It has been announced that President Barack Hussein Obama, his wife, Michelle, and two former American Presidents will be attending the Funeral of Former South African President, Nelson Mandela.
This diplomatic show of respect comes 7 months after Obama’s Presidential snub of the funeral of one of the most pivotal figures in the war against Communism in the 1980s, British Prime Minister and staunch ally of America, the “Iron Lady”, Margaret Thatcher.
On April 13, 2013, National Security Analyst K.T. McFarland posted the following Opinion Piece on foxnews.com:
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was laid to rest today in Great Britain. The “Iron Lady” died last week at age 87.
Some commentators have expressed surprise that President Obama did not send a high-level official delegation to her funeral. I’m way beyond surprised. I’m ashamed….and angry.
After all, it is standard operating procedure for the Vice President or First Lady or, at a minimum the Secretary of State, to attend funerals of foreign leaders, even those from lesser nations.
Shame on you, Mr. President. You and your administration look cheap, small and petty.
It goes without saying that when one of the longest serving leaders of America’s closet and most enduring ally dies, the United States should send a large and distinguished delegation of America’s leaders, past and present.
Not this time.
The White House offered a lame excuse — all the senior Obama administration officials are way too busy to take 24 hours out of their hectic schedules to pay respects to the woman who helped win the Cold War, turn around the British economy, and shatter the glass ceiling of the English-speaking world.
Vice President Biden, for example, was presiding over a series of votes on gun control in the Senate, late Wednesday afternoon. Okay, understood. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that no senior administration official could spare the time or make the effort to head ‘across the pond’ for a few hours.
One suspects something else is at play besides busy government executives struggling to get through their long work days, staggering under the weight of their official responsibilities.
Could it be that Margaret Thatcher was a Tory? That she battled British Trade Unionists and won? That she worked hand-in-hand with Ronald Reagan, the incarnation of evil for many left-wing Democrats?
It used to be American politics stopped at the water’s edge, and that American
President’s honored foreign leaders, regardless of their political persuasions or party.
By failing to send even one senior level official to Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral, this President has shown that partisan politics now extend beyond the grave.
Shame on you, Mr. President. You and your administration look cheap, small and petty.
Former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz and Baker did attend Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral. Kissinger opened relations with China and hammered out the first Middle East peace agreements in the 1970’s. Shultz negotiated the first arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. Baker helped bring down the Berlin Wall, push the Soviet Empire to the point of collapse, and won the first Gulf War in the 1990’s. But while they were giants in their day, they are not part of your team. The snub to the British was palpable – only yesterday’s men could be spared.
And frankly, Mr. President, this makes you look foolish as well.
Perhaps if you had sent some senior members of your administration as part of the American delegation, they could have pulled aside those former leaders to ask for a little advice. Because, Mr. President, in case you’ve been too busy to notice, your reset with Russia is a failure, your Middle East peace efforts are going nowhere, and North Korea has just become a nuclear power.
Back to the Present. Are you aware that President Obama ordered all American Flags at Government Installations to be flown at half-mast to honor Nelson Mandela?
Who was Nelson Mandela?
He was a transformative figure, to be sure. But, he was not the saint that Obama, his administration and their media lackeys are portraying him as.
Back in 1990, Tim Graham of the Media Research Center wrote the following for their newsletter, MediaWatch, on the occasion of Mandela’s trip to the United States. He recently re-posted the information on newsbusters.org.
Communism. In their rush to proclaim him a symbol of freedom, none of the networks covered Mandela’s ideology or the relationship between Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). In his own handwritten manuscript How To Be A Good Communist, Mandela wrote “Under a Communist government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey.” With the exception of NBC’s Bob Kur and Mike Jensen, no reporter even mentioned Mandela’s support of economic nationalization. With Mandela’s ideas and “loyal and disciplined” membership in the ANC, would South Africa become a multi-racial democracy or a one-party Marxist state like its neighbors? No one asked.
Political Prisoner. “The former long-time political prisoner will address Congress,” Dan Rather announced when Mandela arrived. TV reporters called Mandela a political prisoner eight times, but never referred to Mandela as a saboteur or terrorist, even though Amnesty International declared in 1985 that “Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence, so that he could no longer fulfill the criteria for the classification of political prisoners.” Network reporters did report Mandela’s refusal to renounce violence in 14 stories, but most referred to it only in the context of fighting apartheid, not in the context of the ANC’s involvement in black-on-black violence or the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.
Arafat, Castro, Qaddafi. Without Ted Koppel’s June 21 “town meeting” with Mandela, the tour might have escaped controversy completely. Questioners asked Mandela to explain his praise for Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro and Moammar Qaddafi. The questions were prompted by Mandela hailing Castro’s Cuba in May: “There’s one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty.” A week later in Libya, he praised Qaddaf’s “commitment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world.” These statements, which appeared in The New Republic, were never quoted on the networks when he said them, or when he visited here.
The networks barely reported Mandela’s ABC remarks until Jewish and Cuban groups and print outlets made them an issue, mentioning the controversy in 26 stories. ABC, which taped the Koppel special in the afternoon on June 21, didn’t find the remarks worth including in a story on that night’s newscast summarizing the “town meeting.”
The next morning, Good Morning America did one story on the remarks, but left it out of its three other newscasts. NBC’s Today aired three stories without mentioning the remark. Harold Dow left it out of the one story on CBS This Morning. In fact, NBC and CBS dropped the Mandela story from its morning news for the next two days. On the Evening News, CBS gave the remarks brief mentions on June 22, 25, and 28. NBC Nightly News spent 45 seconds on the remarks on June 22, and included brief mentions on June 24 and 26. But the show ignored Mandela from June 27 to 29, when Mandela was greeted by thousands of protesting Cubans in Miami.
ABC’s World News Tonight was the only newscast to question Mandela’s contentions. Reporter James Walker noted: “Many find it a paradox that Mandela asks Americans to involve themselves in South Africa’s internal affairs while he refuses to pass judgment on the internal affairs of Libya or Cuba, or to involve himself in America’s racial problems.” But Peter Jennings dampened the impact with his remark on Castro: “The Cuban President has long been a leading supporter of liberation movements in southern Africa.”
Puerto Rican Assassins. The networks never reported some other terrorists Mandela praised. He welcomed to his Harlem speech platform three of the four Puerto Rican terrorists who shot and wounded five U.S. Congressmen in 1954. “We support the cause of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades you refer to.” The quote appeared in the early local edition of The New York Times June 25, but the Times dropped it from later local editions and the national edition.
ANC Antics. The networks have repeatedly failed to report recent events that give the Mandela legend a less lyrical ring. When a South African court implicated his wife Winnie in the beating and murder of a 14-year-old, only CNN PrimeNews briefly noted the incident. ABC, CBS and NBC have ignored it. On June 11, ANC members murdered Sipho Phungulwa in apparent retribution for Phulungwa’s public allegations that the ANC tortured and killed dissident members. The networks have never mentioned it.
ABC’s Don Kladstrup was the only reporter to put Mandela’s importance in South Africa in context: “Mandela is not the undisputed leader of all South African blacks.” Kladstrup reported that more than six black organizations are fighting apartheid, and interviewed black activists who said “Heaven help us if the ANC takes over here” and “If you do not go along with them, they will run roughshod over you.” Kladstrup reported: “Many complain: why does Nelson Mandela talk with President de Klerk, but refuse even to meet with Chief Buthelezi, leader of South Africa’s Zulus?” Kladstrup wondered whether a multi-racial democracy would emerge: “Many fear not until blacks remove the wall of intolerance that now divides them.”
I’m not saying that we should not have representatives at Mandela’s Funeral. He was a noted World Leader. However, as Reporter Maxwell Scott said in the John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart Classic, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”
This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Mandela is an iconic figure to the American Left, and is thus being portrayed as such by the Obama Administration and the MSM.
I predict that t-shirts honoring him will soon be as popular as those honoring Che, and, for the same dubious reason.
A final observation: I thought that Barack Hussein Obama was supoosed to be the “First Post-Racial President”?
Until He Comes,