NEW YORK — The other day, while cruising the channels in an attempt to avoid the spectacle of a mass love-in that had all the sincerity of a hooker’s kiss to her last customer of the night (in other words, the Democratic Convention), as happens so often in life, we stumbled upon the very thing we sought to avoid. What we saw in the few minutes that were bearable seemed like a scene on visiting day at a mental institution. There was the ketchup widow, hands clasped together in the manner that Indians do when greeting each other, addressing the gawkers, in what, in another time and place, would be called “speaking in voices.” Hands clasped, her face devoid of expression, she spoke in a monotone that seemed to be coming from some place, far on the other side of sanity, or maybe she had seen The Manchurian Candidate one too may times.
In fairness to her, if her husband were elected President, she would fit right in with some of the other first ladies: Hillary Clinton who communed with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt and Nancy Reagan who tried to control the president via her astrologer.
One thing about Ms. Heinz Kerry (“My legal name is still Teresa Heinz. Teresa Heinz Kerry is my name…for politics.”). She announced, “Everybody has a prenup. You have to have a prenup.” A prenuptial agreement is an agreement in which a person who has money demands that the lesser-monied person they are about to marry sign on the dotted line because they do not trust that person to not go after their money in a way that the law would allow.
So now, we have a most unusual situation. Ms. Heinz, or Ms. Heinz Kerry, is basically saying, “I insisted upon a prenuptial agreement because I don’t trust him, but I want the rest of the country to trust him. This is a variation of the Clinton theme, where he did to the country what he was doing to Monica Lewinsky, but was apparently not doing to Hillary.
Talking about the nomination, John Kerry (whose wife, we suppose, lets him use the name Kerry “for politics” since she apparently owns everything else in the family) is running, it would appear, primarily on his war record. Now let’s get real! Kerry was in Vietnam for four months thirty-five years ago. Now we would not want to have been in Vietnam for four days, but something that happened so long ago over such a short period of time is not going to persuade us to vote, or not vote, for a person. If we are going to reach into the past for his military experience, we could choose something in the more recent past that dealt with the very same subject. In 1971, Kerry, before Congress, called these very same soldiers in Vietnam, “war criminals,” and as Eric Fettmann, quoting historian Mackubin Owens, wrote, “[Kerry] slandered an entire generation of American soldiers.”
Kerry has had little to say about his undistinguished, almost twenty-year record of “ying and yanging” in the Senate. He should be more interested in engaging in a dialogue over this than talking about driving a boat up a river three and a half decades ago. That boat is not going to sail him into the presidency — just ask Bob Dole or John McCain, who were real heroes.
Over two weeks ago, Jackie substituted for radio host Jim Bohannan. On that show we discussed the religion of Islam and The Koran. Our point was a simple one: obviously not all Muslims are evil people, but the basis of the religion itself, fairly put, is not one of love and charity, as are the basic tenets of our Judeo-Christian religions. Simple put, there are Jews that eat ham and shrimp, but the religion does not direct cutting their heads off for doing so. There are Catholics who do not go to Mass every day, but the Pope does not call them “Infidels.” And we must make the uncharitable observation that it is not a group of Norwegian cub scouts that are slicing the heads off people around the world, and blowing up women and children who happen to be in their way on their trip to the 40 virgins waiting for them in terrorist heaven.
On the radio show we referred to a previous article we had written on the subject. On the show, time did not allow us to give the specific citations, chapter and verse to each quotation, as we did in the article itself. We received over 400 responses, virtually all supportive, a bit more from Christians than Jews. There were but a handful of negative ones and two that pointed out that we dangled a participle. CAIR, an Islamic organization, filed a complaint with the FCC and with the radio network. Apparently, they believe that the First Amendment only applies to them and not to us. The network had them on the air to present their side of the story. We are not at all unhappy about this, in fact we applaud the fact that they had an opportunity to make their case, such as it is, over national radio. We guess, that is one of the differences between us and them.
We received many interesting responses to our comments, amongst which was an article written by Dr. Anis Shorrosh, a Palestinian Muslim by birth. Dr. Shorrosh comments about the popularity of Islam with African-Americans, “…Strange enough, no one tells the African-Americans that it was the Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves, nor the fact that in the Arabic the word for black and slave is the same, ‘Abed.'”
It would be a final, terrible and sad irony that if African-Americans, who literally for hundreds of years have been exploited, mistreated, and suffered, should, after all of these tribulations, when they have fought for and gained their rightful place in society, now fall for a con-job from these, often evil, people, who, we believe, simply wish to exploit them once again.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.