Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Islam & Liberalism

One of the great mysteries of our time is why jihadism is a growth industry. All one should have to do is take a look at the places in the world where Islamics rule the roost to conclude that the only plausible explanation is that those attracted to it must be two-legged swine who, like their four-legged, curly-tailed cousins, long to wallow in mud and slop.

I feel the same way about those who call themselves liberals. In what perverse universe would anyone choose to associate with and support the likes of Barack Obama, the Clintons, Elizabeth Warren, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Charley Rangel, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley?

It’s no surprise that America’s media prefers ridiculing the GOP for its plethora of presidential candidates rather than pointing out that the three announced Democratic contenders are, one, a woman whose only actual achievements consist of lying, cheating and combining the worst features of Evita Peron, Imelda Marcos and Eva Braun; two, a crazy old coot, Bernie Sanders, who votes like a Democrat, labels himself for marketing purposes as an Independent, but boasts that he’s really a socialist; and, three, the ex-governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, who insists he should be the next president, but is too much of a partisan toady to point out all the reasons Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be.

As for the Republican contenders, it’s probably a good thing at this early stage that there are so many in the race that nobody can waste our time bad-mouthing the competition and, instead, has to at least try to make a case for him or herself.

Of course, that hasn’t prevented the pinheaded Rand Paul from indicting those whom he refers to as Republican hawks for the rise of ISIS. When you couple that with his war on the NSA, going so far as to accuse those Republicans who disagree with him of hoping for another 9/11 just so they can blame him, you wonder if his secret wish is to be Hillary’s running mate.

It was bad enough when the diminutive Napoleon Bonaparte had a Napoleonic complex. But at least the Little Corporal, as he was called, managed to lead a major nation and conquer a good portion of Europe before meeting his Waterloo. But, it’s really unseemly for the junior senator from Kentucky, a twerp given to unproductive filibusters and little else, to constantly flaunt his own Napoleonic shortcomings.

When liberals address riots and murders in the inner cities of America, they are always claiming the cause is poverty. We all know or should know that’s a lie. What’s lacking, by and large, in the black community isn’t money, but character, values and a sense of personal responsibility. This was brought home when I received the following email from a reader:

“I am a white American living in rural Southeast Missouri. The county in which I live is almost all white, and extremely poor. The people I know live on far less than the average rioter in Baltimore. Jobs out here in the country are rare and hard to get, and even if you land one, they don’t pay very well.

“However, crime in my part of the woods is almost non-existent. There is a gun in every home, and most years our murder rate is zero. I haven’t locked my backdoor in 20 years and I sleep just fine. There are only two sheriff deputies in the whole county and, at any given time, they are at least 20 minutes away.

“According to Democrats, we have every reason to riot. But we don’t. I wonder how they’d explain it.”

“They wouldn’t bother,” I replied, “because they know you folks won’t vote for them, no matter how many lies they tell in your defense or how much of other people’s money they offer you.”

In the same way, we keep hearing from the Islamic Bund (aka CAIR) every time a Muslim thinks somebody has looked at him cross-eyed. But government statistics bear out the fact that even since 9/11, there have been more acts of violence and vandalism directed at Jews than at Muslims in America and, no doubt, far more verbal assaults on Christians.

After pointing out recently that liberals like to portray conservatives as hypocrites because we defend capital punishment while objecting to abortion, it occurred to me that the real hypocrites are those who raise moral objections to executing serial killers, but strongly support murdering innocent babies.

But, then, nobody should be terribly surprised that Margaret Sanger, who created Planned Parenthood and provided it with that misnomer, thus earning her place in the Pantheon of Liberalism, alongside the likes of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, the Obamas and the Clintons, was a eugenicist widely admired by Adolph Hitler. And why wouldn’t he have a soft spot for Sanger? After all, he shared her conviction that certain groups of people, including blacks, Jews and the feeble-minded, should be eliminated for the good of society.

Those of us of a certain age were raised on the truism that in America absolutely anyone could grow up to be president. But is it really necessary that every four years we need to have that point driven home by some mediocrity named Bush or Clinton?

Speaking of which, a friend recently reminded me that Pogo, the eponymous possum in Walt Kelly’s old comic strip, was famous for having observed: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

That led me, in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s telling a congressional committee that it made no difference who slaughtered four brave Americans in Libya; Obama’s telling us that everything’s coming up roses in Iraq; and the Pope’s insisting that global warming is the greatest catastrophe facing the world; to fully grasp that the wronger the opinion is, the stronger it will be stated and defended.

©2015 Burt Prelutsky. Comments?