Labeling or Libeling Obama

Labeling or Libeling Obama
Burt Prelutsky
Monday, May 18, 2009

Certain conservative commentators have begun taking exception to those of us who have identified Barack Obama as a socialist, a communist or a left-wing ideologue. The worst thing some of these people are willing to say about the president is that he’s a proponent of big government and increased federal spending. But that also describes George W. Bush. What would make it so ironic is that during last year’s campaign, the Democrats kept saying that voting for John McCain was the same as electing Bush to a third term.

When I recently compared Obama’s spending spree to that of a drunken sailor, a few readers, including Larry Reznick, took umbrage, pointing out that the sailor is spending his own money, not ours. So I am taking this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies to drunken sailors everywhere.

In discussing the sort of person he’d like to appoint to the Supreme Court, replacing Justice Souter, who, in announcing his retirement, made his first good decision in 19 years, President Obama emphasized compassion. I’m afraid that’s exactly the sort of statement you have to expect when you put an ex-community organizer in a job above his pay grade. Compassion should no more be a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court than the ability to balance a basketball on one’s nose or to juggle flatware. The job calls for someone who understands what the forefathers meant when they wrote the Constitution and to have the ability to interpret the document in the manner that those gentlemen intended when they put pen to parchment.

The judges are not supposed to right what they regard as historical wrongs or to give greater weight to legal matters because the plaintiffs are rich or poor, black or white, atheists or believers. I want my wife, my friends and my relatives to be compassionate, but I want my judges to be objective, rational and well aware of the fact that they are members of the judicial branch of the government, and not de facto members of the executive or legislative.

It seems that Obama was at least prescient about one thing. As a candidate, he insisted that America would have greater influence in foreign countries once he was elected. Well, it turns out he was right. In England, it was recently discovered that a number of legislators and government ministers have been using public funds to pay for such personal items as pornography and horse manure. So while we may still have a few things to learn from those on the other side of the Atlantic when it comes to avoiding confrontation with Islamic terrorists and accommodating those who prefer Sharia law to the law of the land, their public servants have clearly been influenced by our own rapacious politicians.

I keep hearing comedians and late night talk show hosts insist that the reason they don’t take pot shots at Obama isn’t because they, like the rest of the MSM, are in the tank for this guy, but because he’s so smart, so well-spoken and so doggone wonderful, that there’s simply nothing funny to be said about him. Well, I’m certainly not one to question high-paid professionals, but I would think there might be a little fun to be had at the expense of a fellow who said that America has 57 states; who inherited Bing Crosby’s ears; who can’t say “Hello” without using a TelePrompter; who lied about having bowed to a Saudi king (“Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?”); who hand-picked a man he trusted to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, a nincompoop whom he has since turned into the butt of his every joke; and, for good measure, is living under the same roof as that longtime comedy staple, the mother-in-law.

Those on the left are always telling us how smart they are. It all began during FDR’s first administration when every left-wing kook who ever gave him a piece of advice or lit his cigarette or kissed his fanny was called a member of Roosevelt’s brain trust. These days, those who would refer to themselves that way would include the likes of Chris Matthews, Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, Harry Reid, Wanda Sykes, Chris Dodd, Rahm Emanual, Bill Maher, Barney Frank, Sean Penn, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and now, no doubt, Arlen Specter. The irony is that the members of this particular brain trust have no brains and can’t be trusted.

Speaking of Ms. Garofalo reminds me that every time I see her on TV, I’m reminded that in the old days, when Jewish parents took their children to be photographed by a professional, the photographer would often supply a pair of eyeglasses. That’s because Jewish parents placed a premium on scholarship, and it was thought that, with glasses, the kid, who might be dumb as a doorknob, would at least look like a young Spinoza.

So it is that Ms. Garofalo is the only actress I know who doesn’t wear contacts. For all I know, she may have 20/20 vision, but she desperately wants to be taken seriously and therefore goes for the intellectual look with her black-framed specs. Sadly, the disguise is wasted because once she opens her yap, she might as well be wearing mittens, a large red nose and great big floppy shoes.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.