The worst thing about our elections is that Democrats win far too often. But the reason they do is because millions of people are voting who, in a sane world, would be disenfranchised. I realize that sounds terribly elitist, but why should people who rely on government handouts rather than their own efforts be allowed to elect those whom they bribe with their votes?
Although I am as conservative as they come, I have no idea why we have a defense budget. For one thing, Obama refuses to even consider taking up arms against our existential enemies in the Middle East. For another thing, millions of Americans are quite willing to not only allow Iran to become a nuclear power, but only too happy to fork over $150 billion to help finance their worldwide terrorist activities. On top of all that, we have a Congress filled to the brim with Quislings who quake in their boots at the mere notion of going to war with the Ayatollah. So, what, really, is the point of having a military? It’s like paying good money not to have your appendix or your gall bladder removed, but in order to retain them.
Recently, a reader asked me why I thought our politicians, including George Bush and Barack Obama, have spent years paying lip service to Islam in spite of the fact that so much of the violence taking place around the world, as well as here in America, can be traced to Muslims. Because I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim any more than I thought Bush was, I believe it’s because they both think it makes them appear to be morally superior to the rest of us. I happen to think they’re mistaken, and that it makes them look criminally naive. But, then, feeling as I do about Islam, I have long suspected that the snake in the Garden of Eden not only lowered its head and prayed to Mecca five times a day, but also swore off pork and alcohol.
I don’t expect liberals to know anything about history, but it so happens that Japan attacked a single naval base and the U.S. went to war. Hitler invaded a single nation and Europe went to war. But the Muslims kill Christians, burn churches, butcher children, turn women into sex slaves, lop the heads off Spaniards, Brits, Frenchmen and Americans, and the West holds a conference at some luxurious resort!
Another reader asked me if I would defund the National Endowment of the Arts if I could. I told him I would do that a minute after defunding Planned Parenthood. As I see it, the government has no business subsidizing any artistic endeavor. For one thing, by supporting one artist and not another, it’s guilty of censorship, a power denied it by the First Amendment. For another thing, in a nation numbering 320 million and counting, if an artist can’t support himself, he doesn’t deserve a government subsidy, what he requires is vocational guidance.
Still another reader asked me why Obama can so easily reject anything Congress does or tries to do when the three branches of the federal government are allegedly co-equal. The reason is that the president is an individual who can be counted upon to always agree with himself, but there is no such unity of purpose in Congress. At least not on the Republican side of the aisle!
Besides, how can anyone think the executive and the legislative branches are equal when everyone is expected to stand up when the president enters a room, but only lobbyists leap to their feet when a senator or congressman strolls by?
When I’m not busy writing articles or replying to my readers, I will sometimes find the time to write a letter or send an email to people in the news. Recently, I had occasion to address Fox’s Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly, along with Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
“Dear Ms. Richards,” I wrote, “I realize that as a man, I’m not expected to have any say when it comes to abortions, but the question that inevitably comes to mind whenever the topic is raised is why they are still needed.
“After all, Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for half a century. Sex education in the schools has been taking place nearly as long. Therefore, when I see how prevalent and affordable birth control is in 2015, I find myself wondering how it is that a million abortions a year are still taking place.
“I would appreciate hearing what you have to say about it because it seems to me that by this time, abortions would have gone the way of high button shoes, Hula Hoops and Nehru jackets.”
To Bret and Megyn, my two favorite Fox hosts, I wrote: “I wish to suggest that the arbitrary cutoff for this week’s debate makes no sense. If an hour and a half isn’t enough time, extend it by 30, 60 or 90 minutes. But all 17 contenders deserve their time on stage. If it calls for a double tier to accommodate them all, so be it.
“For one thing, the convention is still a long way off. For another, by limiting the participants to 10, you are arbitrarily deciding which seven will have little or no chance of breaking out of the pack. History tells us that those who are frontrunners 15 months before a presidential election generally aren’t on the ballot come Election Day.
“Finally, I have long contended that in its desire to be fair-and-balanced, Fox constantly ignores the fact that, unlike the monolithic liberals, conservatives come in assorted shapes and sizes. Most of us disagree on a wide range of issues, and a debate between two intelligent Republicans would better serve the interests of your viewers than simply rolling out a liberal like Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera or Juan Williams, to remind us, as if we needed reminding, how really stupid they are. Regards, Burt Prelutsky”