View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Burt Prelutsky |
February 10th, 2006
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be a liberal, and to have self-righteous blowhards like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Charles Schumer, speaking for me.
In the old days, along with such colonial powers as France, Spain, Holland and Germany, England indulged in what you might call unenlightened self-interest. The prevailing practice was to gut their colonies in Asia and Africa of all the natural resources they could get their hands on while the folks who mined the coal, picked the crops, and dug for the diamonds, lived in abject squalor.
It may not have been nice, it may have been selfish and even brutal, but it made perfect sense. When some English noble stoked his fire, he probably never gave a second thought to the Welshmen suffering from black lung disease; so long as he was toasty, that’s all that mattered to his lordship. So far as he was concerned, Wales might as well have been on the other side of the moon, and, truth be told, its people were of less concern to him than his hounds.
I’m not condoning such behavior, but it’s reassuring when even bad acts are logical. For instance, it makes sense to rob a rich person, but not a poor one; sense to knock over a bank, but not a fruit stand.
Which brings us to liberals. They perplex me, not merely because I believe they are wrong about virtually everything, but because they don’t even seem to dwell on the same planet as the rest of us. If we were to discover one day when they all took off in a large spaceship that they were merely tourists from another solar system, or perhaps criminals who’d had to serve their sentences on this distant penal colony, I might be as shocked as everybody else, but I wouldn’t be too surprised.
For instance, consider Homeland Security, if you will. Does it make any sense that Americans, in the wake of 9/11, would carry on as if eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or monitoring their library books marked the end of civilization? Are liberals so unaware that there are millions of Muslims who want nothing more or less than to exterminate all of us infidels? Do they regard Islamic fascism as just another offbeat political faction, sort of like the Green Party? All I know is that they seem like lemmings who, not merely satisfied to go off the edge of the cliff themselves, are determined to take the rest of us with them.
Do they honestly believe, as they so often say, that they regard evangelical Christians as a greater threat than Al Qaeda; that they think that the Palestinian suicide bombers and the so-called insurgents in Iraq are very much like this nation’s forefathers? It’s obvious that I didn’t read those portions of the history books that dealt with Washington’s sawing the heads off English civilians and Jefferson’s massacring school children in London.
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be a liberal, and to have self-righteous blowhards like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Charles Schumer, speaking for me. And then I wake up screaming.
When these two-bit politicians do their best to trash men ten times smarter and a hundred times more decent than they are — people like Charles Pickering and Samuel Alito — twisting their words and actions in order to portray them as racists and poltroons, why is it we never hear a single prominent liberal rise up and say, “Finally, senators, have you no shame?”
How is it that a totally undistinguished Pennsylvania congressman named John Murtha can achieve overnight canonization in the liberal media by demanding a deadline for the withdrawal of the American military from Iraq — a deadline which can serve no other purpose but to demoralize our troops and encourage our enemy? And if you have the effrontery to question the congressman’s judgment, you can count on being reminded in no uncertain terms that Rep. Murtha served in the military. Yes, he did…a very long time ago. However, for the past 30-odd years, he has fed off the public trough just like all those other lay-a-bouts in Washington.
But even if he had only mustered out of the service the day before yesterday, lots of people do a much better job in uniform than in mufti. Ulysses S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur, Curtis LeMay and James Stockdale, all come to mind. Besides, military service hasn’t anything to do with civilian decision-making. In the case of Murtha, who hasn’t been on active duty in 38 years, it’s clearly a case of that was then and this is now. France’s Marshal Henri Petain, let us not forget, went from being a French war hero in 1919 to being head of the Vichy government, and that was just a scant 21 years later.
In making my point that times change, and so do men, I’m not suggesting that Rep. Murtha is a traitor or is any less patriotic in his heart of hearts than he was four decades ago. But I, for one, sure wouldn’t mind seeing him escort Ms. Cindy Sheehan aboard that spaceship.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
Visit their website at: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Responses to "Liberals From Another Planet"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
TERRIFIC ARTICLE!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE THE LIBERAL CAUSTIC ATMOSPHERE THAT IT TOOK IN WASHINGTON TO CONVERT A MARINE COL INTO WHAT MURTHA HAS BECOME?
CPO E. R. LITTLE, US NAVY RETIRED
Comment by CPO E. R. LITTLE,USN RETIRED | February 10, 2006
Time and time again you refer to the eavesdropping undertaken by the department of Homeland security. The fact still remains - the law was broken, however you like to present it. And if you cannot rely on the lawmakers to respect the laws, what is there to keep society in check?
Comment by alex | February 10, 2006
If the president in fact believes that he has the right to circumvent the normal warrant procedures in obtaining information necessary for our security and believes that right was given to him by congress then how is that against the law? Members of congress were and are briefed on these actions! Of course because it is being depicted as a violation by the liberal media congress is now trying to retreat just as they did for their originally correct vote to authorize war!
Comment by mike | February 10, 2006
I would like to suggest that Rep. Murtha is a traitor. In addition, the Kool aid drinking Liberals that want us to believe that the president's constitutional powers are somehow different when a Republican is in office are definitely delusional at best. No one is buying the 'Bush broke the law' garbage. These are constitutional powers. These kind of powers cannot be trusted to congress and that was established in the very first presidency. Read 'His Excellency'. A great read about the founding fathers. The real deal is that the Democrats are out of power and they just can't handle the truth.
Comment by Philip Cantu | February 10, 2006
Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:
"Nihilism, Self-consistency, and Paradox"
"Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth."
"A more sophisticated interpretation of the claim might be that while truth may exist, it is inaccessible in practice, …."
"Thus, since nihilists believe they have learned truth cannot be attained in this life, they look upon the activities of those rigorously seeking truth as futile."
Liberals (socialists who have adopted the title from its original meaning to camoflage their real ideology) tend toward nihilism and, therefore, continuously confuse and astound those of us who seek logic and continuity in our perception of reality. In my view, recognizing the fact that people like Teddy, Chuck and Sheets have over time become extremely nihilistic means that I know that they truly believe what they say at the moment they say it but a moment later it will be, to them, as though it was never said anything because their reality exists from second to second only. Each one of their realities is totally dependant on whatever supports or facilitates his intent in that given second.
Comment by Charles V. DiGiovanna | February 11, 2006
oops. Because the comment block runs off the edge of my screen I have a typo. The line shoud read …as though he never said anything…..
Comment by Charles V. DiGiovanna | February 11, 2006
Alex writes, "Time and time again you refer to the eavesdropping undertaken by the department of Homeland security. The fact still remains - the law was broken, however you like to present it. And if you cannot rely on the lawmakers to respect the laws, what is there to keep society in check?"
If anything, surveillance is about "keeping society in check", so I would think you'd be pleased. You imply , in the same breath, you want both more and less control. Which is it?
How can you say lawmakers do not respect laws they, themselves, are empowered to make? You really have to stretch some logic to reach that one. I would not disagree with you that lawmakers sometimes make bad laws or un-Constitutional law, but as the focus here is the recently reaffirmed Patriot Act and its wiretap provisions, your accusation has all the marks of an ill-considered conspiracy theory.
First, it seems you are confusing law enforcers with lawmakers, and confusing illegitimacy with legitimacy. In the past, Congress has passed laws that require the President to keep select members of Congress informed on National Security matters; and a then sitting liberal President concurred in them. However, they are not Constitutional provisions and are subject to change. The same Congress that legally made it unlawful for a President to keep secrets from them have now legally made it lawful for him to keep secrets as regards terrorists bent on our destruction.
How do we know the President and his people are only targeting terrorists? We don’t. It is secret and subject to national security, because our government, including our lawmakers feel that the job of neutralizing terrorists bent on killing us would be futile if it weren’t. We have entrusted them to do this with the proviso that their actions be subject to oversight at some later date. There is nothing illegal, un-Constitutional or extra-Constitutional about it.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutions says:
“The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Following the “shall” provisions of Section 8, there is also a list of “shall not” provisions in Section 9, but there is nothing in them that precludes Congressional approval of wiretaps.
Prior to ratifying the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was added to it to ensure the rights and persons of citizens would be protected. Among these is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Clearly, this amendment gives the government some right to invade our privacy under limited circumstances. It does not outlaw all search and seizure, it limits it and proceduralizes it. It was intended to limit the reach of the courts to prosecute, and to provide a reasonable expectation of what constitutes sanctuary. Does this mean our government can never use a wiretap under any circumstances? In 1789, there was no telephone system, no satellite communications, and no Internet. However, there was a public postal system established under the Constitution and a pre-existing network of private and public communications. Letters and broadsheets of the day attest that the idea of privacy did not extend to the public conveyance of messages, but only to the physical privacy of home, lodging, place of business, and other recognized venues.
In Olmstead v. United States (1914), it was determined there was no technical violation of the Fourth Amendment on the basis that: although you may own some of the equipment of a phone system, the phone system itself is a public conveyance just like our highways and mail deliveries, and is not part of your private domain. Per Olmstead, a person’s use of the phone system does not constitute a private ownership and we can have no reasonable expectation our conversations in a public place will have the same surety as in private. In so deciding, the 1914 court correctly followed the textual rendering of the Fourth Amendment. Persons, within their private domicile or holdings are inviolate; but step outside your private domain or broadcast beyond your domain and you are subject to witness by whomsoever may be listening. This ruling provided a clear and unambiguous definition of that which is public and what is private that accords with all previous understanding of the concept.
However, in Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its findings, maintaining:
"… wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
…
The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violate the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
As unambiguous as Olmstead was, Katz is every bit ambiguous. It is tantamount to saying: wherever you may be, whoever may be listening, you are in private and no one can bear witness to what you have said. You can stand on a crowded street corner, loudly announce your intention to murder, and all you must then do is complain you had no idea anyone was listening to go free having committed a most heinous crime. Only in the case of a previously secured and legally issued warrant can such testimony now be admitted. Clearly, this is not what was intended when the Constitution was ratified.
Katz is a clear case of judicial misappropriation of the legislative function. The Katz USSC overrides and changes the law from what was legislated to what the court wanted it to be. There is no textual or legal basis to presume an expectation of privacy anywhere outside of a physical property or communications media that is not under the direct and exclusive control of its owner. This is un-Constitutional remaking of law to supersede what is written and was intended.
Olmstead and Katz were both citizens of the U.S., and the reference made to “the people” in the Fourth Amendment is to Citizens. It did not apply to visiting European spies, Caribbean pirates, Mexican banditos, or peaceful Indians come to trade. Neither Olmstead nor Katz (v. U.S.) argues that other than the rights of citizens are at issue, and no legitimate misrepresentation can be made extending the same right to a non-citizen. Nor does the proscription pertain to property (either public or private) outside the jurisdiction of our courts to determine (i.e., outside the U.S.). Thus, the administration is within its legal mandate to use wiretap technology against foreign belligerents and/or against targets outside U.S. territory, regardless of a contrary law within our borders.
Therefore, it is only proper laws passed by Congress and an improper court finding made in former times that have restricted the use of wiretaps; not any Constitutional proscription or un-Constitutional lawbreaking. For the Patriot Act to be unlawful there would have to be something in it that is denied Congress to enact. Similarly, for the Administration to have broken the law, it would have had to violate the rights of a citizen, which has been shown the case in regard to anti-terrorist counter-surveillance activity exactly once. In the single case (now under litigation), it is not a wiretap provision nor the government’s right to snoop that is at issue. Rather, it was an unlawful arrest and holding of a citizen without sufficient proof of identity, a violation entirely outside the scope of the Patriot provisions and within the scope of previously determined court findings to be a legal usage. The case is only incidentally about wiretapping, as that was a circumstance leading to further investigation, which turned up a fingerprint, which was then misidentified. The actual arrest stemmed from the fingerprint mismatch and failure to verify it, not from the wiretap activity. This the type of mistake that police make with some regularity, but which is not police policy to violate; nor is it Presidential doctrine.
Yes, police officers do screw up, and some laws we’d be better off without. But, it is a long way from screw up to wildly exaggerated conspiracy theory pointing to a wholesale gutting of the Constitution by outlaw administrators bent on your enslavement. However -you- care to present it, no law has yet been shown broken other than by some overly zealous FBI agents engaged in legitimate activities meant to keep you safe. Where laws have been broken: zealous lawyers are hard at work suing your government, making a name for themselves, and getting rich from it. The FBI has admitted and apologized in that one instance. I make no excuse for it and neither do they. It would be appropriate to accept that and stop hyperventilating.
Comment by Bob Stapler | February 11, 2006
Comment to Bob Stapler-The Clintons requested FBI files of their political enemies and gave secrets to the Chinese in return for donations. Now I hope your intelligent discussion was pleasing to you, but it is a load of crap. We are at war ! This is the big picture - the Democrats are attempting to reproduce the template that was used to impeach Nixon and therefore stop the war. It won't work though. You cut and run Democrats no matter how intellectual you are really are fools. Try learning from history. When the US cut and run from Vietnam, breaking the US word to the S. Vietnamese, Pol Pot took over and slaughtered millions! What's really remarkable is that no one seems to remember that. There is only peace in Victory. Learn from history and get a brain. Three thousand inncocent Americans were brutally slaughtered on September 11. Look at the news reels and then tell me that some esoteric law might be broken. The bottom line is that you do not trust the President to defend America and that you do not understand the vicious brutality of our enemies. Please wake up.
Comment by Philip Cantu | February 11, 2006
Mr. Prelutsky, you need to know about liberals before you attempt to comment on them. The thing about wiretapping is that we put it on our security forces to decide who the suspected terrorists are. Now, they typically do a great job. But there are several examples that they have either taking too much liberty or just made shoddy decisions in their history. I don't know how any freedom-loving people would appreciate their government being given so many powers, many of them are given without a need to prove anything really.
Then, the sixth paragraph is just riddled full of some whacked out propaganda that really doesn't pass the test of logical discourse from your side of the argument, the supposed "right" side. It is not surprising that you don't provide quotes, but vague misrepresentations. Your article is nothing better than the average blogger, hoping to become Matt Drudge, but failing to really even make a sensible point.
You speak of self-righteous blowhards. While the exact statement can be used against you, where is the criticism of the "self-righteous blowhards" on the right side…people like Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, and the worst of the worst, Ted Stevens? Oh, that's right, to be an "illectual conservative" does not require one to actually look at things intellectually, just that one look at things conservatively.
If your only real criticism of Murtha is that he served in the military a long time ago and thus should not be paired with the comment "he served in the military", then why was the war on Iraq crafted by a man who spent three years in the Navy nearly fifth years (Donald Rumsfeld) and a strict politician and academic (Paul Wolfowitz)? Oh, because Murtha is a liberal, we discount his opinion. People who serve in the military, especially one who served his country in two wars (like Murtha), just don't stop being part of the military, even if they retire. When speaking about the military, I would rather listen to a man who knows a good deal about it over men who avoided fighting in wars.
While the conservatives may laud your article as something resembling the truth, the fact is the truth is very far away and the best you can provide is a witty image of a spaceship that liberals are on. Well, sir, I would be more concerned about the neoconservatives (who are hardly conservative in their spending ways) talking for you than Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Charles Schumer speaking for the liberals. Then again, after reading your article, I'd be conserned for those neoconservatives having you speak for them.
Comment by Tommy | February 12, 2006
dear Burt, I've just discovered your website. I think your funny and refreshing. I'm not pretending to be an intellectual conservative so I can laugh at loud that you didn't like stephen Spiellburg movies; neither did I! Except the cheesy Saving Private Ryan since I recently toured Normandy. Thankyou for helping us all to lighten up, especially when it comes to little green liberals. I promise to read all your columns from now on, without ever making an erudite or intellectual comment. Sometimes "swell" or "nice"fits the bill.
Comment by Roberta Sorenson | February 12, 2006
Reply to Philip Cantu:
Please re-read what I wrote before going off the deep end. Nowhere in it have I said we should not be at war, should not be performing surveillance on foreigners in our midst or without, defend the Clinton’s many abuses of power, or support Democratic attempts to misconstrue administration policies. It is, in fact, an unequivocal rebuttal of the idea put forward by Alex that the Patriot Act is a violation of citizen rights. I acknowledge in it there is some potential for abuse, but only by officers who misconstrue their powers. This is no different than the occasional abuses we see in any legitimate law. Where it has been abused or misused, we should hold those who abuse it to account, and I show where that is being done. The law, itself, stands the tests of Constitutionality and precedent, and is not made illegal because some few agents abuse the power they have been granted, until and unless it can be shown there is no means for redress or general abuse of it by government. Do we strike down our laws regarding highway speeding because some overzealous officer has misused it to harass citizens? No, we suspend the abusive officer and fine-tune the law to reduce the potential for abuse.
I take Alex to task for basing his argument in inflammatory rhetoric that is unsupported and unsupportable; and utterly unconstructive. But I leave off the name calling as unconstructive and unlikely to appeal to his reason. Alex appears to be under the influence of liberalism with its appeal to emotion over reason. He made bald faced statement that the law was broken and that it could not be “presented” as other than lawbreaking. He claimed this without providing any proved instance of it or reasoning it is inherent in the power that was granted. My response demonstrates that it is Alex’s assertion of rampant lawbreaking that is not shown. Alex is correct there have been abuses by government, though I would argue the actual abuses by this administration are mild compared to those of its predecessor. The Clintons never owned up to a single mistake and never compensated those they destroyed. As much as I support this administration, I will not tolerate or subscribe to covering over our mistakes any more than I did with the Clintons. Where Bush has made mistakes, he has manfully owned up to them; and that is the real measure of his legitimacy.
Your response to mine is even more inflammatory and illogical than Alex’s. In so doing, you give credence to the idea we are all a bunch of ignorant, reactionary blowhards. You say I am asleep to what is going on and need to learn from history. I spend considerable time learning from history, and remain open to learning as I go. It would seem your prescription is, rather than to learn, to ignore. I would expect less emotion and more reason from one who deems himself a conservative. We do not defeat emotion based nonsense using the same sort of flaming rhetoric. We defeat it using reason that demonstrates where the real nonsense rests.
Comment by Bob Stapler | February 13, 2006