You Call These Servants?

In the land of the blind, it’s said that the one-eyed man is king. In our own land, it seems that hypocrisy trumps sight. Americans, whose ancestors fought a war to free themselves of monarchs, now find themselves under the thumb of kings, queens, dukes and earls, who deign to pass themselves off as public servants.

Consider that in spite of a dire economy, Obama keeps adding White House staff. The number of fetch-and-carriers is now 454, at a cost to the taxpayers of $37 million-a-year. So, how about the next time the Obamas decide to host a gala for the well-heeled likes of Tom Hanks, Paul McCartney and Jerry Seinfeld, the guests at least pay for their own drinks?

On top of that, the taxpayers had to pony up $800,000, so that Michelle, her mom and the kids, could take a trip to Africa. No doubt they were anxious to see where Barack wasn’t born.

I can’t even count high enough to figure out what it’s costing us to finance Obama’s travels around the country so he can do the all-important work of campaign fund-raising.

Speaking of Obama, the Boston Globe, which even Chris Matthews can’t dismiss as a conservative smear sheet, recently came up with the news that Barack Obama, Sr., a notorious womanizer, tried to foist baby Barack off on the Salvation Army. So now, at long last, we actually know what his father’s dreams amounted to; not really all that different from Casey Anthony’s, it seems..

But, God knows, Barack Obama isn’t the only hypocrite holding down a good-paying job in Washington. What’s ironic is that politicians spend a few trivial hours with prostitutes and it ruins their reputations and sinks their careers, but they spend half their lives being wined and dined by lobbyists, and all it does is increase their chances of getting re-elected.

Come to think of it, it’s the prostitutes who have congressmen as clients who should be ashamed. One just naturally expects them to have higher standards than our elected officials.

I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that ours are the only politicians who should be horse-whipped in the public square on a regular basis. In the wake of Eric Holder’s latest calamity, the ATF debacle code-named “Fast and Furious,” which saw scores of guns sent to south of the border drug cartels, Mexican politicians have been bitching about our ignoring Mexico’s sovereignty. This is the same country that has spent decades doing all it can to encourage their poor, their illiterate and their criminals, to treat our sovereignty with the same respect one normally extends to used piñatas.

Recently, I wrote an article in which I made fun of gays for inventing a mental disorder they call homophobia as a way of demeaning those people who oppose same-sex marriages or are merely sick and tired of Gay Pride parades disrupting traffic. I don’t happen to know anyone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals. In the piece, I stated that gays were the only group that had the chutzpah to suggest that questioning their behavior was tantamount to a mental derangement.

Well, a reader reminded me that there is something Muslims and the media like to call Islamophobia. In rebuttal, though, I pointed out that Islamists are ignorant, blood-thirsty cretins, and there is nothing irrational about being terrified of these sociopathic Neanderthals. They are creatures, barely human, after all, who have apparently decided that having explosives surgically implanted in their bodies is one swell way of expressing their religious faith.

Finally, a question I am often asked is how it is that such arrogant, unappealing men, with such obnoxious personalities and grating voices, as Charles Schumer, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Henry Waxman, can convince so many people to keep re-electing them. The simple answer is that they’re running against other politicians, who generally suffer from similar shortcomings.

It also explains why women who look and sound like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Sheila Jackson Lee and Hillary Clinton, have been able to achieve such status and power in the wacky world of politics. But, to me, the truly amazing thing about these females is that, against all odds, their husbands weren’t devoured immediately after mating.

©2011 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write Burt!
Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, shipping included.
Get both for just $39.90.
Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

I Thought Affirmative Action Was a Good Thing

If affirmative action was such a great idea, then why is the left branding anyone a racist who might suggest that President Obama benefitted from the policy?

Donald Trump has brought the President’s academic record into the spotlight by asking how he gained admittance to Columbia University and Harvard Law School after having less than a stellar academic record at Occidental.

Because of that simple query, he’s now been branded by the left as a racist because he has the audacity to question the President’s academic credentials.

Ed Schultz over at MSNBC called Mr. Trump a racist because “he’s questioning the academic prowess of one of the smartest Presidents we’ve ever had.”

When Mr. Trump called on the President to release his college records, Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation, said, “That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black.

Then there’s the Rev. Al Sharpton who’s upset with Mr. Trump’s statements because it suggests that President Obama got into two Ivy League schools because of affirmative action.

Well, I found all these statements very enlightening because each one firmly believes Mr. Trump is saying that President Obama had to have been admitted to Columbia and Harvard, not based on his grades, but because of affirmative action.

Assuming that’s true, what makes Mr. Trump a racist?  I thought the left loved affirmative action.  What’s the problem with President Obama benefitting from the policy?

Rev. Sharpton supports it.  So, why the outcry that the President benefitted from something Al Sharpton always supported and thinks is good for the country?

The African American Forum Policy advocates for affirmative action as does the ACLU, and the NAACP is opposed to any constitutional amendment that would do away with affirmative action programs.  President Obama’s own Justice Department just recently filed an amicus brief in support of the University of Texas, Austin, which includes a component that considers race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions.

So what’s making the left so outraged?  If President Obama gained admittance to Columbia University or Harvard Law School through affirmative action, why should that be a negative?

It sounds as if the left now views a person who gets into a university because of his skin color differently from someone who gets in because of merit.  It seems a bit hypocritical for the left to be calling foul play when the African American Policy Forum, for instance, believes that “race-conscious affirmative action remains necessary to address race-based obstacles that block the path to success of countless people of color of all classes.”  So why’s the left making such a fuss?

It’s interesting to see some on the left backing up from their decades-long support of affirmative action.  Maybe it’s because they’re starting to wise up to the fact that affirmative action isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.  I’m in Justice Clarence Thomas’s camp who believes that affirmative action has created a “cult of victimization” and implies blacks require “special treatment in order to succeed.”

It sounds as if affirmative action is coming back to bite the collective left on the butt.  Maybe they’re finally realizing that affirmative action makes victims of people and those that benefit from it are actually stigmatized by the policy.

It’s really no surprise I don’t get the left in this country.  But if you do, God bless you.

Diversity Training = Spam

As far as I’m concerned, diversity training is like spam.  Too many people get it and nobody wants it.

I recently read that the U.S. Agriculture Department has hired a consulting firm to advise it on “diversity” matters.  Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack has “taken a number of actions to make his department more sensitive to civil rights issues.”  This comes on the heels of the recent Congressional approval of a $4.6 billion settlement of a discrimination lawsuit filed by black and Native American farmers.  There are more lawsuits pending.

Interesting that over at the DOJ just the opposite seems to be happening.  Two officials, J. Christian Adams and Christopher Coates, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that the DOJ repeatedly showed “hostility” toward prosecuting cases which involved black defendants.  But I digress.

Let’s get back to diversity training.  Why is it even necessary?  What other country is as diverse as ours?  Didn’t we recently elect the first half-Black/half-White President?  Doesn’t that say anything for this country and its people?

This all reminds me of my own experience when I worked for the County of Los Angeles in the 1990s and required to sit through hours and hours of co-called “diversity training” to make me a better lawyer.

In my opinion, this is more political correctness gone amok.  Smooth talkers could put together some worthless seminar to “teach” people about sensitivities and bias – all at a very substantial price to the corporation or entity which feels compelled to provide this service to its employees.

We were all subjected to diversity training which revolved around Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, Men/Women, and, of course, the LGTB community.  My experience in the courtroom was one that did not see any real bias against homosexuals, but I’ve seen some against the transgender community.  I heard snickering and snide remarks, particularly from homosexuals and a lot of liberals, when that 6-foot tall woman who “doesn’t look quite right” was spotted in court.  It all comes down to hearts and minds – laws and forced training aren’t going to change attitudes.

All this training was to make us more sensitive to the needs of the parents and children in the dependency system.  I heard a lot of argument from attorneys who represented minority children when they were placed in white homes but not once did I hear anything when a white child was placed in a Spanish-speaking home.  Sounds like a double standard to me.

But the most ridiculous diversity training I had to participate in involved the young black community.  I’m sure everyone’s seen some young guy with his pants hanging down around his butt and his underwear showing.  It’s got to be the most stupid look I’ve ever seen and I’d like to see one of these fools try and run in those pants.  Well, according to our “diversity instructor,” this so-called “style” originated at Riker’s Island in New York, where prisoners aren’t permitted to have belts.  (Since then, I’ve also read that this style signifies sexual orientation or, at least, sexual willingness, in prisons.)

According to the instructor, black youth adopted this “look” because it’s part of their “heritage” even though it reflected a negative segment of the population, namely, prisoners.

Well, I’d never heard of anything so stupid.  So, in my inimitable fashion, I raised my hand during the seminar and asked the following:  “My father came to the United States in 1924 from Germany.  Based on your analysis, would it be okay for me to don a swastika because, even though it reflects a negative segment of the German population, it is part of my heritage?”

After stunned silence from fellow attorneys, the instructor attempted to explain away why my example was not analogous to the droopy pants look even though I knew I was spot on.  Afterwards, several of my co-workers absolutely agreed with my analogy.

Needless to say, I thought the whole diversity training was a big waste of time although it did count towards my continuing education required by the State Bar of California.  Up until I read the article about the Agriculture Department, I hadn’t a clue that diversity training was still being touted in this country.  I thought we’d moved way past this.

Apparently, we haven’t.  There are still “workforce diversity specialists” who go around the corporate world teaching people how to relate to one another.  For example, one website I came across lists the politically correct terms now acceptable in the corporate world.  For example, you shouldn’t say “guys” when speaking to a mixed group of people.  You should say, “friends,” “folks,” or “group.”  You’re not supposed to say “no culture,” when referring to parts of the U.S. where the opera and the theater are scarce or nonexistent but rather “lacking European culture.”  My favorite is that I’m no longer an “old person” but rather “chronologically advantaged.”  Does this mean that young people are “chronologically disadvantaged?”  Sounds politically incorrect to me.

Bottom line:  these are money-making industries by people who’ve convinced corporations that it’s necessary, especially if they’re after government contracts.  And the corporation, afraid of looking insensitive or something even worse, kowtows to this type of political correctness.  I see no difference between this type of training and the shakedown of corporation, like NASCAR, by the Rev. Jesse Jackson in years past.  Remember when NASCAR gave $250,000 to Jackson’s Rainbow/Push Coalition to develop programs to try and correct perceived racism and animosity towards blacks.

For how many years, the private sector has been bullied into diversity training.  Now we the taxpayers are spending, God only knows, how much to “train” the employees over at the Agriculture Department.  Whatever it is, it’s a waste of our money.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

…And Justice for All?

There’s a lot about the Department of Justice that I just don’t get.  The main thing I don’t get, though, is Eric Holder, the Attorney General.  In the last two years, he’s done a lot of very strange things.

Most recently, the DOJ decided to try terrorist Ahmed Ghailani in a civil trial, rather than a military tribunal, which turned out to be a disaster.  Just this week, he was acquitted of 279 counts and found guilty of only one count of conspiracy to destroy government property.  Nice going, Mr. Holder.

Last year, the DOJ announced it intended to try the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in NYC as well, despite overwhelming opposition from both political parties.  Although Holder’s had a change of heart regarding Mohammed’s trial, I’m hoping that this latest fiasco in the Ghailani trial was a wake-up call and showed Holder and the Obama administration that it would be a very big mistake to pursue civil trials for Mohammed and other terrorists.

Mr. Holder ordered the FBI to give the Christmas Day underwear bomber Miranda warnings without even consulting intelligence officials.

In May of this year, before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder wouldn’t allow himself to concede that terrorists are motivated by “radical Islam.”  No matter how many times he was asked, he just couldn’t say it.

In the same month, Holder went to Oakland, California’s Youth Uprising and criticized the Arizona Immigration Law as being “divisive” with the potential for racial profiling being increased.  Yet, on May 13, before the House Judiciary Committee, he admitted he hadn’t even read the law.

How does the Attorney General of the United States stand up and criticize a state for trying to protect its citizens by passing a law, which mirrors the federal law by the way, when he hasn’t even read the law?

Now, the federal government will end up spending God knows how many taxpayers’ dollars, in its lawsuit against the state of Arizona despite the fact that 50% of Americans oppose the lawsuit and only 33% approve it.  Sixty-one percent of Americans favor passage of a similar law in their own states.  Does Holder plan to sue every state which enacts a similar law?

What I don’t get is if the DOJ is so concerned about Arizona’s law conflicting with federal law, why isn’t it pursuing lawsuits against sanctuary cities which go out of their way to protect illegal aliens, contrary to existing federal law?

Now, the DOJ is reporting on New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie spending $2,176 more than the budgeted hotel rate allows.  Wow.

But it’s the DOJ’s handling of the New Black Panther Party that worries me the most.

On Election Day in 2008, two New Black Panther Party members in paramilitary gear stood outside a polling place with batons harassing whites claiming to be “security.”  When I saw it, I thought, ok, you’ve got a couple of thugs trying to intimidate people.  Their guy won so that’s the end of the story.  Well, think again.

The Bush Justice Department brought a civil complaint against three members of the group alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act.  While the Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court, it inexplicably moved to dismiss the charges after getting one of the Party members to agree not to carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012.  Such a deal but, I said, what the hey, that was the end of the story.  Well, think yet again.

Since that time, an ex-official at the DOJ, J. Christian Adams, has testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that the DOJ has repeatedly showed “hostility” toward those cases which involved black defendants.  While he believed the lawsuit was an “open and shut case,” he said the DOJ’s hostility towards cases involving black defendants was “pervasive.”  The DOJ, of course, has denied those statements.

Another prosecutor at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, testified at the same Commission and said the “downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged ‘race neutral’ enforcement of civil rights laws.”  He said that, after President Obama and Eric Holder took office, the “culture” intensified leading to his departure as chief of the voting rights section early this year.  The whole thing, as my mother used to say, “stinks on ice.”

What makes it even more disturbing is that one of those vile thugs at the polling place, King Samir Shabazz, the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia leader who professes to hate all white people, is heard saying if the black man wants freedom, he’s going to have to kill some crackers and their babies.  If you don’t believe me, see for yourself.

On the one hand, there’s Mr. Holder saying that we’re to engage one another in talking about race, and, on the other hand, according to Messrs. Adams and Coates, the DOJ systematically ignores cases which involve black defendants and white victims.

So what happened to blind justice?  What’s the reasoning behind these decisions?  The DOJ had won the civil lawsuit against the three defendants and then, after Eric Holder took over, moved to dismiss the case which raises serious concerns about his leadership.

If we’re supposed to have an honest discussion about all this, then I think Mr. Holder owes the American people an explanation as to why he dismissed the Election Day lawsuit.  I’d like to know why Shabazz wasn’t charged with hate speech or, at the very least, with disturbing the peace as a result of his statements shown in the video.

I can only imagine what would happen to me if I stood on the streets of Seattle and said that I hated every black person and we should kill some black people and their babies.  There is no question in my mind that I would be arrested and prosecuted.  So, why not Shabazz?  The failure to prosecute him certainly supports the statements of Messrs. Adams and Coates.

I don’t get it, but, if you do, God bless you.