Thursday, September 30, 2010

Reviewing a Tea Party

by Burt Prelutsky

I had attended a couple of Tea Party get-togethers, but I’d never spoken at one until Pat Boone invited me to do so at the event he was hosting in Beverly Hills.

I must confess you have a very different perspective when you’re actually part of the program. One big difference is that you feel compelled to show up. With the party scheduled to go from 2-4 on a day the temperature was in the high 90s, I suspect I would have come up with a very good excuse for staying home with the air conditioner helping me to maintain my sanity.

But having given my word, I was stuck having to drive over the hill from the San Fernando Valley.

I have no way of judging whether the turnout was better or worse than expected. The L.A. Times estimated the crowd at several hundred, the Beverly Hills Courier put the number at 400, and I would have guessed 600.

Not only were there no racist signs, but there were four black speakers. There were only a few more than that in the audience. Liberals would insist that the sparse turnout is a sure sign of racism on the part of the Tea Party, but the sad fact is that 91% of blacks vote for Democrats, so why would anyone expect them to show up at an event celebrating conservative values? The fact is, very few blacks show up at classical music concerts or in classical music orchestras, for that matter. I’m not casting aspersions, but merely stating obvious facts. Heck, I, too, would rather see a ballgame at Yankee Stadium than a violin recital at Carnegie Hall. Does that make Carnegie Hall anti-Semitic?

The crowd in the Beverly Hills park was respectful, which is more than I can say for some of the speakers. We had all been told that because of our large number, we would all be limited to five minutes. Clearly, not everyone thought the time limit pertained to them. When the temperature is hovering around triple digits, getting on and off the dais as quickly as possible is a very good idea. At 4 o’clock, the Beverly Hills cops reminded Pat Boone that the event was supposed to be over. By agreeing to pay a sizable fee, Mr. Boone bought us an additional 45 minutes. But all of us who had not yet spoken were asked to cut our five minutes in half.

At 4:30, I leaned forward and tapped Pat on the shoulder. I offered to forego my time because the woman seated to my right had been waiting patiently to go on, and I figured it was the gentlemanly thing to do. Besides, after sitting in the heat for all that time, I assumed she would have a much larger dry cleaning bill than I would.

Perhaps because I had made the offer, Mr. Boone insisted I take my turn. I spoke, but cut my remarks down to a minute. But, then, instead of hustling the woman, whom I believe was Sharon Sebastian, co-author of “Darwin’s Racists,” on stage, they brought up some comedian I had never heard of, who not only didn’t edit his inane remarks, but who went over the five minute mark, ensuring he would be the last speaker of the day.

And on that sour note, we had to vacate the premises.

The good news is that, as usual, the Tea Party guests left the park neater than they’d found it.

The bad news is that even in conservative ranks, some people are so infatuated with the sound of their own voices that they allow their over-inflated egos to trump common courtesy.

For those of you who may have been happily surprised to hear that a Tea Party took place in a town as notoriously liberal as Beverly Hills, allow me to set you straight. If I had had a little more time on the dais, I planned to ask the crowd to let me know with a show of hands how many of them actually lived in the community. I had made a bet with myself that the only hand that would have gone up would have been Pat Boone’s.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓
 

Monday, September 27, 2010

Will November 2nd Ever Arrive?

by Burt Prelutsky

As we enter the homestretch of what I consider the most important off-year election in American history, I find my head is abuzz with random thoughts.

For instance, I don’t know how many tax dollars the State Department wasted sending Imam Feisal Rauf off to visit various Muslim nations, but I would have preferred it if, instead, the money had been spent on ammo and body armor for our troops in Afghanistan. For one thing, Rauf is no more a moderate than Barack Obama is or ever has been. Rauf has denied that Hamas is a terrorist organization, claims that the U.S. brought about 9/11 by its foreign policy and has refused to say where the $100 million for the Ground Zero mosque is coming from, although I, for one, would be happy to take a guess.

Frankly, I don’t understand why it is that we keep trying so hard to reach out to Muslim nations. Those are the places where honor killings and female mutilations are encouraged and where people even suspected of adultery are stoned to death in the public square. It’s like trying to reach out to the ninth century. I, personally, believe that reaching out to the Muslim world is better left to the military than to the diplomats.

The odd thing is that we seem to spend most of our treasure and spill most of our blood defending Muslims. We defended the Croatian Muslims against the Serbs; the Kuwaiti Muslims against Iraqi Muslims, the Iraqi Muslims against Saddam Hussein, and the Afghani Muslims against the Taliban. How odd that I see an obvious pattern that Imam Rauf seems to have missed entirely.

In their insistence that the Muslims had every legal right to build the 13-story mosque at Ground Zero, nitwits Obama, Bloomberg and Pelosi, couldn’t resist insulting conservatives and every other decent American. Leave it to an arrogant liberal politician to assume that the rest of us can’t quite grasp the subtle nuances of the First Amendment. The truth, of course, is that we know the Constitution better than they do. All you need to do is to compare the decisions rendered by Scalia, Thomas and Roberts with those of Souter, Ginsburg and O’Connor. Unlike the liberals, we know it says nothing about the separation of church and state. We also don’t confuse having the legal right to do something with having a moral right. Which, in a nutshell, pretty well describes the essential difference between liberals and conservatives.

Much was made of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs going on a news show a while back and admitting that the Democrats might possibly lose control of the House in November. But as I recall, long before he stuck his foot in his mouth, Nancy Pelosi boasted that passing ObamaCare would very likely cost Democrats several seats in Congress, but that it was the right thing to do. But in terms of sheer unadulterated chutzpah, even her remark didn’t approach Henry Waxman’s contention that “It could be a good thing to get rid of the blue dog Democrats.”

Now, God knows I’d love to get rid of the blue ones, the red ones, the black ones, the yellow and even the purple polka dot ones. But inasmuch as the Democrats all hung together to push through Obama’s demented agenda, I’d love to know exactly which of his dear colleagues Waxman longs to see teetering on the edge of political extinction.

I wonder if it has occurred to Waxman and Pelosi that even though they have safe districts and will have no problem winning re-election, unless 216 other Democrats emerge victorious in November, she loses the speakership along with the keys to the jumbo jet and Henry will no longer garner more face time on CNN than Wolf Blitzer, and will have to resort to his earlier claim to fame, as the least photogenic member of Congress.

A while back, while watching the NY Yankees play the Texas Rangers on TV, I saw George and Laura Bush at the game, sharing a box with Rangers president and Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan. It was just about the time that Mrs. Obama was blowing a ton of our tax dollars vacationing in Spain, while pretending it was official business by having her photo taken with Spain’s royal couple. The IRS may buy her story, but I don’t. That vacation came just prior to the vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, which came just before the vacation in Florida.

It occurred to me, and not for the first time, that one of the downsides of electing a married man is that we wind up with a First Lady who got the job for no better reason than that she married some guy who, when they said that anyone could be elected president of the United States, set out to prove they meant absolutely anyone.

In the future, I propose that we change the system so that no matter what sort of arrogant jackass winds up in the Oval Office, Laura Bush would always be the First Lady.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓
 

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Ragging on Liberals and the Internet

by Burt Prelutsky

When the Tea Party had its huge demonstration in Washington, D.C., the Democrats tried to portray the patriots as racists by taunting them, by having the undistinguished members of the Black Congressional Caucus parade up the steps of the House in single file. It was clearly Nancy Pelosi’s plan to use them as lightning rods for well-deserved invective. But in spite of a $100,000 offer to anyone who could supply visual or audio proof of racial epithets being hurled at the congressional boobies, nobody, including Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, has yet stepped forward to claim the dough.

Knowing how much Speaker Pelosi hates to have her plans thwarted, I’m guessing that at the next such event, she’ll have Henry Waxman, Brad Sherman and Anthony Weiner, march up those steps, so that the Tea Partiers can be condemned as anti-Semites. But once again, she’ll fail, unless, of course, I happen to be in the crowd. Guys like that always bring out the anti-Semite in me, and I’m Jewish!

Speaking of religion, it occurred to me the other day that Islamics and liberals have a great deal in common. For one thing, they regard everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs as not merely mistaken or foolish, but as evil infidels. For another, both groups want their respective governments to impose and enforce their beliefs on everyone. The major difference is that only one of the groups is honest enough to call it Sharia Law.

Although I am hoping that the Republicans trounce the Democrats in November, thereby taking control of the House, I have a couple of major concerns. The first of these is that lame duck liberals will then push through legislation involving illegal aliens, card checks and taxes, things they didn’t dare pass when they were campaigning and vulnerable to blowback at the ballot box.

My other concern is that a Republican House will do for Obama what Newt Gingrich’s House did for Clinton.

It’s easy to forget that in his first two years, Clinton tried to pass what was then called HillaryCare. But after ’94, with Gingrich running Congress, tax cuts and welfare reform were the order of the day. As a result, in ’96, Clinton was regarded as a moderate and, riding the wave of the phony dot.com economic boom, won re-election.

The same scenario could play out in 2012. The danger would be that if the Democrats were then to regain the House, Obama could revert to being the same left-wing demagogue that most of us have come to revile.

Speaking of the dot.com bubble of the 90s reminds me that in 2005, Barney Frank said that there was no such bubble when it came to housing and that, therefore, in spite of Congress insisting that home loans be made to people who possessed neither cash nor credit, there was no chance of a similar collapse. Rep. Frank, who should stick to those things he knows about, such as looking for love in all the wrong places and doing his dead-on impression of Elmer Fudd, also declared his abiding faith in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about a week before the financial meltdown.

Is it any wonder that he continues to chair the House Financial Services Committee? It’s not as if Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi or Lady GaGa were available. Comparing Frank’s position to a fox being hired to guard a chicken coop is unfair to foxes, who, to their credit, happen to know quite a bit about chickens and coops.

Finally, I believe I speak for everyone with a computer when I say that things sent out over the Internet should be time-stamped. There are things I receive every day that I first received five or six years ago. I don’t blame the folks who forward them. After all, if they have never received them before, they have no way of knowing the message has whiskers on it that are longer than Rip Van Winkle’s.

So, as a public service, let me say at this late date, please don’t pass along the apocryphal story about the Marine who rescues the little girl from the lion at the zoo, and the way that the NY Times covers the incident when they find out he’s a Republican.

Also, there is no further need to share the dumb quotes attributed to the likes of Mariah Carey, Brooke Shields, Joe Theisman and Miss Alabama of 1994. It would also be advisable that you cease passing around those strolls down Nostalgia Lane that ask us if we’re old enough to remember washboards, Red Rover and Blackjack chewing gum.

Next, when really intelligent remarks are credited to really dumb people, you should be at least somewhat skeptical. Robin Williams is a San Francisco lefty, so why on earth would you believe he said something that sounds as if its source was Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter or me?

Speaking of me, a line I wrote last year went viral. It seemed as if everyone I ever knew let me know they had read my line about Barack Obama’s being more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than a Muslim building a nuclear bomb in Iran. However, I did not write it, as it was claimed, in an article for the L.A. Times. It appeared right here. The Times would no more print something that sensible than Robin Williams would sound off like a conservative.

Finally, be warned, no matter how sincere they come across, those folks in Nigeria are not your friends and they will not be sending you cashiers checks for $32 million, and you will not -- I repeat, not! -- ever win a lottery you didn’t enter.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓
 

Monday, September 20, 2010

Is God an Appointed Position?

by Burt Prelutsky

The only people I’ve ever heard of who got to wear their bathrobes to work were Hugh Hefner and America’s judges, and however you may feel about the man from Playboy, I’d venture that judges have created far more havoc for society.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortions were illegal in 30 states, but were permitted in 20 others in cases involving rape, incest or medical risk to the woman. In other words, they reflected the attitudes of the people who lived in different parts of this country. But in 1973, the Supreme Court distorted the Constitution in order to make abortions legal and readily available in every state. However you may feel about abortions, you should think twice before applauding seven people who weren’t elected legislating from the bench. Keep in mind that next time, these arrogant road-company Solomons may be goring your ox.

Recently, Judge Vaughn Walker decided to over-rule the California voters by deciding they had no right to define marriage as the joining together of one man and one woman, just as other California-based judges decided they had the right to set aside votes involving capital punishment and illegal aliens.

Just the other day, a judge decided that Gov. Schwarzenegger couldn’t impose a three day-a-month work furlough for state workers as a way to deal with the state’s financial woes. How nice it must be to sit on Mt. Olympus and not have to worry about meeting payrolls with non-existent money.

The question isn’t whether or not you agree with these imperial decisions, but whether one non-elected civil servant is entitled to set aside elections and executive decisions because he or she simply doesn’t approve of them.

After all, if Americans had wanted to be ruled by tyrants, we wouldn’t have bothered tossing the tea into Boston Harbor and fighting a revolution. By most accounts, King George wasn’t so terrible.

The interesting thing about the campaign for same-sex marriages is that in every state where it’s been on the ballot, the people have voted against it. In the few states where it is legal, it exists by judicial fiat.

According to an exhaustive study conducted by Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker, same-sex marriages concern homosexuals symbolically, but are of very little practical importance. According to their research, 2.3% of the population are homosexual males, 1.3% are lesbians.With an adult population of about 220 million, that would add up to about five million gay men and about 2.8 million women. That would make for about four million potential unions, but in Massachusetts, the first state where such marriages were made legal in 2004, there were fewer than 6,000 marriages that first year and a mere 1,300 in 2005. And keep in mind that gay couples were coming there from other states.

In the Netherlands, over a five-year period, only 8,000 marriages took place. In Belgium, in the first 18 months after such marriages became legal, 2,200 couples exchanged vows. In the same timeframe, in all of Canada, only 4,500 gay marriages occurred. And keep in mind that it wasn’t just Belgians, Dutch and Canadians, who were getting hitched in those countries.

One other telling statistic is that after the initial novelty and publicity die down, the number of same-sex marriages rapidly declines, although you’d never know it from the way the MSM covers the topic. Judging by the press, you could easily conclude that it’s only homosexuals who are interested in tying the knot.

Some people argue that to deny gays the right to marry one another is the same thing as denying blacks the freedom to drink from public drinking fountains or to sit wherever they wish on a bus or in a movie theater. That is such a fatuous belief that it doesn’t really bear refuting, except to say that the Civil Rights Act led to strengthening American society and correcting historical wrongs. Same-sex marriages, on the other hand, turn commonsense on its head and would, inevitably, lead to people demanding the right to marry a parent, a sibling or all the showgirls in a Las Vegas revue, so long as all parties consented.

Also, it is absurd to claim that such marriages have no effect on traditional marriages. The truth is, they make a sham of marriage. It’s bad enough that a number of Hollywood celebrities have gotten married for a few days before they’ve sobered up and gotten their annulments and that Jennifer Aniston, in order to promote yet another of her lame comedies, went on TV and told young women that children don’t need fathers, and that brain-dead liberals promote the nutty notion that two mommies or two daddies are as good -- actually better! -- than a father and a mother when it comes to raising children.

Far too many people are loath to consider consequences. Hubert Humphrey labored mightily to help pass the Civil Rights Act, so he was in no mood to listen to those who claimed it would lead to race-based quotas. In fact, he said if it did, he, personally, would eat the bill. As we all know, in spite of its good intentions and generally positive results, it led to affirmative action (aka quotas) in employment and education. So far as we know, Sen. Humphrey never ate even a single page.

Just recently, U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis was asked to rule in a case where a written test for would-be firefighters resulted in what spin masters called disparate test results. In standard English, that meant that blacks had scored much lower than white applicants. Even though Judge Garaufis admitted there was nothing racial or discriminatory about the actual test, he ruled that the results had to be thrown out. In the meantime, the 300 white guys who scored the highest can’t be hired. And somewhere fires are raging and people are dying, but Judge Garafuis sleeps the sleep of the smug and self-righteous, while liberals sing his praises.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓
 

Thursday, September 16, 2010

A Plea For Intolerance

by Burt Prelutsky

Lately, you have probably noticed that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken to lecturing the rest of us on tolerance. I call it presumptuous, as well as ill-timed. It’s presumptuous because he believes that he, alone, is in a position to tell Americans how we should feel about a massive mosque being built next to Ground Zero, as if being wealthy and an elected official somehow provided him with a moral superiority that we mere mortals could never hope to match.

I call it ill-timed because I, and I suspect millions of others, have gotten sick and tired of being told it’s our duty to be tolerant of the foolish, the greedy and, ironically, those most committed to intolerance.

Over the past decade or so, we have had homosexuals demand same-sex marriages, self-righteously comparing themselves to blacks during the bad days of slavery and Jim Crow; we’ve had illegal aliens claim they’re entitled to everything that goes with citizenship, including education, medical care and even voting rights; we’ve had Muslims insist that they’ve every right to be taxi drivers even though they refuse to pick up blind people if they’re accompanied by seeing eye dogs and entitled to work in supermarkets even though they refuse to sell alcohol or pork products; and, lest you forget, we have enemy combatants who have never worn a uniform or fought under a national flag insisting they’re protected by the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution.

Mayor Bloomberg, being a liberal, naturally has sawdust for brains and chutzpah to burn. Left-wingers are convinced that if you make nice with your sworn enemies, they’ll see the error of their ways. They’re the same folks who discipline their young by giving them time-outs. That consists of the spoiled tots being sent off to their rooms, rooms that quite often resemble a Toys R Us warehouse. The predictable results of this approach to parenting are all those noisy little brats running wild, with impunity, in shops, schools and restaurants.

In other news, the American taxpayer spent $50 billion bailing out G.M., ensuring that Obama could continue to count on a constant flow of UAW contributions to the DNC. Obama, you may recall, even went so far as firing the company’s CEO and replacing him with a government bureaucrat who could barely tell the difference between a carburetor and a carbuncle. Now, GM has announced its plan to invest $50 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant, in northern Mexico, in order to produce a new line of engines. It will lead, the company claims, to the creation of 390 jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs will be in the state of Coahuila, not Michigan.

Recently, while watching the Bill O’Reilly show, I heard substitute host Laura Ingraham, one of my favorite conservative pundits, mention her children. That led me to wonder who her husband was, so I paid a visit to the Internet. It seems the lady has never been married, and that the children were adopted, the girl from Guatemala, the boy from Russia.

Although Ms. Ingraham has never walked down the aisle, she has twice been engaged -- first to conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza and then to businessman James Reyes. But as I read on, I discovered that she had had meaningful relationships with the former Democratic senator from New Jersey, Robert Torricelli and with -- hold on to your hat! -- MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

At first, I, too, was shocked. But perhaps it was those very relationships that made her the staunch conservative she is today. Frankly, I think spending even just an hour with Olbermann would be enough to make Howard Dean rush out and change his party registration.

Maybe because I’m lucky enough to be married to someone who shares all of my political beliefs, I can’t imagine being connected to someone who shares none of them. I could never even grasp how Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey could be great friends, unless all they ever talked about was baseball. And for the life of me, I can’t begin to think of Mary Matalin and James Carville except in terms of a TV sitcom. I mean, how is it possible that professional operatives for opposing political parties can get through a single day with neither one taking an axe to the other?

It is to Ms. Ingraham’s everlasting credit that Olbermann has called her the Worst Person in the World nearly as often as he has labeled Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush as such. It is, interestingly enough, an insult he has bestowed on Mahmud Ahmadinejad only twice, and one of those times I believe it was for committing the fashion faux pas of wearing a windbreaker to the U.N.

But you would think that even a knucklehead like Olbermann would understand that there can only be one worst person in the world, just as there can only be one tallest person, one oldest person and, yes, even one biggest knucklehead.

Finally, I want to know how Bradley Manning, a mere PFC, managed to access
all the thousands of pages of classified documents that Wikileaks has posted on its traitorous site.

The only scenario I have been able to come up with is that one morning, the top sergeant entered the barracks and announced, “I need a dozen of you on latrine duty, seven of you for KP, and you, Manning, you’ll be in charge of swiping state secrets.”

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓
 

Monday, September 13, 2010

Musings About Israel and Obama

by Burt Prelutsky

I believe that eventually there will be peace in the Middle East. It will probably only take a few more of these “peace process” sessions before Israel cedes so much land to its enemies that it will simply disappear from the face of the earth.

Part of Israel’s problems is that it got suckered into calling some of its territory “settlements”. That was so dumb that it gave the lie to the long-held notion that we Jews are smart negotiators.

Let’s face it, most of the United States at one time or another belonged to some other country. Sometimes we paid for it, as we did with France and Russia, and sometimes we fought for it. But once it was ours, it stayed ours. We didn’t call it a settlement and we didn’t hand it over, although I believe that Obama has plans for Arizona that he’s not quite ready to announce.

A motto for Jews everywhere, but especially for Israelis, is “never again”. It means that never again will Jews quietly enter cattle cars and go off to be exterminated by Nazis -- be they pagans or Muslims. That’s why I was so surprised that Netanyahu was wasting his time chatting with nincompoops in Washington when he should have been back in Tel Aviv, planning an attack on Iran.

I can only assume that Netanyahu, poor misguided schnook that he is, has his eye on a Nobel Peace Prize. Has everyone forgotten that Hamas, a gang of murderous thugs that everyone but Imam Rauf agrees is a terrorist organization, a group dedicated to the elimination of Israel, controls Gaza? It seems to me that if anyone even utters the words “peace process” within earshot of an Israeli prime minister, he should run in the opposite direction.

Speaking of Hamas reminds me that when people suggest that democracy is the answer to peace on earth, I say it’s a load of hooey. Democracy sounds good, but it all comes down to who’s voting. In Gaza, Turkey, New York, Minnesota and California, we can readily see the downside of democracy.

The tragic truth is if Iran gets its nukes, “never again” will be as absurd a motto as “hope and change” because, for Israelis, there won’t be an “again.”

I am not the least bit surprised that, considering his family background and his 20- year affiliation with the Trinity United Church, Obama favors the Arabs and the Muslims in the Middle East. What does astonish me is the silence and apparent acquiescence of Jewish politicians like Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Brad Sherman and Dianne Feinstein, who invariably play the Israel card in order to garner votes and fill their war chests when they’re campaigning, but are mute when their party leader shows his obvious preference for the other side.

When Obama was first elected, bigoted liberals predicted that, because he was a black man, a white conservative, no doubt a Tea Bagger, would do him in.

Fortunately, in spite of allowing party crashers to slip into the White House, the Secret Service has managed to keep him safe. I, for one, never believed he was in any greater danger than any other president. In fact, I was confident that his greatest risk is that he might fall victim to an exploding ego.

Frankly, I think Obama is the least competent chief executive in my lifetime. And, no, I didn’t forget Jimmy Carter. However, if you say that to a liberal, he’ll defend Obama, insisting that the president isn’t concerned with details because he’s a big picture guy.

I couldn’t quite grasp the concept until I realized that some of the really big pictures over the past several years have been Ishtar, Battlefield Earth, Alexander the Great, The Postman, Town and Country, Cutthroat Island, Heaven’s Gate, Waterworld and Howard the Duck.

Obama, a big picture man? I should say so. The Rise and Fall of a Community Organizer certainly ranks with the worst of those turkeys.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓
 

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Dracula, Frankenstein and a Lib Walk Into a Bar

by Burt Prelutsky

In all the old horror movies, the master villain always had an assistant. More often that not, his name was Igor. He tended to lurch and he was usually a hunchback. I always wondered how he got the job. I mean, how would you go about finding someone who’d round up a human brain at a moment’s notice? Was it by referral? Did they hook up during Career Day at the Academy for the Criminally Insane? Did he answer an ad in the New York Times?

Nowadays, I ask similar questions regarding politicians. Who put them up to it? What made a harridan like Nancy Pelosi ever think that people would actually vote for her? And how was it that Harry Reid, a pickle puss who looks and sounds like he was born to play Uriah Heep, ever imagined he’d carve out a successful career in a profession that, at the very least, usually requires a modicum of charm and civility?

Speaking of mysteries, why is it that Obama’s approval numbers remain in double digits? Here’s a guy who not only lied about uniting blacks and whites, young and old, liberals and conservatives, but lied to his own base about shutting down Gitmo, providing illegal aliens with a general amnesty and getting rid of the military policy of “Don’t ask/ Don’t tell.”

On top of all that, what, I wonder, did you all make of his recent declaration that the U.S. and Iran have mutual interests in Afghanistan? Are he and Mahmud Ahmadinejad planning to co-produce “Karzai! The Musical!” on Broadway? And what comes next, an announcement that Russia and the U.S. have mutual interests in Czechoslovakia, Georgia and Poland?

To give you an example of how smitten the loonies on the left are when it comes to Obama, members of the UAW gave him an ovation when he said that Ford’s adding workers at its Chicago plant was proof that his bailing out Chrysler and GM saved the auto industry. As my friend, Don Melquist, a retired ironworker observed: “That’s like suggesting that Ford, which rejected the bail-out, wouldn’t be selling so many cars if Chevys and Chryslers weren’t also available. Obama might as well say that people would stop buying Pizza Hut pizzas if Dominos closed its doors.”

I don’t know where Barack Obama studied economics, but I suspect the teaching staff consisted of Saul Alinsky and Tim Geithner, along with tenured professors Larry, Moe and Curly.

Other current heroes on the left include Shirley Sherrod and Michael Bloomberg. It appears now that Mrs. Sherrod, who suffered the hardship of being unemployed for about 30 minutes before receiving a phone call from the president offering her Joe Biden’s job, is not quite as saintly as she’s been portrayed.

Ron Wilkins, a liberal black civil rights leader, infiltrated the New Communities farm commune back in the mid-70s. It was a commune managed by Shirley and her husband, Charles. Among other things, Wilkins discovered that the black work force, which included a great many children, were paid an average of 67 cents-an-hour, were constantly exposed to pesticides, were often forced to work at night, and were fired if they complained.

For good measure, Cesar Chavez’s far left-wing United Farm Workers joined in the condemnation of the Sherrods and their so-called commune.

When it comes to hypocrites, you would think we had already reached the saturation point. But the way the left keeps churning them out like sausage links, I can only imagine that some very odd place I’ve never heard of, and never wish to visit, must have a large standing order.

Consider Michael Bloomberg, if you will. Here’s a man who, combining the mental agility of a Joy Behar with the eloquence of Barney Fife, has taken it upon himself to teach Americans in general, and New Yorkers specifically, what religious tolerance is all about. Even though he’s the mayor of the city where Muslims slaughtered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, he has given the Bloomberg seal of approval to the erection of a gigantic Islamic mosque next to Ground Zero.

It would be bad enough if the mayor was merely a run-of-the-mill left-wing moron. But according to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Bloomberg’s self-hyped ecumenical spirit has its limits.

For instance, Bloomberg has consistently opposed putting a nativity scene alongside a menorah in New York City’s public schools.

In 2007, when an “artist” created a huge vulgar “Chocolate Jesus” and sought to place it in a street-level gallery during Holy Week, Bloomberg, when asked about it, voiced no objection.

He also maintained his silence when Anthony Malkin, owner of the Empire State Building, decided not to join with other skyscraper owners in a tribute to Mother Teresa.

Finally, when a federal district court ruled that the Bronx-based Household of Faith, an inner-city Christian church, had the right to hold religious services on Sundays in a New York City school, Bloomberg’s administration sued to block the ruling.

In George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” the evil pig, Napoleon, declares that under his rule, all the animals are equal, but eventually gets around to pointing out that some animals are more equal than others.

Now, far be it from me to call the mayor a pig. However, I’ve always felt that if it grunts like a pig, rolls around in mud like a pig and answers to “sooey, sooey, sooey,” the chances are you could safely stick an apple in its mouth, pop it in the oven and invite the Crachits over for Christmas dinner.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓

Monday, September 6, 2010

Puppets and Puppet Masters

by Burt Prelutsky

It will soon be Election Day and already I’m catching heck from a number of readers who are taking me to task for suggesting that it’s better to vote for a mediocre Republican than for a wonderful Democrat, although I can’t for the life of me think of anyone who fits that description.

Most often, I am attacked by pure and earnest conservatives who threaten to, one, stay home on November 2nd or, two, cast their votes for third party candidates. While I understand their anger and frustration, I accept that the Republicans who wind up on the general ballot are the men and women who won their party’s primaries. They may not resemble George Washington, William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan, but they are the only defense we have against Obama’s adding cap and trade, card checks, tax hikes and amnesty for illegal aliens to ObamaCare, Government Motors and his loony spending bills.

The fact is a great many Republicans are moderates and not true believers. Even among the ranks of the Tea Party, not everybody is as conservative as they have been portrayed. Some of them are only as far right as they are because Obama and his cronies have positioned themselves so far over on the left side of the political teeter-totter, and it’s the only way to balance things out. By breaking away and voting for third party candidates, the only thing conservatives will manage to do is split the ranks and enable liberal candidates to be elected with 40% of the vote.

If the notion of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid continuing to run the House and the Senate isn’t enough to bring you to your senses, you’re every bit as deranged as Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel. You may hold yourself in high esteem, but essentially you’re no more principled than the infamous dog in the manger.

Liberals like to talk about their love of democracy, but idle blather is all it amounts to, when you get right down to it. In the not so distant past, California voters went to the polls in support of capital punishment and their opposition to social services being bestowed on illegal aliens. To the cheers of liberals, all it took to nullify millions of votes were a few left-wing judges shaking their empty heads.

Just recently, Vaughn R. Walker, a federal judge based in San Francisco, decided that California’s voters didn’t have the right to determine that marriage was to be defined in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

Apparently it never occurred to any of the numbskulls involved in the legal system that Judge Walker, an admitted homosexual, should have recused himself from hearing the case. But, then, gays, like blacks and illegal aliens, seem to enjoy a special status denied to others in our society.

Speaking of judges, I just became aware of a very bizarre fact. For reasons beyond my ken, Republican presidents seem to turn into blithering idiots when it comes to judicial appointments. People like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are savvy enough to realize that long after they’ve vacated the Oval Office, their legacy, left for safe keeping in the hands of such goofy jurists as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, will live on.

Now consider what the Republicans have bestowed on us. Eisenhower was responsible for Earl Warren. Nixon named Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger. Ford, who barely held office long enough to hang a few pictures on the wall, found the time to saddle us with John Paul Stevens for 35 years. Reagan, of all people, placed Sandra Day O’Connor on the Court. George H.W. Bush was not only responsible for David Souter, but was the bonehead who placed the aforementioned Vaughn Walker on the federal bench. Read my lips, George: “You’re a nincompoop.”

Speaking of dumb clucks, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to ridicule Robert Gibbs. I realize he comes across like a sack of potatoes, the sort of guy who was probably pantsed every other day in junior high, but how would you like to be Barack Obama’s press secretary? How would you like to wake up each morning and know you’re going to have to try to make Obama’s radical agenda palatable to the American public when every poll tells you that most of us can’t wait for November 2nd to roll around so that we can start repairing the damage?

Heaven knows I’m not suggesting that Mr. Gibbs is particularly good at his job. But it strikes me that criticizing Gibbs makes about as much sense as taking Charlie McCarthy, Jerry Mahoney and Lamb Chop, to task.

Still, even I have to admit that in a certain light he bears an uncanny resemblance to Mortimer Snerd.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓

Thursday, September 2, 2010

If I Were King

by Burt Prelutsky

I don’t really want to sit on a throne or even in the Oval Office. But I would certainly like to see a few of my notions become reality.

For openers, I don’t like the way we put people on the Supreme Court. I don’t approve of the partisan grandstanding and I don’t like the way the nominees are forced to parse their answers in order to avoid providing the opposition with ammunition. I am not pleased to see Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan sitting on the bench, but I would have voted to approve them. That’s because I believe the president is entitled to appoint whomever he wishes, whether it’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Robert Bork. If you’re a conservative, it’s a crying shame that within 18 months, Obama got to name two judges, but it’s time we all learned that elections have consequences, and that only those lunkheads who believe that Kagan and Sotomayor are the same as Roberts and Alito will continue to parrot the mantra that there’s no difference between the two political parties.

The other change I would inaugurate is to limit a Supreme Court justice’s term to 10 years. There is no good reason for it to be a lifetime job. Why on earth should a judge be provided with tenure of three or four or even five decades when the person who put him there is long gone after, at most, eight years? On top of which, we get to actually vote for the president. It makes as much sense that a justice gets to determine when to call it quits as it does for politicians to decide how big a salary and how large a pension to give themselves.

Next, I would make it a crime for an elected official to ever call anyone a racist. It is outrageous that the Democrats get to condemn Tea Party members as racists simply because it’s such an easy way to deflect legitimate criticism. I say if you apply that epithet to an individual or a group of individuals, you had better be ready to make your case in a court of law.

Most recently, we had Rep. Maxine Waters accuse the members of the Congressional Ethics Committee of being racists because they had the effrontery of accusing her and Charles Rangel of violating House rules. It didn’t matter to her that half the members of the committee are liberals; all that mattered to her was the color of the two defendants. In spite of the fact that over the years it has most often been white politicians who have been targeted for ethics violations -- people like Newt Gingrich, Barney Frank, Thomas Dodd, Joe McCarthy, Austin Murphy, Bob Packwood, Daniel Flood, Gerry Studds and, most recently, Eric “The Tickler” Massa -- it only takes one black politician being accused of malfeasance to bring the race card to the top of the deck.

The most aggravating aspect of these congressional investigations is how minor the sanctions are. They range from mere reprimands to censures to expulsion. The last one sounds ominous until you realize that these people are so arrogant they actually think that expulsion from office is the harshest penalty imaginable. If a civilian were guilty of half the charges that have been leveled against inveterate tax cheat Rangel, he’d wind up in the poky, not catching the rays at his Dominican villa.

The thing that has always amazed me is the impunity with which black politicians lie, cheat and steal. Even when I was a kid, I found it mind-boggling that the voters in Harlem would continue re-electing a guy like Adam Clayton Powell. So, was it any wonder that when those voters put a new man in office, it would be none other than Charles Rangel, who, like Powell, loves living it up in the Caribbean and hates paying taxes?

After serving time on drug charges, Marion Berry was welcomed back by his constituents, who apparently couldn’t resist his campaign slogan, “He may not be perfect, but he’s perfect for D.C.”

I suppose, according to Maxine Waters, it was white imps who stuck the $90,000 worth of bribes in William Jefferson’s freezer.

This isn’t to suggest that white voters are a lot better. After all, when it was discovered that one of his former roommates was running a gay prostitution ring out of their townhouse, Barney Frank was actually censured by his colleagues in the House. But that hasn’t prevented the numbskulls in his Massachusetts district from re-electing him every two years like clockwork. Even when it was discovered that his latest boyfriend was raising marijuana at their Ogunquite, Maine, getaway, all Barney had to say was that he didn’t recognize the flora that was being raised and harvested in the backyard. Nobody thought to ask him if he ever suspected that the cigarettes Jim Ready stunk up the house with weren’t Camels or Marlboros. Still, if I were Barney, I think I’d stop looking for my significant other on bathroom walls and consider spending a few bucks with eHarmony. He could fill out their famous questionnaire by saying he likes white wine, moonlight walks on the beach and ObamaCare.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check the ARCHIVES →

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓