The Right Opinion

Marriage & Divorce

By Burt Prelutsky · Jan. 21, 2013

The other day, my wife and I were in the car listening to a radio talk show. The host, while referring to Barack Obama, insisted that in spite of his many faults and deficiencies as a president and commander in chief, one had to acknowledge that he was a very good father. To which Yvonne said, “How does he know what sort of father he is?”

It struck me as an excellent question. I think there is a widespread belief that Obama is a good family man, but we have no grounds for coming to that conclusion. The only time we see the family together is when they're taking off for a taxpayer-funded vacation or posing for campaign photos. Other than that, we never see Obama with his daughters. Surely Malia, who's 14, is certainly old enough to play golf with her father, but I never see her out on the course with him. Instead, it's those same three guys whose full time job seems to be to make up a foursome for the president, whether it's Eisenhower, Ford, Clinton or Obama.

I'm not suggesting that Obama is as bad a father as he is a president, but it does seem to me that if he took the role as seriously as he should, he'd use his bully pulpit to admonish black men to start shouldering their responsibilities and to be ashamed of their part in dooming the 71% of black babies being born to unwed mothers to a life of ignorance, poverty and crime. You would think that in four years, he could have taken a few minutes off from deriding Republicans and Tea Party members to deliver a few well-chosen words to those sperm donors who have turned every inner city in America into an urban cesspool.

It also wouldn't be out of line for Mrs. Obama to quit yakking about cookies and calories long enough to expend some of her political capital on young black women who don't seem to think twice about condemning themselves, their offspring and future generations, to lives of quiet degradation.

Recently, I heard from a woman in Florida who referred to the man she lives with, a man named Charley, as her partner. In replying to a question I posed in my response, she explained that there were a great many older people in Florida who are divorced or widowed, but refrain from getting married again because one of them would have to surrender his or her Social Security checks.

I was shocked. I always thought that the federal government did everything in its power to encourage marriage. When Congress finally stops wasting its time trying to outlaw guns, they should get around to changing the law so that these old folks can afford to stop living in sin.

The more I thought about it, the sillier it seemed to me that people of any age who are cohabiting or canoodling have decided to refer to the other party as a partner. I couldn't help picturing a guy named Hank at a social gathering making introductions: “This is my partner, Susan, and this is my other partner, Charley,” while people gasped, and whispers of “ménage a trois” swept through the lodge hall, unaware of the fact that Charley is the other half of Hank & Charley's Plumbing Supplies.

Later that same day, a different radio host was devoting an hour to the topic of divorce. He insisted that it was essential that for the good of the child, no divorced parent should ever speak ill of his or her ex.

It is something we have all heard so often that we generally accept it as folk wisdom, along the lines of never running in a house while holding scissors or regularly consuming large amounts of fruits and vegetables. But this time it triggered something in me, and I found myself thinking, “Why not? What's to be gained by lying?”

When I got home, I sent the following email to the fellow on the radio: “I found today's discussion about divorce fascinating, but I must take exception to your rule about not speaking ill of one's ex-mate to the children.

"As you know, many, if not most, kids assume they have played a major role in causing the divorce. So on top of the unavoidable trauma, if people took your advice, it would force the children to deal with unnecessary guilt.

"It seems to me that when parents split, you would like them to say insipid things such as, "Mommy and Daddy still care for each other and we both love you very much, but we no longer love each other” or “Your Mommy (or Daddy) is a wonderful person, but we both just feel it was better if we lived apart.” I can't imagine any child whose response to the first bit of malarkey wouldn't be 'So what?' or to the second, 'Better for who?' Or 'Better for whom,' if one of the parents happened to be an English teacher.

“Even to my 73-year-old ears, those are going to sound like very shallow, selfish reasons for breaking up the family unit and leaving the child, in most cases, fatherless.

"I'm not suggesting that anyone should wash the other parent's dirty laundry in front of the kid, but I think that trying to whitewash the other party is going to leave the child with a great deal more anger and confusion than if you at least indicate the truth of the matter.

"Some parents, after all, are simply wicked and evil, and there's no compelling reason to add hypocrisy to the mix, thus making a bad situation even worse.

"It goes without saying that the explanation for the split be age-appropriate. But in most cases, between the raised voices, the sulks, the sighs, the occasional slaps and the slammed doors, kids of any age are going to be aware of friction in the home, even if the deluded parents are convinced they possess the acting chops of Meryl Streep and Michael Caine. Regards, Burt Prelutsky”


Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY said:

"but refrain from getting married again because one of them would have to surrender his or her Social Security checks."


I believe a lot also do this also for tax reasons. I don't object, I'm making a statement. Also, now that I think on it. Why is SSI considered a tax when it comes out of ones paycheck, but then when one is collecting it, it is considered an "income" and taxed again? Every Liberal rails and whines about greedy corporations, yet not a one every complains about greedy govmint.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Doktor: Like Obama, every liberal bases his political agenda on a greedy government. The bigger and greedier it is, the more they like it.


Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY replied:

True dat

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Orf in Pittsburgh said:

Why would Obutthead want to improve the status of his loyal dark following? He will never talk to them about improving their parenthood or anything else. Keeping them all on the plantation is working just fine for Obozo.

I'm just waiting for Odumbo to change the loyalty oath like Hitler did, so that instead of swearing to uphold the Constitution, federal officials and military men swear allegiance to His Majesty Obozo. I suppose this will come after he confiscates as many guns as possible and his SS troops are well trained in suppressing rebellious crowds.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

Orf, Those are being trained by Homeland Security. Kind of makes you wonder why Social Security bought thousands of rounds of ammunition along with Homeland Security. Do they think old folks are going to start a revolution? I don't believe it means anyghing good for the country.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Orf: Have no fear. Not even Obama could get the Democrats to pass a law to confiscate guns. Even Cuomo can't quite carry that off, and he only has to deal with New York.


Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Orf in Pittsburgh replied:

I agree Obozo won't be able to do a thorough job, but he will do his best with such things as voluntary turn-ins for cash (remember "cash for clunkers"); push as many laws as he can get Congress to pass with vague language so that almost any gun can be considered illegal by the regulators that "interpret" the deliberately vague phrases; a national gun registration (who would worry about that? Hah!), a crisis causing Obozo to declare martial law and demand his gangs to confiscate guns "for the protection of society" (remember New Orleans?); and don't forget this President's love of executive orders -- why not simply say during the next fabricated crisis that a house-to-house search will begin -- just like Nazi Germany. An imperial president can do what he pleases. This is exactly the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

President Lincoln jailed about 13,000 people during the early Civil War because he thought they did not agree with his actions in instigating the war by getting the South to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter and starting the war without telling Congress, a blatant violation of the Constitution. Obozo sees himself as the New Lincoln, so if old Linc can do it, so can I. All those known gun owners should be jailed if they don't produce all their guns.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Orf: Let us limit our fears to realistic ones. Jail all the gun owners?! They don't even have room for felons.


Monday, January 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Orf in Pittsburgh replied:

They would be jailed in the special camps that I read they are now creating. I think it was the work of Homeland Insecurity that was setting up special camps in case of "civil unrest"? Maybe concentration camps? Think it can't happen? Who would have thought that homosexual marriage would be condoned by the majority just 10 years ago? Who would have thought that the worst US president in history would be reelected? Who would have thought that a concerted effort to eliminate every vestige of Christianity from public places would really happen?

So what would be so unbelievable for concentration camps to house "criminals" who illegally retained their guns? All the libtards and the mainslime media would think that is perfectly sensible and necessary in order to feel secure. I would hope enough freedom-loving Americans are still left to prevent this scenario, but I wonder.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Orf: It won't happen. Those other items weren't that unlikely ten years ago.


Monday, January 21, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Old Desert Rat in Las Vegas, NV said:

I usually say my roommate! We have benn married 53 years and 8 months. The more nuclear families a nation has the stronger its moral fiber is when God is at the center of the family. I cannot vouch that for Ovamit's family. He could certainly do more to encourage black families to establish themselves legally and remain intact. It seems the only children he truly cherishes are the ones he can exploit with photo ops.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

ODR: You can always count on dictators and wannabe dictators to eventually use children as props.


Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY replied:

Or abort

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:26 PM

eric hunter in Montgomery, AL said:

From a Patriot Post article lately.."(Note: Regarding the use of children as "political pawns," White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized the NRA for referencing the protection of children in a Web ad. Carney protested, "Children should not be used as pawns in a political fight." This briefing was an hour after Obama surrounded himself with children as pawns in a political fight.)"
I usually “turn off” when people start referencing Hitler, Mao, Chavez etc in some blog posts (not hear thankfully) because they are usually wrong or mis-quoting and/or the person they refer to are not anything close to the psychos they bring up. But, as OB used the kids around him as he lectured America on gun control Monday or Piers Morgan “stacks the 20 coffins to use as a bully pulpit”… I saw this little nugget.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of
the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the
benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any
curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf,
Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403”
And this was quite chilling, again from the Post.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Cal in in SoCal said:

Bert missed the point: This country is run by popularity polls. Obummer jumped into the limelight when the time was right and the unions and big money machine saw him as their ticket to the big cash drawer in Washington. Todays voters are controlled by show TV and cash. Narcissist like Obummer are self-absorbed and the higher he gets, the more he dotes on himself and all the attention. Family and everything else are used to enhance himself. American voters adore the limelight and good actors who play the role. Just check the record.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Cal: First, the name is Burt. Next, every president and presidential candidate loves the limelight, and one of them continues to receive it once elected. Obama won the election because, as Romney pointed out, most of the voters receive bribes of one kind or another--be it pensions, food stamps, cell phones, subsidized college tuitions or free birth control pills. Hard to compete with all that.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt, the main reason Barry won is we have turned into a democracy as Ben Franklin feared. The second reason he won is that the Republican Big Shots (you can't call them leaders) did not question his communist background, not a natural born citizen, phony birth certificate, hiding college transcripts, SS in CT, etc. Don't say if they did bring these up they would have lost, they lost anyway. The God Owful Party is going the way of the Wigs.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Oops "Whig Party

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Howard: The trouble isn't that the Republicans didn't bring up any of Obama's questionable history. The trouble is that it was brought up and the majority of the voters didn't give a damn.


Monday, January 21, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt, I didn't watch the debate because the sight of Barry gets me physically ill and the TV is not thrown objects proof or bullet proof. Even though I did not watch, I am sure if Romney mentioned any of it it would have been all over the news that irrelevant items were brought up by Romney.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 8:43 PM

mumsie in New York said:

As far as not speaking ill of the other parent, consider the case of the abusive parent. If one does not condemn such behavior in the strongest possible terms, one is validating the behavior. What kind of burden does that put on the children?

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 9:04 AM

JJStryder in Realville said:

Burt: Demonize your enemies by lying about them. Debt isn't a bad thing. Spending other peoples hard earned money for pleasure when they maybe can't afford it is O'K. People can't be trusted to make the right decisions without government. We are the ones we've been waiting for! Burt: I'd have to conclude he isn't a good father. The kids are fed, clothed and pampered, but what lessons does he teach? If in all ways I take care of my children but I poison their minds, would I be considered a good father?

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

orf, your house to house search or anything else for that matter can't happen because a lot of us feel like our backs are against the wall and will not tolerate even the smallest "infringement" at this point. We've had it and some of us think it may be just what the country needs, an uprising.


Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM