• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Even when you write as often as I do, you can’t really keep up with all the zaniness that passes for the news today. But I can’t help trying.

For instance, there were only three senators who voted against confirming John Kerry, who not only lied about his service and his injuries in Vietnam, but then lied about throwing away his medals. He not only kept his medals, but had them framed on the wall of his Senate office. It was other people’s medals he tossed for the benefit of the cameras. In any case, I thought it was worth looking into, and I discovered that the three senators who had the courage of their convictions, and deserved to be lauded, were John Cornyn, James Inhofe and Ted Cruz.

Speaking of the members of the U.S. Senate, most of whom are ex-lawyers, I heard some wag recently suggest that it’s 98 percent of lawyers who give the other 2 percent a bad name.

Let me first state so that there is no confusion, I respect the members of the military. After all, the main order of business for the federal government is not, as liberals insist, funding green energy companies, handing out free stuff in exchange for votes or promoting abortions and same-sex marriages. Instead, it is to protect the nation, and it’s the military that handles that end of things. That being said, I do not believe it provides veterans with a lifetime pass from criticism. I actually heard a senator state that Chuck Hagel should not have had to face such tough questions at his confirmation hearing because he had not only served in the military, but had been wounded in combat.

Just because people have served – some more honorably than others—is no guarantee that they will be anything special once they return to civilian life. After all, Charles Rangel, John Murtha, Colin Powell, David Petraeus, John McCain, Daniel Inouye and Ted Kennedy, along with Chuck Hagel, have not only been shown to have feet of clay, but in some cases have shown themselves to be covered in muck all the way to the top of their heads.

Proof that liberals aren’t really concerned with gun violence is that they keep yammering about the size of magazines, but have said nothing about taking on the urban gangs responsible for most of the murders in America. Their hypocrisy is even more apparent when you realize that every city whose streets are bloody because of the hands-off approach politicians take with these punks is saddled with a liberal mayor.

It’s apparent that when the same people who wish to disarm law-abiding Americans turn a blind eye to the black and Hispanic gangs that terrorize their communities, they adopt a hands-off approach to guns only when they regard them as tools of the criminal trade.

In the aftermath of Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL super sniper, and his friend being murdered at a Texas shooting range, Dan Parker wrote to say he assumed that, henceforth, the Democrats would designate shooting ranges as gun-free zones. And I say, “Why wouldn’t they?” After all, they had already designated an Army base, Fort Hood, a gun-free-zone, thus making it available to Maj. Hasan for target practice.

The funniest thing to come out of the gun debate was the photo of Barack Obama allegedly skeet shooting at Camp David. Even I, who haven’t fired a rifle since my days in the ROTC, know that you don’t hold a rifle that high up on your shoulder, and you certainly don’t aim it straight-on when skeet shooting, as if your target were Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Skeets, as we all know, are airborne. Firing at the angle shown in the photo, the only thing Obama would have hit was the poor schmuck working the skeet release. You would think that Team Obama would do a better job of it even if they were merely Photoshopping the picture in order to show that Obama’s trumped-up war on guns was nothing personal.

As you may have heard, it has been announced that the FBI is looking into allegations that Sen. Robert Menendez has engaged in sexual activity with under-age Dominican prostitutes. He denies it, insisting it’s a tissue of lies concocted by a cabal of right-wingers.

As Americans, we are supposed to believe he’s innocent until proven guilty. And I’m sure that those who park their common sense at the curb will give him the benefit of the doubt. But not I. For one thing, why else would anyone go there as often as he has, except to do nasty things he can’t get away with closer to home? For another, when is the last time there’s been a rumor about a politician engaged in unsavory sexual activity that hasn’t been proven true?

Just a partial list – a very partial list limited to those you’ve probably heard of – includes Anthony Weiner, David Wu, Eric Massa, David Petraeus, John Ensign, John Edwards, Ted and Jack Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Gary Condit, Strom Thurmond, Mel Reynolds, Henry Hyde, Gary Hart, Wayne Hayes, Jesse Jackson, Wilbur Mills, FDR, Warren G. Harding and even Alexander Hamilton.

For good measure, there was President James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce’s V.P., William Rufus King, a couple whom Andrew Jackson, not the most politically correct man in the world, jokingly referred to as Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy.

Finally, if there has ever been a person in our lifetime who best exemplified what it means to be a devout liberal, it is probably Jane Fonda, whose actual birth name was Lady Jane Seymour Fonda. Not only did she go out of her way to lend aid and comfort to our enemy in Vietnam – (“Hanoi Jane,” you must agree, is a lot catchier than Lady Jane Seymour Fonda) – but her personal hypocrisy is of Olympian proportions.

Just recently, I discovered that she was the third choice to star in “The Exorcist.” The first, Audrey Hepburn, agreed to play the role that eventually went to Ellen Burstyn, but only if it were shot in Italy, where she was then living. Next was Anne Bancroft, who turned down the role only because she had just discovered she was pregnant.

It was at that point, after two of the best actresses in the world had passed with regrets, that it was offered to Fonda. She turned it down by phoning the head of Warner Brothers and demanding to know why he would want to make “a piece of capitalist rip-off bulls–t like this.”

To grasp the full, self-aggrandizing impact of that statement, you have to keep in mind that this self-anointed moral arbiter had already starred in “Barbarella,” the execrable sex fantasy directed by her first husband, Roger Vadim, and would soon go on to make millions of dollars with a series of silly exercise DVDs she peddled with the sort of single-mindedness usually reserved to used car salesmen, televangelists and Bill O’Reilly.

It wasn’t until some years later that she hit the trifecta of liberal hypocrisy when she tied the knot with billionaire goofball capitalist Ted Turner.


Special note: I have been approached to host an Internet talk-radio show. The only hang-up is that it requires a certain level of sponsorship in order to get started.

If you own a company, sell a product or provide a service, or if you know someone – preferably someone dedicated to conservatism – who owns a company, sells a product or provides a service, who would be willing to consider sponsoring my show, please contact me at BurtPrelutsky@aol.com, and I will be happy to answer any and all questions.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.