Shooting Liberal Fish in a Barrel

Burtby Burt Prelutsky

It isn’t merely that they’re always wrong about everything that makes leftists so damn obnoxious, it’s their unshakeable belief that they’re always right.

In a world that calls for logic, they have an endless supply of emotion. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight, these lunkheads bring a crying towel.

They talk incessantly about the need to raise taxes, mainly to provide for the poor. But, one, it’s the taxes that are making more and more people poor and, two, they themselves retain an army of accountants and money managers to keep their tax bite to an absolute minimum. Or, better yet, they arrange things so that they receive their money through trusts, tax shelters and offshore accounts. Or, best of all, they simply cheat on their taxes. So it is that in one of those categories you will find George Soros, Tim Geithner, John and Teresa Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Alex Baldwin and all of the Kennedy’s except George.

Time and again, man-made global warming has been shown to be a man-made hoax, but the true believers on the Left will continue promoting it, even when someone like Al Gore curiously changes the nomenclature and begins referring to climate change or climate disruption.

Some liberals are so gullible, I have even been tempted to place an ad in the NY Times or the Washington Post, promising to provide people with guaranteed winners at the race track if they’ll send me, say, a hundred bucks. If they did, I’d send them this morning’s newspaper with yesterday’s race results.

If leftists had the slightest ability to reason, wouldn’t they question why Obama and those of his cronies who promote the redistribution of wealth aren’t standing on the corner redistributing all of theirs? Obama had millions of dollars when he became president, and today he has even more. George Soros had billions of dollars in January, 2009, and today he has even more. Why is that? It can’t be that hard to find poor people who will gladly take the money off their hands. Heck, I’d take it, and I’d even give them the names of some winning horses. But the question remains, why is it only my dough and yours that needs to be redistributed?

Also, why is it that liberals are always talking about social justice? What ever became of plain old justice? So far as I can tell, when so-called progressives tack on “social,” what they mean is that there should be two kinds of justice, separate and unequal, one for rich people and one for poor, one for white people and another for everybody else.

The problem is that when Eric Holder, for instance, refuses to prosecute New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters, he is in fact practicing social justice. Which is no justice at all. If anything, it should be called injustice.

Worse yet, it is the sort of thing that Sonia Sotomayor pledged to promote, as a wise Latina, on the Supreme Court.

Which reminds me — as we begin the long, slow slog to the 2012 presidential election, it is essential that Republicans keep their eye on the prize. It will be a rough, even at times dirty, fight for the GOP nomination. Even without Mike Pence in the running, it promises to be a very crowded field. There are some potential candidates I like a lot, some others not so much. But I vow that whoever emerges victorious from the primary wars will have my support, even if I don’t agree with him or her on every last issue.

The essential thing for all Republicans to keep in mind, whether they’re RINOs or Tea Party patriots, is that Obama has already appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor. The only good thing I can say about them is that, aside from their gender, it didn’t alter the makeup of the Court because the ladies were replacing those equally liberal dodos, John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

But God forbid that Obama gets an additional four-year term and has the opportunity to replace 75-year-old Antonin Scalia or place a younger version of 78-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench.

Keep in mind that long after the Obamas have gone back to Chicago where they can vote for Rahm Emanuel, party with Bill Ayers and pray with Jeremiah Wright, his Supreme Court appointments could continue to hold sway over everything from health care and same-sex marriages to illegal immigrants and late term abortions.

If you think four years of Obama is bad, just try to imagine what 30 or 40 years would be like.


Get your personally autographed copy of Burt’s book!

©2011 Burt Prelutsky
Comments? ✏ BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.
☟click the envelope to EMAIL this post.
Need more Burt? Go to BurtPrelutsky.com.

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/
  • voted against carter

    Hey MarioP,..

    Your libratardation is showing. If the article is SO pathetic,… why are YOU reading it???

    Silly, leftwing-nut, libratard, REgressive PROG.

    Have a cookie and a glass of warm milk before your nap.

    • MarioP

      Great comeback buddy. It doesn’t matter that my bias towards the Democratic party is obvious, because it is for a very valid reason. What matters are the economic facts, which you can’t dispute, since you omitted to post an intelligent counter argument. Instead you turn to a desperate name calling. How can we have a civil debate about the two parties’ performance if only one side brings the statistics to the table? Your argument is so convincing when you call your opponent a “nut” without any fact. Please don’t bother to vote in the next elections; the nation would benefit from your absence.

      P.S. I read these Right-wing blogs for entertainment value; to see how uninformed 1/2 of the nation is.

  • Clarence De Barrows

    Hey Mr. Mario, You’re an idealist, aren’t you! Your disappointment with the status quo and cynicism regarding same betray you and cause me to recall the words of that famous philosopher, George Carlin, who once observed, “Scratch any cynic and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.”

    • MarioP

      Clarence,

      You are declaring me an idealist? Are you serious? My position on which political party is more beneficial to our nation is strictly based on historical data of the performance of our presidents and the Congresses, specifically over the last half a century. Solely based on these objective statistics, numbers which can not be disputed, one will truthfully conclude which party has been more economically damaging. If you, Clearance, are a Republican and claim that the Republican economic policies are, and have been, better for our nation, then YOU are the idealist here. You live not in reality but in your own ideology, believing that Reaganomics, and such Right-wing economic policies, are the right strategies for our nation’s prosperity. Please show me some economic data that supports your claims of the Republicans being more beneficial than the Democrats in the federal government. If you can’t, then keep on living in that illusion of yours, but please don’t accuse a realist of being an idealist.

  • MarioP

    Hey Mr. Burt,

    You’re looking more and more pathetic with each article you post attacking the liberals. In every blog you constantly downgrade the Left, calling them illogical, wrong, sissies, emotional, fake, and other degrading names. Yet, these downgraded politicians tend to beat the Republicans in economic performance and foreign relations when it comes to serving in the Office. So, how ridiculously inadequate do you see the Republican party then? You must view the Right that much more incompetent, yet you don’t bother attacking them. You are probably a bitter old man for constantly being beat by your enemy and wishing for the tables to be reversed. Such stubbornness oozes from your ideology. Remember, ideologues are nothing but destructive zealots who constantly divide our nation. You’re not a patriot, my friend.