Most of us are raised to root for the underdog, for the person or people who somehow succeed in spite of the odds stacked against them. At least that used to be the case. These days, it seems what we keep seeing are those who were previously held down behaving as if they are now entitled to rule the roost and call the shots.
For instance, back when I was a youngster, homosexuals were openly ridiculed and referred to by demeaning nicknames. Eventually, the name-calling stopped, and a civilized society granted them civil union status so they could visit one another in hospitals and even file joint tax returns. But, suddenly, even that wasn’t enough. Nothing less than same-sex marriages would do, and no matter whether your objection was based on religious or common-sense grounds, you were the one being called bad names. What’s more, the game was so changed that if you, as an individual, objected to going along with the joke by baking same-sex wedding cakes or videotaping the ceremony, the government would drum you out of business.
Even when it was glaringly apparent that even in towns with a multitude of photographers and bakers the homosexuals were intentionally targeting those whose religious beliefs trumped their commercial concerns, the government sided with the bullies.
We have seen a similar scenario play out in cities around the nation when it comes to blacks. Every time, a black thug is shot during the commission of a crime by cops doing their job, the media, the courts and even the federal government are certain to take up for the black rabble.
This isn’t meant to deny that on rare occasions, rogue cops haven’t take advantage of the badge to dispense what they regard as street justice. But the operative word is “rare.” Far more often, as in Ferguson, a black punk has been shot by a white cop, and it triggers a series of predictable events. First, the black community will pretend that the thug was a choir boy destined to eventually cure cancer. They will then show their moral outrage by setting fire to stores after first removing all the food, liquor and Nikes they can possibly steal.
This will be followed by Obama’s defending the mob and claiming that the victim could have been his own son. Next, the attorney general will call for an investigation of the police force and immediately place the department under the thumb of the Justice Department.
A series of photos that has gone viral tells the story better than I can. Headlined “Looting,” one photo is captioned: “An act performed in urban communities to honor a recently killed person that nobody knew, but whom the looters claim was like a son to them.” In another, it reads “When free housing, welfare checks, free food and a free education just aren’t enough.” A third: “Because nothing says you care about a dead kid and the community more than stealing 50 pairs of Air Jordans, and then burning the place to the ground!”
The fourth in the series shows a Ferguson store owner standing in the middle of what had once been a proud symbol of his entrepreneurship and now resembles downtown Beirut. The headline reads: “Gets robbed by Michael Brown.” The caption reads: “Gets looted by people honoring Michael Brown’s memory.”
The fifth is a picture of Obama announcing, “I will be signing a new executive order replacing the word ‘looting’ with ‘undocumented shopping.'”
After recently writing with dismay about the 16 black female cadets at West Point who posed for what could have served as a recruiting poster for the Black Lives Matter movement, I heard from a couple of military veterans.
Both were angry about the picture, about the fact that Obama gave the young women a presidential thumbs-up and that West Point was not only allowing them to graduate on schedule, but planned no disciplinary action. As one of the two, an Air Force vet, wrote: “I would give the women three options: 1) face a general court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; 2) graduate, but not be allowed to take part in the ceremonies, and be given a dishonorable discharge; 3) same as option 2 regarding graduation, but allow them to enlist as an E-1 (private) and be required to serve the full seven years for having made the taxpayers foot the bill for their education, but not be allowed to progress beyond the rank of E-4, then be discharged either honorably or dishonorably, depending on their performance while in uniform.
“Under no circumstances would I allow them to progress to the rank of senior NCO or officer, because they have already demonstrated their startling lack of leadership capabilities by engaging in such a foolish protest. Lest anyone think these options are too harsh, consider what the ensuing outcry would have been if those cadets had been white males holding up the Confederate flag. I think you know the answer.”
The other reader identified himself as a proud second generation graduate of the Academy (class of 1952), and also the third of four generations of career Army officers. He let me know that he had written a strong letter to the superintendent of West Point.
“His initial response was that there was an ‘ongoing investigation’ as to the rationale and motivation behind the event. The next day, Obama said they were admirable ladies! And, surprise, surprise, the day after that, the superintendent said the women were not going to be disciplined or punished, since they didn’t really mean what it was so obvious they did mean!
“What bothers me most is that once they realized they might be in real trouble, it is obvious they lied to the investigators. At the U.S. Military Academy, that is a breach of the Honor Code, which in my day would have meant, at best, demotion of cadet rank to private and delayed graduation. At worst, it would have meant expulsion and no graduation, commission or graduation certificate.
“You can bet that if they were white, an honor violation would be a big deal.”
In closing, he mentioned that he had not only personally contributed generously over the years to the Academy, but helped to raise millions of dollars for West Point. But never again.
At least honor still counts for something among its graduates, even if it no longer responds to Reveille at the institution.
Media wishing to interview Burt Prelutsky, please contact [email protected].