Right Opinion

Haggling Over Hagel

Burt Prelutsky · Feb. 3, 2013

Frankly, I don’t think it will make much difference whether or not Chuck Hagel is confirmed. After all, he will be taking his marching orders from the single greatest menace America has ever had to endure. Still, that’s no reason to confirm the man who has made a career out of demeaning Israel and sucking up to Iran to such an unseemly extent that Iran’s foreign minister has applauded his nomination. If nothing else, when your nation’s archenemy gives a big thumbs-up to the guy who’s being considered as your Secretary of Defense, it should give even Democrats pause.

Not only has Hagel displayed an open bias against American Jews, insisting that something he refers to as the Jewish/Israel lobby intimidates members of Congress into doing dumb things, but when Sen. Lindsey Graham asked him to identify a single senator who’s been intimidated or to mention even one of those dumb things, Hagel turned into Porky Pig.

What’s more, as a member of some goofy outfit that calls itself Global Zero, he says he’s opposed to nuclear bombs, but insists he’s also opposed to unilateral disarmament by the United States. That can only mean that he believes that he and his merry band of pinheaded pacifists are convinced that they can use their moral authority to make Iran, Russia and North Korea, see the error of their ways.

In addition to all that, Rick Santorum, who served in the Senate with Hagel, claims that Hagel not only never introduced a piece of legislation during the dozen years he represented Nebraska, he rarely if ever even showed up for a party caucus. So, on top of being a confirmed anti-Semite, a man opposed to war or even meaningful sanctions where Iran is concerned, he’s as lazy as Barack Obama.

One of the fascinating things in the recent brouhaha over guns is that Harry Reid has been called by Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, “a true champion of the Second Amendment.” Mr. LaPierre has also said of Sen. Reid that “no one has been a stronger advocate for responsible gun ownership than him.”

In 2010, the NRA was a major contributor to Harry Reid’s campaign against Sharron Angle. Could that possibly explain why, in the wake of the Aurora, CO, movie theater shootings, Sen. Reid blocked any debate about gun control, insisting that the Senate schedule was too packed to do anything about it. This is the same Senate, let us not forget, that’s also been too busy for the past four years to come up with a budget or to do anything about cutting the deficit or paying down the national debt. I guess there must be a Senate bowling league I haven’t heard about.

I wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that I am in conflict with the NRA. In fact, this is the one area where Harry Reid and I are in agreement. I just thought it was fascinating to discover that Reid doesn’t owe his political career entirely to Nevada unions and Vegas casinos. And I can’t help wondering if Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein realize that if Harry Reid ever loses his Senate seat, he might be in line to replace Wayne LaPierre.

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of back-and-forth regarding the U.S. Constitution. Ruth Bader Ginsberg told the world that if she were writing some nation’s constitution today, she definitely wouldn’t use ours as her model. That, alone, should have been reason enough to boot her off the Supreme Court. But I also hear various politicians and even law professors claim that the Founding Fathers weren’t all-seeing and all-knowing. They generally take this approach when they’re defending Roe v. Wade or some sneaky thing that Obama is trying to pull off in order to put the legislative branch of government out of business.

Whenever these punks try to subvert the Constitution, they say the document is so vague that just about any interpretation can be placed on it. Or they say that the Constitution should be a living document, and that we shouldn’t be bossed around by a bunch of dead white guys.

To which I say, the Constitution served us awfully well for most of our history. It’s odd that it has suddenly grown old and senile since Obama’s election.

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I think what they intended is pretty clear and easily understood. I agree it’s a living document, but that’s because its authors were bright enough to understand that with changing times, it might require amending. But they spelled out how that process would work, and it did not have anything to do with the election of a former community organizer. George Washington was offered the crown and he turned it down. He didn’t say, “I’m not worthy. Hang on to it until some Chicago tinhorn comes along.”

They were very clear about separation of powers and states’ rights, and anyone who pretends otherwise is out to con you. Those would be the sort of ne'er-do-wells who pretend that “separation of church and state” appears in that sacred document. Unlike politicians, it says what it means and means what it says. The Constitution, let us always keep in mind, was not written in Greek or French or invisible ink.

Speaking of Chicago tinhorns, it is not only dumb that Obama would claim we don’t have a spending problem in America, it’s downright terrifying. One might better say that we have a debt of $16.4 trillion and counting, but this boob doesn’t even bother counting. Instead, he’s spending his time adding and multiplying, both our debt and our problems.

When Michelle comes home from a shopping spree bearing those funny-looking dresses she seems to favor, I wonder if Barack ever complains she’s busting their budget, and if she, in turn, replies, “You said we don’t have a spending problem. And drop that sugar donut before I smack you!”