ReadRight: Congress’ Cuba Connection
By K. Daniel Glover | April 10, 2009
The Congressional Black Caucus' decision to send a delegation of lawmakers to meet with Cuba's past and current presidents, Fidel Castro and Raul Castro, has spurred a firestorm of criticism aimed at the group.
CNSNews.com covered a press conference where Republican lawmakers chided the CBC for the junket. "They left Cuba gushing with praise of the Castros and their regime," said Rep. Chris Smith, R- N.J. In a column for National Review Online, meanwhile, Mona Charen dubbed members of the CBC "useful idiots" for choosing to ignore the plight of Cubans who oppose the regime, and blogger Michelle Malkin gave the CBC a new name based on its initials: Congressional Bootlickers for Castro.
Here's a recap of other "ReadRight" articles featured on AIM's Twitter account today:
- Charles Krauthammer: By celebrating America's supposed decline while overseas, President Obama is fostering it. (The Washington Post)
- The North Korean missile launch and U.S. reaction to it are another case of history repeating. (National Review Online)
- A provision in a House climate bill could trigger a landslide of lawsuits by "victims." (The Washington Times)
- The modern-day "tea parties" are a symbolic scream for better representation. (The Fox Nation)
- Obama broke more promises by stifling a study on D.C. school vouchers. (Human Events)
- "Obama has an oversized confidence in what government can achieve." That explains his budget. (The Weekly Standard)
- Congressman who want to ensure stimulus accountability have to use Google to do it. (Washington Examiner)
- Why do we pay taxes? Because "good-for-nothing bums are too chicken to rob us." (Washington Examiner)
- The University of Maryland thinks porn is educational but prayer is a constitutional sin. (The Washington Times)
- A boycott aimed at advertisers on the raunchy TV show "Family Guy" is having an impact. (WorldNetDaily)
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
2 Comments | Post a Comment
Dear Observer,
What are yu scared of?
Brian R. Sullivan
April 10 at 2:07 pm | #1 | Link
Dear Observer,
I offer a simple challenge. Back up each of the statements you made in your #13 of 9 April in “An Honest Journalist” about what I have written previously (about the Great Society, British socialism, etc.. Actually quote what I wrote. I doubt you will, however, because your statements are either lies or you can’t read with comprehension.
Please consult a dictionary for the definition of “archaic.”
If you find what I write boring, then don’t read my postings. But your mention of so many strongly suggests you don’t find them boring but infuriating. If I’m correct, then I’m pleased.
Can you define what a conservative is? If so, please do so. Then we shall see if I am one or not.
You wrote that Mr. Limbaugh says that liberals… I don’t dispute that. However, there are hundreds of millions of liberals. To characterize a large group with a blanket accusation says much about Limbaugh but nothing about liberals. Should not people be judged as individuals, not as members of a group? To do what Limbaugh does is to prejudge. In other words it appears that both Limbaugh and you are prejudiced against a group of many millions. Do you hold such blanket atttitudes about other groups? If so, which?
Thus, you reveal mindlessness. To state that “the only purpose…” is to reveal that 1) you believe you can read minds; 2) you don’t have much notion of the complexity of the mind; 3) you are guilty of the offense of which you accuse me.
Finally, I doubt that your parents named you “Observer” or that you have only a single name. So, you use a pseudonym. Why are you hiding your identity? Are you afraid of the consequences if others know who you actually are? Are you a coward? Are you ashamed of your opinions? Why?
Most sincerely,
Brian R. Sullivan
P.S. Was this short enough for you?