Friday, April 13, 2012
by Burt Prelutsky
Because Barack Obama repeats himself so often, I’m never sure when I see him on TV insisting that his energy policy involves “all-of-the-above” whether I’m watching one of his 2008 campaign speeches or one that he delivered yesterday afternoon. Either way, I know he’s lying.
The reason that he gets applause from an audience of college students or public sector union members is because these trained seals know that whenever he pauses in the middle of a sentence, it’s their cue to begin clapping. These dolts have no idea that “all of the above “ theoretically refers to gas, coal, oil, nuclear, solar and wind. If they actually understood that the only two options he favors are the last two, they might stop cheering long enough to wonder why he doesn’t just say so, instead of pretending that the other, more realistic options are actually on the table.
They might even wonder why he stopped the Keystone oil pipeline in its tracks, or why he insists on taking bows for oil drilling in the U.S. that’s only taking place thanks to George Bush’s long term policies. Or, for that matter, they might even question why he has done everything in his power to destroy the coal and oil industries in America, while at the same time sending two billion tax dollars to help Brazil finance their offshore drilling efforts.
In a saner world, they might even ask each other why he has funneled billions of our dollars to solar companies that, in the natural course of things, quickly go bankrupt. Then again, they might be curious why the American taxpayer had to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars so that Chevrolet could give birth to the Volt, a car that is every bit as unappealing as the Ford Edsel was in its day. In fact, the only major differences between the two automotive lemons is that the Ford Motor Company came up with the Edsel on their own dime, and that the Volt, with its $40,000 price tag, costs several times as much.
Moving on, if Staff Sgt. Robert Bales did what he is accused of having done in Afghanistan -- namely massacre 16 civilians, nine of them children -- he deserves to be punished. I have heard all the possible rationales for the crimes, which include a war-related brain injury, money woes, marital woes and a drinking problem, but I wouldn’t buy those excuses if those vile crimes had been committed by a civilian in Chicago or Kansas City, so I’m not going to cut him any slack just because they took place halfway around the world in Kandahar.
That being said, the notion that, as a result of the carnage, the Al Capone of Afghanistan, otherwise known as Hamid Karzai, had the gall to tell America that our soldiers weren’t to be allowed off their military bases, makes me question once again why we are propping up his corrupt regime. For good measure, this tinhorn douchebag also insisted that when Defense Secretary Panetta addressed several hundred U.S. servicemen, they had to leave their weapons at the door. Although it is still early in the year, Vegas odds makers are already making Karzai the schmuck to beat in the 2012 Chutzpah Man of the Year competition.
This is the same Hamid Karzai, by the way, who insisted that Sgt. Bales stand trial and get a taste of what passes for justice in an Afghan court, but who has not, so far as I can tell, even arrested the treacherous Afghan guards who shot seven American soldiers in the back over the past couple of months.
For my part, I would pull our troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow morning, let the Taliban deal with Karzai, and come back in the afternoon if we felt the need.
Finally, in a recent piece, I committed the sin in some readers’ eyes of paying respect to Abraham Lincoln. Even though I know that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War in order to free the slaves, but in order to preserve the Union, and that some people are still upset that he suspended habeas corpus during the conflict, I had to take exception to those who accused him of being a dictator and who likened the Civil War to our American Revolution.
The Founding Fathers did not wage war in order to free themselves from an overreaching federal government, but to free themselves from the government of a foreign power in which they had no representation. The Confederate States, on the other hand, were fully represented in Washington, D.C.
A few readers pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented the 11 Southern states from seceding. My response was: Why would there be? After fighting the Brits in order to gain their independence, why would Washington, Madison and Adams, ever dream that 80 or so years later, half the nation would decide to go its separate way? It would be like parents leaving the house and having to remind their 12-year-old son to be sure not to remove his own appendix while they’re at the movies.
Finally, while I fully acknowledged that Lincoln was not a saint who sacrificed his own life in order to free the slaves, the South fought a war in which 620,000 Americans died for no other reason than to retain slavery. Even speaking as one who favors states’ rights and a smaller federal government, habeas corpus or no habeas corpus, that’s really not a motive I’d ever care to defend.
________________________________________________________
To read another article by Burt Prelutsky, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment