Monday, January 9, 2012
by Burt Prelutsky
I can certainly understand why Gingrich is so angry with Mitt Romney. It’s because of all the negative ads that Romney ran in Iowa. You know, the ones that told the truth about Gingrich’s having been censured by Congress for financial shenanigans when he was the Speaker of the House; that he had fully supported mandated health care; that he had joined Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore in promoting the fraud known as global warming; and that he had been paid 1.6 million of our tax dollars by Freddie Mac.
Frankly, I think that nobody was more surprised than Newt when he found himself riding high in the polls back in December. After all, this was the same guy who went off to the Greek islands with Mrs. Gingrich at the start of the primary season, leading his entire election team to quit, after having decided that he obviously wasn’t a serious candidate. It also helps explain why he didn’t bother getting his name on the Virginia ballot. All along, I figured that he had thrown his hat in the ring for the very same reason that Pat Buchanan used to throw his. It’s called branding, the human equivalent of the way that Coca Cola, GE and Disney promote themselves. By keeping his name in front of the public, it helps Newt sell books, videos and make certain that his big, fat lecture fees remain big and fat.
As for Ron Paul’s groupies, they’re always insisting that his detractors don’t really understand the subtle nuances of Paul’s foreign policy, and that, in any case, his domestic policies are utterly sublime. The problems are two-fold: one, the major reasons that young nincompoops champion his domestic platform is because it pretty much consists of legalizing drugs and making certain that the military draft is never reinstated; and, two, his foreign policy would, to an even greater extent than Obama’s, gut the U.S. military and encourage the likes of Russia, China and the Islamists, to start licking their chops.
When Ron Paul’s fans insist that voters overlook a few of his nuttier notions in order to appreciate his overall message, I’m reminded of those screwballs who want people to ignore Louis Farrakhan’s racism and anti-Semitism because, after all, he encourages his followers to dress neatly, bathe regularly and marry the mothers of their children.
I suppose that while we’re at it, we should never forget that Mussolini made the Italian trains run on time and that “Hanoi Jane” Fonda was good to her elderly father.
I read that about half the members of Congress are millionaires, and that their median worth is $913,000. And that’s excluding their home equity. Those are pretty impressive numbers when you realize that they’ve somehow managed to accumulate all that wealth in spite of having to maintain two separate residences on an annual salary of about $170,000. Isn’t it a shame that they’re never able to employ those same talents when it comes to solving America’s financial woes?
Some of my readers get irked by my insistence that liberals are not only stupider than conservatives, but far nastier. The latest example was the way that Alan Colmes went after Rick Santorum. In case you missed the news, it seems that when Rick and his wife lost their baby boy, Gabriel, two hours after he was born prematurely, they decided to take him home so that the rest of the family could acknowledge their brother’s existence.
But, according to Colmes, the Santorums took Gabriel home so that his siblings could “play with him” for a few hours. Only someone as morally rancid as Colmes, an Obama shill who regularly insists liberals are the most compassionate of people, would try to scuttle Santorum’s candidacy by insinuating that he was some sort of monster who encouraged his kids to perhaps toss their brother around like a Frisbee.
However you may feel about what the parents did, and whether or not you would have done the same thing in their tragic circumstances, I think we can all agree that Colmes, in his snide comments, proved that his inner self is even more vile than the smirking skull he presents to the world.
It also bears noting that while Colmes sheds crocodile tears over the plight of little Gabriel, in keeping with liberal hypocrisy he insists the government continue funding Planned Parenthood’s efforts to abort 350,000 babies a year.
Finally, according to the Mayan Calendar, the world is supposed to come to an apocalyptic end on December 21st. I am of two minds about the prediction. On the one hand, I’d hate to think that I might never see another Christmas or another birthday. On the other hand, if, by some awful turn of events or through some political skullduggery, Obama actually gets himself re-elected on November 6th, the end couldn’t come soon enough for me.
__________________________________________
To read another article by Burt Prelutsky, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment