Over the past few decades, I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid liberals. I realize it’s intolerant of me, but I find it next to impossible to associate with people who support the politicians I believe are actively and intentionally destroying America. Even I can only talk about baseball for just so long.

One of the few liberals I have retained cordial relations with is a former agent of mine. He is without a doubt the only agent I ever had that I liked. Believe me, in most cases, you really don’t want to be seen in public with these people.

I know that Charley (not his real name) sometimes reads my articles, but he never comments, so I can only imagine his typical reaction, which I have always assumed is “Burt writes well, but his positions on the issues are absurd. If only he saw the light and agreed with me when it comes to politics, he’d be brilliant.”

Recently, Charley broke his silence and in response to an article in which I wrote that inasmuch as Obama was raised as a Muslim, wouldn’t his claim to be a Christian make him an apostate. And if so, why hadn’t any of the Islamic factions put out a fatwa on him, as they had on Salman Rushdie when he wrote “Satanic Verses”?

Charley wrote: “Has it ever been documented — other than in an opinion piece by someone who hates him — that Obama was ‘raised Muslim’?”

I responded: “He was brought up in Indonesia by a Muslim stepfather until, I believe, the age of 12. Does that not count? Why else would he have remarked that the Islamic call to prayers was the loveliest sound in the world? But, as I have said on several occasions, inasmuch as his idea of a Christian church and a religious mentor was the church presided over by Rev. Jeremiah ("G—damn America!”) Wright, I didn’t see how that was better than attending a mosque.“

In response, Charley wrote: "Mmmm, you exaggerate when you say he was ‘raised Muslim.’ I enjoy your columns, but I do think sometimes you state things as if they were facts, when they are merely hypothesis. Still…please don’t ever stop entertaining all of us.”

Sugar is nice, but it has its limits. I wrote back to say: “Frankly, I don’t see the exaggeration. I don’t think his being raised as a Muslim makes him worse than he is. Furthermore, you seem to think that those facts with which you disagree aren’t facts.

"Inasmuch as you are a liberal and therefore of the opinion that Islam is every bit as legitimate a religion as Judaism and Christianity — and maybe even more so — why do you take umbrage at my conclusion based on the circumstantial evidence that Obama was raised in the Islamic faith? I would take a Muslim — except for one looking to blow up a pizza parlor or a school bus — over a guy who, with all the churches to choose from in Chicago, sought out one that promoted racism, antisemitism and was virulently anti-American.”

Apparently business was slow that day because Charley took the time to write back: “Yes, I do believe Islam is a legitimate religion. I don’t dispute that a disproportionate number of Muslims seem to be radicalized — I’m not sure why that is — and I’m not making apologies for those who hate the West and/or Jews and/or Israel for no good reason. While I find your columns stimulating and entertaining, I will ‘bust your chops’ when you present something as fact that I don’t believe is. I think I did so a few years ago when in one column or another you stated ‘most lawyers are liberals.’ Most that I know are conservatives. I have found no statistical evidence that ‘most attorneys are liberals.’”

“You’re right,” I conceded, “I should have made it clear that it was criminal defense lawyers I had in mind. Perhaps I assumed that in the context of what I was writing at the time, my readers would have understood that to be the case. But when it comes to Muslims, those who kill in the name of their religion are the true believers. And that should answer your question regarding why they hate Israel and the West and why they behead non-believers.

"I do believe that most Muslims take pride in the brutality of their brethren, which may explain why you never see Muslims parading in opposition to the butchers. But I would still like to know why you approve of Obama and why you would like to see Mrs. Clinton continue his policies. Is it all about party label? I mean, I’m a conservative, but I had little regard for G.W. Bush. The only two things I appreciated about him was his managing to keep Gore and Kerry out of the Oval Office.

"From my perspective, Obama’s policies and the EPA’s regulations have extended the lousy economy; his foreign policies have raised the threat level from Russia, China, ISIS, North Korea and Iran; his pro-black/anti-cop bias have made race relations worse than they’ve been in over 50 years; his total disregard for the Constitution has increased the divide between members of the two parties, as has his bad manners (telling GOP politicians, including his recently defeated opponent John McCain, in 2009 to sit down, shut up and get out of his way, etc.)

Charley replied: "You never see Muslims parading in opposition to the butchers? While I think a hell of a lot more could be done, please note below.” (Below was a link showing a handful of Muslims holding signs in Paris stating they opposed the recent violence that left 130 dead.)

I replied: “Interesting. Odd that you never see it happening here in the States, where it would be safest for a Muslim to go public. In fact, after 9/11, I thought it would have been a fine idea if American Muslims had passed the hat in their mosques and come up with reward money for Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, they continued funding Hamas and Hezbollah through phony charities until the FBI shut them down. In addition, they kept playing the victim card, yammering about being racially profiled, although hate crimes committed against Muslims never came close to those committed against American Jews.

"But how about taking a moment to let me know why you think America would be better served if Obama is replaced by someone who vows to continue more of the same? Is it enough for you that the president is someone with a (D) after his name?”

“The label has something to do with it,” Charley confessed, “but it was only SOME Muslims who funded Hamas and Hezbollah. SOME, not all. You gotta watch those absolutes, Burt! While I can’t take time to go over point by point why I have voted Democrat and will be doing so in November, please don’t repeat the Republican diatribe that Obama (or Democrats in general) are ‘bad for the economy.’ Obama inherited a bad economy from his predecessor, and there has been job growth during his administration, albeit not as much as we all would have liked.”

I did write back one last time: “It amazes me how nuanced some people are when it comes to Muslims. Most Germans, after all, were not members of the Nazi Party, most Russians were not members of the Communist Party. It’s only when it comes to Muslims, who do their killing all over the planet in the name of their religion, that so many people turn into bean counters.

"Yes, Obama inherited a lousy economy. But it was lousy because the Democrats had insisted on forcing the banks to sell homes to minorities who did not have the collateral and weren’t required to come up with a down payment.

"As for the recovery, it’s been a false one because it fails to count those who have dropped out of the work force, but counts those who, thanks to Obamacare, are forced to work less than 29 hours a week.

"I happen to know you’re intelligent, but when it comes to defending the indefensible, it is clearly above your pay scale or anyone else’s. But that’s what happens when you feel you have to defend a label and not deal with reality. It forces you to ignore the fact that we have a president who feels free to ignore the limitations of the Constitution, as exemplified when, after stating on more than two dozen occasions that he wasn’t a king or an emperor and therefore lacked the legal authority to ignore federal immigration laws, went ahead and ignored them.”

It’s been a couple of weeks, but Charley hasn’t written back.

I heard from another reader who had written a while back to complain about people who bring their dogs into restaurants with them. I didn’t see it as a problem and wrote back, asking him if he ever accepted dinner invitations from friends or relatives who had dogs.

After apparently stewing about it for a week or so, he wrote back to say that when he ate at the home of someone with a dog, he was making a conscious decision to be in the presence of their dog. But when dining out, he was only making a decision to eat. “Somehow,” he went on, “I suspect your love for dogs (and I actually do love dogs — mine, not other people’s) has overcome your normally clear, concise, conservative thinking.”

As you may have noticed, people often say the nicest things about me when they’re taking me to task. I must confess it does help the medicine go down.

Still, I felt I had to make my position perfectly clear, so I replied: “All I can tell you is that I have never been annoyed or had a meal ruined when eating in the presence of dogs. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same when it comes to people.”

(The poll results are in: Combining the votes of my subscribers with those of my Patriot Post readers, Ted Cruz cruised to victory with 153 votes; Donald Trump garnered 29 and John Kasich, a scant 11.)