I’ve Got Email

| December 8 2013
Burt Prelutsky

Recently, a friend, Mel Calvert, suggested that in light of the fact that I respond to comments from my readers, it would be a good idea if I shared some of the exchanges with others.  It seemed like a swell idea.  The best thing about it is that, for once, I wouldn’t have to start from scratch.

(Inasmuch as I didn’t bother getting anyone’s permission to reprint their messages, I will either make up names or use their own designated tags.)

Ragweed wrote to say I should have included John McCain on a list of politicians who trample on the Constitution.  I replied, “I am not, as you know, a fan of the nincompoop.  The only good thing about him is that he has an (R) after his name, which means that Harry Reid only has a five-vote majority we have to overcome next year when it might otherwise be a six-vote margin.”

Old Desert Rat wrote: “I agreed with the paragraph in ‘The Piltdown Man Signs Up for ObamaCare” that reads, ‘Speaking of the Imposter in the Oval Office, it wasn’t that long ago that liberals used to insist that George W. Bush was avenging his father by going after Saddam Hussein.  And yet they never mention the far likelier scenario that Barack Obama is avenging himself on his drunken, communist, father’s sworn enemies; namely, the white race, western civilization, Christians, Jews, all non-Muslims and capitalists.”

To which I replied, “I find it odd that so many people were ready and willing to psychoanalyze Clinton and Bush in terms of their relationship with their fathers, but adverse to do the same when it comes to Obama, who even went so far as to title one of his memoirs ‘Dreams of My Father,’ the very schmuck who abandoned him when he was two years old.  Those dreams turned out to be our nightmares.”

Dick wrote: “What intrigues me, Burt, is how the statists in Hollywood are always condemning capitalism and promoting socialism, yet all are paid different amounts, depending on who the actor is.  If they truly believed in socialism and equal distribution of wealth, then all actors, set designers, make-up artists, and everyone else working in the business, would be paid the same and live in the same size house.”

“Dick,” I responded, “Hollywood actors, writers, producers and directors, are for socialism for the same reason that D.C. Democrats are for ObamaCare.  It doesn’t cost them anything, and it puts them in solid with their colleagues.  One thing, though, that has never really made sense to me is why those who want all power to reside in the hands of the federal government, and not the states, are called statists, when logic would suggest they be called anti-statists or at least federalists or even dummies.  It makes about as much sense as referring to conservative states as red, and left-wing states as blue.”

In response to “A Countdown to Armageddon,” Karen wrote: “I agree with you that governors make the best presidents, as they have executive experience and they know how to manage finances.  However, I am very impressed with Ben Carson.”

I replied: “I like Dr. Carson very much, but he was a surgeon.  I don’t think telling a nurse to hand him a scalpel constitutes executive experience.  Maybe he could be the Surgeon General.  Just being smart and conservative aren’t enough.  Otherwise I would vote for myself before I’d vote for Dr. Carson.”

Harry wrote to say that Rubio and Cruz shouldn’t even be considered, not because they’re senators, but because “Their parents were not native-born Americans.”

I replied, “I always thought that restriction against the foreign-born was one of the weaknesses of the Constitution.  Some of the most patriotic Americans are those who were born elsewhere, and therefore don’t take this nation’s exceptionalism for granted.  They, better than most of us, are in a position to compare what it means to be an American, as opposed to being a Russian, a North Korean, a Cuban or even a Scandinavian.”

George wrote “Each state has two Senators elected to represent the state’s interests, and every member of Congress is expected to represent his district’s interests.  They all sit in their respective house, grouped by party affiliation.  The President, on the other hand, is elected by the entire country.  He is elected to represent the interests of all the people.  Thus, his leadership should be apolitical.  President Obama hasn’t figured out that he is President, not still a Senator.”

“George,” I replied, “you’re overlooking the fact that the President, whoever he may be, is not freshly hatched.  Because he was a governor or a senator and he had an (R) or a (D) after his name, and his campaign was financed by the RNC or the DNC or by others who had a partisan interest in the outcome of the election, it’s naïve to think he will be non-partisan.  That doesn’t mean, though, that he is entitled to ride roughshod over the opposition as Obama has done.

“From Inauguration Day on, Obama has let it be known that he has no desire to be a unifier.  Although it’s a notion to which he paid lip service when he was running for office, since being elected he has waged warfare, the likes of which haven’t been seen since the 1860s.  He has sided with blacks against whites, gays against straights, atheists against believers, the poor against the middle class, Muslims against Christians, illegals against citizens, America’s enemies against her allies, and those who want the Second Amendment repealed against those who understand that the Second was essential in order to protect the First.”

As we go forth, friends, let our motto be: “Make Burt’s job easier.  Write half his column for him.”