Newsweek Finally Makes News

Burt hopes you’ll enjoy this article, and after you’re done, he hopes you’ll also enjoy this bonus article: A Summing Up.

Even though Niall Ferguson, a Republican who served as an advisor to John McCain in 2008, wrote the cover story for Newsweek titled “Hit the Road, Barack,” it is the first notable sign that the mass media has finally unlocked its lips from Obama’s posterior.

As my friend, Bernard Goldberg, has long chronicled, the media has been so openly gaga over His Fatuousness that they should have rented a room, lest their public displays of lustful abandonment frightened the horses.

There is finally some hope for the media if even Newsweek is willing, at long last, to throw open the curtains and show us the Wizard in all his tawdriness, noting his lies; his hypocrisies; his willingness to divide Americans on the basis of race, class, religion, gender and even geography, for no other reason than to win an election. It’s an election, by the way, which even he, himself, has said he doesn’t deserve to win. I refer to his earlier statements in which he said that if he didn’t cut the national debt and lower the unemployment rate to below 8% by the end of his first term, he didn’t deserve a second. Well, he didn’t and he doesn’t.

It is pretty obvious that Democrats simply have no idea how to run things, except into the ground. In Washington, the liberals keep coming up with such idiotic ideas as ObamaCare, Cash for Clunkers, public sector unions, Cap & Trade and playing footsies with Vladimir Putin. In my home state of California, the nincompoops in Sacramento have long made it a practice to roll out the red carpet for business and industry. Unfortunately, it’s a carpet that merely originates here; it actually winds up in Arizona and Texas.

But so long as our legislators provide a host of freebies for illegal aliens and other uneducated underachievers, they will continue to be re-elected, even in the face of one California city after another filing for bankruptcy.

It has been apparent for the longest time that although normal people have five senses –sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch — and some have a sixth sense, an intuitive faculty that tells them, especially when they find themselves in dark cellars in scary movies, that they’re not alone, that only liberals have a seventh sense. That’s the overwhelming sense of entitlement.

I keep hearing members of Team Obama insisting that they’re not engaged in negative campaigning, but if they were it would only be in self-defense. I happen to believe in negative ads. I mean, if you’re a Republican, how else are you going to get the truth out about your opponent? You certainly can’t rely on the NY Times, the major news anchors, the dipsticks on “Good Morning, America” and the “Today Show” or the silly ladies on the View.

But there is a world of difference when it comes to so-called negative ads. For instance, if you keep running TV spots that suggest Mitt Romney is a tax cheat and that Paul Ryan wants to push his mother and yours off a cliff, that’s not merely negative; that would constitute libel if it took place anywhere in the world, outside the world of politics.

On the other hand, we all know, but should be reminded, that Obama, not known for keeping his promises, did carry through on his vow to wage war on the coal and oil industries. We also know that Obama has squandered close to a trillion of our tax dollars funding green energy companies, and that the two things those companies had in common is that they were owned by people who donated millions to his 2008 campaign and that they all went belly-up.

Furthermore, thanks to an open microphone, we’re all aware that Obama promised Putin through his hand puppet, Medvedev, that after the 2012 election, he would be even more accommodating than he’d been before. But considering that he had already denied Poland and the Czech Republic a missile defense system and vowed to decimate our nuclear arsenal, you have to wonder what more he could possibly provide.

I mean, does Obama plan to give Alaska back to Russia? He might. After all, William Seward, a Republican no less, cut a pretty sharp deal with Tsar Alexander II back in 1867, when he bought the place for just $7.2 million, or roughly two cents-an-acre.

Obama has made no secret of the fact that he holds every previous administration, those headed up by a bunch of old white guys, in pretty low regard, and might wish to make amends for what he regards as a fairly shady real estate deal, even though Russia was happy to unload what they feared Britain was prepared to take away by force. On the other hand, Obama didn’t seem to object when Tony Rezko somehow managed to get him and Michelle their house in Chicago at terms so favorable they would have knocked Secretary of State Seward off his pins.

As I see it, when it comes to negative campaigning, only a chucklehead like Steven Spielberg, who found a moral equivalence between the Arabs who murdered the Israeli Olympians at Munich and the Mossad agents who tracked them down and dispensed biblical justice, would equate Obama’s lies with Romney’s facts.

Sometimes I wonder if what I write resonates at all with those moderates and independents who will determine the outcome of the November election and, thereby, the future of America. For the past four years, a leftist ideologue has been destroying the national economy and piling up so much debt it could bury future generations, and yet he is still running neck-and-neck with a man, who, by intellect, background, values and temperament, seems like the perfect fit for the Oval Office.

In the face of all that, I must confess that trying to wade through all the left-wing propaganda, attempting to get the truth out to those who apparently spend their lives asleep at the switch, seems like a hopeless cause. But, feeling as I do about America, I just can’t let up.

Besides, as a friend recently reminded me, Bill Cosby once perfectly summed up my mission in life when he observed, “A word to the wise is unnecessary. It’s stupid people who require our attention.”

Now that you’ve enjoyed this article, he hopes you’ll also enjoy this bonus article: A Summing Up.

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/
  • Bruce A.

    When Dr. William  Cosby speaks, people should listen.

  • GlenFS

    Burt, I’m not sure how disturbing the equine community has found the Obama-media affair, but I for one view it with disgust, outrage and some fear for our Republic.

    On another note, Obama might make the Alaska offer if Palin were included, but this would be a nonstarter for Putin who does not care for desent like she would wage.

    Thanks for the double dose of whit and wisdom.  Glen

  • Mariop

    Here we have another example of Burt’s collection of half-truths, at best. We generally see untruths from the author, like this one.

    Burt posted the following comment below his blog dated 9/6/12, called “Why My Head Is Spinning”:

    “The reason that Katrina did so much damage is because the levees gave out. The reason they gave out is because the ecology zealots had gotten the Nazis at the EPA to prevent repairs over the years because the repair work, they alleged, would have discomforted various bugs and insects.” 
    Well, I tried to give Burt a chance to redeem himself, either by listing his sources supporting the above theory and crush my accusations of catching him in yet another lie, or by responsibly and maturely admitting that after performing a more detailed research of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina flooding in New Orleans, he made an innocent mistake. Unfortunately for everyone who read and believed Burt’s fantasy of the disaster, Burt could care less about presenting the truth, even after a potential problem with the writing was pointed out to him. He would rather stubbornly avoid facing the truth than setting the record straight for every reader on here. Do we deserve to be lied to and then be ignored, to live with a false belief? I guess that is what Burt is all about, to live in a fanatical conservative fantasy. So again, to do my public duty and try to repair the damage caused by a reckless member of our society, I’ll report the truth about the New Orleans levee failure.
    After the 1965 flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Betsy, work was started on a more sophisticated system of levees to protect the City. The levees were designed to repel the storm surge and flooding caused by a category 3 hurricane. Unfortunately, although Katrina was downgraded to category 3 when it hit the Louisiana coast, the levees, designed for such a storm, somehow failed at more than fifty spots. After the disaster over a dozen investigations were conducted by different agencies, universities, and engineering societies to determine the cause of the levee breaches. All the investigating parties concluded that the failure was as a result of various factors, all tied to the design, construction, and negligent maintenance of the barriers. There was not a single study, let alone any evidence, that linked the cause of the levee failure to the environmentalists’ and/or the EPA’s interventions that prevented repairs to be performed on the levees for the protection of some insects. The investigations identified design and construction causalities such as using low factors of safety in the structural calculations, making unconservative and over-estimated assumptions, not accounting for all the affecting factors and forces, constructing on poor soils, not constructing as per plans, not identifying discrepancies between the plans and the field conditions during construction, and other issues. In addition to all the shortcomings of the levee design and construction, an unforeseen danger developed when canals east of the City were dredged before 1965. The purpose of these canals was to simplify and quicken the marine travel between the Gulf, the City, and the surrounding areas. Unfortunately these canals also acted as funnels and pathways for Katrina’s storm surge, aiding the surge to speed towards the City and crash head on into the levee system, leveling portions of the barriers flat. The designing engineers did not anticipate such surge forces to be applied against their structures. With so many issues that plagued the levee system, it is almost unnecessary to list the neglected maintenance as the cause for some of the flooding. But to be fair, it should be noted that large trees allowed to grow against the levee system, weakening the bearing strength of the supporting soil, and the drive-by structural inspections over the decades, did not aid the stability of the structures.
    The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was the agency that designed and oversaw the construction of the levee system. To avoid pointing the finger of blame at themselves, the USACE could have identified the EPA as the cause of the levee failure due to any interference to levee repair the environmental agency may have caused, but that was not to be, since the EPA did not play any role in the disaster. Instead, the USACE’s own investigation into the matter identified the same issues with the levees as did all the other investigating parties. Today, the Katrina levee failure is known as the worst engineering catastrophe in the US history.

    With so many investigations into the Katrina flooding, how did Burt avoid getting to the truth? Burt obviously does not comprehend how damaging this posting can be to any reader who was unfortunate enough to lose his house, or even a loved one, to the flooding, who after reading the false comment will wrongly concentrate his preventative efforts at the innocent party, the EPA. Burt’s ideology takes precedence over anything else, and he will write untruths to push his agenda. The man has no ethics or morals. He does it for financial gains, and he can give a damn about anyone else. Burt, why don’t you design, build, create, or repair something? Why don’t you teach, heal, care for, or save someone? Instead you choose to selfishly spread lies. What benefit are you to our society? You, my friend, have become a leech.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Mariop: I didn’t ignore your earlier message; I never saw it.  If I had, I would have written then as I am writing now: The work on the New Orleans levee was scheduled to be started by the Army Corps of Engineers during the LBJ administration.  But the environmentalists got an injunction to prevent the work from being done.  And they continued to get injunctions until Katrina came along.

      Dismiss that as another example of conservative lies if you like, but it happens to be true.

      Burt

      • Mariop

        Burt,
        Thank you for your reply. Maybe I didn’t give you enough time to respond to my earlier post, so I apologize for that.

        Regarding the levees, the numerous and easily obtainable facts through Google overwhelmingly state that work started on the levees after 1965, although by 2005, no more than 90% of the planned improvements were completed. 

        So, Burt, since you’re claiming that no levee construction has taken place since Johnson was in office until the 2005 flooding, you are therefore claiming that the residence of New Orleans who witnessed what appeared to be levee construction, and any photos takes of what appear to be of levee construction during those decades were of something else? 

        Please be kind to us and list your sources, because there is not a SINGLE source I can find that states the environmentalists have successfully prevented all the levee construction that was to take place after 1965. Without such sources, how is anyone supposed to take your claims as anything other than conservative lies?

        • BurtPrelutsky

           Mariop: I won’t argue with you.  At the time of Katrina, the information about the levees was widely available.  If you tell me that it no longer is, I will take your word for it.  It happens to be a topic of great concern to you, not so much to me.  Katrina was several years ago, and you are just being silly if you are suggesting that environmentalists don’t have the DNC wrapped around its little finger.  The most recent glaring example was Obama’s vetoing of the Keystone pipeline.

          Burt

          • Mariop

            Burt: This topic was of little concern to me so many years after the fact, but what was concerning me was the false information you posted about it. As I knew, there is no evidence of your claims anywhere to be found. 

            And everyone knows the Democrats appreciate the EPA more than the Republicans do, so noting that is old news and irrelevant to the levee discussion.

            But hey, I’m happy to see you were not able to crush my accusation. Wanna take a stab at my GM bailout accusation? What did Obama do wrong with GM and what would you have done with the company instead?

          • BurtPrelutsky

             I would not have screwed the bondholders and I would not have bailed out GM and handed it over to the UAW.  I would have let it go bankrupt and allowed the company to break the UAW’s stranglehold on it.  Then it could have gotten back in the business of building cars, instead of acting as a piggybank for the Democrats..

            Burt

          • Mariop

            Thanks Burt for your comment below.

            So just like Obama, you would have screwed the shareholders, since you would let GM go BK, and you would have closed underperforming dealerships and divisions, since you needed to reorganize their business plan to emerge profitable from BK. So why the complaint from you about Obama’s results? Your own ultimate solution would have accomplished the same outcomes you complained about, but in a different way, regardless whether the UAW was handed part of the company or not. UAW’s role in the deal had nothing to do with your original complaints (screwing the shareholders and closing some dealerships), yet you made that connection. Tisk, Tisk.

  • Wheels55

    Obama’s 2008 slogan of “Hope and Change” really was true. People hoped he would change into more than a speaker. Of course he didn’t, which is why his slogan isn’t “Get ‘er done”.