The Right Opinion
The Republican Mole
In the Tea Party, there are wackos. No doubt about it. But they are the exception to the rule. On the other hand, in the case of the Democratic Party, they are the Democratic Party.
Black and Latino politicians like to focus on the large financial gap between their constituencies and white Americans. What they choose to ignore is the humongous gap in education. Although I regard the first four years of liberal arts instruction as an unholy waste of time and money, the way the system is set up, one has to slog through them before going on to become a physician, mathematician, architect, surgeon, lawyer, engineer or CPA. But when most members of the two largest minority groups in America don't even make it through high school, how on earth can they possibly wind up wealthy unless they are adept at hitting, shooting, running or passing, some type of ball?
It's not bigotry, as the race hustlers and assorted liberals would have it; it's reality.
Instead of comparing themselves to rich white people, they should compare themselves to the only minority group that editorial writers and various leftwing sob sisters elect to ignore; namely, Asians. In spite of coming to this country generally speaking a foreign language, they and their children apply themselves and, more often than not, wind up out-earning white Americans by out-learning them.
Roughly 50 years ago, Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty. Several trillions of dollars and countless state and federal feel-good programs later, the poverty level is basically unchanged.
The situation in Africa, in spite of the well-publicized efforts of Matt Damon, George Clooney, Bono and the U.N., is even worse. Considering the cast of characters, a cynic might even say, predictably worse. According to a recent study, in the 1970s, 10% of Africans lived in poverty. Today, the number stands at 70%. God knows Angelina Jolie has done all she can, but she's only one person and she can't adopt an entire continent.
The fact is, the War on Poverty, whether in Kenya or Detroit, and just about every other war that the U.S. has waged since 1945 has been an unmitigated disaster.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that although liberals were constantly attacking George W. Bush because he didn't announce an exit strategy for Iraq, nobody ever demands an exit strategy when it comes to the unending wars on drugs and poverty?
On the other hand, there are a couple of wars that deserve to be waged. Both involve federal expenditures. Although they pale in comparison to the millions of dollars squandered on LightSquared, Solyndra and all those various "green energy" scams pulled off by Al Gore and Obama's major donors, they are morally reprehensible. For instance, when Eric Holder's Justice Department holds a conference, money is no object, so long as it's yours and not theirs. Cookies typically go for $10 each, a cup of coffee runs $8, lunch costs $65 and if anyone feels like a snack, it's another $32.
I haven't seen over-runs like these since the last time the Pentagon submitted a budget. It makes you wonder if Michelle Obama is running a catering service out of the White House.
The other financial scandal involves pensions that are paid to 15 former members of Congress who were convicted of felonies including tax evasion, drug possession and racketeering. The list includes 11 Democrats and four Republicans. One of the bums collects $96,575-a-year. All told, these 15 ne'er-do-wells pull down nearly a million dollars annually.
Wouldn't you think the pension rules would have been changed somewhere along the way, if only to provide Eric Holder with the wherewithal to order more cookies?
Finally, I have decided to make my play for the Pulitzer Prize, which has so far managed to elude me, by breaking the biggest news story of the year. It's time to reveal the fact that Barack Obama is a Republican plant. In 2008, the RNC realized that after eight years of George Bush, if John McCain was somehow elected, the party was doomed to go the way of the Whigs.
By throwing the election and helping to elect a former community agitator with close ties to unrepentant terrorists, Communists and a racist church, the Republican Party wagered that once he showed his true colors, the voters would come to their collective senses.
But even in their wildest dreams, the GOP never imagined that within two short years, they would pick up Ted Kennedy's Senate seat and elect a slew of governors and senators in Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey and Florida. When Bob Turner, a Catholic conservative, won the recent election in New York's predominantly Jewish 9th district, millions of champagne glasses were hoisted all over America toasting their favorite mole, Barack Obama.
It's ironic that in 2008, unsuspecting Democrats kept insisting that Obama was the Messiah. As things turned out, they were right. Who else, after all, could have raised the Republican Party from the dead?

57 Comments
Jim T
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM
I believe Burt's on the right track. When you consider things from a constitutional point of view, what business is it of government to proscribe or prescribe what citizens choose to put into their bodies?? If the principle of personal responsibility is applied, those choosing to ingest harmful substances would necessarily and appropriately incur the expected results of their actions. The only problem with such freedom, of course, would be how to minimize the victimization of children in the context of parental drug abuse. Sterilization of the abuser parents would perhaps be one option.
Aaron Stovall
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM
On the topic of legalizing all drugs at the Federal level, there is no existing Federal authority to outlaw them. The Federal government, States and People all knew that to have Prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment granting the Federal government the authority to outlaw alcohol. There has never been any such Amendment passed to outlaw the currently illegal drugs.Further, I'm not convinced legalizing drugs would require more prisons, as Saint Peter implies. Certainly fewer laws regarding possession, transport, etc would result in fewer people locked up for possession, transport, etc. A lot of the corollary crimes would be greatly reduced as well, because legal drugs would be safer and cheaper than illegal drugs because they would be subject to mixed market conditions rather than their current black market conditions. Take crack as an example--crack exists because cocaine was made illegal. It makes perfect sense to make, buy and even use a more powerful drug when the consequences are roughly the same either way.(For the record, Professor Walter E. Williams has very eloquently and repeatedly made the point about the Amendments--I give him credit for it.)
Duke of Earl
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM
Burt,Reality nevers is considered when political descisions are made. NEVER.Therfore, the fact that some percedntage of Latinos and Blacks will never have the same standard of living as whites is and always will be racist. As long as Al, Jessee and Jessee, Jr, Maxine and the like are given the airtime they crave; honest law abiding whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. will never get the chance to be Americans.Regarding the taxation/legalization of certain drugs; NO, NO, NO. Addictive narcotics must never be legalized and sold as tobacco and alcohol. Marijuana and hashish maybe because the addictions to these are usually caused by the cutting agent usd by the street peddlers. I can understand grass and hash being sold in "state" liquor stores (package stores, whatever the individual state calls the agency); but, never addictive drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc.I understand the old stories about demon rum and tobacco. Since I am not a dedicated user of either tobacco nor alcohol (I do like a socail drink once in a while), I leave to the individual to make their own decisions regarding their individual use of alcohol and tobacco. Since both can be harmful in excess, I refuse to be sympathetic when someone is caught driving drunk or develops lung cancer. The risks are know: forewarned is forearmed.As for the reason for not changing the Government pension systems with regards to felons drawing $100,000 pensions' the current crop of government servants (like that??) are fearful that they may end up is a prsion and will not like it if they have cut off there only means of support.Duke
d.w.hudson
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Burt, I continue to proclaim that Bush and the bobble-headed republicans who went along with his mindless agenda made Obama possible, if not inevitable. But for any substantial long term change toward return of a constitutional government, it's not going to be enough for Republicans to just be "not Obama". American citizens are looking for a LEADER who understands individual freedom FROM government and a government bounded by the authority given it by we the people. Republicans may win the next election just because the nominee is "not Obama", but without a true Republican LEADER, 4 or 8 years from then there will BE another Obama.
PDK
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Ragweed, I concur.For some time now I view states such as California, Illinois and others from that very perspective. Here at the PP, every once in awhile someone from California writes a comment about LA and SF as the big liberal voting chuncks that controll the democrat process while rural areas are very conservative. It does not take much imagination to see cities as where the liberal loosers are hearded and corraled into, with the intent to keep them from robbing and murdering the rest of the people in the suburbs and rural areas with guns and gangs.If it were all a Hollywood movie the big cities would have surrounding walls to keep the people in. Instead of a government check arriving by mail, parachute drops of supplies would be made, guards would be posted in the possibility of an escape letting loose on the good citizenship the outlawing, looser liberal welfare recipient.It is a type of mafioso payment, but if the loosers swallowed their false pride and worked in school and after in the workplace, and further if the democrat party would allow itself to sink or swim on its own merit very little of this would be needed. Thanks.
Howard Last
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 1:55 PM
Burt - one minor correction, both Engineering and Architecture are given as undergraduate degrees. But you do have to take some (about 1/4 of the total courses) useless liberal arts and physical education courses during the first two years. For the life of me I can't understand how gym makes me a better engineer. I have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering. In addition in engineering, physics, calculus, chemistry courses the answers to a quiz question is either right or wrong, there is no maybe or "I feel good about it."Richard - before you wish Chris Christie would get into the race, consider these three things; He has voiced support for some gun control (semi-auto ban), has said being in the country without proper documentation is not a crime, and has called climate change real and partially manmade. I seem to remember some guy by the name of McCain had similar views. What I believe is the Republican Big Shots (you can't call them leaders) are just pushing another candidate with RINO views now that their Fair Haired Boy Romney is going no where.
Robert Sweeney
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 2:08 PM
Okay, I've just got to ask: PDK, just what the hell are "loosers"?
Fed Up
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Re: DW Hudson,You are correct sir. There will be many other Obama's and socialists alike. Therein lays the problems. Socialism creeps upon us, they believe in patience and understand that 2 steps forward, and 1 step backwards, is how they attain their ends.Despite all the hopes and wishes about bringing a "conservative" into power each election after a Marxist graces our sacred halls, it is only a matter of time before the creep sneaks in for good, once and for all, and we are beyond a point of no return.Unfortunately, I do not think many of the readers understand this is the socialist's modus operandi. They will eventually win out, because there will be more Obama’s forwarding the socialist agendas, slowly chipping away at our liberties and constitution until it is unrecognizable and too late.This is my conservative friends is only an eventuality. Sadly, perhaps not in our time, but likely in a couple or a few generations to come they will have succeeded.
Burton B Haviland
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM
We need to keep in mind that regardless of what a presidential candidate may hold as his platform for election, the implementation requires that the congress of the United States passes legislation to uphold that platform. With congress in perpetual gridlock and unwilling to compromise on anything of substance, 999 and any other platform is just pie in the sky. We should look at the man,or woman,as to their character and wisdom and take their platform with a large grain of salt.
Howard Last
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM
PDK & Robert - aren't "Liberal Loosers a redundancy?
SJvet
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Sadly, by letting obama in by not voting for McCain, we gained two ultra-liberal justices on the SC. The obama experiment wasn't worth the damage he has already inflicted on this country.
GregInOregon
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM
To Pulitzer candidate Burt:I agree wholeheartedly when you say, "...I regard the first four years of liberal arts instruction as an unholy waste of time and money...." If our now-government-run (formerly "public") schools cannot teach our kids to read, speak, communicate, write, handle money, think on their feet, work with their hands, understand and argue our Constitutional system, know our history, learn responsible life skills, etc., in 12-years' time . . . then why the bloody hell do we demand they go to college and get stupider, learning mostly meaningless rubbish and hare-brained failed notions?Few of our young people -- those who would become doctors, scientists, architects, engineers, and the like -- should be going to college at all anyhow. This is a reflection on our woefully ineffective educational system. If we could only .... If we could only take that statist authority away from Fedgov and our teachers' unions .... Have the states compete with one another for excellence in education. Our youth need to learn practical things and to know how to think rationally and critically, and how to live by their wits, and not rely on the dumbed-down groupthink of progressivist dogma.We will never convince the ~30% of liberals how delusional their thinking is. We're wasting our time trying to win them over. Our problem is with the Establishment staus-quo Republicans who are not smart enough to fight back against this relentless tide of pathological progressivism, unless of course they are progressivists themselves.Burt, you're too good. You raise too many good questions. You could write a script about what is going on now, but nobody would believe it.
Howard Reed
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM
Hello America,By Golly, I think Bert's got it. Leave it to the mind of a true realist to surmise the probable. The Bama is a Republican mole. God bless you Mr. Pretlusky for that ray of light (truth). I especially loved the closing sentence. It says it all. We needed that. And that is the rest of the story.PS: I told you liberalism is a mental disease. These misguided people are so easily fooled by sort of dark skin, and a glib tongue. It serves them right. Shock therapy might help, but I doubt it.The Turban Torpedo
Jack
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM
C'mon Burt, I go along with you most of the time, but I love mole, whether on plain cheese enchiladas or chicken. It is really off putting to associate this fine sauce with Obama!
GregInOregon
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 3:39 PM
And forget Chris Christie. He's getting all this attention because he's palatable to Establishment Grand Old Pooper Repubs. He's fine as governor, but president?