Post-Convention Musings

Although, as a rule, I try to avoid spending too much time listening to political speeches, I must confess that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of those delivered in Tampa. It wasn’t simply that they were saying many of the things that I had been writing for the past four years. It was the honest emotion that they evoked. A great many of the personal stories they shared were so touching they even made this old cynic get teary-eyed, as they spoke movingly about their immigrant parents and grandparents who, like my own, risked everything in the belief that all the glorious things they had heard about America were true.

As a sidebar, I should mention that when I first noticed how few blacks were in the auditorium, my reaction was to resent the fact that so many millions of them have allowed themselves to be bought off for a bowl of gruel. They have accepted their pathetic role in the Democratic Party as mental and physical invalids who must be patronized with welfare and affirmative action. But by the end of the convention, I came to see the few blacks in attendance in a different light. I came to respect them, to recognize the sort of ostracism they must constantly endure in their communities, even in their own families. I came to respect them, not because they’re black, but because they’re brave.

Some of my friends thought that perhaps Juan Williams had been suspended from Fox because of his curt dismissal of Mrs. Romney’s speech, insisting that she came across as “a corporate wife.”

Millions of viewers thought she came across as a bright and devoted wife, mother and grandmother, and a courageous survivor of multiple sclerosis and cancer. However, an honest difference of opinion is one thing and serving as an Obama surrogate is quite another. Somehow, I very much doubt that if Mrs. Rupert Murdoch or Mrs. Roger Ailes had delivered a similar speech, Juan Williams would have so casually dismissed these corporate wives as corporate wives. In fact, I’d be willing to wager that Juan Williams would magically turn into Fawn Williams.

I only hope that when Romney moves into the Oval Office, he will not only put his own programs into place, but will reverse and repeal not only ObamaCare, but everything else that Obama, Pelosi and Reid, have done. As we have seen over the past few decades, when the GOP doesn’t undo the mischief of left-wing administrations, the Democrats, once back in power, merely resume where they left off.

Left-wing policies are like campfires. And every Republican president, senator and congressman, must take Smokey the Bear’s instructions to heart. Don’t assume the fire is out simply because you don’t see any smoke. First drench it in water and then bury it in sand.

It was nice to see Clint Eastwood on stage at the convention, giving the lie to the notion that everyone in Hollywood is a left-wing bonehead. Not everyone; based on my own personal experience, I’d say probably not more than 98.6%. The fascinating thing about the entertainment community is that, in spite of all the obvious evidence to the contrary, its inhabitants regard themselves as saints. The fact that they do this suggests that they are not quite as atheistic as they’d like people to think, as it is a clear-cut case of faith trumping facts.

For instance, actor Brad (Midnight Express) Davis had to conceal the fact that he had AIDS and, more recently, writer-director Nora (Sleepless in Seattle, You’ve Got Mail) Ephron had to conceal the fact — even from friends — that she had cancer, lest they be exiled from the ranks of the employable.

When you read some of the comments made during the GOP convention by liberal commentators, such as Yahoo News bureau chief David Chalian announcing that the Romneys were happy to be throwing a party while black people were drowning, you come to realize how abysmally stupid and infantile Democrats are. When you hear people like Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz, it’s like listening to nursery school children competing to see who can come up with the dirtiest remark. Basically, the sound bites emerging from the Left are invariably a variation of “Republicans are just a bunch of big, fat, poopyheads!”

Finally, it occurs to me that Obama and Biden have created so many truly hostile divisions between people; divisions that have frayed or destroyed countless relationships between friends and family members; that probably not since the 1860s has so much raw animosity existed in this country.

Let history note that while Lincoln’s Civil War at least helped forge a stronger Union; a weaker, divided America is the inevitable result of Obama’s Uncivil War.

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Write to

Bailing the Ship of State

Even though I write at least three articles a week, I find it impossible to stay abreast of the madcap antics of Barack Obama and his multitude of stooges. At times, I feel like Mickey Mouse portraying the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in Walt Disney’s “Fantasia,” frantically trying to deal with all those deranged brooms.

For instance, consider the fact that Obama has increased our national debt from roughly 10 trillion dollars to 16 trillion in just three years, and is now trying to convince us that he’s the biggest penny pincher since Dwight Eisenhower.

Sillier yet, he has chosen to run against Romney’s record at Bain Capital. According to objective sources, Bain’s success rate during Romney’s years was 78%. In other words, about four out of the five companies in which Bain invested became successful. What percentage of green energy companies in which Obama has invested our tax dollars have succeeded? Does “zero percent” ring any bells?

There are times when I actually find myself feeling sorry for Jay Carney. After all, when he accepted Obama’s offer to replace Robert Gibbs, I’m sure Mr. Carney had visions of fame and fortune awaiting him. What he failed to take into consideration was that day after day, he was going to have to march to the podium and try to put the best face on a very ugly administration. He was going to have to spend his professional life lying and spinning like a top.

At least over at Fox, Juan Williams gets to sit down while he’s spinning. Watching Williams trying to explain and excuse every miserable thing Obama does reminds me of the character, Spicer Lovejoy, in “Titanic.” In case you don’t recall, he was portrayed by David Warner, and he was Cal Hockley’s bodyguard.

Although Lovejoy was a villain, I couldn’t help thinking that nobody could ever have a more loyal and dedicated employee. Even after the ship hit the iceberg and was starting to keel over, Lovejoy was still earning his salary, even as his knees were getting soaked.

That’s the kind of dedication I see in Juan Williams. Even Lovejoy didn’t carry as much water as Williams does. No matter how dumb he sounds, no matter that Steve Hayes, Bret Baier and Charles Krauthammer, are all staring at him as if he’s begun speaking in tongues, nothing can dissuade Mr. Williams from defending his guy. Sometimes, I find myself wondering if Obama sits in the Oval Office, dreaming up nonsense just to see if Williams will back him up.

Although I delight in ridiculing the Left, I’m afraid there are times when I have to take conservatives out behind the woodshed. For instance, when did you all decide that it was necessary to pretend that your kids were all scholars whose huge brains would atrophy if you didn’t send them off to college, where nutty professors could shovel left-wing crapola into their craniums? And just how did you figure that their lives would be enriched by majoring in studies devoted to black, Hispanic, lesbian and Communist, propaganda?

Furthermore, the fact that your offspring are so susceptible to these lies proves that you haven’t bothered explaining to them what makes America exceptional. You wouldn’t fail to inoculate them against mumps and measles, but you cavalierly leave them free to catch the left-wing virus that floats around just about every schoolhouse in the nation.

Even in nursery school, members of the despicable teachers unions have them chanting “Barack Obama, mmm mmm mmm” and you’re just fine with it. Is it any wonder that later on, when they’re told that they should admire psychopaths like Che Guevara, Mao Tse-tung and Fidel Castro, while despising Washington, Jefferson and Adams, they swallow the bilge as historical fact?

In closing, I’d like to call attention to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Nanny Bloomberg, who has declared sugar, salt, tobacco and trans-fats, verboten in New York City, is a scofflaw who has broken the law at least 16 times in the last six months, thanks to using a helicopter to transport his self-righteous butt to and from his mansion in the Hamptons.

As one of his constituents put it, “Bloomberg’s being a little hypocritical. If you’re so concerned about the quality of life of the citizens in this city — like don’t smoke a cigarette in Central Park — don’t land a 2,000-pound helicopter in front of my apartment with the choking exhaust and intolerable noise, especially when the heliport is supposed to be closed.”

It seems that the Manhattan heliport is only supposed to be open for business from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, and shut down entirely on weekends. Bloomberg defended himself by saying he was unaware of the curfew. If anyone believes that, he has a bridge over in Brooklyn that he’s willing to sell cheap.

On the other hand, at least Bloomberg felt compelled to present a defense, as cheesy as it was. When Ted Kennedy was still in the Senate and promoting wind power as a way to replace fossil fuels, a green energy outfit proposed erecting windmills in Nantucket Sound to take advantage of those Atlantic Ocean breezes. Once Kennedy realized those windmills would be visible from his home, the plans were scuttled.

Being a Kennedy, he didn’t even have to come up with a lame, Bloomberg-like excuse. Nobody would have disputed him if he’d pointed out that all by himself he could easily generate all the wind power Nantucket could possibly use.

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Send your comments to

Parrots & People

Many years ago, through odd circumstances, I broke up with one young woman who had a parrot only to take up with another young woman who had a parrot. You might assume I worked in an exotic bird store, but it was just one of those coincidences that sometimes happen even to people who don’t put much stock in such things.

The thing that confused me at the time was why anyone would ever want to share their home with one of those creatures. I am referring to the parrots, not the young women. Even though I didn’t live with the ladies, on various occasions, when they had to go out of town, it became my responsibility to feed the birds and change their water. And every time I did, I came under attack.

As I say, that was a long time ago, but I only recently figured out what purpose the parrots served. It was to prepare these women to one day be the mothers of teenagers. After all, parrots are notorious for their lousy personalities and their general lack of hygiene. When you factor in their lack of gratitude, which they displayed by attacking me, the person commissioned to provide them with food and water, you can see how closely they resemble an ordinary American teenager.

Another group they very much remind me of are liberals. Just consider a typical group of Occupy Wall Streeters with their screeching, their filth and their repetitious parroting of inane slogans. Stick them on their perches, glue a few colorful feathers on them, and you could fool a team of ornithologists.

For instance, Obama’s people invented a fictional woman they chose to call Julia. They used her to point out how Julia advances from the age of three to 67 by constantly depending on the largesse of Obama and the American taxpayer to survive. I suppose the subliminal message is that Obama not only has to be re-elected this November, but a lot of additional Novembers to get Julia through to her 67th birthday. At that point, I assume that Obama’s death panel will decide that Julia has lived long enough and is not entitled to undergo heart surgery.

Eric Holder defended the Department of Justice spending millions of dollars prosecuting Roger Clemens for a second time because lying to Congress about his alleged use of human growth hormones was such a serious offense. It just happened to be on the same day that a congressional committee considered citing Holder for contempt for refusing to release documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious.

Apparently we are saddled with an attorney general who thinks getting to the bottom of whether or not Clemens was juiced when he shut out the Minnesota Twins 10 years ago is more important than a gun-running operation that resulted in a U.S. border guard being murdered with one of those guns.

Obama, who quite naturally refuses to run on his record, is, instead, insisting that he needs another four years to finish the job. But because of the near-universal disapproval of ObamaCare, the trillion dollar stimulus, the additional six trillion dollars of debt and his anti-Israel position, he’s in the weird position of not being able to tell us exactly what this job is that he wishes to keep doing.

Perhaps he’s alluding to the greater flexibility he promised Medvedev he’d have after the election. Still, after refusing to provide Poland and the Czech Republic with an anti-missile defense system and promising to decimate our nuclear arsenal, I bet even Putin is scratching his head, trying to figure out what Santa Obama could possibly have in mind. The blue prints for a drone? The green light to roll Russian tanks back into Georgia, Azerbaijan and the Ukraine? Or perhaps just the deed to Alaska?

Although Obama and his flunkies keep referring to the economy he inherited as the worst since the Great Depression, the fact is that the economy that Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter was pretty awful. In 1980, the rate of inflation was 13.58% and unemployment was 7.18%, which translated to 20.76 on the misery index.

In 2012, inflation is around 3% and although, according to the feds, unemployment is hovering around 8.1%, we all know that underemployment combined with the people who have simply stopped looking for work would raise the actual number to about 15%, making for a miserable, Carter-like, 18% on the misery index.

If Romney poses the question Reagan posed in 1980, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago,” just about everyone who’s not on Obama’s payroll would have to answer with a resounding “No!”

Finally, because I am a frequent viewer of Fox, it’s my curse in life to see Juan Williams nearly every time I tune in to Bret Baier’s “Special Report,” Bill O’Reilly’s “The Factor” and Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday.” I can only assume that he possesses incriminating photos of Roger Ailes.

His singular role on Fox seems to be to spin like a top for the Obama administration and parrot excuses for the man’s endless string of failures.

The fact is, Juan Williams expends so much effort carrying Barack Obama’s water, I just hope for his sake that he never leaves home without his truss.

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write!

Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, postpaid. Get both for just $39.90. Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

Numbers Don’t Lie, Liberals Do

Republicans are worried sick that the Democrats will be able to use all the nasty sound bites from the GOP debates in the general election. I’m not too concerned for a number of reasons, but the main one is that the GOP will merely have to produce ads in which we show Barack Obama saying, “I’m pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office” and “If I don’t get the unemployment rate under 7%, I deserve to be a one-term president.”

For good measure, I would produce another ad in which I showed Obama and jobs czar Jeffrey Immelt giggling as the president says, “I guess shovel-ready jobs weren’t quite as shovel-ready as we thought.” The viewer would be reminded that this came a long time after Obama, Pelosi and Reid, shoved through a trillion dollar stimulus that they promised would turn around the economy.

Only a know-nothing know-it-all like Obama would even consider blowing hundreds of billions of tax dollars on solar panels and railroads, two things that Americans crave about as much as they do a case of measles or mumps.

In spite of Obama’s chief of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s insisting that our southern border has never been more secure, according to Townhall writer Katie Pavlich, there is at least one official sign posted in southern Arizona that reads: “Travel Caution: Smuggling and Illegal Immigration May Be Encountered in This Area.” But I suppose Ms. Napolitano can’t possibly see the sign from 2,000 miles away.

It’s also worth mentioning that the American Bar Association has rated a record number of Obama’s judicial nominees as “not qualified,” and they weren’t even referring to Kagan and Sotomayor. Or, for that matter, to Attorney General Eric Holder, under whose watch the feds allowed over a thousand weapons to be delivered to Mexican drug cartels and who, for good measure, refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for intimidating white voters. For purposes of comparison, the ABA rejection rate of Obama’s judicial appointments is four times as high as it was under Clinton or Bush. But I guess that’s to be expected when you keep trying to pay off hundreds of crooked Chicago cronies with federal judgeships.

Speaking of numbers, Newt Gingrich came under fire from the self-righteous Juan Williams for referring to Obama as the Food Stamp President. Led by Williams, liberals insisted that was a racist slur. But, then, those self-righteous ninnies consider every honest comment about Obama’s administration to be a racist slur.

Liberals were quick to point out that most of the 47,000,000 people now collecting food stamps are white. As typically happens when liberals start tossing numbers around, the purpose isn’t enlightenment, but obfuscation. Their intention, whether it’s food stamps or crime statistics, is to pretend that guilt can only be ascribed to white Americans.

In the case of food stamps, all they had to do was point out that the majority of those using food stamps are whites, not blacks. While that’s true, it’s also true that whites constitute two-thirds of the population, blacks roughly one-seventh. So while it’s a fact that whites are 34% of the folks on food stamps and blacks only 22%, 66% of the population is white and only 13% black. In case you’re one of those who never quite mastered percentages in junior high, let me try to clarify things. There are 310 million Americans, 205 million of whom are white, 40 million are black. That, we can agree, is quite a gap. On the other hand, of the 47 million Americans collecting food stamps, only about 16 million are whites, while nearly 10.5 million are black.

So, while I don’t favor Newt Gingrich in the primaries, I think we can all agree that he’s not a racist.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of Juan Williams.

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write!

Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, postpaid.
Get both for just $39.90.
Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

The Liberal Media Views Race Through the Eyes of Michael Scott

One of my all time favorite television characters is Michael Scott from The Office (back when the show was still funny). The self-centered and incompetent, though well-meaning office manager was portrayed masterfully by actor Steve Carell. One of the many trademarks of the character was his internal need to demonstrate to his subordinates that he was sensitive to racial diversity in the workplace. The problem was that in doing so, he would often use insensitive racial stereotypes or hail minorities within the office as triumphant, miraculous success stories for merely achieving the common job positions they held. His actions would reek of unwitting condescension and were often met with irritation by the people he was lavishing praise upon.

Though the character was fictional and such scenes were intended for the purpose of comedy, shades of this same form of racial condescension can be seen regularly in the supposedly serious professions within the media. The mentality essentially stems from the idealistic belief that even in this day and age, criticism of a non-white is less likely prompted by what that individual says or does, and is more likely prompted by the color of their skin. I’ve written about this in the past. It’s a fairly prevalent mindset.

But from time to time, we see such an outlandish example of this behaviorism that it deserves special attention. The recent reaction to Newt Gingrich’s talking down of Juan Williams in FOX News’ last Republican presidential debate is one of those examples.

To refresh everyone’s memory, Williams was one of FNC’s questioners during the South Carolina debate on January 16th. When Gingrich was asked by Williams about perceived racial implications in discussing poverty programs, Gingrich answered in a tone that could fairly be described as arrogant and parental. In other words, it was answered in the same Newt-like manner debate viewers have come to expect when watching Gingrich field an absurd question. Such moments usually result in an enthusiastic pop from the venue’s conservative audience, which is exactly the type of response Gingrich is aiming for.

Chris Wallace, John King, Maria Bartiromo, and numerous others have all drawn Newt’s ire under similar conditions. However, in the case of Juan Williams, who just happens to be an African American, some in the media saw something far more sinister. They saw despicable racist overtones.

Though it isn’t easy, let me try and explain their rationale…

First of all, they didn’t like how Gingrich began his answer by addressing Williams by his first name, Juan, which they apparently found disrespectful. Despite the fact that every panel member from every debate has been referred to by their first name by every candidate, the media saw racism in the case of Juan Williams.

Secondly, they didn’t like the way Gingrich said the name ‘Juan’. It wasn’t the pronunciation that they objected to, but rather the snide tone that came with it. Despite the fact that the tone was consistent throughout the entirety of Gingrich’s answer, and mirrored the same tone he’s used in previous debate performances, the media saw racism in the case of Juan Williams.

Lastly, they objected to Gingrich’s mere revealing of Williams’ first name. Because the name ‘Juan’ is a typically associated with a specific ethnicity, it was speculated that Newt purposefully won favor with the South Carolina crowd (perceived by the liberal media to be inherently racist) by dressing down a person with that name. So… The media saw racism in the case of Juan Williams.

Sound ridiculous and silly? It is. It’s every bit as ridiculous and silly as Michael Scott asking a Mexican employee if he’d rather not be referred to as a Mexican because it’s an “offensive” term. It’s every bit as ridiculous and silly as Michael Scott assuming that his only African American co-worker is good at basketball. It’s every bit as ridiculous and silly as Michael Scott asking a friend to read out loud a list of employees who might have a police record, then calling that friend “a racist” once he gets to the name of an African American co-worker.

But in the case of the Newt Gingrich/Juan Williams exchange, we’re sadly not talking about a sitcom. We’re talking about today’s media.

Here were MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ thoughts on the day after the debate:

“There were interesting aspects to that, wasn’t there some applause when he called him Juan? I mean it’s an interesting thing here. I mean, I once, it’s very clever — I mean Newt is a very smart guy. He knows how to play an audience… Now it is his name, and Juan is his name, but there’s an interesting way it’s used and to personalize it, and Juan Williams has a lot of guts getting in front of that audience that’s conservative white in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and asking a question which is a reasonable question… This is going to get very, you know, very ethnic, very racial, it’s going to get very hot… And I think we’re looking for signs of coaxing people back to their sort of tribal attitudes. You know, and how it’s done and that use of the name Juan, the way he does it… It’s just the way he did that.”

Chauncey DeVega, who blogs for The Daily Kos and called Juan Williams a “paid pinata for white conservatives” and described the moment this way: “The cheering, snide glee of Newt Gingrich dressing down uppity ‘Juan’, and the audience’s cheering of a ‘boy’ being put in his place, would be missed by only the most in denial observer.”

And then there’s FOX News Channel’s own Geraldo Rivera, who’s never met a racial minority in the public eye who he didn’t feel compelled to defend against imagined persecution. On his WABC radio show last Thursday, he made these comments about the Gingrich/Williams exchange:

“I believe, you know, and I’ve thought about it and I’ve thought about it, I really believe that what Newt Gingrich did to Juan Williams at that debate, at that presidential debate in South Carolina on Monday really was, if it wasn’t racist it was racialist. Now, listen to this, folks, and you tell me when you listen to the way Newt Gingrich says Juan Williams’s first name. He says it like it’s a racial epithet, I swear to God, that’s my impression… All right, there is Gingrich being filled with disdain, utter disdain, for the only man of color maybe in that whole room.”

Oh my. What a comical bunch.

Maybe the NBC entertainment division should hire Matthews, DeVega, and Rivera to do some sitcom writing. That way, The Office might actually start being funny again.