The Liberal Privilege of George Takei

George TakeiImagine for a moment if a reporter asked actor Walter Koenig (best known for his role as Pavel Chekov in the original Star Trek television series) a question about President Obama, and Koenig responded this way:

“He is a clown in blackface sitting in the White House. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there… This man does not belong in the White House. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.”

How do you think the national media would respond to such a diatribe? How would they react to someone of Koenig’s notoriety calling our liberal, African American president a “clown in blackface” who “does not belong” in the White House?

There likely isn’t a person reading this who doesn’t already know the answer to that question: Koenig would be crucified.

It wouldn’t matter what President Obama said or did that had provoked such anger from Koenig, nor would it matter how well Koenig was liked, or how many good deeds he had done throughout his life. He would be assailed quickly and completely.

The story would be headline news in major newspapers. Entertainment Tonight would dwell on it for weeks. MSNBC would spend days trying to tie Koenig to the Tea Party movement. Koenig’s business dealings would be scrutinized, and any companies paying him money would be called upon and petitioned to sever all ties. Eventually, Koenig would turn up on Al Sharpton’s radio show, seeking atonement for his sins, only to then fade into obscurity and never be heard from again.

Now, imagine what would happen if another former Star Trek star made those very same race-fueled, vitriolic comments… Only instead of making them about Obama, they were made about conservative Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. What do you think would happen then?

Well, we don’t have to guess on that one, because it did happen… earlier this week. And the mainstream media response has been crickets.

The guilty party was George Takei, the actor who portrayed Mr. Sulu, helmsman of the USS Enterprise. In an interview with a Fox Affiliate on Monday, Takei excoriated Thomas for his written dissent in the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage case, in which Takei believed Thomas was implying that there was dignity in being a slave.

I think most people reading Thomas’s dissent would conclude that the justice was clearly referring to the inherit dignity of man, but that’s not how Takei took it. And because Thomas is an unabashed, African American conservative who’s largely despised by liberals, the mainstream media appears to have given Takei a total pass on his jaw-dropping racial slur.

As of the time I’m writing this column (four days after the Takei interview) no major news organizations, other than Fox News, have picked up on the story. In fact, the only non-conservative outlet that seems to have mentioned it at all is Salon, and they presented Takei’s remarks as hard news without any commentary. This urges the question: Did the commentary-driven website even find Takei’s words objectionable?

What we’re seeing here is a clear case of Liberal Privilege: The exemption from criticism granted to liberals who say nasty (even racist) things about conservatives.

Pre-order John Daly's upcoming novel BLOOD TRADE.

Pre-order John Daly’s upcoming novel BLOOD TRADE.

You see, in the eyes of the mainstream media, vitriol and racism targeted at conservatives is a largely forgivable offense. It’s so forgivable (and generally accepted) in fact, that such occurrences are often not even deemed worthy of distribution to the public where regular people might find themselves forming different opinions on the matter.

As a liberal, gay-rights activist with a lot of Internet influence, the media recognizes that Takei has earned his Liberal Privilege. He might not have received a pass if he had directed his comments toward another liberal, but at a prominent, African American conservative? Set phasers to kill, Mr. Sulu. Fire away!

The double standard is breathtaking, but the progressive prime directive supersedes it all. And once again, the American people are none the wiser.




“Who Are These People?” and “Alas, Poor Obama, I Knew Him Well”

Sometimes, as I take in the passing scene, I find myself wondering if I went to sleep on earth and woke up on some other planet. And, mind you, it’s not just the politicians who are giving me this queasy feeling.

For instance, Eric and Charlotte Kaufman are apparently the kind of people who are the envy of other couples in their circle. I can hear the wives in that circle looking disdainfully at their own husbands and saying, “Why can’t you be more like Eric? Why don’t you ever decide to take us on a 3,000 mile sailing voyage? You’re such an old stick-in-the mud.”

The husbands are now in a position to give their wives the horselaugh because when the Kaufmans decided to sail from Mexico to New Zealand, they also decided to take their one-year-old twin daughters along. Not too surprisingly, one of the little girls took sick 900 miles out, and the Kaufmans had to be rescued at sea at a cost to California’s taxpayers of $663,000!

Once on dry land, Mrs. Kaufman, defending herself against those who called her a lousy mother, said, “Kids get sick.” She seemed unaware that she was actually making the case for those of us who regarded them as a pair of irresponsible dunderheads. Kids do get sick. With annoying regularity, I would add. That is why normal people with little kids take them to the park or the zoo. Where they don’t take them is on a 3,000 mile ocean voyage in a sailboat just so that their friends will gush, “Those Kaufmans sure are a fun couple.”

While we’re on this subject, I think that anyone, with or without kids in tow, who gets it into his head to sail around the world or climb a mountain should be compelled to take out the appropriate insurance, so that innocent taxpayers don’t get stuck having to foot the bill to finance rescue operations. If you require an adrenaline rush to make your life worth living, it’s no business of mine, just so long as I don’t have to pay for the helicopters and the brave crews who are going to have to risk their necks to save your silly one.

Another example of a civilian behaving as foolishly as a politician was the guy who fell asleep at a baseball game and is now suing ESPN because when he was caught snoozing on camera, the broadcasters made a few jokes at his expense. He is suing for $10 million because of the emotional distress he was caused.

Of course he won’t win, but imagine the precedent if he did, and everyone who ever fell asleep at a baseball game decided to sue. I mean, so what if ESPN broadcasters didn’t humiliate you on national TV? It’s possible you were hit with a bag of peanuts thrown by a vendor or spilled a cup of your over-priced beer while sawing logs. The problem, as even the greediest shyster will acknowledge, is that everyone knows that falling asleep at a baseball game is the real national pastime.

But when dealing with the loons of America, you can only go so long without mentioning politicians. So let us consider Harry Reid. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, when the majority had the gall to rule that religious rights still exist in America, Sen. Reid declared: “The one thing we’re going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.” I understand that as Senate majority leader, Reid has a great deal of authority, but not even he has the power to turn Justice Clarence Thomas into a Caucasian.

Although a genuine contender, Reid can’t really rival Obama when it comes to abusing logic and ignoring reality. This is the bloke, after all, who defended trading five major Islamic terrorists for one Army deserter with the high-sounding “America brings all of its soldiers home.” What he neglected to add were the words “Except for one Marine rotting in a stinking Mexican jail.”

The message we should all take away from Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi’s nightmarish imprisonment is that Mexico remains a third world cesspool. Why any American would go there of his own free will is beyond me. Frankly, I think I’d rather sail off to New Zealand with the Kaufmans.

After the bloody July 4th weekend shootings in Chicago left dozens of people wounded or dead, I fully expected to hear that huge numbers of children from that war zone were showing up in Guatemala, Salvador and Honduras, seeking refugee status.

Obama went to Texas and the only politician willing to be seen with him was a Republican governor. Then he went to Colorado, where the incumbent Democrat running for governor and the incumbent Democrat running for the Senate insisted they were too busy to even show up for the fund-raisers he was hosting on their behalf.

It’s disgraceful. The Democrats are treating the president the way cheating husbands treat their mistresses in public. That is except for Bill Clinton, who famously gave Monica Lewinsky a big squeeze in front of the White House, and, of course, Chris Christie who got tongues wagging when he gave Obama an even bigger squeeze in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

It’s not widely known, but a man posing as Barack Obama was recently discovered in Texas. He looked and even sounded exactly like the president, but he gave himself away when he declined to visit the border by saying, “I’m not interested in photo ops. I’m interested in solving a problem.”

Then, with everyone within earshot doubled over with laughter, he scooted off and was next spotted shooting a game of pool in Colorado.

For many years, I was a Democrat. I used to hear that rich people were all Republicans and I believed it. God knows I’m still hearing it. And assuming it’s true, what I want to know is why all those damn Republicans keep showing up at these endless $30,000-a plate fund-raisers for Barack Obama!


Alas, Poor Obama, I Knew Him Well

I realize that conservatives like to take pot shots at Obama over his constantly flying off to engage in fund-raising events. Heck, I enjoy taking those pot shots as much as anyone. In fact, some days it’s the only exercise I get. But we should always engage in fair play. In that spirit, I must ask, channeling my inner Hillary, what difference, at this point, does it make where he is? After all, he needn’t be in the Oval Office or in the White House Rose Garden in order to say, “I can’t comment in the midst of an ongoing investigation “ or “Let’s not get in front of the facts” or “I’m going to hold my breath until President Putin decides he’s tired of being isolated by the global community.”

In one of my favorite movies, “The Princess Bride,” the villain, Vizzini’s comment after every exasperating setback is “Inconceivable.” After several such utterances, the gallant swordsman, Inigo Montoya, is finally moved to say: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” So it is that every single time I hear Obama refer to this mystical world community that exists only in his pointy head, I imagine Senor Montoya suggesting that the term doesn’t mean what Obama seems to think it means.

This wonderful community that Obama refers to as if it were a heavenly host located here on earth consists of China, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Gaza and all those sniveling nations in Europe, who live in fear of Russia’s refusing to sell them oil and gas. The sad truth is that if you counted up the nations that are either allies or dependents of Russia, they would far out-number those committed to the U.S.in spite of the countless bribes we bestow on our sworn enemies.

If you want to see the world community in all its glory, just take a look at the United Nations, an organization so morally bankrupt that if the Mafia were a nation, the chances are it would refuse to join, lest its reputation be tainted by association.

As for Obama, he recently went on record as favoring statehood for Washington, D.C. There is no other reason for such a proposal except that it would mean two additional senators under Harry Reid’s control. In much the same way, the Catholic Church can always be counted on to encourage illegal aliens to sneak across our border, something the Church would never condone if those violating our sovereignty were Protestants or Jews.

The more I hear about all those innocent civilians in Gaza being killed by Israelis, acting in response to the Palestinians’ constant shelling of Israel, the more I want to scream. Those so-called innocent civilians not only elected to be governed by Hamas, a group of sub-humans sworn to exterminate the Jews, but then went along with having their children used as human shields simply to provide the terrorists with the little battered bodies they use as propaganda tools.

On top of that, I have to keep listening to left-wing politicians and media pundits referring to civilian casualties in Gaza. Inasmuch as the creeps firing missiles non-stop into Israel refuse to wear uniforms, they are all technically civilians, at least according to the Jew-haters in our midst.

I trust nobody was too surprised that Obama decided to provide Iran with another four months of pointless negotiations, along with releasing a few billion dollars in frozen assets. If the outcome didn’t promise to be horrific, I would probably be amused by the way the mullahs play us and the Europeans for suckers. Even though the game is rigged, we in the West continue playing strip poker with Islamic card sharks. By this time, they have taken just about everything we have, including John Kerry’s skivvies and Angela Merkel’s girdle.

Is it only my imagination or is this administration only concerned with religious persecution when the victims are the followers of Allah? In fact, even the murders of Christians and Jews, and the wholesale destruction of churches in the Middle East, seems to pale in importance when compared to the bruised feelings of a few American Muslims.

I don’t happen to believe that it is the government’s job to provide charity in any form. But I understand that there are millions of Americans, generally of the liberal persuasion, who seem to think that is the federal government’s primary purpose even though there is no mention of it in the Constitution. Therefore, doesn’t it behoove Obama to point out to those attending his frequent fund-raisers that they could have provided a year’s worth of hot meals for a dozen homeless people for the same $35,000 they coughed up to listen to one of his usual self-serving bullshit speeches?

So much for the redistribution of wealth malarkey!

Finally, a friend of mine likes to quote George Will’s line that people should only speak if in doing so they improve on the silence. It brings to mind that Obama and his gang of criminal accomplices rode to power by promising to radically transform America. As we’ve seen over the past six years –both domestically and on the world stage – it’s not a good idea to change something unless you can improve upon it.

What Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, Kerry, Hagel and Holder, have done by way of transforming America is comparable to calling in a graffiti vandal to spray paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa or asking a bull to redesign a china shop.

Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at Noon Pacific Time.
Tune in at K4HD.com His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.




What If Herman Cain Were a Liberal?

I don’t know what Herman Cain did or didn’t do with those women, but I do know this:  while reporters will run over their grandmothers to get their face on the air or their byline in the newspaper, they will salivate more when going after a conservative Republican than a liberal Democrat.

Yes, the so-called mainstream media uncovered Gary Hart’s sex scandal when he was running for president in 1988, and he was a liberal Democrat.  They also went after Anthony Weiner, another liberal Democrat, who eventually resigned from Congress.  John Edwards was something else.  Reporters didn’t want any part of that lurid sex story and covered it only when they couldn’t ignore it anymore.

How about Bill Clinton?  Yes, reporters covered Monica and the blue dress and all that.  So we certainly can’t say they ignored his sexcapades.  But it’s more complicated than that.

Let’s go back to Herman Cain.  His accuser is being described in the press as an Ivy League graduate.  They never explain the relevance of that, so I’ll tell you:  it’s to let you know that she’s smart – just like the reporters who are covering the story – and that people who go to Ivy League schools should be taken seriously.

Unlike Paula Jones.

Paula Jones, you may recall, was the Arkansas state employee who said Bill Clinton, when he was governor, summoned her to a hotel room and exposed himself in front of her.  Given what we know about Clinton, the story is hardly incredible.  But the day she came forward with her story, NBC and CBS ignored what she had to say and ABC News devoted a measly 16 seconds to her story.   (The networks started covering the story more seriously three months later when she filed a lawsuit against Clinton.)

Charlie Gibson of ABC asked a colleague on the air:  “Why does anyone care what this woman has to say?”

And Evan Thomas of Newsweek said Ms. Jones was nothing more than a “sleazy woman with big hair.”

We all know about the media’s liberal bias when it comes to journalism.  But this bias – this elitism – is worse.  It’s repulsive. Paula Jones spoke with a thick southern accent, which is tantamount to a crime against humanity as far as elite journalists are concerned.  She went to high school, but that was it.  If she had gone to Harvard or Yale or Princeton they might have taken her more seriously.   And, of course, she had “big hair” — perhaps biggest crime of all.

If there was a Ku Klux Klan for snobs, Evan Thomas would be the Grand Kleagle.

And when a respectable Arkansas businesswoman came forward when Bill Clinton was president and accused him of raping her in a hotel room, when he was attorney general of the state, the liberal media virtually ignored the story.  NBC News had an exclusive with the woman but the president of the division didn’t want to put it on the air.  He finally relented, after a lot of internal pressure, but he still held held the story for a month, until Clinton’s impeachment trial had ended, apparently fearing that putting it on during the trial might hurt Clinton.

But day in and day out there are Herman Cain sex scandal stories on the air and in the press, even though we don’t know what he allegedly did or to whom he did or didn’t do it.  Part of the blame, of course, goes to Herman Cain himself for his amateurish handling of the story.  But let’s go back to my handy-dandy rule of thumb:  reporters salivate more when they’re going after conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats.  That’s why they won’t let this one go.

Imagine if Herman Cain were a liberal and all this was happening to him.  And while we’re at it, imagine that Clarence Thomas was also a liberal.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on television day and night screaming racism.  “First they try to bring down a black man nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court,” they would say,  “then they try to bring down a black man leading in the polls who is running for president.”  And the editorial board of the New York Times would be working overtime to portray their critics as world-class racists.   But because they’re conservatives, the liberal civil rights establishment goes silent.

So, is race involved in the Cain sex scandal?  Not in any traditional way.  His critics aren’t racists in the way we usually mean it.  They don’t hate black people because they’re black. But make no mistake: liberals – in and out of the media – hyperventilate when a conservative black man gets too powerful.  Black folks aren’t  allowed to stray from the liberal plantation.  Liberals are the benefactors of black people – at least that’s how they see themselves – and a black man with a conservative message – a message that says, “We don’t need your paternalism”  — poses a threat to their image of themselves as good white people who really, really care about black folks — black folks who could never make it in society if it weren’t for liberal support.

Politico broke the Cain story but hasn’t told us where they got it. Politico doesn’t have to give us a name of its confidential source, but it does need to tell us his or her motive.  We know that whoever leaked the story was trying to hurt Herman Cain.  But that’s not enough.  We need to know, for example, if it was some other politician trying to bring Cain down.   That would be important news.

One more thing:  You think Politico would have gone with the story involving unnamed sources, unnamed accusers and unnamed supposed acts sexual misconduct … if Herman Cain were a liberal?




Selective Apologies

The recent firing by NPR of Juan Williams (one of two of my favorite liberals) brought to mind, once again, something that I’ve seen over and over again in the media — public apologies.

Not from Mr. Williams.  His statement about Muslims on airplanes requires no apology – his opinion is shared, I’m sure, by many Americans in these post-9/11 days.  I’m talking about the public apology from NPR President Vivian Schiller.  The day after his firing, Ms. Schiller said Mr. Williams’ comments should’ve been “between him and his psychiatrist or his publicist” implying that his views were so out there that he must have mental problems.  Only after such comments received negative press did she issue a statement, “I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark.”

There was no problem with the firing of Mr. Williams because his remark about Muslims on airplanes was politically incorrect, was not in line with NPR’s left-wing bias and his frequent appearances on Fox News didn’t sit well with the powers that be.  I don’t believe the far left’s sugar daddy George Soros’ $1.8 million donation to NPR on the same day Mr. Williams was fired is just a coincidence.

To prove my point, remember in 1995 when Nina Totenberg said, if there was retributive justice, Jesse Helms or one of his grandchildren would get AIDS from a transfusion. That vile comment obviously didn’t bother NPR because Ms. Totenberg is still its legal affairs correspondent.

I’m convinced public apologies are made for a couple of reasons.  One, the person got caught doing something he or she shouldn’t, or two, the negative press was just too overwhelming and someone had to backtrack.  If no apology is given, it’s because the statement, no matter, how reprehensible, is the politically correct way of thinking.

This past summer, a producer for an NPR-affiliated radio station said in an email she would “laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” if she were to see Rush Limbaugh suffering a heart attack.  Only because of the fallout over the exposed emails did Sarah Spitz issue a statement she “made poorly considered remarks about Rush Limbaugh to, what I believed was, a private email discussion group from my personal email account.”

In the spring, a memo from the Bergen County Education Association, a teacher’s union in New Jersey, surfaced which said, “Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays.  I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”  Association president, Joe Coppola, said the “prayer” was a joke and was never meant to be made public. Christie didn’t see any humor in the memo.

Who can forget Julianne Malveaux’s statements about Justice Clarence Thomas, “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”  No apology necessary because he’s a conservative.

Bill Maher, never one to hide his disdain for Christianity, regularly rants against religion and says things like Christians are “part of a dress-up cult that hates sex and worships magic.” He preaches to the choir so he’s not going to get any huge public outcry over his remarks.

Rosie O’Donnell said on The View that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.” And after saying 9/11 was an inside job, she’s still getting her own talk show on Oprah’s new OWN network.  Why O’Donnell continues to have job offers is beyond me.

Jesse Jackson, thinking he was speaking with a (like-minded?) Washington Post reporter when he referred to Jews as “hymies,” issued the following apology, “It was not done in the spirit of meanness. However innocent and unintended, it was wrong.”   When he made the comment, “I wanna cut his n^*s off,” unwittingly into an open microphone about then Presidential candidate Obama, he had no choice but to apologize for his crude comment.

And then, of course, there are the politicians who issue soul-searching apologies – after they’re caught – like Bill Clinton, South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanford, former New York Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer (who now has his own talk show, by the way), former Colorado Democratic Senator, Gary Hart, Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, and the list goes on and on and on.

One apology I and many others will not accept is from Jane Fonda when she said, “I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an antiaircraft gun, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.”  Nice try, Jane.

Of course, there are the celebrity apologies – Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Mel Gibson, Jesse James, Ted Haggard, Michael Vick, Mark McGwire, Michael Richards, and John Mayer.  Again, always after their deeds have been exposed in the media.

And, finally, last but not least, the winners for the all-time, most transparent, most insincere, most dishonest apologies – criminal defendants.  Has anyone ever seen a less contrite “I’m sorry” than one coming from the mouth of a criminal defendant right before sentencing?  I’ve yet to see a defendant who wasn’t reading from a little piece of paper, no doubt written by his defense attorney, how very sorry he is to the family of his victim(s) and that if he could, he would surely trade places with them.  Yeah, right.  When was the last time you heard of someone walking into a police station saying, “I’m sorry, I just robbed/raped/murdered my neighbor”?

Perhaps it’s just human nature.  Still, a lot of it, I don’t get but, if you do, God bless you.