Human Events Blog

Rep. Jim Clyburn: criticism of Susan Rice is racist

The Hill brings us the latest effusions of race-baiting Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), who has pondered a letter from 97 House Republicans urging President Obama not to appoint U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as Secretary of State, and come to the unsurprisingly conclusion that all criticism of Rice is founded in racism.  The Republican letter pointed out that Rice “is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter,” but that level of serious thought about a weighty issue is strictly forbidden under the New Totalitarianism:

“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, told CNN. “We heard them during the campaign, during this recent campaign we heard Sen. Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent, these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives and we’d get insulted by them.

“Susan Rice is as competent as anybody you will find, and just to paste that word on her causes problems with people like [incoming Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman] Marcia Fudge and certainly cause a big problem with me,” he added.

He’s right about Marcia Fudge, who just the other day said that criticism of Rice is clearly “sexism and racism,” and said it was a shame that “anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities.”

But during his CNN interview, Clyburn unloaded on Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and threw in an entirely gratuitous insult at his 2008 running mate, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin: “To call [Rice] incompetent, a Ph.D., Rhodes Scholar being called incompetent by someone who can’t hold a candle to her intellectually, by someone who said, and Sen. McCain called her incompetent, as well, but he told us that Palin was very competent to be vice president of the United States.”

Isn’t that sexism of the lowest order?  Especially since Sarah Palin has absolutely nothing to do with any of this?  Clyburn is clearly a sexist pig who dragged a woman into his spittle-flecked tirade, just because he hates her.  Can we expect Marcia Fudge to castigate him for this deplorable act of sexism?

Of course not.  This is about totalitarian control, not sincere concern for women or minorities.  Sarah Palin is not a liberal Democrat, so her sex is irrelevant.  Once upon a time, Democrats felt free to call another black woman named Rice an incompetent liar, and not a peep was heard from these champions of women and minorities, because she was a Republican.

There’s also a nice dash of the usual ruling-class snobbery built into the assumption that Rice is above criticism because of her academic credentials.  A horrific amount of damage has been done to America, particularly during the last four years, by lightweight thinkers carrying heavy diplomas.  And Susan Rice’s vaunted credentials didn’t prevent her from either swallowing bad intelligence whole – despite having a large staff and significant official resources, just like every other pampered sultan of our titanic central government – or marching out to the cameras to lie on Barack Obama’s orders.  Those are the only two explanations for what she did. Her sex and skin color could not possibly have any less to do with it.  And it’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people to pretend the serious, documented criticism of Rice is just a bunch of racists and sexists (some of whom are black and female) blowing off steam.

Since the election, we’ve heard that all criticism of Benghazi should cease because Barack Obama won, and we’ve been told that we’re not allowed to question the decisions of people who belong to certain racial groups, particularly if they’re female.  Was any of that made clear to you before you cast your vote in the election?  Do you remember being told that no further inquiry into the deaths of those four Americans in Benghazi, or questions about a host of other matters, would be permitted if Obama was re-elected?  Do you recall any ballot initiatives that said members of the ruling Party from select racial backgrounds or sexual identities could not be questioned?

But that’s not how it works, because such things are never presented as clear choices to voters.  Only too late do they learn that they apparently “voted” to grant a host of special powers and privileges that were never listed on the ballot.  The funny thing is that some of the same politicians can use words like “transparency” and “accountability” while keeping a straight face.  But don’t you dare try to hold any of them accountable, unless you have the proper academic credentials, skin tone, chromosomes, and Party credentials!

Remember when Hillary Clinton “took responsibility” for Benghazi?  And then Obama “took responsibility” from her?  But nobody will actually be held accountable for anything, Clinton’s prospective successor isn’t even responsible for the words coming out of her mouth, and the regime is sick and tired of hearing about the whole affair.  Didn’t the election put those “bumps in the road” behind us?  You had your silly little vote, and now it’s time for you to stop asking questions and do as you’re told.

Sign Up
DISQUS COMMENTS

FACEBOOK COMMENTS

Comment with Facebook