Friday, May 29, 2015

A Bush-League Candidate

When Megyn Kelly asked Jeb Bush if he would, knowing what we know now, have invaded Iraq in 2003, it was not a gotcha question. She is not a liberal shill looking to eviscerate every GOP presidential candidate. She was actually giving him the opportunity to separate himself from his big brother, even though big brother George had already said that absent faulty intelligence, he would not have gone after Saddam Hussein.

Jeb’s problem was that, like most politicians, he prefers the sound of his own voice to that of all others. He was so anxious to give his canned answer that he tuned out the all-important “Knowing what we know now.” The fact is we have all misheard and misspoken on occasion. The problem is that he didn’t immediately say, “Oh, sorry, Megyn, I was preoccupied, worrying about my father’s failing health” or something equally self-serving. Instead, he and his people wasted a few days trying to make sense of his response.

In other words, like every other political hack, he relies on his staff to translate what he says into coherent speech. Frankly, I am sick of political handlers and spin-masters speaking on behalf of the political lamebrains. As I said, we have all committed verbal transgressions, but we didn’t job it out to twenty other people to explain what we meant to say. We did it ourselves.

The more these buffoons rely on others to smooth over their gaffes, the less respect I have for them. And in some cases, you’d think that would be virtually impossible.

Liberals are always accusing those of us on the Right, and I might add “in the right,” of confusing societal issues with political matters. They’re the ones who push for same-sex marriages; for abortions on demand, even for teenagers, even into the 35th week; and for an abandonment of drug enforcement laws; and then when conservatives push back, they cry “Foul!” Worse yet, they accuse us of bringing religion into politics, and even lambaste clerics for speaking out on moral issues.

Political life is often determined by unpredictable events beyond our control. After all, in January, 2001, when he was sworn in, George Bush had no idea that within eight months, an Islamic sneak attack on New York’s Twin Towers would toss his political agenda out the window.

On the other hand, when it comes to public policy dealing with moral issues, those are eternal matters, involving our values and our religious freedom.

Speaking of liberals, they are constantly telling us that they’re the ones providing safety nets for the neediest and most vulnerable Americans; what they neglect to mention, however, is that it’s their economic programs and regulations that necessitate all those damn nets in the first place.

But it’s not fair to simply blame the Democrats. After all, after 50 years, if 95% of blacks continue to vote for the presidents, senators, congressmen and mayors, who have profited from their dependency, you can’t argue that they’re blameless. And when Al Sharpton continues to show up at the riots and to further inflame the mob, and not once get tarred-and-feathered or ridden out of town on a rail, it becomes increasingly difficult to give the black masses a pass.

In the bad old days, when generals were given to ordering their troops into suicidal missions (“Into the Valley of Death rode the 600”), soldiers were referred to as cannon fodder. It meant that their lives were inconsequential; that the only point of their needless deaths was to somehow reflect gloriously on the be-medaled frauds who watched them die from atop hills far from the bloodletting.

Today, the Democrats might as well refer to their black constituents as ballot fodder.

The latest sign of the times is that in Oakland, CA, because so many black students are being suspended from school for cussing, mouthing off to teachers, fighting and unexcused absences from class, the city and school administrators have decided that the solution is to suspend suspensions. They will also end expulsions and transfers to other schools for multiple infractions.

As I see it, they’re merely picking up on my suggestion to reduce crime in the inner-city by decriminalizing theft, rape and murder. So perhaps I’m partly to blame. It just never occurred to me that when I make jokes, Democrats would take them seriously.

But it’s not just vote-trolling liberals who pamper and coddle the thugs. I mean, when the nuts from the Westboro Baptist Church disrupt military funerals, the media readily acknowledges that they’re a bunch of inbred misfits. However, when urban blacks chant: “What do we want? Dead cops!” we see elected officials defend them, and from the collective media we hear nary a word of moral condemnation.

Another bone I’d like to pick with Democrats involves their parroting the demand that everyone pay his fair share of taxes. For one thing, there’s no such thing, especially when tens of millions of Americans not only don’t pay taxes, but receive some of the money the rest of us have to fork over. Besides, the federal government is no better than a drunken spendthrift, and could make out very nicely with half of what it receives if it didn’t waste so much of the dough we’re compelled to send to the IRS.

But as if all that’s not bad enough, some of the loudest voices we hear calling for higher and higher taxes belong to such tax scofflaws as Charley Rangel, Warren Buffet, Al Sharpton and Timothy Geithner, liberals all

For a change, I would like to hear angry voices raised in Washington, D.C., as well as in our various state legislatures, about all those welfare junkies who don’t do their fair share of work. Or any work, come to think of it.

Recently, as a great many people know, my computer was hacked and, as a result, they all received news about some product or service that had allegedly been mentioned by Oprah Winfrey. Of course they weren’t fooled. For one thing, the email address wasn’t mine. For another, I recall quite clearly how hard she sold Barack Obama in 2008, so I would never take her word about anything.

But when one of the email recipients wrote to me, just to make certain I hadn’t sent it, I assured him he could rest easy. I went on to say that I would make all crimes that people commit for no other reason than to annoy other people, capital offenses. Why not? There are over seven billion of us, so we can easily afford to start thinning the herd of troublemakers. It would not only make life far more pleasant for the rest of us, but it would open up a lot of additional parking spaces and speed up the lines at the supermarket.

©2015 Burt Prelutsky. Comments?


Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Abortion vs. Capital Punishment

When liberals set out to prove that conservatives are hypocrites, they will generally point out that many of the same people who are most opposed to abortions turn around and support capital punishment.

In doing so, the liberals merely confirm they lack anything even faintly resembling a moral compass. After all, who but a leftist would ever equate the life of an innocent baby with that of a cold-blooded sadist? When comparing human lives, it helps if those on both sides are recognizably human. To suggest that some degenerate who has raped and murdered a child or eviscerated an entire family be allowed to live simply because he possesses fingerprints and human DNA seems fatuous at best, repugnant at worst.

But, then, on those occasions when liberals aren’t immoral, their tendency is to be amoral, seemingly unaware that there are principles and values without which we are no better than the beasts of the jungle.

Instead, what passes for morality on the Left tends to be an eagerness to take up for those they determine to be underdogs. So they side with rampaging black thugs, illegal aliens and even the Palestinians, having decided that their terrorist activities are merely the actions of freedom fighters opposing Israeli oppression.

What’s more, because leftists are as merciless as Islamic throat-cutters, they will never hesitate to lie if they feel it serves their purpose. For instance, in the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby case, they insisted that the company had refused to offer contraception to its employees. That was a patent falsehood, and what’s more they knew it. Hobby Lobby had simply refused on religious grounds to offer four of the 24 contraceptive methods currently available, because they were deemed not to prevent conception, but, instead, to cause abortions.

In the aftermath, all the Left talked about were the four exclusions, not the other 20. For my part, in a nation where sex education appears to begin in the second or third grade and where contraceptive meds and devices are readily available, I’d think abortions would be a thing of the past. The question, why, at this late date, a million abortions a year are still taking place should be the topic under discussion, not whether Christians should be deprived of their religious rights.

But, of course, liberals are never concerned with anyone else’s freedoms and liberties, but only their own. That is why they oppose even a 20-week deadline for abortions. So far as they’re concerned, women should be able to abort a baby even in the delivery room. If you think I exaggerate, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the DNC, refused to come up with a cutoff date after which women should ever be denied an abortion. When asked if curtailing abortions even after the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy might be appropriate, she simply kept insisting that it was entirely up to the woman.

Also, let us not forget that as a member of the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama voted to allow the killing of babies who managed to survive botched abortions, meaning that even post-partum murders are okey-dokey with this crowd.

I suspect, based on the evidence, that a sizable number of those on the Left would favor aborting 17 and 18-year-olds if the mothers sensed conservative tendencies cropping up in their offspring.

The more I see and hear liberals, the more convinced I become that they are those monstrous creatures one finds in sci-fi movies who come here from another planet, possessing the ability to transform themselves into things closely resembling human beings, lacking only a conscience and a soul to make the masquerade complete.

After writing about capital punishment recently, I heard from several people. Because of the nature of my readership, I didn’t hear from any of those saps who oppose the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. For the most part, the readers divided into two camps. On the one hand, there were those who proposed various ways to execute with the least pain possible, while others competed to come up with the most gruesome executions, some involving dungeons and ravenous rodents.

In rebuttal to one, who had recently been rendered unconscious while having his cataracts removed, and felt that a little more of whatever he received from the anesthetist would do the trick, no muss, no fuss, I readily acknowledged that he was more compassionate than I am. But I felt that his empathy was somewhat misplaced because it seemed to ignore the pain experienced by the victim and the irreplaceable loss to his or her loved ones.

I went on: “Frankly, providing sadistic killers a painless death is really low on my list of priorities. Unfortunately, liberals have done a great job of garnering influence over the legal system. In the old days, you could appeal a death sentence only if you came up with new evidence showing that the cops had perjured themselves, the prosecutor had withheld evidence beneficial to the defendant or, in those rarest of instances, when someone else confessed to the crime.

“But these days, the defense lawyers merely have to dig up a liberal judge who’ll grant them one stay of execution after another while the killer lives on and on, outliving his victim by 20 or 30 years, often hanging on until a liberal governor decides to commute his sentence.

“In the meantime, because of all the stalling tactics, a backlog builds up on Death Row, so that those opposed to capital punishment can argue that it would be barbaric to execute hundreds of individuals. What they invariably neglect to mention is that the backlog of sadists and serial killers only exists because these assorted shysters and sob sisters prevented the executions from taking place in a timely fashion.”

One other source of constant annoyance to me is Pope Francis. From the very beginning of his papacy, I had the feeling that he hadn’t been elected by the Congress of Cardinals, but by the Comintern. He mouths the same leftwing platitudes as the Castros, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But perhaps his most offensive act yet was his recent recognition of Palestine as an independent state, giving Hamas, the terrorist group governing the Palestinians, just the sort of legitimacy jihadists crave.

I am reminded that the late Abba Eban, Israel’s onetime ambassador to the United States, once said, after the Arabs had, as usual, stormed out of a peace conference, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Eban, one of the few diplomats who has ever managed to give diplomacy a good name, also suggested that “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely only after they’ve exhausted all other options.”

After Israel’s miraculous victory in 1967, when it was attacked simultaneously by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, in what became known as the Six Day War, Eban wryly commented: “I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.”

Instead of consorting with the tawdry likes of Secretary of State John Kerry and the representatives of Islamic terrorist groups, I would advise Pope Francis to pay closer attention to the wise words of Eban, who, from his position as Ambassador to the U.N., noted: “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13, with 26 abstentions.”

Unfortunately, with Obama in the White House and Francis in the Vatican, the vote today would be 165 to 12.

©2015 Burt Prelutsky. Comments?