Why are we just now tackling airport security?

This past week the Department of Homeland Security announced it would launch a review to beef up security procedures at several international airports.

The effort is part of the White House's response to the Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man to bomb Delta Flight 253 in Detroit, that originated in Amsterdam.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement, quote…

“As part of the ongoing review to determine exactly what went wrong leading up to Friday’s attempted terrorist attack, we are looking not only at our own processes, but also beyond our borders to ensure effective aviation security measures are in place for U.S-bound flights that originate at international airports.”

According to the homeland security chief - Senior Security officials will meet with leaders at major airports in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and the Middle East in the coming weeks "to review security procedures and technology being used to screen passengers on flights bound for the United States,"

Ms. Napolitano went on to say said she would follow up on those meetings with her own "ministerial level" discussions, whatever that means
European airports will be reviewed first the in outreach effort, where U.S. officials will brief their European counterparts "on the findings of President Obama’s aviation security review," which he ordered last week.

Since Christmas the White House has been scrambling to assure passengers that air travel is safe, and that it has begun implementing a host of new security rules on international flights that land in the United States.

While all this may sound prudent it reveals a very disturbing fact…
The Obama administration is much more fluent in delivering political rhetoric then it is protecting this country and is completely lost when it comes to comprehending the threat of terrorism.

The idea that almost 9 years after the 9/11 attacks we are just now strengthening our international airport security shows an unbelievable dereliction of duty and a level of incompetence of Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano that it borders on being criminally negligent.

But what else would expect from an administration that seeks to give enemy combatants Constitutional protections and would allow two uninvited and unidentified publicity seekers to walk through the front door of the White House to press the flesh with the most powerful man in the world

Is the President bailing out on the bailout?

After months of pumping billions of dollars into the US economy in an attempt to stem the tide of recession and massive unemployment – currently hovering around 10% but closer to 20% according to some economists.

The White House released a statement this week that it will now shift its focus to reducing the deficits. What a novel idea!

President Obama will announce early next year that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay or eliminate altogether other domestic spending programs that are not directly tied to job creation.

But it was Obama that spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion.
This leaves little room for big spending initiatives, and progressive social programs which we’re of course the bulwark of his campaign promises, many of which now seem in jeopardy.

But despite the appearance of a policy shift from debt creation to deficit reduction, often thought to be more the conservative approach to economics - the shift in strategy seems to indicate the President is concerned about the midterm elections and is trying to help moderate Democrats avoid some tough campaigns and, perhaps more importantly, calm the nerves of independent voters who are voicing concerns with the big spending programs.

The big question for Obama – and the country – is whether the sudden concern about deficits will be more rhetoric than reality.

All presidents promise deficit reduction – and almost always fall short. There is good reason to be skeptical of this White House, too, on its commitment.

The Wall Street Journal reported this past Thursday the White House is considering applying some money from the $700 billion financial bailout to deficit reduction, which ironically is partially responsible for creating the deficit in the first place.

But if Obama’s real political goal is to minimize tough elections, gutting domestic spending bills could mean fewer projects lawmakers can brag about back home. And history shows that that’s often an impossible sale on the Hill.

So Obama will likely find himself squeezed between economic and political pressures for much of the year, and while he attempts to strike a fine line between shoring up our economy and salvaging his first term, the rest of the country watches with startled amazement.

Obama - The Rookie President

Recently Thomas Sowell, a brilliant political writer penned the article "A Rookie President". It s a wonderful piece on the price we will pay for Barack Obama's lack of experience. Although the piece was done months ago - in light of the issues with the war in Afghanistan - it deserves a re-read.

Read it here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/03/31/a_rookie_president