It occurred to me the other day that people are confined to mental institutions when they’re found to constitute a danger to themselves or others. So, why is it that Obama is still running around loose?
I also found myself thinking how far this nation has declined since the time of the Founding Fathers, while at the same time acknowledging that this seems to be the natural order of things. Historically, the patriarch of a family, through invention or industry, accumulates a great fortune. But, eventually, he dies, leaving his wealth to be dispersed to future generations. In time, the family deteriorates into a collection of floozies, playboys, drunks, addicts and, inevitably, politicians.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is presented as the final word in matters of jurisprudence by Fox News in spite of his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job pulled off by the Bush administration, recently announced that Edward Snowden performed a heroic act. I suppose if by heroism, one means being guilty of espionage and treason, he may have a point. But before I’d start heralding Snowden for his patriotism, I think I’d ask myself how it is that this schmuck immediately scampered off and sought refuge in such bastions of freedom and liberty as China and Russia.
Speaking of Russia, Vladimir Putin said “Dealing with Snowden is like shearing a piglet — too much squealing, too little wool.” I’m willing to grant that his words may have lost something in translation. Or it may have been one of those old folk sayings that only Russians can fully grasp. But it is just possible that assuming pigs to be the source of wool might help explain the economic woes that have bedeviled Russia down through the ages.
In related news, a poll showed that 22% of the American public agrees that Snowden is a hero. But before Napolitano takes any small comfort in that, it should be pointed out that 19% think that Obama was right in not sending military assistance to Ambassador Stevens and his three valiant cohorts in Benghazi. It’s always worth being reminded that 10% of Americans are convinced that Elvis is alive and working at a 7-11 in Nashville.
Possibly the worst result of the latest attempt to pretend that amnesty isn’t really amnesty is that Marco Rubio has blown his chances at garnering the GOP nomination in 2016. It just goes to prove once again that young men should never join gangs, even those with only seven other members.
There are other drawbacks to the immigration bill. One of them is that when it comes to the border, Janet Napolitano has the final word as to when it’s secure. Inasmuch as she has already claimed that the border is safer than it’s ever been, the 15 Republican senators who fell for Chuck Schumer’s lies should be forced to take a remedial history class and read how Ronald Reagan was bamboozled by the Democrats back in 1986.
What the heck is it about people named Napolitano? Surely they can’t all be gibbering idiots.
Another drawback to a bill that carries the stench of sulfur is that it is jam-packed with pork, which I seem to recall Congress promising would never again be the case. Some of the pork involves funding to the tune of $100 million a PR department of the federal government that promotes tourism in certain locales. In this case, it’s Las Vegas that would be the beneficiary. Although Harry Reid needed no convincing, that was enough to garner Republican Sen. Dean Heller’s vote.
Forget the so-called military-industrial complex. At least those folks have to deal with all sorts of conflicting entities in order to have influence in Congress. And for all its alleged power, in recent years we have seen huge cuts in the Pentagon’s budget. But with two lap dog U.S. senators at their constant beck-and-call, nobody dares mess with Vegas casino owners like Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson.
I had high hopes for the Supreme Court when they freed several states from the odious necessity of asking permission of Eric Holder’s Justice Department before changing their voting laws. Texas, for example, required Holder’s okay in order to require voters to provide photo IDs before casting ballots. If you listened to the miserable likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, accusing justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, of promoting racism, you might not be aware that in several of the states affected, black voters already out-number whites.
You would think that every American would be in favor of the government’s doing everything in its power to ensure fair elections, but that would necessitate overlooking the fact that as far back as 1960, it was widespread fraud in Illinois and Texas that enabled Democrats JFK and LBJ to eke out a 114,000-vote victory over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge. Liberals would have you believe that requiring photo IDs would prevent millions of blacks and Hispanics from voting, but they never bother explaining how it is that these same folks manage to come up with the IDs when boarding a plane, buying a 6-pack or attending an Obama event.
But no sooner was I celebrating the Court than they nullified a vote by millions of Californians and ruled that same-sex marriages are not a bad joke, after all, but a civil right.
If it’s a right, why is it that so few homosexuals have taken advantage of it? After all, it’s been legal for some years in several states and Washington, D.C., but only a handful of such marriages have taken place. I mean, when the 19th Amendment was passed, millions of women ran out and voted. When the Civil Rights bill was passed, millions of blacks started voting, eating at lunch counters and sitting wherever they liked on buses. The fact that very few Adams and Steves have tied the knot strongly suggests that the issue is little more than an excuse to bully gutless judges and politicians into cowering and caving.
Gays like to say that if you disagree with their agendas, it’s because you hate them. They even go so far as to describe it as a phobia, although I personally don’t know anyone who has an unnatural fear of homosexuals.
What they don’t get is that just because you don’t pander to a child — don’t let him eat a quart of ice cream for dinner, for instance — doesn’t mean you hate the kid. It just means you don’t let him have his way just because he cries and whines and makes a fuss.
It all comes down to your being the adult and his being a brat.