Don’t Send Your Kids to College

There are a few decent colleges in America, including Hillsdale and Liberty, where conservatives can safely ensconce their offspring. But if they pony up the dough to send them to Harvard, Yale, Berkeley or even the University of Michigan, they’ve really got no business griping if the kids return home convinced that Obama is the messiah, that Israel is on the wrong side of the Middle East conflict and that socialism is the most wonderful economic system ever devised by the mind of man.

If the kids parrot Joe Biden’s insistence that ordering the execution of Osama bin Laden was a gutsy decision or Bill Maher’s claim that Mitt Romney is a plutocrat who is “this close to lighting his cigars with $100 bills,” their parents better not come complaining to me.

If it’s true that Joe Biden actually opposed the action by the Navy Seals, and that he’s not just saying that nonsense in order to make his boss look audacious and, well, gutsy, I think it tells us every last thing we need to know about the Veep’s wisdom and judgment. As for Maher, who spends most of his waking hours at the Playboy mansion, frolicking with Hugh Hefner and his bevy of surgically-enhanced hookers, he’s the goofus who sent a million dollar check to help re-elect Obama. And he has the gall to call Mitt Romney names?

Frankly, I don’t know how it is that so many people are willing to let people know that they intend to vote for Obama, let alone send him money. I mean, even if you’re a Democrat, why aren’t you embarrassed to encourage someone this bigoted, incompetent, thin-skinned, vain and arrogant, to run for re-election?

As a Republican, it figures that I don’t think that any of the male or female Democrats in the House and Senate belong in the Oval Office. But why would any Democrat want to go to the mat for the only one of them who has consistently shown a strong dislike for the country and for everyone who doesn’t happen to be black, and who regularly displays rancor against America’s history, traditions and religious orientation?

It confounds me that liberals, who proclaim a concern for women and gays, never seem to have an angry word to say about Muslims or any of the Middle East nations where being homosexual is a capital crime and where women are kept barefoot and pregnant, not to mention disenfranchised, illiterate and the sole victims of so-called honor killings. Liberals, including Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg and several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, also seem to be infatuated with Fidel Castro. What makes that so odd is that Castro’s Cuba resembles Fulgencio Batista’s Cuba in many ways, except that Batista was far more humane when it came to Cuba’s homosexual population.

Liberals are also very tolerant of women who wish to be sexually active so long as the government provides the means to either avoid or abort their pregnancies. Towards that end, they invented a ghoulish organization called Planned Parenthood, which sounds like the sort of intentional misnomer for which Big Brother was so well known in Orwell’s 1984.

Someone recently sent me a list titled “Ten Political and Economic Imponderables That Should Drive You Crazy.” The imponderables that grabbed my attention were:

  • Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the very rich at $40,000-a-plate campaign fund raising events.
  • Only in America could people claim that the nation still discriminates against blacks when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and a federal workforce that is roughly 18% black when the black population is only 12% of the total.
  • Only in America could we have had the two men most responsible for our tax code — Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury, and Charles Rangel, who chaired the Ways and Means Committee — turn out to be tax cheats who claim to favor higher taxes.
  • Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
  • Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking to the Constitution be referred to as extremists.
  • Only in America could you require a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
  • Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay anything at all.

My own addition to the list would be: Only in America would the same people who claim that the trouble with liberals is that they favor a nanny state where the federal government gets to stick its nose in everybody’s business demand that the War on Drugs continue unabated for all eternity.

Unlike many people who want so-called illegal drugs legalized, I have no wish to use any of them. I just don’t think it’s any of my beeswax what other people smoke, ingest or shoot into their veins.

That’s not to say I wouldn’t prosecute criminal behavior by druggies. I simply wouldn’t make possession or use of those drugs one of those crimes. Furthermore, I would allow — even encourage — employers to drug test their employees and potential employees. But the War on Drugs has been a bigger waste of time and money than most of the other wars we have fought since 1945, including all those we waged on behalf of Muslims and the one on Poverty.

Finally, anyone who doesn’t see it as hypocritical that the sale and use of alcohol is legal in all 50 states while using or peddling marijuana, cocaine and heroin, can land your booty in jail, either isn’t being honest or he owns a bar or liquor store. Or perhaps he just has a drinking problem.


©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com!

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)

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • cmacrider

    Burt: You said ”
    That’s not to say I wouldn’t prosecute criminal behavior by druggies. I simply wouldn’t make possession or use of those drugs one of those crimes.”
    It has always intrigued my why we have the propensity to attempt to solve a social problem indirectly rather than directly.”  It is not the possession of drugs which is the social ill, it is the violence that occurs by the trafficker and in some cases the user which should be the focal point of criminal prohibitions.  Likewise, it is not the blood/alcohol content while driving which is the danger to society it is the manner of driving which should be called into question and form the offence.  Further, the “evidence illegally obtained is not admissible” is a classic case of attempting to cure a social ill indirectly rather than directly.  Evidence is either relevant or irrelevant and in the latter case should be inadmissible.  The social problem that they were attempting to curtail was questionable conduct by the police … which should have been solved directly through more careful scrutiny in recruitment and more demanding ethical standards.  Instead, we ended up with absurd situations in which evidence which is clearly relevant to a horrendous crime is excluded because of the manner in which it was obtained (e.g. no search warrant)

  • BurtPrelutsky

    GlenFS: I prefer for bad stuff to be in the light.  It’s too difficult to deal with when it’s in the shadows.  The War on Drugs seems to be conducted solely for the benefit of the alcohol industry.   No way on earth that I’m going to believe that heroin, cocaine or any of those other drugs, cause nearly as much harm as booze.  Let people use that stuff if they like, but also let them know that their addiction will not be regarded as a disease when they commit a crime and they may never be able to get a job because drug-testing will usually be demanded by potential employers, who will naturally wish to avoid being held financially responsible for accidents in the workplace.

    Berryraymond: I think you’ve said it.

    Burt

  • Berryraymond

    When you say it all, what more can be said.

  • GlenFS

    Burt,

    My daughter had a liberal view on life by the time she graduated high school.   Don’t underestimate the efficiency of our public education system in its capacity to indoctrinate our impressionable kids into views that starkly contrast those of their parents.

    You are probably right about the drugs.  I fully agree in principle, but have some fear that it would mainstream some very destructive stuff from out of the shadows, into everyday accepted society.  I say lets try it in Colorado and California before we make it countrywide.

  • BurtPrelutsky

    Orejon54: I don’t disagree.  But I addressed the War on Poverty in a recent article.

    Regards, Burt

  • Orejon54

    Great article.  My only disagreement is that the War on Poverty has been far more wasteful (not to mention socially destructive) than the War on Drugs.