The Right Opinion

O'Reilly, Obama & Oh, Brother!

By Burt Prelutsky · Nov. 17, 2012

Recently, Bill O'Reilly conducted one of his unscientific polls. The question put to his conservative viewers was whether they were able to maintain friendships with liberals. Apparently, 79% of the respondents boasted that they were able to do so. I'm with the 21% who can't.

Keeping in mind that the question only asked about friends and not relatives, those people one can't avoid no matter how hard you try, I have to ask myself what sort of friendships the 79% had in mind. Clearly it's not a relationship that places any importance on values and character. Perhaps these “friendships” imply nothing more than a word we use to describe a group of guys getting together to bowl, play poker or shoot a round of golf. It certainly doesn't involve a mature concern over America's economy, security or future.

Otherwise, if conversation is involved, how do you avoid arguing about differences that involve everything from abortions on demand and voting laws to religious beliefs and America's foreign policy? What common ground is to be found between those who believe that all power should reside with politicians and Washington bureaucrats and those who believe, as the Founding Fathers made clear in the Constitution, that the government that governed least governed best?

Speaking of which, every American, whatever his political leanings, should read the Constitution every once in a while simply to be reminded how few powers are actually granted to the federal government and how many more are left in the hands of the states and the individual.

Of all the truly awful things the Obama administration has been guilty of, perhaps none were as vile as its refusal to grant Ambassador Stevens the additional security he begged for, and to then engage in a cover-up that dwarfed Watergate in its moral depravity. After all, the earlier scandal merely led to a president being disgraced and driven from office; it did not lead to the brutal and preventable murders of four Americans.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that it would have been dangerous to have sent the military in to Benghazi to attempt a rescue of the Americans who were under attack from Islamic terrorists during a seven hour siege. However, if the State Department's response to Ambassador Steven's request for additional security forces hadn't been to deplete the small number he had to begin with, there's a good chance the attacks would never have taken place. Granted, it would have been dangerous to have sent in operatives on 9/11. But does anyone really doubt that Israel would have made the attempt if those under attack had been Israelis?

My own belief is that Obama's court advisor Valerie Jarrett, who apparently twice prevented Obama from giving the order to take out Osama bin Laden, recalled how Jimmy Carter's bungled attempt to rescue the American hostages from Iran in 1979 helped lead to his defeat the following year. And, frankly, anyone who believes that Barack Obama would have risked his re-election over something as trivial as American lives is a nincompoop.

When three weeks before the election, Colin Powell once again endorsed Obama, not even Big Bird was surprised. The surprise is that so many people continue to hold Powell in such high esteem. He is the guy, lest you may have forgotten, who allowed Scooter Libby to be accused of outing Valerie Plame, to be reviled in the media while he swung helplessly in the breeze while awaiting prosecution, when all along Powell knew it was his own assistant, Richard Armitage, who had inadvertently leaked her name.

Apparently he allowed it to happen because Libby was an advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, and General Powell, whose own rise through the ranks obviously owed more to affirmative action and the playing of Pentagon politics than to military brilliance, resented the fact that Cheney had more influence with George Bush than he did. In other words, a good man suffered as a result of winding up being a pawn in a Washington version of sibling rivalry.

Liberals are always lecturing conservatives on their lack of civility and compassion, but it was Chris Matthews who praised the timing of Hurricane Sandy because it helped Obama get re-elected. But Ted Turner went him one better, or maybe I should say one worse. According to the alcoholic oracle, the rise in military suicides was a good thing because, as he explained to Piers Morgan, it proves that we human beings are programmed to love and help each other, not to kill one other. However, like most self-righteous pacifists, he neglected to point out what the proper response is to Muslim terrorists who are out to slit our throats.

Keep in mind this is the same saintly Ted Turner who called observers of Ash Wednesday “Jesus freaks” and opponents of abortions “bozos.”

He also said, in 2008, that, thanks to global warming, “within 30 or 40 years, most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”

Other items on Turner's agenda are to drastically cut the military budget and to make certain that American parents have no more than two children.

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Turner has five children.

It is worth noting that one of his three ex-wives was Jane Fonda. Some marriages are referred to as ones made in Heaven. The marriage of the man who donated a billion dollars to the U.N. and the woman who lent aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese was clearly made in quite a different zip code.

Finally, in a recent article, I, a Jew, mistakenly included Dick Durbin, who is apparently a Catholic, on a list of my least favorite Jewish politicians. I based my assumption on the fact that Durbin, like Schumer, Waxman, Lautenberg, Boxer, Franken and Wasserman-Schultz, swims, walks and quacks like a Jewish duck.

Not too long ago, I made a similar mistake regarding Joy Behar. It never entered my mind until a reader set me straight that the resident yenta on “The View” wasn't Jewish. After all, she looked and sounded exactly like all of my aunts and a few of my uncles.

View all comments

86 Comments

Helen in Ky said:

As usual, your editorial was right on. I enjoy your writings.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Helen: And I enjoy your comments.

Regards, Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 1:52 AM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA said:

Joy Behar looks like & sounds like everybody's uncle.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:00 AM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA said:

"He [Ted Turner] also said, in 2008, that, thanks to global warming, "within 30 or 40 years, most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals." I'd turn down any dinner invitation to the Turner hosehold.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:05 AM

WTD in AZ replied:

Although I relish (oh yes, intended) the thought of his demise, I'd hate to be offered ol' Ted as the meal du jour.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

What does Leon Panetta know about Defense, anyway? Another incompetent leftist, in a fishbowl of carp, on crapitol hill. "Sorry Ambassador Stevens, your request for help is denied. It's just too risky to come in and get you,---good luck.I'll be at the club house sippin' on a martini."Downsized, diminished, divided, disheveled, demoralized,---but NOT DEFEATED, Patriots!!!

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 5:06 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Tod: shouldn't that be a, fishbowl of CRAP?

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM

richard ryan in Lamar,Missouri replied:

Howard, that was the observation I was going to make. You took the words right of my mind.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

Colin Powell is a big RINO. If he were truly a conservative there is no way he would have endorsed Odumbo. That endorsement was nothing more than sticking up for one of your own. It didn't matter if he was incompetent, a liar, and a Socialist because he was the first so-called "black" President and merited other blacks backing. And they have the nerve to call us racists. I am truly glad he declined to run for President now that his true politics have come out. He would have fooled a lot of people just like Odumbo.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM

richard ryan in Lamar,Missouri replied:

Sarge, I held a fairly high opinion of Powell until he become Secretary of State for Bush. After a few weeks of his pacifist work I became disenchanted with him. I agree with Burt that his success had more to do with reverse discrimination than it did with brains and ability.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Old Sarge: He would have fooled a lot more people than Obama because Obama warned us who he was, but too many people--including dumb white ones--couldn't see past his pigmentation.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Jim in People's Republic of Bloomington, IN said:

Burt, your comments are so very true and so very much appreciated. I am going to share them with the unavoidable liberals in my family, who have their heads stuck in the sand so deep I don't know how they breathe.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Jim: it is not their heads stuck in the sand, but where the sun don't shine.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

I thought one definition of a Liberal is abhorrence of competition: if so How come, considering the location of their heads, so many are in competition with Tapeworms. Never mind the definition of a Tapeworm is a parasite, hence no competition is intended..

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Laura in Far North Scottsdale replied:

Also referred to medically as a "cranial - rectal inversion"...:)

Monday, November 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Jim: Sounds like a lot of my relatives, except mine absolutely refuse to read anything I write.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM

BlueShadowII in Texas replied:

Burt,

I have the same problem with all of my liberal friends and relatives except one who, when she does respond, argues a completely different subject. Comment on illegal aliens and she replies about abortion.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Ct-Tom in NC said:

Through all of this, I have been wondering why we spend a gazillion dollars a year on a military, including first-rate rapid response teams, if we aren't going to use it when it is desperately needed.

Yet another example of what I have noticed lately as a failure on the part of the press to ask "the next question." E.g., Why, then, Mr. Panetta, do we have a military? Or, Why, then, Mr. President, did you send Ambassador Rice (whom he defended by saying that she knew nothing about Benghazi) out to discuss Benghazi on the Sunday shows, instead of someone knowledgeable? Or, Mr. President, do you mean that you are willing to engage Senators Graham and McCain (and even Ayotte!) in a public discussion regarding the inconsistencies in the administration's narrative on Benghazi?

I am surprised that some Pulitzer-seeking journalist in the lamestream media hasn't latched onto Benghazi, but, then again, Obama isn't a Republican, is he? Too bad Herridge and Griffin work for Fox News; otherwise they'd be a shoo-in.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

CT-Tom: If the Pulitzer Prize didn't automatically go to the NY Times and other left-wing rags, Fox News would win the Prize for their coverage of the Benghazi scandal from Day One.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Honest Abe in North Carolina replied:

The Pulitzer Prize, like the Black Achievement and the ACLU Good Citizen awards are biased toward organizations on the left and for people of that political and social persuation. Hence, no conservative nor Fox News will therefore ever win it. Obama, however, could easily win by doing abolutely nothing of substance.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:40 PM

wjm in Colorado said:

How could anyone remain a friend with someone who voted with the Communist Party of America? I even will not associate with family who have committed an act of treason by voting Democrat, the Party of Marx.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Orf in Pennsylvania said:

Burt, These liberal "friends" are like the drinking buddies you only meet in a bar. As long as you're buying, their good friends. Outside the bar, who knows you?

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Orf: And I don't drink. Maybe that's why I have so few friends.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Attila in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico replied:

Cmon, Burt, you have many friends you have never met!

Sunday, November 18, 2012 at 3:05 AM

JJStryder in Realville said:

The days after the election I was aware that everything seemed normal. Everyone was walking around as if nothing happened. I, on the otherhand felt betrayed by my fellow citizens, betrayed by their ignorance and apathy. I reside in California so I have more to resent my fellow citizens over than most conservatives in other states. I'm in business and stupid peoples money is as good as any, but I'm with the 21%. Preparing for when the liberal chickens come home to roost.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

JJ: Stupid people's money is actually better than everybody else's because the more they spend with you, the less they'll have to donate to Obama and the DNC.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM

John H in USSMaryland replied:

Burt, At least the "stupid" people got something for their donations, their guy reelected! Me, I just gave a couple hundred to conservative (I thought) candidates who gave me a thousand unwanted phone calls at all hours, and a candidate that was just too nice........Not only do I feel distaste for the 51% who voted for, and, donated to, Obama, but, resentment that the Republican establishment won't fight for what I know is right.......

Sunday, November 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM

McGoo in The Villages FL said:

My wife keeps telling me not to bring up politics when we're out with friends, but I really hate letting them get awat with their liberal inanities just to keep the p[eace. You're right avbout family--even my own daughters seem to think B.O. is terrific. Bah humbug I say!

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:18 AM

billy396 in ohio replied:

My mother and siblings have asked me to refrain from talking about politics when our family is together. I refuse to go anywhere that requires me to refuise to tell the truth. It's quite unfortunate, and I hate to be the one who gets blamed for causing an argument when my leftist nephew (with his MBA programming) and my Dem-for-life sister (with her 'Master's degree') can no longer stand to hear the truth and start blaming George Bush for the acts of Barry Obozo. How can anyone blame Obozo's treason on a former President who's retired in Texas and has nothing to do with our idiot, fake, treasonous bastard CinC? Frankly, I can't stand to be around anyone who doesn't mind voting for a traitor as long as he tells all the right lies.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

McGoo: Bah humbug is right. Wives are always good at keeping the peace with, except their husbands. I guess the poor guys are the only outlet the ladies have.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Merry in Cave Creek, AZ said:

I am with you in that 21% Burt! Thank God there are no liberals in my family. Just met up a few months ago with a couple we haven't seen in 20 years where the conversation turned political between the guys as the wives caught up on life. The wife could not keep her attention on our discussion and repeatedly jumped in (from the other room) on the men's. Of course, rabid pro oblahblah supporters who spoke only in soundbites. No way will I return to their home or have them at mine. We simply have different principles and values. To do otherwise would be a farce. I told my honey that I have absolutely no intention of continuing a relationship with any liberal acquaintances because they would not logically become friends---ever. I find discussions with liberals to be hateful and unfruitful, unlike speaking with a Libertarian who can at least hold a decent conversation with you. I am shocked at the number of people we know who switched from conservatism to liberalism in 2008. I suspect that many were turned off by the attempts of the Rs to legislate morality even though Romney said nothing of any consequence on the subject. One day people might wake up and understand that voting is something that should be done for the future of our country and not based only on one's personal bugaboo whether you are devoutly religious, gay, or poor. When deeply held moral issues become the focus the conversation always gets ugly. We have got to get off of the issues and look at the bigger picture---unselfishly. If the Constitution doesn't specifically address it or give the power to the federal gubmint, bringing up any issue/cause only legitimizes the thinking that those in D.C. have the power or the right to control or dictate related to it. oblahblah care is a perfect example.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Merry: I am with you and Burt in the 21%. We resided (I could not call it living) in the peoples republik of Great Neck, NY before we moved to God's Country (if you have ever been to Wyoming you will know why I call it that). There were less than a handful of people in the village I would talk to. Most were a bunch of dumb s#$%s. Most of the professions of the morons were lawyers (imagine that), business owners and doctors. It proves that education does not make you smart. They could not grasp the thought that the democraps were after their assets. If Stalin was running against Lenin some moron would write a letter to the local paper saying all the candidates were too conservative. And a majority of the residents would agree with that.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Howard: You're making Wyoming sound better and better. Especially on a day when the rain here in L.A. is making tennis impossible.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Tom Mumford in Manchester, Connecticut said:

Burt, I have a question for you. Why is it that not one person in the non-MSM media has mentioned the lack of police and/or military support in the countries where the 9/11 protest, riots (Cairo), and terrorist attacks (Benghazi, which went on for several hours) to quell these behaviors and actions? Cairo has riots and thugs gain entrance into our Embassy, tear down our flag and put up another one -- no response from Egyptian authorities while it happened. A military-like attack begins and continues in Benghazi, but no Libyan military or police response to put an end to it? Why is this not even being explored. My understanding is that in Libya, the "security" contingent that Ambassador Stevens has was Libyan. Your thoughts? And why have you not asked?

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:37 AM

billy396 in ohio replied:

I think you could infer an answer to that question from the fact that our current "President" is giving Billions of taxpayer dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. With the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Eqypt (which is exactly what Obozo wanted), how can you expect anything other than open terrorism? The police and government consist of terrorists and terrorist supporters.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Tom: No need to ask. With Mubarek gone, the Egyptians are showing their true colors to us and to Israel. As for Libya, anyone who was dumb enough to think that the Arab Spring would have a good result is hopelessly naive. If you have been reading me, you'd know that I always was of the opinion that it would end the way it has. Egypt and Libya were always pig sties, but we had at least neutered Mubarek and Gaddafi. Now the Muslim Brotherhood has taken the reins.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt: Egypt and Libya, "Pig Sties". Now if we shipped them pigs will the camel jockeys move out? Maybe we should have an air drop over the entire area, but instead of flyers make it pig intestines and pig blood. I understand the 72 virgins are actually goats. Better yet we should do nothing and let them kill each other.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Howard: We agree. The U.S. must never again spend blood or treasure defending one group of Muslims from another. Instead, we should stand aside and root for both sides.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 5:25 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

I've heard there will be peace in the Middle East when pigs fly. Howard, you could be on to something.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Arabiascott in Indiana said:

Burt, liberals don't actually have friends, just guys they know who have something they want. If a liberal is acting friendly, it's time to guard your wallet. The typical con-man is the ideal liberal. He'll tell you lies that you want to believe and he'll rob you blind. It's weird how fraud and extortion have been elevated to "respectable" ideology.
Thanks for reminding us to choose our friends wisely.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Arabia: Always a good idea. That's why I was so shocked when 79% of O'Reilly's respondents said they had no problem maintaining friendships with liberals. I guess they felt it made them sound benevolent; to me, they came across as people with no values and no backbones.

Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM

pete in CA said:

Burt, I'm in the 79%.

Mr. O's question said nothing about how close the friendship may be. I, and also you I'm willing to bet, come in contact with liberals every day. The fact that we haven't killed any of them attests to the fact that we can maintain a relationship, and in many cases, friendship with them.

In all too many cases, the only way to convert them is to show by how we live our daily lives that our ways are better than theirs. When they complain about gay rights ask them why they are so angry about it. When they complain about women's rights ask they why they are so angry about it. When they complain about global warming ask them why they are so angry about it. Every so often you'll find one who never realized his whole response to his life in general was anger. Opened eyes also open the mind.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Pete: I run into plenty of people who are confirmed liberals. In the past, I would try to talk sense to them. But I found it frustrating in the extreme. The fact that we must censor ourselves in order to keep peace with left-wingers means that they win and we lose.

I do receive email from liberals and I do try to respond courteously, finding on occasion that in trying to make myself understood to the dunderheads, I manage to clarify points for myself that I can then pass along in future articles. But I believe that the only person who has ever acknowledged that I have succeeded in turning his mind around is Mark, a fireman from Massachusetts, who often comments on this page.

Regards, Burt

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

Burt, the most difficult of all task is to Speak Sense to Stridency, BTW, Gregory from Yakima strides in next.

Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 8:29 PM