The Little President Who Cried “Wolf!”

You have to wonder just how many times Obama is going to announce that, thanks entirely to Republicans in Congress, this nation is on the verge of going over the cliff or ending up in a ditch. I also wonder how many people still give a darn if Operation Head Start simply disappears or how it is that cops and firefighters, who all collect a city or county paycheck, will suddenly be unemployed if the federal government has to cut two cents from every dollar it currently squanders.

And why is it that instead of ever coming up with a plan to avoid emergency measures, Obama always pretends that he has no choice in such matters but to fire food inspectors and air traffic control agents, people who actually perform vital services, but never mentions his own batalion of butt-kissing aides and Mrs. Obama’s ladies-in-waiting?

Apparently Chuck Hagel will be the next Secretary of Defense. Not only can he count on all 55 Senate Democrats voting for him, but a large number of Republicans. In spite of the fact that he is an anti-Semite and the best friend Iran has in America, the feeling, as expressed by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, is that the president should be allowed to pick his own cabinet members. Why any Republican senator should feel that way is a mystery to me. Not only is Hagel not the best man for the job, he may very well be the worst.

But I also could never figure out why the Republicans allowed Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who had been the chief counsel of the ACLU and an outspoken feminist, to sail through her confirmation hearings in 1993 even though she refused to answer questions from those who wondered how she planned to make the transition from left-wing advocate to being a justice on the Supreme Court. And over the past 20 years, we’ve all come to realize that she never had the slightest intention of transitioning. The final vote, by the way, was 96-3.

And yet it had only been a scant six years earlier, in 1987, that the Democrats prevented Ronald Reagan from appointing Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

And, again, in 2004, the Democrats prevented George W. Bush from appointing either Charles Pickering and, later, Michael B. Wallace, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, often a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

Clearly, it’s Democrats who know how to play hardball. Republicans don’t even know how to put on their jockstraps.

I am guessing that the Democrats will get the massive immigration reform bill passed just the way they want it. That means, as happened with Reagan, who signed the first amnesty bill, they will promise to build an enormous fence with barbed wire and electricity running through it, and then renege once they have all the illegals registered as Democrats. And by “all,” I am not referring to the 11 million they keep yakking about. That is the exact same number that was being tossed around over a decade ago. So unless Mexicans stopped sneaking in since then, stopped having babies or have taken Romney’s suggestion to heart and started self-deporting, I think it is safe to assume the number is much closer to 20 million.

Wouldn’t it make for a nice change if the next time Obama started in about needing higher taxes in order to finance work on our infrastructure, he quit yakking about bridges, roads and those damn trains that nobody wants, and instead started making plans to build that fence?

I always found it odd that Reagan, who made the line “Trust but verify” so famous when talking about the Soviet Union, was so easily flimflammed by the Democrats.

I am quickly losing patience with those conservative pundits who don’t believe that Obama is out to destroy our economy in order to re-create it in the image of the failed socialistic economies of Europe. But, some of these pundits argue, even he can see that those countries are all on life support. Of course he can. But what they fail to recognize is the size of the man’s ego. None of those countries, after all, has had his masterful hand at the helm.

What further confounds me is that, in spite of a corrupt media that never tires of singing Obama’s praises, you would think that people would recognize in their own lives and those of their friends and relatives what a disaster he has been. And what a hypocrite! He rails against the rich and privileged — you know those millionaires and billionaires with their private jets — as if he were a member of the proletariat. But not only is he worth several million dollars, and will be worth hundreds of millions once he’s out of office and able to cash in on books to which he’ll lend his name and speeches for which he’ll be paid a king’s ransom, but look at who he hangs out with. If he’s not breaking bread with the likes of Paul McCartney, Tom Hanks, George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker, he’s giving campaign speeches at gatherings where tickets go for $35,000 apiece or playing golf with Tiger Woods or footsies with Warren Buffet and Jeffrey Immelt.

The only poor people he ever even lays eyes on are the Marines who have to salute him when he dances off Air Force One and those silly buggers who provide a background curtain for him every time he delivers a speech.

Finally, have you ever noticed how many left-wingers, especially those who accuse conservatives of being fascists, relish the company of real life dictators? For openers, there’s Oliver Stone and Michael Moore, who can’t get enough of guys like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Steven Spielberg said that the seven hours he spent with Castro were the highlight of his life. Sean Penn, who’s not only enamored of Castro and Chavez, but also had very warm feelings for Saddam Hussein.

Woody Allen wished that Obama didn’t have to answer to Congress or the Supreme Court, and Harry Belafonte wants Obama to toss his Republican critics in jail. Even that’s not enough for Bill Maher, Will Ferrell and Chris Matthews, who wanted George Bush dead and would like to see the rest of us in the terminal ward.

But that’s nothing new. George Bernard Shaw, an avowed socialist, had nice things to say about Hitler and Mussolini. Charlie Chaplin, Lillian Hellman, Paul Robeson, and half the self-labeled intellectuals in Hollywood and New York, thought that Joseph Stalin was the cat’s pajamas.

Although, nobody seems certain whether it was Marx, Lenin or Stalin, who first dubbed those radical zealots who blindly promoted communism as “useful idiots,” the fact is he was only half right.

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website:
  • GlenFS

    The Dems never take the conciliatory view on appointees Republicans take. You would think the GOP would wise up and play it the same. It’s not nice, but what does their idealism get them? They act the same towards Dems in politics as the Dems act towards enemies of the state in wartime. Sweetness is not useful in either situation.

    • Burt Prelutsky

      Glen: I couldn’t agree more. But I’m afraid that even in wartime, the GOP (at least under the Bushes) played it pretty much by Marquis of Queensbury rules, which is why Bush I left Saddam Hussein in power, and Bush II lived in fear that we would put even one bullet hole in a mosque, even when we knew the Iraqis were using them as armories and sanctuaries.


  • jmiky

    Burt, I made a really bad decision and took a buyout instead of a normal pension, and then GM went bankrupt and the rest is history. But my point was that my sister wholeheartedly believes in government handouts while I will live with my poor decision and not let the taxpayers pay for my folly. I can only wish that more people would recognize that most of their problems are self induced and that they shouldn’t expect us to bail them out.

  • Souvoter

    You’re so right, Burt. But communism is being flaunted right in our faces openly and arrogantly and the ‘useful idiots’ seem to crave it. Where have all the American patriots gone????

    • Burt Prelutsky

      Sou: 100% of them voted for Romney.


  • JohnInMA

    Burt, a good read. Chock-a-block full of good observations and associated questions. My only two thoughts or offerings: For the most part I understand the position that the president has a right to pick his cabinet, advisors, etc. Perhaps the best ‘standard’ is that a nominee isn’t ineligible simply for having sympathetic views or for being in ideological lock step with the president, rather they are ineligible for more egregious flaws, such (treason? criminal?). I see Hagel’s flawed viewpoints as being in line with Obama. Am I wrong?

    Also, you might know better given your Hollywood history, but I’ve always seen the bizarre trait where the more wealthy stars (and it’s almost always some of the most wealthy) elevate dictators as one I expected, given my experience with the progressive outlook. Progressives see the world as a collection of groups, defined across a number of characteristics – skin color, gender, orientation, wealth, etc., versus a collection of individuals. Anyone who addresses ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’ within those groups, gets automatic praise (only the groups ‘properly’ defined, however). And I can only suspect they rationalize the ‘bad’ as a balance, meaning they convince themselves the ‘good’ outweighs. My biggest issue isn’t that viewpoint as much as the utter lack of uniformity in how they apply it. I can’t see to overlook the ‘bad’, but somehow they do in certain cases, placating themselves by pointing to other examples of ‘bad’, especially at home. Yet they would never apply it to groups they are committed to hate. E.g., they would never give a pass to hypotethical conservative billionaires for having employed tens of thousands (economic justice anyone??) while also having been responsible for, say, a chemical spill (oil?), cutting a forest, etc.. Somehow there is evil in that……

    I’ve always my biggest hurdle to be a progressive is that I cannot see so many shades of grey. They see practically an infinite series of shades.

    • Burt Prelutsky

      John: If Obama and Hagel are in sync, I would like to hear Obama come out and say the things his Sec. of Defense has said about Israel, Jews and Iran. But, no, I do not believe a president should have carte blanche to appoint anyone he wants. Otherwise, why would the Senate have the authority to nix his nominees? And why, after the Dems, put the kibosh on Reagan’s choice of John Tower to the same job, should the GOP roll over for Hagel?

      I don’t believe that left-wingers see an infinite number of shades. I think they pride themselves on nuance, but they are sheeplike in their desire to parrot whatever their leaders proclaim. Like those with weak minds everywhere, they have a strong liking for fascism.


      • JohnInMA

        I see everyone’s point on the Senate role in the selection process. Some refer to the ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities. But, I think it wrong when either party resists just for ideological reasons. The ‘Hagel problem’ is a little different with the outright anti-Semitic statements made in public, some not on the record. But he played dumb about it, and claimed he doesn’t mean it now, so it’s tricky. More importantly, I think Obama has a similar disdain for Israel (perhaps not Jews in a purely ethnic sense) as he has for wealthy, aggressive capitalists. Just for different reasons, but ultimately I believe he thinks they carry the largest burden for ‘the problem’, just as ‘the rich’ do. He’s so politically minded he would never say how he feels or thinks overtly, but his actions speak loudly. Most striking to me is that he will on occasion speak negatively of Israel or the people as a group (should I say “collectively”??). However, he and his State Dept. only call out individuals and individual action from Hamas, Palestinians, etc. That is a huge difference, as if to give credence to the later groups overall and to suggest a few bad actors and actions. But he is more willing to assign overall ‘bad intent’ to the former as a group. Perhaps he uses Jimmy Carter as the example for setting boundaries of what NOT to say to avoid appear being overtly biased towards the PA and associated bodies.

        • Burt Prelutsky

          John–I’m not sure how you define “ideological reasons.” When debating politics, what other reasons are there? There was nothing particularly tricky about Hagel saying he doesn’t mean all those things he said in the past. After all, it wasn’t very long ago that he said them. So give him a pass, if you like, but don’t pretend that he has seen the error of his way.

          Where do you get the idea that Obama has disdain for “wealthy, aggressive capitalists”? For one thing, I don’t know what you mean by “aggressive.” For another, who but wealthy capitalists attended his $35,000-a-plate campaign fund raisers? And who does he hang out with but the very wealthy? And what do you call people such as Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt and George Soros? Not wealthy? Not aggressive? Not capitalists?

          Why do I have this nagging feeling, John, that you’re sliding back into the morass?


          • JohnInMA

            Perhaps I should have included the modifier, “pure”, when saying I don’t agree with ideological interference. When a president wins an election, he has leeway in building HIS cabinet, to execute HIS policies. If every Senator opposes his nominees purely because of political ideology, then perhaps we should suspend confirmation hearings and simply post votes based on party affiliation. I exaggerate just to make a point. Hagel’s nomination was “trick” to me given that his anti-Semitic statements go far beyond ideology and should have been disqualified him. Yet he simply played the stupid card, in effect a denial. Perhaps voting against his nomination on grounds of being intellectually unfit makes sense. But not because he agrees with the president on war and military matters, if the case. Allowing only pure ideology as a justification means we have to accept as valid “borkings” and “high tech lynchings”, where the root motivation is clear (even though with Dems the means are much more heinous). I can’t.

            And, routinely I see in word and intent that Obama dislikes those who are very successful. Those who ‘aggressively’ seek wealth perhaps at the expense of most all else. After all, at some point “you’ve made enough”…… But taking money from those folks both as donations and demands/taxes is all the more sweet, I suspect. He is clearly in the camp of those progressives who see money as if it were a natural resource, say fruit from a tree. You having more almost predicates someone else having less. Therefore you MUST give up more to the collective. I’m not aware of any public statement Obama has made that would make me think he had anything but disdain for the uber-rich, simply because of their wealth. Just as he’s willing to believe doctor’s cheat as rule to be paid and enrich themselves (and not for the good of the patient or in reaction to blood-thirsty lawyers), so I think he believes most of the wealthy are really cheaters in their own way. Why else is the term ‘fair’ so prevalent?

          • Burt Prelutsky

            John: The word “fair” is prevalent in Obamaspeak for the same reason that “free,” “new” and “improved,” are to be found in so many ads. They play well with the public. The fact that at last count, Obama was worth about $10 million and that he didn’t donate to charity at anything near the rate of Romney strongly suggests that he likes money quite a lot. And when he leaves office and he and Michelle quickly dwarf the $100 million the Clintons accumulated in their first eight years out of the White House, you will see just how much Obama hates money and capitalism.


          • JohnInMA

            Good point. I wonder if he finds these ‘earnings’ valid because

            A. He paid his dues by community organizing

            B. He hasn’t reached the point of ‘making enough’

            C. It’s more valid because the bulk of his current and future income is due to his greatness and people’s willingness to pay him to enlighten and educate them (books, speaking, etc.) Me, me, me.

            D. All of the above.

            Still, I simply see too many examples of his characterizing successful people (capitalists) as having bad, or worse, evil motives with a fervent willingness to take advantage of others. Greed-heads. It will be interesting to see how he speaks and behaves post-presidency. Will some of those most willing donors get thrown under the bus, too? Or will he become purely hypocritical like others? Perhaps we can them call him Barack O’Gore (in the spirit of the season…)

  • jmiky

    Burt, all I need to know about liberals I’ve learned from my sister. She, a veteran of 4 abortions and living on disability, tells me that I need to apply too. I made a stupid decision and didn’t take my full pension from GM and now live on 600 dollars a month. I have no one to blame but myself and am comfortable with that. Whatever happened to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

    • Burt Prelutsky

      jmiky: It was a good line, but I’m not sure that even JFK believed it when he said it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been a Democrat and he sure wouldn’t have had LBJ on the ticket.

      I can’t imagine why you didn’t take your full pension from GM. Unlike the government bribes that Obama is dispensing, you earned it by working for a private company.


  • Arkady967

    Unfortunately, the analysis is, succinctly, correct. Wittily delivered, so at least there’s a bit of humor for those with an inclination for the wry by way of wit, but the news is pretty bad nonetheless.

    • Burt Prelutsky

      Arkady: The news has been pretty bad since 1988, but it’s gotten really awful since 2008. But I believe it’s better to laugh than to cry.