The emasculation of the U.S. military began, I believe, during the first Gulf War, and had nothing to do with the red carpet that was eventually rolled out for women and homosexuals. I still remember how shocked I was that there was such a to-do over the fact that our troops had to deal with their chocolate bars melting in the desert heat. I kept hearing that something, by God, had to be done about it.
I would never suggest that our soldiers should be regarded as cannon fodder, but the uproar over candy bars made it sound as if they were a troop of Brownies.
Things have only gotten worse under Obama’s watch with his pledge that our warriors will never get any closer to the battlefield than 20,000 feet above it.
I have always supported a robust military budget, but if soldiers are no longer going to be required to get their boots dirty, but continue to receive salaries, pensions and free medical care for decades under a properly managed Veterans Administration, it strikes me as a colossal waste of our tax dollars. We can just have our Secretary of State give our enemies a good stern talking-to.
We used to have military mottoes like “A Few Good Men,” “Semper Fi” and “Be the Best You Can Be,” but now the all-inclusive one seems to be “No Boots on the Ground.”
It isn’t just that liberals are always wrong on the issues, either, they’re equally besotted when it comes to their heroes. During the 30s and 40s, the intelligentsia never stopped singing the praises of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet butcher who had even more blood on his hands than Hitler. Pinheads like Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker and half of the people on salary at the Hollywood studios would often refer to him as “Uncle Joe,” as did FDR and most of his left-wing advisors.
In later years, American liberals showed their affinity with murderous vermin by adopting the likes of Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and, of course, the Palestinians who elected Hamas, the terrorist organization sworn to annihilate the Israelis, to lead them.
It was no longer surprising that during his recent address to the U.N., Obama took a moment to praise Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, the Muslim cleric who has called for the killing of Jews and American soldiers. The question no longer is whether Obama is a Muslim or merely has a soft spot in his heart and his head for Islam, but whether he is a Muslim or a Martian still suffering from jet lag.
One can imagine Obama being the Commander-in-Chief during World War II and announcing, “Yes, we are at war with Adolf Hitler and his savage war machine. But we are not – let me repeat – not at war with Nazism, which is a religion of peace. And we will definitely not have any boots on the ground in Europe.”
As for those European nations currently unwilling to take up arms either against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or the Islamics in the Middle East, I suggest they heed the words of concentration camp survivor Elie Wiesel: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the oppressed. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Or as Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds an alligator in the hope it will eat him last.”
One can only hope that the civilized world will wake up sooner rather than later, and conclude that a united front is required to hasten the transformation of ISIS into WasWas.
Closer to home, we have our own problems. The 9th Circuit Court ruled that Judge Margaret McKeown was correct in ruling that the administrators at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA, were within their rights to send students home for wearing American flag t-shirts because they might have offended the Hispanic kids celebrating Cinco de Mayo, and it might have led to violence on school grounds.
A more appropriate ruling would have sent the Hispanic kids back to Mexico, where they might be astonished to discover that Cinco de Mayo is not Mexican Independence Day, but merely marks a Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. On the other hand, why would anyone think they’d know any more about Mexico’s history than they do about America’s, especially when their school principal and the knuckleheads on the 9th Circuit Court aren’t even on speaking terms with the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech?
It recently occurred to me that Lucy Van Pelt and Charlie Brown are both liberals. The proof is that she’s mean enough to keep pulling the football away right after promising not to and just before doing it for the thousandth time, and he’s so dumb he keeps allowing her to get away with it, thus establishing that like every liberal who has ever argued that the federal government should control the economy, education, energy, the environment and health care, he is simply incapable of learning from history.
In other words, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Lucy has a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” on her book shelf and Charlie has a poster of Che Guevara on his wall.
The Minimum Wage War
Among the issues that the Democrats are trying to run on this year, it’s a tie between the minimum wage and the war on women as to which of them is the phonier.
The first step in trying to make the case for the minimum wage a campaign issue came years ago when the liberals changed what everyone knew was supposed to be the salary paid to teenagers who were looking to pay for their own movies and tennis shoes to something called “a living wage,” which, thanks to the influx of unskilled Hispanics streaming across our border, was suddenly supposed to support entire families.
These days, when the Democrats incessantly campaign to raise it, their motives are two-fold. One, unskilled, generally illiterate, Hispanics and their relatives are expected to express their gratitude at the ballot box for the next hundred years. Two, union contracts are often tied to the minimum wage and, as a result, any rise in the rate automatically results in a higher hourly wage for union members without the inconvenience of their having to go on strike.
While I understand that the union bosses are happy to see illegal aliens flooding into this country because they will inevitably join unions before long and start paying dues, I don’t get why American union members remain so passive when it’s their jobs that will be lost to these young interlopers.
When it comes to the war on women, the Democrats accuse Republicans of two sins. The first is that we intend to reverse Roe v. Wade. Inasmuch as it’s been the law of the land for half a century, that is, unfortunately, extremely unlikely.
The other red herring is that we on the Right want to continue paying women less for doing the same work as men. The fact is that the equal pay law was passed while JFK was still in the White House. The way the liberals lie their way around that inconvenient truth is by changing the wording from “the same work” to “equivalent work,” and then pretending that being a kindergarten teacher is the equivalent of being, say, a longshoreman. The fact is that when it comes to the exact same job – be it a firefighter, a cop or a member of Congress – men and women doing the same job get the exact same pay.
Because I continue to receive mail begging for donations from those behind the Ben Carson for President Movement, I keep trying to figure out why anyone, including Dr. Carson, thinks he’s the best man for the job. After all, we already know that he is a little mushy when it comes to the Second Amendment and he’s in favor of affirmative action, but he is also, like uberliberal Bill Gates, on the Costco Board of Directors. I don’t know what these folks get paid or what they’re supposed to do for their money aside from allowing their names to be printed on the company stationery, but I do know that Costco’s CEO James Sinegal is a major contributor to Barack Obama and the DNC, and I also know that until public outrage forced them to back down, Costco pulled Dinesh D’Souza’s best-selling “America” off its book shelves.
So, having given the Carson candidacy some thought, the best I could come up with is that some conservatives want to prove that our amateur is better than their amateur, and it gives his supporters a way to show that their objection to Barack Obama has nothing to do with his pigmentation.
Responding to something I wrote about charities recently, Chuck Tatum wrote to me, asking: “Does anyone else find it weird that abused animals, starving children and wounded warriors, can all be helped for the exact same $19-a-month?”
I let him know that I hadn’t been aware of that, probably because I record everything I watch on TV so that I can fast-forward through commercials and Juan Williams’ appearances on Fox. But I expect the folks who run charities all discovered what terrific results were achieved by retailers who priced their products at $99.99 or service stations who always peg their gas prices at $3.59 or $3.69 a gallon, and never at $3.60 or $3.70.
Speaking of gasoline, although the feds add a standard 18.4 cents to a gallon, the states get to add anything they want. Here in California, the liberal riffraff in Sacramento, who long ago mastered the art of squeezing blood from a turnip, add roughly 50 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas, and then have the gall to whine about greedy oil companies.
As if that’s not bad enough, California’s state income tax rate is along the highest in the nation., whereas if you live in Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota, Alaska or Florida, you don’t pay anything.
I suspect the California state legislators would quickly point out that roughly one out of every eight Americans live in our state, so naturally they require more tax revenue. But, I would respond, if it’s the enormous population that makes this state so unappealing to the individual taxpayer and to the company owners who keep moving their factories to such accommodating places as Texas and Nevada, why do you ignoramuses continue to make the problem worse by keeping the border as porous as a sieve and constantly urging illegal aliens to make use of our schools, our hospitals and our welfare, not to mention our jails?
Speaking of which, in California, thieves have three choices: They can either go to prison, Sacramento or Washington, D.C.
In response to an article in which I quoted the architect of ObamaCare, the Dr. Frankenstein of death panels, Ezekiel Emanuel, 57, stating that he plans to die when he’s 75 and that the rest of us should follow his example, Carlene Hobbs wrote to say: “I’d like to help him out. Trouble is I’m dyslexic, so he better update his will real soon.”
©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.