Liberals: America’s Unhatched Boobies

Liberals: America’s Unhatched Boobies
Thursday, July 14, 2011
by Burt Prelutsky

I have often admitted that I could never handle being president. Aside from the dress code that requires suit and tie even if you’re only taking out the trash, I simply lack the patience. I’m afraid I’d spend all my time muttering things like “But I don’t want to meet with Nancy Pelosi. There’s something spooky about an old woman who not only wears her hair like a four-year-old, but sounds like a four-year-old. She’s like something out of a Stephen King novel” or “I don’t give a hoot what the Supreme Court says. For God’s sake, those clowns wear their bathrobes to work. Who do they think they are? Hugh Hefner?”

But a job I’d be even less able to carry off is Press Secretary. I can’t even imagine what it’s like being Jay Carney and having to go out every day and tell lies or provide alibis for the boss. If I had to do that much spinning, I’d fall down before I reached the microphone.

Frankly, I think Mr. Carney is fortunate that, unlike Pinocchio, his nose doesn’t sprout a few inches with every fib he fobs off on us. Otherwise, by this time, eagles and condors could perch on his shnoz.

I saw a poll recently that insisted that only 16% of voters think that congressional incumbents should be re-elected. But that’s entirely misleading. The real question is whether they want to replace their own congressman. There are, after all, scores of incumbents I’d like to send packing, starting with Nancy Pelosi, but, unfortunately, it isn’t up to me. The sad truth is that the schmoes in her district think she’s the cat’s pajamas. The louts who live in my district feel the same way about Brad Sherman. The clods who live in the next district over are simply infatuated with Henry Waxman. In politics, clearly love is blind.

So the fact that five out of six American voters think incumbents should be evicted from Congress is meaningless because they’re referring to every incumbent but their own. That, in a nutshell, is how incumbents become incumbents.

There was that other foolish poll that I’ve heard even otherwise intelligent people refer to as if it were gospel. That was the poll that reported that whereas 40% of voters identified themselves as conservatives, a scant 20% identified themselves as liberals. I have actually heard conservative pundits take heart from those numbers. But the truth is that a lot of liberals don’t like to apply that label to themselves. Instead, they prefer to regard themselves as progressives or independents or even moderates. The fact remains that in every national election, 40% of the electorate go for the Republican, 40% go for the Democrat, while the remaining 20%, who are apolitical or just plain dumb, get to decide who wins.

It’s a mystery to me why anyone who was lucky enough to have been born into such a tolerant, freedom-loving, flourishing capitalistic society such as we have would despise it. An even greater mystery is why anyone would wish to see America transformed into something resembling one of Europe’s socialistic disasters. It is because of mysteries such as these that I devote so much of my time and thought to liberals, not to mention my anger and contempt.

I have concluded that people become left-wingers because they confuse good intentions with actual activity, theory with reality and fairy tales with history. That is to say, they are disconnected from an objective universe where facts trump emotions. In short, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I’ve decided that they are not necessarily evil, but they are certifiably bonkers.

They exist in a state of delusion that a cartoonist named Chip Bok captured in a cartoon in which Barack Obama, standing, as usual, at a podium, announces: “I won’t allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren’t paying their fair share.”
_________________________________________

Send in the Clowns
Monday, July 11, 2011
by BurtPrelutsky

Recently, Jon Stewart found himself in the unenviable position of having people questioning whether or not he’s a racist. The truth is, he had nobody to blame but himself because, employing an accent unheard since the days of “Amos ‘n’ Andy,” he mocked Herman Cain.

I’m proud to say that I wasn’t one of those who questioned him. That’s because I believed the answer was self-evident. He’s a liberal, after all. Therefore, he promotes affirmative action, proving that, like the political party to which he pledges allegiance, he regards blacks as mentally inferior, incapable of competing academically with Caucasians and Asians. If that’s not racism, what is?

The better question is whether Jon Stewart (Jonathan Lebowitz in an earlier life) is a comedian. That, after all, is how people like himself, Joy Behar, Bill Maher and Michael Moore, always identify themselves when confronted by an intelligent conservative. How many times have we heard Stewart and friends insist, “I’m not some political pundit, I’m just a comedian”? By which they mean, they don’t have to tell the truth or stick to the facts. But in that case, isn’t it at least their responsibility to be funny?

All I ever get from Mr. Stewart and his stable of writers are lame insults directed at conservatives, followed by a great deal of bad mugging on his part. That invariably leads to gales of hysterical laughter from his juvenile audience, but all of us who grew up on sit coms have long grown accustomed to canned laughter.

Frankly, when I hear the nits cackling over some inanity uttered by Stewart, Behar or Maher, it helps me to understand how it is that people wind up electing the likes of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Whoever it was who said that people get the leaders they deserve was right on the money.

When leftwing louts can divert legitimate criticism by insisting they’re comedians, I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to people like Schumer, Boxer, Waxman, Durbin and Barney Frank, to fend off attacks by reminding us that they’re just a bunch of clowns.

Finally, I believe that most people, including liberals, are aware that the road to success more often than not consists of getting the appropriate education, avoiding drug use and being raised in a two-parent home. And while it’s true that some people manage to prosper in spite of being raised by a single parent, it’s not the optimum situation.

Predictably, in the majority of cases, people who wind up in the gutter or prison come from broken homes, are high school drop-outs and regard drugs as the permanent solution to temporary problems. The exceptions to the rule are those men who, no matter how ideal their upbringing, somehow wind up being the governor of Illinois or the president of the Teamsters. Over the past 50 years, there is hardly one of them who hasn’t wound up, like Rod Blagojevich, trading in his gray pinstripes for prison stripes.

I can’t help thinking that it would save us all a lot of time, trouble and expense, if these schmucks went directly from the swearing-in ceremony to signing-in at Joliet.
_________________________________________

To read another article by Burt Prelutsky, click here.