ?if I were to fall tomorrow, and the President pull out next month, what will I have died for??? Having a second-guessing President raises these doubts and makes accomplishing the mission at hand all the more difficult.? If there is anything harder than losing a loved one, it?s losing a loved one right before a withdrawal; which invariable leaves their loss feeling less hollowed and more for nothing.? Our troops deserve better than this.? They deserve a leader.? They are getting the opposite.?

-rj