Monday, September 29, 2014

Religion & Other Taboo Topics

Irecently heard from a woman whose late son had been gay, but had nevertheless been a conservative and had tried to persuade his gay friends not to vote for Obama.

I commended her for raising a son who obviously thought for himself. I also let her know that I realized that not every homosexual feels compelled to cast his lot with the Left simply because liberals have adopted same-sex marriage as a major plank in their goofy platform.

Still, knowing something about her from earlier exchanges, I asked how it was that she could continue being a Presbyterian when the church hierarchy is not only to the left of the DNC, but virulently anti-Israel, forever denouncing the Jewish state and leading the anti-Semitic chorus of those urging individuals and colleges to divest themselves of their investments in Israeli companies.

I understand that it is no easy thing for people to reject the religion they were born into, be it Islam or a Protestant faith. I also admit I have no idea what difference there is between Presbyterians and, say, Methodists. But I do know that the Presbyterian clergy has long taken the side of Israel’s existential foes, and if I had been born a Presbyterian, I know that I would be looking around for an escape hatch, just as I would, if I’d been unfortunate enough to have been born and raised a Muslim.

As some of you are aware, I do a webcast every Wednesday, noon Pacific Time, at I have two sponsors, and whenever I’m doing a commercial for them, I make it a point to mention that Mike Carmolinga, who co-owns Lulu’s restaurant here in the San Fernando Valley, and Tom Tinney, who owns Goodoletom’s Precious Metals, are true conservatives. I do that because I think it behooves conservatives to support their own.

Frankly, I don’t understand why conservatives persist in ignoring the politics and values of those to whom they give their hard-earned money. For instance, with all the insurance companies in America, why do business with Progressive, which lives up to its name by funneling tens of millions of dollars every election year to liberal politicians, and why pay dues to AARP, which did so much to shove ObamaCare down our throats?

Recently I devoted a sizable portion of an article to an email debate I had with a reader who took me to task for celebrating Harry Truman’s decision to drop a couple of A-bombs on Japan in 1945, bringing World War II to a rapid conclusion. The good news is that although it brought me a huge response from readers, certainly the largest in the past five years, not a single respondent agreed with the other guy.

I did receive one email the other day that made me realize that not every one of my readers is brighter than a sack of potatoes. It was his contention that the only reason that the GOP House passes bills is in order to appease Republican voters. I can see where it might seem that way when you realize that Harry Reid sends all such legislation straight to the paper shredder, but the members of the House are merely doing what they’re paid to do. Of course if Reid allowed the Senate to do what they’re paid to do –namely vote -- Obama and his puppet over at Fox, Juan Williams, wouldn’t be able to accuse the House Republicans of being obstructionists.

But with Obama quarterbacking from the White House and Harry Reid acting as his offensive left tackle, being an obstructionist is as honorable as being a member of the French, Dutch or Danish, resistance during World War II.

Another of my readers felt like taking me on because I had suggested that I would be okay with Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal running for the presidency in 2016. He pointed out the part of the Constitution limiting the office to people over the age of 35 who were natural-born citizens. I wrote back: “I’m afraid that in an age when babies born to illegal aliens are regarded as American citizens, ‘natural-born’ has become a vague term, at best. In fact, Article 2, section 1, of the Constitution leaves a lot to be desired. It reads ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.’

“If taken literally, doesn’t that deny the office to anyone who wasn’t alive when the Constitution was adopted some 227 years ago? Besides, I always regarded that as the one questionable portion of the document. Why deny ourselves a president who has come here legally and chosen to be an American as opposed to someone who was simply lucky enough to have been born here? It just strikes me as silly to deprive people who can be elected governor or senator of the right to be president.

“Moreover, a lot of people have disagreed with the framers of the Constitution. What’s more, those divinely-inspired men expected it and provided for it. That’s why we’re allowed to amend it, as we’ve now done on 27 occasions. In fact, if I had even more time on my hands than I do, I would start a movement to do away with dual-citizenship. It not only flies in the face of the Constitution that anyone can simultaneously pledge allegiance to two different countries, it contradicts commonsense and common decency in the same way that bigamy does.”

When he wrote back to say, “So you have decided, like Obama, to disagree with the framers,” I decided he had mistaken my courtesy for weakness, and replied, “Not even James Madison expected everyone to agree with each and every word he wrote. Unlike Obama, I haven’t ignored the Constitution or subverted it, so I would appreciate it if you choose your words a bit more carefully in the future.”

Finally, when yet another reader commended me for something amusing I had written, I wrote back to acknowledge that laughter is indeed the best medicine…unless you have the clap, in which case penicillin is the best medicine.

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments?