Whenever I refer to liberals in print as pinheads, chowderheads, morons
and flakes, I can always count on angry responses. Invariably, they
will accuse me of stooping to insult them, instead of dealing with
specific issues.
The fact is, I am always dealing with issues, be it the left’s
adoration of the U.N.; their cockeyed belief in man-made global
warming; their constant attacks on the first two amendments; their
intolerance of Christian traditions and symbols, which, by the way,
relies entirely on an intentional misreading of the Constitution, a
document which does not and never has contained the words
“separation of church and state”; their contempt for the
U.S. military; the alleged supremacy of gay, Islamic and illegal alien,
rights; their opposition to capital punishment; their support of judges
who legislate from the bench; and their affinity for professors and
journalists who feel their duty is to indoctrinate rather than educate
or report.
It’s only in the context of taking liberals to task that I ever
make my ad hominem attacks. And please believe me, when I call them
pinheads, lamebrains and ignoramuses, I honestly believe I am being
kind and letting them off far easier than they deserve. Would they
really prefer traitors, Quislings and Communists? If so, I’d be
only too happy to oblige.
The truth is, it’s left-wingers who make a practice of evading
the issues. For instance, I have yet to have anyone on the left
enumerate the rights he lost because of the Patriot Act. I have yet to
have any of them explain how it is that we invaded Iraq for oil but
failed to confiscate even a single drop. Also, I have never had a
liberal name all those countries that hate America because of George
Bush. Even when I offer to help them get started by suggesting Russia,
China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea and Cuba, they refuse
to engage.
I have also never had a leftist explain his love affair with socialism
and communism, forms of tyranny which have led to unparalleled human
misery wherever they have been introduced. But, then, what sort of
freedom lovers side with the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah, against Israel
and make cultural icons of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?
Silence is the same response I get when I have asked liberals, who
allegedly favor honest elections, why they have never spoken out
against ACORN, and why, although they pay lip service to free speech,
people like David Horowitz and Ann Coulter require bodyguards when they
appear on college campuses. And why is it that liberals, who already
control newspapers, magazines and TV, are pushing for the
“Fairness” Doctrine in a blatant, fascistic, attempt to
keep conservative voices off the radio?
What sort of people are they who will defend the rights of
pornographers and pedophiles to promote themselves in the public
marketplace, but feel entitled to banish the likes of Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Kevin James,
Sean Hannity, Lee Rodgers, Michael Reagan, Larry Elder and Bill
O’Reilly, from the marketplace of ideas?
If I had to describe liberals in a single word it would probably be
“feminine.” In most cases, I wouldn’t regard that
word as a pejorative. In its best sense, it conveys sensitivity and an
emphasis on the emotional. As it relates to liberals, it simply means
that feelings trump everything else. So it is that liberals love the
idea of the U.N., excited by the notion of a lot of nations sitting
down and talking out their problems, as if to a marriage counselor.
Unfortunately, when dealing with evil nations with evil intentions, the
U.N. is nothing better than a bad joke. Partly that’s because it
is inept and partly because it’s as weak as its weakest link and,
for good measure, is as corrupt as Chicago politics.
Liberals are in favor of open borders because they feel sorry for those
people sneaking across. It doesn’t occur to liberals that
American citizens suffer from the influx of millions of impoverished
illiterates. They are not concerned with the drain on schools,
hospitals, jobs and prisons, because what’s important for
liberals is that they feel good about themselves. It’s a unique
type of selfishness because it’s disguised as an altruistic
concern for others. It’s the same reason they oppose capital
punishment. They don’t care about the victims or their loved
ones. Any schmuck, after all, can sympathize with innocent people. But
it takes a very special kind of individual to hold a candlelight vigil
for a monster who had raped and murdered a child. A very special kind,
indeed.
Recently, the voters in California voted against legitimizing
homosexual marriages. The first thing that happened after the election
is that our governor, the ex-actor whose biggest muscle is located
between his ears, said that he hoped the courts would overrule the
electorate. It’s not an idle wish. California’s voters have
become accustomed to having their votes ignored. The second thing that
took place was that large numbers of homosexuals went on a rampage,
like the spoiled adolescents they so often tend to be.
The third thing that occurred is that L.A. County’s Board of
Supervisors took the matter under advisement. Because I happened to be
acquainted with one of the five supervisors, I sent him the following
e-mail. (His name has been changed for our purposes.) “Dear
George: I trust you won’t be party to overturning Proposition 8.
It’s time that the people got to have their way at least once. By
the way, are you still playing poker?”
He replied: “Burt: Thanks for your e-mail. The Board of
Supervisors has joined with a number of others in challenging the
constitutionality of Proposition 8 based on the equal protection
provisions of the State constitution. This is an issue that affects the
County because we issue marriage licenses. You and I appear to disagree
on this, but the constitutionality issue has to be resolved. I hope all
is well with you. I have not played poker in quite some time, and given
the economy, I couldn’t afford to play anyway.”
I replied: “Don’t fall for that B.S., George. The
homosexuals have equal protection and equal rights. They can all marry
members of the opposite sex. What they are demanding, as usual, is to
prove that George Orwell might have had California in mind, as well as
the Soviet Union, when he wrote about the farm where all animals were
equal, but some were more equal than others. It appears that you folks
want things resolved once again by overriding the will of the majority.
Californians have voted against same-sex marriages, in favor of capital
punishment and against benefits for illegal aliens, and each time the
liberals have found an obliging judge who happily disenfranchised the
electorate. It won’t take too much more of this before people
begin to regard voting as a futile exercise and will view the courts
with utter contempt. On top of that, at this point, it would appear
that you people are simply caving in to mob rule, inasmuch as the punks
are expressing their pique by vandalizing churches and intimidating
businesses and individuals. This is no time to support the barbarians.
As for poker, you could afford to play if you won.”
It’s been a week now and I haven’t heard back.
An L.A. County supervisor, by the way, makes $178,789 a year. I have to
assume they will soon be giving themselves a pay raise based on the
cost of living and playing poker.
