Examining Leftist Thinking by Burt Prelutsky
The question that's been preying on my mind is who is best suited to study those strange beings known as liberals. It strikes me that they'd be fit subjects for psychiatrists, who might be in a position to figure out why they revere the people they do (people such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy) men who haven't a single notable accomplishment to their name, aside from either winning elections or eliminating them altogether. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate for biologists to delve into the left-wing organism, and determine how it is possible that creatures without brains could have survived so long in an often hostile environment.
If you don't believe that liberalism is a serious malady, consider that Paul Krugman of the New York Times, when addressing Sonia Sotomayor's remark about an Hispanic woman being better qualified than a white man to be a judge, said that she was merely being entertaining. Even if Mr. Krugman is, as his comment suggests, more easily entertained than a backward three-year-old, I have a feeling that he wasn't nearly as forgiving when Trent Lott, on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday in 2002, said it was a shame that the old Dixiecrat hadn't been elected president in 1948.
Yet another recent example of liberalism in action took place at Harvard, where bright young people go to have their brains exchanged for a pound of hay and humongous egos. It seems that the mucky-mucks at the university found $1.5 million lying around and decided that the best possible use for the money was to create a visiting professorship in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies. I guess the good news is that if Barney Frank decides to do us all a big favor and get out of politics, there's a job opening at his alma mater.
Speaking of liberal goofiness brings us inevitably to Barack Hussein Obama, as he now proudly identifies himself (at least when he's addressing Muslims, praising Muslims and, as usual, slandering America.) By the way, isn't it the least bit odd that he never condemns Muslim-extremists for clinging to their religion and their suicide bombs? And even if you're a liberal, doesn't it seem peculiar that during his speech in Egypt, he didn't take a moment to mention how much blood and national treasure America has spent, and, I would suggest, wasted, defending Muslims in Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan?
But, then, we mustn't forget that this is the same chap who went to France and took the opportunity to apologize for America's arrogance without once mentioning the number of American G.I.s who died, making sure that the French wouldn't have to give up wine and foie gras for beer and bratwurst.
By the way, do you think the day will ever come when he'll quit apologizing for Americas arrogance and apologize for his own?
Before setting off for the Middle East, where he gave a thumbs-up to Iran's nuclear program while condemning Israel for building houses, Obama mentioned that America is home to one of the world's largest Muslim populations. As anyone with even a passing interest in facts would know, there are roughly three million Muslims in the United States. Just to give you some idea of how far off Obama was, Indonesia has 195 million, Pakistan has 160 million, India has 154 million.Ã‚ Even Burkina Faso, a place you've never even heard of, has seven million.
There are, as one of his advisers should have told him before he shot off his mouth, roughly 40 countries in the world, with larger Muslim populations than America.
But, then, as we all know, Obama has notoriously weak math skills. It certainly explains why he announced during the campaign that that the U.S. is made up of 57 states. Heck, it may even help explain the way he tosses around our money. It's a scary thought, but isn't it just possible that he can't really tell the difference between million, billion and trillion?