The Obama Administration’s Dishonesty on Syria

ricePresident Trump received a fair amount of ridicule back in February, when he publicly complained that he “inherited a mess” from the previous administration. Because the rhetoric mirrored statements made by President Obama eight years earlier (in regard to Bush and the economic collapse), critics were quick to point out that Obama left the U.S. economy in a much better state than he had found it.

But Trump was not simply referring to the economy. His words were aimed at a multitude of issues (both domestically and abroad) including his categorization of the Middle East as a “disaster.”  In reference to the situation Trump came into regarding Syria alone, it’s difficult to say that he didn’t have a point.

One can certainly argue that it’s unbecoming of a president to openly complain about the environment he “inherited,” whether we’re talking about Trump or Obama (who played the Blame-Bush game for the entirety of his first term in office). After all, presidents are hired by the American electorate to address big problems; it comes with the job.

It can also be argued that Trump demonstrated breathtaking hypocrisy last week when he said, “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.”

As many have pointed out, President Trump was an outspoken advocate for not taking action to deal with Bashar al-Assad back in 2013. Trump even went as far as to mock President Obama on multiple occasions for merely considering using our military against the Assad regime. Trump insisted that the situation in Syria was not our country’s problem. And in the end, Obama proceeded exactly as Trump wanted him to.

What cannot be argued is that Obama’s policy on Syria was a success. It was an extraordinary failure, and the result of that failure has been daily violence, hundreds of thousands of deaths, expanded Russian influence in the region, and a terrible refugee crisis. And as we’ve recently learned, the 2013 chemical weapons agreement between Syria and Russia — that the Obama administration repeatedly assured us had removed WMDs from the conflict — was an utter joke.

“We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiable give up its chemical weapons stockpile,” former national security advisor Susan Rice bragged in an interview back in January of this year.

The horrifying images we saw on television last week of dead children and convulsing victims fighting to stay alive dispelled that myth once and for all. And as it turns out, the Obama State Department likely knew as early as a year ago that the U.S.-brokered agreement was bunk.

In a piece on Monday, The Weekly Standard’s Jeryl Bier drew attention to a State Department report from April of 2016 which included the following passages:

“The United States cannot certify that the Syrian Arab Republic is in compliance with its obligations under the CWC. The United States assesses that Syria has used chlorine as a chemical weapon systematically and repeatedly against the Syrian people every year since acceding to the Convention…”

“…the United States assesses that Syria did not declare all the elements of its chemical weapons program, required by Article III of the CWC and that Syria may retain chemical weapons as defined by the CWC.”

“In addition to assessed CW use and maintenance of a residual CW capability, Syria failed to meet most of its milestone destruction dates.”

“The Syrian declaration contained obvious gaps, discrepancies and omissions, as detailed above, thus placing Syria in non-compliance with the CWC declaration requirements and the additional declaration requirements[.]”

These findings support new statements from former Obama officials who are now admitting that the administration knew all along that there were still chemical weapons in Syria.

Despite that, President Obama himself made this statement in a speech just four months ago [emphasis added]:

Just think about what we’ve done these last eight years without firing a shot. We’ve rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. That’s not just my assessment, that’s the assessment of Israeli intelligence, even though they were opposed to the deal. We’ve secured nuclear materials around the globe, reducing the risk that they fall into the hands of terrorists. We’ve eliminated Syria’s declared chemical weapons program.

Anyone who still has confidence in our “roll back” of Iran’s nuclear program might want to start worrying.

This begs the question: What consequences are there for the Obama administration, having once again misled the American public on a very serious issue? The short answer is likely “none,” as was the case with the administration’s assurances (while still in power) on Obamacare, Benghazi, I.R.S.-targeting, and more.

For a news-media industry that is always quick to point out President Trump’s dishonesty (as it should), it would be nice if some of that aggression could be reserved for the often-more consequential dishonesty that comes from the other side of the political aisle.

Broken Slate

“The Great Comeuppance Day” and “Dear Chairman Rogers…..”

In times gone by, people, especially those in small towns, would say about those in their midst who were best described as arrogant and narcissistic that they were riding for a fall. The local citizenry would long for the day the spoiled brats would get their comeuppance. Although the term has gone out of favor, the feeling remains.

But because the targets of this natural resentment often had great wealth, status or power, their victims usually had to accept that these good-for-nothings would continue to skate obliviously through life until God at last had His chance to deliver the appropriate judgment.

So it was that for six long years, I waited impatiently to see Obama do a pratfall on his keester, and on November 4th it happened. It came late, but better than never. Not only did Obama have to sit around for months watching one Democrat after another beg him to stay out of their state until after Election Day, but then had to watch the results on his TV as one state after another went bright red.

As a result, a one-legged duck isn’t nearly as lame as Obama now that Harry Reid can no longer prevent House bills from reaching his desk. While it’s true he can veto them, when the bills deal with things like the Keystone pipeline, lowering taxes and removing some of the more odious regulations related to ObamaCare and the environment, the voters will be noticing and by 2016, Democrats up for re-election may look back on 2014 as the good old days.

Speaking of Obama, I have grown nearly as tired of listening to Josh Earnest lie on his behalf as I was of Jay Carney. And while it’s easier to stomach Mr. Earnest because he lacks the obvious hubris of Mr. Carney, who used to appear to absolutely revel in his lies, the bigger the whopper the better, the job description remains the same. Whoever has the job has no other responsibility than to lie, fib and dissemble, on behalf of the con man in the Oval Office.

The position should be eliminated now and forevermore. This president, like just about every other president going back 60 years has found plenty of time to play golf, a game that abides by Parkinson’s Law, which states that work — or in this case, a round of golf — will expand to fill the time available for its completion. Well, if he has time to play 18 holes, he has 30 minutes a day to take questions from the press. I say let him do his own damn lying!

It recently occurred to me that Democrats shouldn’t have the donkey as their symbol. The donkey, after all, is a hard-working beast of burden. Instead, the lowly buzzard should be the Party’s symbol, because its diet is solely one of carrion.

Democrats feast on bad news, and the badder it is the better they like it, whether it comes in the form of festering race relations, a moribund economy, Islamic butchery, class envy or the usual natural disasters which they now insist are always the result of global warming or climate change.

Thanks to Obama’s criminality, tens of thousands of people in Mexico and Central America are packing up in the mistaken belief that citizenship and a golden piñata await them if they simply reach our border. Unlike Obama, they aren’t evil people, merely gullible.

That’s not to say that things shouldn’t be done to improve America’s immigration policy. First step on the agenda is to close the border. When Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill, he did it with the understanding that the Democrats would shut down the floodgates. It’s now been 28 years, and it is way past time to get it done.

Next, we don’t need comprehensive immigration reform, we need comprehensible reform, beginning with special treatment of those would-be Americans who are signed up all over the world and are playing by the rules.

Those who are here illegally should lose their jobs to American citizens because it is against the law and against commonsense that anyone should benefit from the commission of a crime, even though what should be a felony is presently treated as a misdemeanor. Jaywalking across a city street should be a misdemeanor, jaywalking across a national border should be a felony.

As for jobs in agriculture, those jobs that are always being paraded out as the jobs Americans won’t do, my solution is to have teenagers do them. We manage that by adjusting school semesters in rural communities to take breaks during predictable harvest seasons. The kids would be paid the minimum wage, and most of them would be delighted to be out of the classroom and outdoors earning money.

To make my plan work as it should, those American adults, not suffering from provable physical or mental disabilities, who are simply reluctant to bus tables, fry burgers or make beds, will be officially notified they have two weeks to find employment before their welfare checks stop arriving.

As I see it, there’s plenty of comeuppance to go around.

“Dear Chairman Rogers…..”

To me the most shocking piece of recent news wasn’t Obama’s end run around Congress and the Constitution regarding immigration, but the way the House Intelligence Committee allegedly investigating Benghazi dumped its report late on a Friday afternoon. That is traditionally when Washington insiders get the word out when they don’t want the media to get the word out. In this case, it’s no wonder.

For one thing, the investigation seemed to be over before it even began. It generally takes a few years for Congress to decide what to name a new post office. For another, I never heard about the committee holding even a single hearing, and I’m a pretty devoted Fox viewer.

That is what led me to send the committee’s chairman, Mike Rogers, the following letter: “Dear Rep. Rogers: I can’t help being curious about your committee’s report, a report that apparently found nothing amiss in the attack on the Benghazi consulate, not in the run-up to the butchery committed on 9/11/12, not during the attack itself and not even in the shameful aftermath.

You found nothing amiss in the statements by Sec. Rice and President Obama, which even weeks after the bloody affair, blamed it all on an inane video? You found nothing questionable about Obama’s absence and silence during the evening of the attack? It didn’t strike you as peculiar that there wasn’t a military response during the seven hours the attack was taking place? You folks didn’t find anything even mildly suggestive about Sec. Clinton’s “What difference at this point does it make?” response during a congressional enquiry? You and your committee didn’t regard it as even slightly curious that the talking points from the intelligence community were edited and revised by members of the administration before Susan Rice went on all those Sunday news shows?

“Was Mrs. Clinton even questioned by your committee? Was Susan Rice? Was the President? What about the Navy Seals and those members of the consulate who survived the attack?

“It has even gotten around that you based most of your conclusions on the questionable testimony of former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, who after months of insisting he had nothing to do with editing the talking points was finally forced to admit he had almost everything to do with it.

“Just curious, but is it possible that one of your Democratic colleagues has been holding your dog for ransom? Best wishes, Burt Prelutsky”

Moving on to other matters, what gives with the Supreme Court? These people are paid a good deal of money ($244,400 for the eight regular justices, $255,500 for the chief justice, not to mention their book royalties and speaking fees) for a very short work year. They’re only in session from Oct.1st until late June. In addition, they have any number of clerks to help with the heavy lifting, which consists of looking up legal precedents, typing up decisions and bringing lunch to their lordships.

I would think that in exchange for all the money and glory, they could squeeze in a little time during which they can try to rein in a president who seems to be doing his best to act as if the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on.

Why, for instance, can’t a president or a majority of the House get a constitutional question fast-tracked to the Supremes? Why does it have to go through a maze of lesser courts before it can finally be placed before the Court that counts? The gestation period of elephants doesn’t take as long. Even Congress manages to name post offices in half the time.

Finally, a friend sent me an op-ed piece from the Manitoba Herald, which proved that Canadians are aware of the absurdity of our border policy and take considerable comfort in the fact that the United States acts as a 2,000 mile buffer to the endless onslaught of illegal aliens who would otherwise be turning Toronto, Montreal and Quebec, into third world pueblos.

A few of the highlights include: “The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the Tea Party and the fact Republicans won the Senate are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray and to agree with Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.

“Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. ‘I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,’ said Southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. ‘The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even had a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?’”

After going on in this vein for a few more paragraphs, it concluded with “In an effort to ease tensions between the U.S. and Canada, Vice President Joe Biden met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals. A source close to President Obama said, ‘We’re going to have some Paul McCartney and Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might even put some endangered species on postage stamps. The President is determined to reach out,’ he concluded.”

Is there a red-blooded conservative in America who, in his heart of hearts, doesn’t wish to God this had been a legitimate news story?

Surely I can’t be the only one.

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

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

“Billy Wilder, The Pope & Me” and “Allah Be Damned”

My two favorite movie writer-directors were Preston Sturges and Billy Wilder. Both worked at Paramount Studios in the 40s, which was fortuitous for Wilder. That’s because they were both successful screenwriters when Sturges persuaded the studio to let him direct his own scripts. That decision led to a flurry of such classic, huge-grossing, comedies as “The Great McGinty,” “The Lady Eve,” “The Palm Beach Story” and “Hail the Conquering Hero.”

It also led Wilder to plead his own case. “The bosses at Paramount,” he once told me, “gave me permission, assuming I would do something artsy-fartsy, which would flop, and that I’d then go back to being a nice little screenwriter. Instead, I made the comedy, “The Major and the Minor,” which was a big success.”

Paramount couldn’t have been too sad, as it led in fairly short order to Wilder’s turning out “Double Indemnity,” “The Lost Weekend,” “A Foreign Affair” and “Sunset Boulevard.”

Just as a sidebar, I thought it was interesting that once when we were having lunch, I mentioned to him that he had directed seven of his fellow directors, although three of them were actors who had only directed one or two movies. He was stumped. The only ones he came up with were Cecil B. DeMille and Eric Von Stroheim, both of whom appeared in “Sunset Blvd.,” and Otto Preminger, who portrayed the German commandant in “Stalag 17.” The others were Mitchell Leisen, Jack Lemmon, Charles Laughton and Ray Milland.

Although I have already devoted several articles to Pope Francis, attacking him for his statements in favor of redistribution of wealth and for siding with the Palestinians during his recent visit to the Holy Land, I hope nobody takes me for an anti-Catholic bigot. The way I see it is the way my friend Tony Medley, a Catholic, saw it when the Church was embroiled in the sickening pedophile scandals of the 1990s. At the time, he pointed out that his religion was far greater than the sum of its human parts.

As a non-Catholic, I believe that is still true, even though the current object of my displeasure is the Pope, and not just a handful of perverted bishops and priests. Still, I would be remiss if I didn’t share an email I received from a friend in Israel, Haim Goldman.

He wrote: “Something that neither you nor Caroline Glick mentioned was something that Francis never addressed during his visit, although as the leader of a billion Catholics it should have been at the top of his list. I refer to the fact that the Christian communities in Syria have almost been obliterated in the ongoing war; the vast majority of the 1.5 million Christians in Iraq were killed or expelled over the past decade; the once-thriving Christian community of Lebanon has been greatly diminished because of persecution; the Coptic Christians of Egypt are often butchered by followers of the Islamic Brotherhood; and the Christian communities in the so-called Palestinian Authority are constantly persecuted.

“Furthermore, the leader of the Fatah terrorist group greeted the Pope in his palace, which just happens to have been a Greek Orthodox monastery until the Muslims confiscated it.

“There is only one country in the Middle East in which the Christian community has increased in number and flourished over the past decade: Israel.

“And yet the Pope chose not to say anything on behalf of those persecuted Christians and did not praise the Jewish state of Israel for its treatment of both Christians and Arabs.”

For that matter, he hasn’t spoken up on behalf of the Christian woman, Meriam Yehya, imprisoned in Sudan, who faces a hundred lashes and execution by hanging because she refuses to renounce her religion. Although I’m sure His Holiness will be only too happy to stand on his balcony, basking in the adoration of the crowd below, and pronounce her Saint Meriam at some point in the future.

Still, the contempt I feel for Pope Francis is nothing compared to the contempt I feel for President Obama. Even when he was addressing the throng gathered at Normandy to pay their respects to those who gave their lives 70 years ago in order that others could live in freedom, bile rose in my throat.

However you may have felt about President Bush’s policies, you could never doubt that he respected those men and women he sent off to war. Does anybody believe that Obama regards those in uniform as anything but suckers?

When he defended his decision to swap five Islamic terrorists for one Army deserter, even those who might have approved of the deal knew that his actual motivation was to empty Gitmo. The truth is that every time Obama gives one of his self-serving speeches, my reaction is to channel my inner teenager and mumble, “Whatever.”

If you didn’t already know the depths to which this administration is willing to stoop, you might have been shocked at the way the White House has slandered the soldiers who served with Bergdahl. But, then, when you consider the nonchalance with which they sacrificed the four Americans in Benghazi, it’s not too surprising that when Obama paid tribute to Bergdahl’s military service, he not only ignored the lives that were lost while searching for the deserter, but the lives that, in retrospect, were wasted in capturing the five jihadists.

The fanciful notion that Obama could stand before the American people and expect anyone to take him seriously when he said that this nation never leaves a soldier behind was belied by the fact that at that very moment a Marine, whose only crime had been driving in the wrong lane, was being brutalized in a Mexican jail.

And the proof that Obama was unconcerned about the injustice was that he didn’t even bother to send Susan Rice out on the Sunday news shows to lie about the reasons behind his reluctance to confront Mexico.

It’s my own guess that he tried but failed to persuade President Enrique Nieto to accept 100 jihadists in exchange for Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi.

On the plus side, I’m sure he had no trouble at all getting Nieto to agree to keep sending us millions of future Democrats.

Allah Be Damned

I admit I don’t see a sliver of difference between so-called good Muslims and the kind the rest of the world has become all too familiar with, and, what’s more, I don’t believe anyone who says otherwise is being honest.

If there were so many good, decent followers of Allah, doesn’t it figure that the law of averages would ensure there would be at least a few civilized Islamic nations? Instead, they’re all simply different degrees of rotten.

As I sit here, Obama is mulling over the offer from Iran’s mullahs to give us a hand in Iraq. I know our glorious leader isn’t much of an historical scholar, but even he should recall that the last time we allied ourselves with a tyrannical regime, it was with the Soviet Union during World War II.

Although American Communists were delighted to see Joseph Stalin and FDR embracing one another, the fact is that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had signed a mutual non-aggression pact, and if Hitler hadn’t double-crossed Stalin by invading his home turf, the Soviet Union probably would have sat it out. Instead, Stalin’s hand was forced, and his bribe was all of Eastern Europe.

The point is, whether the devil looks like Stalin or the Ayatollah Khomeini, once you shake his hand, you not only lose your soul, but don’t count on getting all of your fingers back.

Speaking of duplicity, at the same time that the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was vowing to help Israel find the three abducted teenagers, the official Facebook page of his Fatah party ran a cartoon of three rats adorned with Stars of David dangling from a fishing rod.

It serves as a reminder of the days when Yasser Arafat had the job, and would make conciliatory speeches in English while simultaneously calling for the extinction of Israel in Arabic. Pretty clumsy, you would think, but good enough for the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who were only too happy to bully Israel into negotiating with the villains. Too often, our presidents have behaved like the sort of father who’d force his daughter to marry the guy who raped her.

Speaking of villains, Barack Obama demands that Iraq’s President Malaki, a Shiite Muslim, invite the Sunnis to have a future say in running Iraq. The gall of the man! This is the same partisan clodhopper who, in 2009, ordered John McCain and his fellow Republicans to sit down, shut up and get out of his way.

I recently learned that NBC pays Chelsea Clinton $600,000-a-year as a part-time reporter. In the words of an NBC executive, “It’s as if she’s been preparing her whole life for this job.” I suppose in a way she has, in the same way that one might have said that Nelson Rockefeller prepared his whole life to be rich.

Interestingly enough, while colleges and universities continue to disinvite conservatives from delivering commencement addresses and receiving honors, Rev. Jeremiah Wright — who famously God-damned America, and who, in 2009, said he hadn’t had any recent contact with President Obama, explaining, “Them Jews,” no doubt referring to David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, “aren’t going to let him talk to me” — hasn’t suffered the same sort of indignities. In fact, he has received a Rockefeller Fellowship and seven honorary doctorates from the likes of Colgate University, Pennsylvania’s Lincoln University and the Chicago Theological Seminary.

That brings up an interesting question: Why is it racist to attend a lecture by former KKK leader David Duke, but not racist to select Eric Holder, a man who refuses to indict blacks for hate crimes, to be your Attorney General?

Also, why are we supposed to believe that two years of Lois Lerner’s emails are forever lost because her computer allegedly crashed when even a technological troglodyte like me knows that it was easier to dispose of Jimmy Hoffa’s carcass than it is to eliminate email?

Furthermore, why aren’t Republicans in Congress grilling FBI Director James Corney and former Director Robert Mueller now that it’s been discovered that the IRS, in addition to denying Tea Party groups non-profit status in order to facilitate Obama’s re-election, was having the FBI investigate Tea Party members as if they were foreign spies?

Finally, I have to say that I think the Democrats look more foolish than usual when they try to distract voters from such serious concerns as Obama’s foreign policy, his contempt for the military and a stagnant economy, by carrying on about sports teams calling themselves the Braves, the Indians and the Redskins. Still, I’m not totally oblivious to the downside potential of such seemingly trivial matters.

So while I see no advantage to the Washington football team, in terms of revenue or fan support, to be named anything other than the Redskins, it makes perfect sense to me that the hometown baseball team that used to be known as the Senators, wised up and now calls itself the Washington Nationals.

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

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

Hell On Earth

I have always felt that when politicians clamor for work projects, instead of focusing on roads and bridges, they should be mentioning prisons. We never seem to have enough of them. As a result, felons are constantly being released before finishing their sentences.

And whereas liberals are always insisting that civilized nations shouldn’t have so many people incarcerated, the truth, as usual, is they’re wrong. So long as those behind bars are there because they’ve committed actual felonies, and aren’t there because of their political or religious beliefs, there is no ideal number or percentage of people who should be locked up. If you’re in jail, it’s proof that you’re uncivilized, not that society is.

For my part, I believe that any judge who shows leniency to murderers, rapists and pedophiles, should be removed from the bench. I also believe that any defense attorney who succeeds in springing a defendant only to see the thug go out and repeat his crime should be indicted as an accessory. Furthermore, I think parole boards should disappear. The very notion of taking time off a sentence for so-called good behavior is a perversion of justice. Time off for not robbing a bank, stealing a car or raping a child, while behind bars? Time off for making his cot or eating all his peas? Instead, the system should simply add years for misbehavior.

Age limits are another absurd part of our legal system. But we’re not alone. In India, a gang of six raped and murdered a 23-year-old woman. The first defendant was recently tried and found guilty. He received the maximum sentence, but because he’s 17, the maximum sentence was three years in a juvenile facility. Three years for rape and murder?! What’s more, the chances are he would have received a similar sentence over here.

The fashion magazines like to say that 70 is the new 60 and 60 is the new 50, but it also works in reverse. Thanks to a society that encourages young girls to enter beauty contests when they’re five years old, promotes so-called sex education classes and the distribution of condoms to junior high students, and spends more time trying to disarm hunters than young thugs, 12 and 13 is the new 30.

Someone should come out with a book titled “Foreign Policy for Dummies,” and send a copy to Barack Obama. Starting with his mea culpa on behalf of the United States in Cairo four years ago, he hasn’t done a single thing that didn’t suggest we had a rank and stupid amateur as our head of state.

Whether it was leading from behind in Libya; insisting that Israel stop building apartment houses for their citizens and to pull back to pre-1967 borders in order to facilitate phony peace talks with Arab terrorists; announcing a surge in Afghanistan while at the same time announcing a date of withdrawal; breaking our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic to provide them with a missile defense system in order to placate Russia; or announcing that if al-Assad crossed the red line by using chemical weapons on Syrians, he would suffer dire consequences, and then repeating the same threat after he had crossed it a second time, Obama has shown himself to be incapable of performing on the world stage any more competently than he does here at home. Frankly, I am still looking for a job that isn’t above his pay grade.

On top of everything else, even when he was announcing a strike on Syria, he promised it would be swift and painless — sort of like when the dentist is about to give you a shot of Novocain — and shouldn’t be interpreted as an attempt to bring about regime change.

In the two weeks he spent futzing around before he finally decided he would leave it up to Congress to take the heat, Syria had successfully moved its weaponry out of harm’s way and allegedly moved political prisoners to airports and armories, using them as human shields. God forbid we should ever attack without warning!

What I don’t see Obama doing, although I suspect it would play fairly well with everyone except, perhaps, those last few subscribers to the NY Times, would be to resign from the U.N. How many more times do we have to go, hat in hand, to those creeps asking for a united action only to have Russia or China veto it? Heck, if we quit and stopped subsidizing the U.N., we’d not only save a few bucks, but we could stop pretending that the likes of Susan Rice and Samantha Power are qualified to do anything beyond overseeing a PTA bake sale.

Finally, I heard a prominent Protestant minister on the radio last week. When the host asked him why so few evangelical pastors seemed willing to speak out on social issues, such as same sex marriages, he said that most of them are afraid of being labeled right-wingers by those on the left.

Once I understood he was being serious, I had to laugh. Assuming he knows what he’s talking about, someone should explain to those demented souls that so far as run-of-the-mill Marxists are concerned, there’s only one thing worse than being a conservative, and that’s being an evangelical.

If they don’t even know that much, perhaps I’ve stumbled upon the reason that church attendance is plummeting.

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

How to Become a Racist at Age 76

This is a story that’s the opposite of your typical coming of age in terms of racism.  We often hear about stories of people who were born or raised as a racist, and come to learn that there is no reason to harbor such hate.  These are sometimes rural people who did not have much education, or exposure to those of a different race.  Typically, these are feel good stories about someone seeing they are wrong and changing their ways.  There are not too many people who go through their life loving all races equally, and at a late age succumb and convert to racism.  John McCain has arrived at age 76 living such a life, only now to apparently become a racist.

The reason that we know John McCain is racist is that important and respected people have told us that his objection to the possible nomination of Susan Rice (current Ambassador to the UN) to the post of Secretary of State proves he is racist.  Mr. McCain along with other Senators has raised concerns about Ms. Rice due to her statements after four Americans were killed in Libya.  Ms. Rice appeared on 5 Sunday news shows on behalf of the Obama administration five days after the Consulate in Libya was attacked, and mislead the public about the cause of the attack.  Mr. McCain claims that this is important because she either knew she was lying or should have known she was lying.  Countless pundits, hosts on MSNBC, and the Congressional Black Caucus have accused Mr. McCain of being a racist, because he has stated that Ms. Rice is unfit for office.

John McCain has been in the public eye since 1973 when he returned from Viet Nam after being tortured as a POW.  He has served in elective office since 1982, and run for office 9 times including twice for president.  He enthusiastically supported 2 different nominees for Secretary of State who were black in Colin Powell & Condoleezza Rice.  In 1991 his wife returned from Bangladeshi with a three month old baby from Mother Teresa’s orphanage, they adopted this baby of color, and she is their daughter Bridget.  Somehow through all of this public scrutiny and acts of colorblindness, we have all somehow missed that John McCain is a racist.  Maybe this is that rare case of late life conversion to racism.

Perhaps it is possible that you don’t become a racist at 76 with zero history of harboring these thoughts of hate.  Maybe Mr. McCain deserves the benefit of the doubt that his problem with Ms. Rice is what he says it is.  You can say he is overreacting, judging to harshly, or even putting too much weight on one statement, but shouldn’t there be a track record of questionable behavior before you can accuse someone of being a racist?  What is it about today’s political environment that allows this to occur nearly unchallenged?

How do you become a racist at age 76?  Ask a Democrat to tell the truth.