Wednesday, April 1, 2015

"Debunking The News" and "No Truth, No Consequences"

When State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked if the administration still believes the trade of five high-ranking jihadists for one Army deserter was a good deal, her blithe response was that we are still able to monitor their activities. When a follow-up question mentioned that three of the five have already attempted to rejoin their fellow terrorists in order to kill Americans, she actually said that proved that our attempts to monitor their activities have been successful. It was at that point my head exploded.

But she is the least of our worries when you realize that even after our ambassador had to beat a hasty retreat out of Yemen and our Marines had to make good their last second getaway on civilian transport, after leaving their weapons behind, Obama continued to call Yemen one of his more notable successes. I suppose it qualifies if one also considers the Titanic, the Hindenburg and ObamaCare, success stories.

Generally, when Democrats brag that they’re the ones with a sense of humor, pointing with pride to the likes of David Letterman, Bill Maher, Joy Behar and Jon Stewart, they only sound foolish. Unless you’re a registered Democrat, meaning that you are ready to laugh at any insult, no matter how lame, directed at Republicans, you’d be hard-pressed to find anything they say even slightly amusing.

On the other hand, their politicians, and not just Joe Biden, are always cracking me up. Just recently, Harry Reid, 75, announced that he won’t be running for re-election in 2016. We all know that the only reason that Harry is retiring is because after being the majority leader of the Senate, the second most powerful man in Washington, it’s no fun at all being just another Obama sock puppet. But, proving that he hasn’t lost his fabulous sense of whimsy, Reid announced that the reason he won’t be seeking a sixth term is because “I want to be able to go out at the top of my game.” I haven’t stopped laughing since.

Speaking of 2016, Hillary Clinton’s staff has informed the media that they should refrain from using the following words and terms in referring to her campaign: “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “representing the past” and “out of touch.”

Because I try to be as chivalrous as the next guy – assuming the next guy isn’t Bill Clinton – I was wondering what words I could possibly still use in writing about her. But, then, I realized that they hadn’t banned “devious,” “cunning,” “cut-throat,” “nasty,” “Borgia-like,” “abusive,” “corrupt,” “vindictive,” “arrogant,” “snide,” “power-mad” and “reptilian,” and I realized I’d still be able to cover her campaign while abiding by her dictatorial edicts.

On the subject of campaigns, we hear that a lot of women would vote for Republicans except they’re concerned that it would hasten the day that Roe v. Wade was over-turned. What they never explain is why after decades of sex education classes and a cornucopia of contraceptive pills and devices, abortions are still taking place in this country, and why that single issue should take precedence over national security, the economy, education, energy independence, a strong military and an abiding faith in the Constitution.

For his part, Rand Paul seems to have based his entire campaign on the notion that only he can bring young voters into the GOP tent, but inasmuch as the singular attraction of a Paul presidency seems to be his willingness to legalize marijuana, they wouldn’t really be Republicans, they’d be stoners.

On other fronts, the Justice Department’s "Operation Choke Point" is trying to put gun and ammo shops out of business by getting banks to shut down their accounts and refusing them business loans. By lumping those who legally sell firearms with telemarketers, home-based charities and loan sharks, Eric Holder’s storm troopers are pretending they’re only looking to go after those who engage in money laundering. And, naturally, we are being told that Obama, who has spent six years waging war on the Second Amendment, had nothing to do with it. It’s always just a providential coincidence with Obama, whether it involves Lois Lerner targeting the Tea Party or using Bowe Bergdahl to help him empty out Gitmo.

When liberals bad-mouth America while praising left-wing sewers like Russia and Cuba, do they ever stop and ask themselves why so many people risk their lives trying to escape from paradise and so few, aside from fugitives like Edward Snowden and Assata Shakur (born JoAnne Byron), ever flee in the opposite direction?

Another question they would do well to ask themselves is if it were the Palestinians, whom they seem to adore, as opposed to Israel’s Jews, whom they openly despise, that possessed a nuclear bomb, would they be equally reluctant to exterminate the enemy?

As of this moment, I am still hearing a number of reasons being floated as the possible motive behind Andreas Lubitz’s crashing the jetliner in the French Alps.

The two most popular seem to be a recurring depression that apparently failed to register with his employers at Lufthansa (which will be known as Losthansa once the lawsuits are finally paid off) and a possible breakup with an anonymous girlfriend. By this time, though, having seen numerous photos of Mr. Lubitz, my own theory is that he was a homosexual who either suffered from conflicted feelings about his orientation or, perhaps, had recently been dumped by a gay lover and been thrown into an emotional tailspin by feelings of heartbreak and abandonment.

All I know is that the last time I saw anyone who was so obviously effete, it was convicted Army spy Chelsea Manning (born Bradley Manning).

Whatever Lubitz’s motive may ultimately turn out to be, his murdering 149 innocent men, women and children, is the reason that I find myself more often hoping there’s a Hell than a Heaven.

The way I see it, good people often get to experience a great deal of heaven right here on earth, but far too many villains seem to evade their just deserts, and one can only hope they will eventually pay the ultimate price.

No Truth, No Consequences

When I was a kid, a very popular radio show hosted by Ralph Edwards was “Truth or Consequences.” Contestants would be asked questions and if they muffed one, they would have to face the consequences, which usually involved performing embarrassing stunts in public and then returning the following week to describe their humiliation. But since there were prizes bestowed for “being such a good sport,” there was an endless queue of willing victims.

That was then, this is now. People – especially those in public life, particularly political life -- can do or say just about anything and get away with it. For instance, even though Eric Holder’s own Justice Department found that Officer Darren Wilson had done everything by the book – and you have to know how much Mr. Holder hated that conclusion! – and that the shooting of Ferguson thug Michael Brown was justified, no member of the Congressional Black Caucus ever apologized for standing on the front steps of Congress conveying the false narrative that Brown had raised his hands in surrender.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton broke every rule in the book by using her personal email and her husband’s server to conceal her communiques about the massacre in Benghazi and the foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and yet not a single Democrat has voiced the slightest objection. In fact, Clinton henchman James Carville admitted that her motive was to keep everything under wraps, hidden from the prying eyes of Congress and the American people. In spite of which, the Party big wigs, along with the liberal hoi polloi, continue to troop out and sing her praises.

Although I was happy to see Netanyahu win re-election in a big way, I was troubled in the run-up to the election that the Labor Party was going to great lengths to woo Israel’s Arabs to swing the election their way. Obviously it didn’t work, but in a nation with just seven million people, it won’t take forever for two million Arabs to overtake five million Jews. That being the case, it may not matter if Israel is destroyed by Iran’s bombs or by Obama and the U.N. forcing a two-state (final) solution on the Jews. Thanks to the Arab birthrate, Israel could be destroyed from within by those who hate Jews every bit as much as does everyone else in the Middle East, in Europe and, let it be said, in the White House and the U.S. State Department.

But, to be fair, it’s not just Jews that Obama despises. It’s America, and not just those pesky Christians who provoke him by hanging on to their guns and their religion, not to mention the Constitution. Recently, as you may have noticed, sounding very much like Stalin, Chavez and Putin, Obama came out in favor of mandatory voting.

As he correctly pointed out, if everyone had been compelled to vote, the 2014 elections would have turned out far differently than they did. Or in other words, if those who are dependent on government hand-outs had all expressed their gratitude by voting, the Democrats would have held on to the Senate and possibly even taken back the House.

But the truth is that one of the things preventing America from sliding into the abyss is that millions of unappreciative slackers, who rely on productive taxpayers to feed, clothe and house them, are fortunately too damn lazy to even fill out a ballot.

In case you are one of the majority of Americans who have no idea what King v. Burrell is, it’s the case that the Supreme Court will decide in June which will determine if subsidies for health care insurance can be paid to those who signed up for ObamaCare on the federal exchange even though the Affordable Care Act specifically limits subsidies to those who signed up on state exchanges.

The importance of the decision rests on the fact that 36 of 50 states didn’t bother creating exchanges, meaning that ObamaCare would implode if the justices rule that the bill means what it actually says and not what Obama wishes it said.

The reason I bring it up is because, as important as the case is, a recent poll disclosed that whereas only 9% of the people knew about it, an overwhelming 53% had never even heard of it. And yet Obama insists it would be a swell idea if every shmoe in America were fined or imprisoned if they didn’t vote.

Another problem facing America is that Obama is so pathologically arrogant that he never thinks he has to be subtle or to finesse any of his partisan moves. Millions of Americans are notoriously forgiving, not to mention embarrassingly uninformed, but Obama invariably pushes too hard, assuming that the hand-picked audiences of union members, blacks, college students and late night talk show hosts, who appear to be awe-struck in his presence are indicative of his actual popularity.

By this time, I am almost numb to the atrocities committed by ISIS, Boko Haram and all the other degenerates, expressing their allegiance to Allah, but I am constantly taken aback by the reluctance of the U.S. and its European allies to revenge the beheadings of Americans, Brits, Spaniards and Italians. Where oh where are the Crusaders when you really need them?

Instead, we have Obama treating Israel as if it’s something he tracked into the White House on the bottom of his shoe while curtsying to the Ayatollah Khamenei and reaching out to the Iranian people, as if they have the slightest say in the theocratic cesspool in which they dwell.

When Obama told Iran that he saw the chance for this to be a great opportunity for our two nations to enjoy a new spring, I immediately thought of Mel Brooks’ “Springtime for Hitler.” I realize that there are those who object to connecting Obama in any way to the Fuhrer. After all, Obama hasn’t sent millions of Jews to the ovens or run roughshod over Europe. On the other hand, Hitler was loyal to his allies, whereas Obama has refused to arm the Kurds, arm the Ukrainians and has apparently decided to cast Israel adrift, leaving it to the tender mercies of Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, a nuclear Iran and the Jew-hating vermin at the U.N.

Finally, it is almost unheard of for artists to be eloquent about their own work. As a rule, they come off as fuzzy-headed bores whenever they attempt to define the creative process, although they can occasionally be quite amusing when discussing and dismissing the pathetic attempts of their colleagues.

The rare exception was the divinely inspired Michelangelo who once explained the existence of one of his statues by stating: “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.”

©2015 Burt Prelutsky. Comments?