The Patriot Post® · A Fable for Our Times
A lot of people are at a loss when it comes to figuring out why in the waning days of his administration Barack Obama is doing some of the outlandish things he’s been passing by presidential fiat, including emptying our jails, banning oil drilling in the Arctic, transferring millions of acres in Nevada and Utah to the federal government, not to mention supplying the knife with which the U.N. stabbed Israel in the back.
Some have assumed it’s simply to keep Donald Trump busy trying to undo some of these catastrophes, thus delaying his ability to erase such Obama legacy items as the Affordable Care Act and the Iran deal.
While I believe that is part of his motive, I don’t think it tells the whole story. There is a fable, probably one of Aesop’s, that tells of a scorpion that pleads with a frog to ferry him across a pond. The frog hesitates, fearful that the scorpion will sting him. But the scorpion points out that if he killed the frog, it would be suicidal because he would drown. The frog acknowledges the logic of the argument, and tells the scorpion to hop on his back.
Halfway across the pond, the scorpion stings the frog. As they both begin to sink to their watery graves, the frog asks the scorpion why he did it. The scorpion replies: “It’s my nature.”
I believe that not only explains Obama’s current activity, but the last eight gruesome years.
Although I am troubled by Trump’s having apparently given Putin his class ring and his letterman’s sweater, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. After all, a lot of summer romances end quickly once Fall rolls around.
At least Trump hasn’t yet promised Putin that he’ll be more flexible once he’s inaugurated, as Obama did in 2012. At the time, I found myself wondering what Putin made of the promise. After all, how much more flexible could a guy lacking a backbone be?
A friend sent me an article that warned America that our economy is being socialized. I read it and replied: “I must confess to being torn when it comes to economics. My instinct is to be in favor of a free market. But the world has probably not seen one of those since the days when individuals were using stones and sea shells as currency.
"In today’s world, when we have crony capitalism and currency manipulators, it’s not even possible to play by fair rules. Today, when workers in one country are being paid $25-an-hour and those in other places are being paid one-tenth that amount, how do you balance the scales?
"And when companies and corporations seek to maintain a profit margin by moving their plants to places with cheap labor, costing Americans millions of jobs and costing the nation entire industries, do you merely stand by and let it happen in the sacred name of free market capitalism?
"I don’t know the answer, but I hope and pray that Donald Trump and his economic advisors do.”
For decades, Americans have been waiting to see the economy grow, but the only thing that’s grown is the federal government. In a speech recently delivered by Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College, he reminded us that in the early days of our republic, the entire cabinet consisted of a Secretary of State, a Secretary of War (now Defense), a Secretary of the Treasury and an Attorney General. Since that golden period, twelve cabinet offices have been added, and has anyone noticed an improvement resulting from this feverish expansion of the federal bureaucracy? No, neither have I.
The hypocrisy of liberals is everywhere in view, but perhaps never as clearly as when they attack conservatives for making such a fuss over such social issues as abortions, same-sex marriages, legalizing addictive drugs and making bathrooms unisex for the convenience of those freaks who can’t keep track of their own genders.
The problem is that it’s invariably the liberals who promote these follies, and then feign outrage when conservatives stick up for traditional values, otherwise known as common sense.
Pablo Casals once stated that “The love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?”
Whenever people toss “love” into a sentence, they seem to assume a moral advantage. But if the world-renowned cellist hadn’t died in 1973, I would have asked him to define his terms, starting with “love.”
I love my wife, my friends, my dog and my country, but I certainly can’t claim to love people I’ve never even met, although I may love the music they’ve created or performed.
And if a country doesn’t have borders, which the quote suggested Senor Casals objected to, what makes it a country? After all, if my house didn’t have walls and locks on the doors, on what basis would you call it a house?
One of my readers, a fellow who had worked for over 30 years in the federal bureaucracy, felt I was wrong to denigrate members of the civil service.
I certainly hadn’t intended to personally insult him or any other individual. What I object to is civil service, itself. I’m sure that some — okay a few of them — are doing good and necessary work. But once civil servants, who had signed up knowing that in exchange for big salaries, they were being guaranteed lifetime employment, were allowed to unionize, they simply became one more protected class that the Democrats could bank on at election time.
Corruption is always going to be a part of the process when it comes down to politicians and money, but even FDR said that unionizing civil servants was an absurd notion. But when New York’s Mayor Robert Wagner was running for re-election, and victory looked bleak, he got the bright idea of letting the city’s civil servants unionize. As just like that, he won in a cakewalk.
It didn’t escape the notice of JFK, who was already looking forward to the 1964 election, which was why he, in turn, allowed the federal workers to unionize. Of course, thanks to unforeseen circumstances, it was LBJ who benefitted in 1964, and every Democrat since.
Although I am reluctant to ever agree with FDR, is there anything stupider than allowing union members to negotiate their contracts with politicians whose own money is not at stake, but who stand to gain votes and campaign contributions when they roll over for those on the other side of the bargaining table?
A friend shared a list attributed to comedian Jeff Foxworthy. But whether Mr. Foxworthy, who had based a routine on explaining how to spot a redneck, came up with it or someone else did, I have no idea.
But his name was attached, so he gets full credit for something so politically insensitive towards Muslims, I wish I could claim it as my own.
The highlights include: If you grow and refine heroin for a living, but morally object to the use of liquor, you may be a Muslim.
If you own a $3,000 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but can’t afford shoes, you may be a Muslim.
Other tip-offs that you might be a follower of Mohammad:
If you have more wives than teeth.
If you wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon to be unclean.
If you think vests come in two styles, bullet-proof and suicide.
If you consider TV dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have other uses, other than setting off roadside bombs.
If you have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four of them.
I would add that, for all intents and purposes, you might also be a Muslim if you dismiss Christians as those people who cling to their religion and their guns, and openly side with jihadists against Israel.