Bernie’s Q&A: Donny Deutsch’s Ambush, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, the Mueller Report, and More (3/29)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

I was channel-surfing one night, years ago, when I unexpectedly found you on CNBC being ganged up on by five — yes FIVE — obnoxious liberals. The show was The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, and you were on it to talk about your book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.

The “exchange” (for lack of a better term) was one of the craziest things I had ever seen on cable news. These people were shouting at you, repeatedly cutting you off, and launching into long, sanctimonious condemnations of what they thought you had written in your book. I say “thought,” because it was painfully clear (as you pointed out at the time) that none of them had actually read it, and thus were drawing some rather bizarre assumptions. They seemed more upset by the notion that you had the gall to write a book that was critical of a number of high-profile liberals.

In one of the more ironic twists (if my memory serves me), just a minute after you had gotten Deutsch to agree than only an idiot would compare Bush and conservatives to Nazis, he closed out the segment by suggesting that making a list (as you had done in the book) was Nazi-like.

The segment was highly edited (obvious to anyone watching it), I assume to make your detractors look better. Either way, in what made it to air, you held your own remarkably well.

Can you explain how this insane situation came about, as well as what was cut from the segment? — John D.

Editor’s note: It took a while, but we managed to find a partial clip (sorry for the poor quality) of what was aired of that segment. You can watch it by clicking here. Unfortunately, it cuts off before Deutsch completed his remark about “lists.”

Here’s how it came about, John:  A producer for the show called and asked if I’d be a guest to talk about my book.  She assured me the panel would be split — some who agreed with me, some who didn’t.  That seemed fair so I said yes. But it was a lie. Bookers/Producers on cable TV shows say whatever they have to say to convince a guest to come on the show.  Her value to Donny Deutsch was in securing guests — not in telling the truth.

Anyway, it was 5 against 1.  And none of the 5 liberals had even read the book, which didn’t stop them from hating it.  Think about that.  I’m invited on the show to talk about my book, to be grilled about the book — by people who didn’t read the book.

Donny Deutsch thinks of himself as a tough guy.  But he’s a coward and a punk — at least he was on that night.  Too bad for the 5 lefties that they were throwing spitballs at a battleship.  But since the interview was pre-recorded, they took out a lot of the stuff where I made Donny and his gang look like idiots.  But they did a pretty good job looking like idiots all by themselves.

The very next morning I got a call from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.  Rush wanted me on to talk about the night before.  I went on with Rush and my book immediately went to #1 on the Amazon best seller list.

We could have had a civil, intelligent discussion on the Donny Doofus show.  But that’s not what he wanted.  He wanted a food fight.  That’s what they got and the food wound up all over him and his dopey guests — again, who didn’t have the decency to read the book before going on his show to attack me and the book.

After the taping, I called the producer to say the obvious, that she lied to me.  She apologized.  Blamed her superiors who she said misled her.  I told her she should quit, on principle.  She said she couldn’t afford to and as I recall she started crying.  Honest?  I had little sympathy for her or anyone else on that show.

Donny is an unapologetic liberal.  No problem there.  But he lacked the courage to make it a fair fight.  That’s why I call him a coward.  Fair fight or no, he and his pals looked like fools.  I’m happy with how I handled them.  As I say, my book went to #1 on Amazon; Donny’s show was cancelled.

As a journalist, should the details in the Mueller report on those that were not indicted be redacted from the report if the full report is released. — Tim H. (Editor’s note: This question was received back on 3/23)

I think as much as possible should be made public.  Exceptions, of course, are parts that might deal with national security, grand jury testimony, etc.  But just because someone wasn’t indicted doesn’t mean we shouldn’t know as much about him as possible — as long as we’re not talking about unsubstantiated rumors.  Those should not be made public.

In your capacity as a professional journalist, how do you view Geraldo Rivera’s attributes as a serious journalist, specifically during the last decade? — Matthew Q.

Let’s just say I’m not a fan.  With Geraldo, it’s usually about … Geraldo.

When that old Inside Edition outtake of Bill O’Reilly throwing a temper tantrum was released (Editor’s note: video is below), I think it’s safe to say that the intent was to embarrass him. However, even Bill’s fans seemed to get a kick out of it. O’Reilly himself joked about it as well. Two questions: Do you think people in the mainstream media underestimate the right’s sense of humor (ability to laugh at their own), and do you think there’s any similar unseen footage of yourself flipping out over a production problem (or anything else)? — Jen R.

I think liberals, both in and out of the media, underestimate conservatives on all sorts of things — sense of humor included.  As for similar unseen footage of me, Jen:  I HOPE NOT!!!

Sir Bernard–Pls proffer your views on Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter, as it appears both are used selectively and sparingly by conservative media..albeit their keen wit, not to mention being fairly easy on the eyes. — Matthew Q.

I like Dennis and don’t like Ann.  He’s smart and funny.  She’s smart and mean spirited.  I wrote about her in one of my books.  The chapter title was … Do the Ends Justify the Meanness?  I think she says provocative things simply to provoke, to stand out from the crowd.  She’s outrageous because it’s good for her business.  She’s entitled.  Not my cup of tea.

Edmund Burke was a strong advocate of “The Party” until he realized that “The Party” promoted itself above the country. And when they did, Burke became their fiercest critic. I see the Democrat party of today also turning against the nation but where is the Edmond Burke to call them out? — Clarence V.

Both Democrats and Republicans are loyal to The Party over principles.  Where were the Republicans when President Trump continued to bash John McCain, seven months after he was dead and buried?  A few spoke up.  But very few.  As for the Democrats, they’re worse:  For the past 2 years they crawled out of the woodwork, went on CNN and MSNBC, and declared that Trump was guilty of collusion.  Some said they had evidence.  And when the Mueller Report concluded there was no collusion, no conspiracy, no nothing … did they apologize?  Did they say their hatred of Donald Trump clouded their judgment?  No.  They said the report doesn’t mean he didn’t collude.  There’s a special place in political hell for people like that.

Profiles in Courage are hard to come by.  These days, very, very hard.

Bernie- Forgive me for yet another comment & question about Fox & Bill O’Reilly. I think O’Reilly was largely responsible for Fox’s growth because he spoke in a way that reached people with traditional values, and although he is a staunch conservative, he almost always presented the liberal point of view via one of his guests. He also had wildly entertaining segments, yours being one of them. Do you have an opinion about the effect of The O’Reilly Factor on cable news? — Joseph R.

I agree with your premise, entirely.  Bill changed the cable news landscape.  He conducted interviews that were both informative and entertaining.  Some liked it, some didn’t.  But it was a departure from what old school journalists had been doing.  Love him or hate him, he was a real pioneer.

We recently had a president who was cool, flip and glib and oh so Presidential. He was also grossly incompetent, inept and an utter failure. I don’t understand why so many people prefer that to Pres Trump. Yes, he can be brash and crude and insulting. He does, on a fairly regular basis, say things that make me cringe and I wish he would let an adult check out his tweets (as an adult I resent even writing that word) before they go out to the public. So what? He is trying,and I believe this is his real sin, to fix some problems. Your thoughts? — Dennis C.

You set up a choice, Dennis — either we prefer an incompetent, polite president … or a crude but effective president.  How about this:  A competent, effective president who is not vulgar, not petty, not dishonest and not vindictive.  That’s what I and a whole bunch of Americans prefer.  Some people don’t like anything about Donald Trump.  Others like his policies (at least many of them) but not his behavior.  That makes sense to me.  And that’s why if the next election is about the Trump economy and the Democratic socialist tendencies, Trump has a good chance of winning.  If the election is about Donald Trump and his character, I think even a lefty can win.  Also, if the Democrats overplay their hand and either push for impeachment or launch non-stop investigations after the Meuller Report said there was no collusion, that helps the president.  Stay tuned.

I’m guessing that you were not a conservative when you joined CBS News. When in life did you become a conservative? And what were the greatest influences in making you conservative? — Fred E.

Interesting question, Fred.  I grew up in a blue collar family in the Bronx — and everybody in the area was a Democrat.  In college I was a liberal, but not especially political.  Over the years, people have said, “You became a conservative when you started making money.”  That may be part of it, but not the main part.  The main reason I’m no longer a liberal is because — to paraphrase Ronald Reagan — I didn’t leave them, they left me.

I was for civil rights, but now I was asked to support affirmative action for a black student whose parents may have been successful middle or upper class folks, at the expense of a white Anglo Saxon protestant son or daughter of a coal miner in West Virginia.  How was that kid privileged?

I was for women’s rights, but now I was asked to support a woman who wanted to be a firefighter even if she couldn’t carry a man out of a burning building.

Abortion, maybe.  Late term abortion, NO.

So the greatest influences in making me a conservative were actually liberals who went too far in too many things. Liberals made me a conservative.

Any chance of you appearing on Stephen Colbert’s or Bill Maher’s shows? How about “The View” sometime? In light of The Mueller Report, I think it would be interesting to see someone like YOU bring the truth out in front of their live audiences, especially considering the rhetoric that they have been spouting for the last two years. Best Regards –The Emperor

I’m flattered, Emperor … but no on Colbert (who I find to be mean spirited) … No on Maher who asked me on his old ABC show several times but I choose not to be the token conservative making my case in front of his far left audience … and a great big NO to The View — but in fairness they wouldn’t want me any more than I want them.  But again, Emperor, thanks for the vote of confidence.

It sees to me that much of the media pays a great deal of attention to celebrities, as if their expert opinion matters. I could give a rat’s hat about what these people think. Your thoughts? — Terry J.

I’m with you, Terry.  The reason some media pay attention to celebrities is because they figure — rightly, I think — that the audience likes to hear from and see beautiful people. And when, to use one example, Robert DeNiro at the Tony Awards says F Donald Trump, journalists figure it’s too good to ignore.  Stuff like that gets clicks, and eyeballs which translate to ratings and circulation. It comes down to the fact that we live in the United States of Entertainment.  The “funny” thing is that celebrities think they’re smart because they’re famous. They have a great big megaphone and they use it to promote their causes.  That, I get. But …  News people ought to know better.

What was the reason you decided not to make more appearances on Bill O’Reilly’s podcasts? — Christopher S.

I actually answered this in a previous Q&A, Christopher. Here’s what I wrote:

“I’ve been on a few times but as I told Bill, I don’t like being a guest on his show to talk only about the media’s biases. I think the president brings a lot of the bad press on himself — and while Bill lets me say whatever I want, I know that he’s more interested in media bias than Trump chaos. So I’ve declined his invitation on more than one occasion.”

That said, I may return in the future.

Hi, Bernie: Love your work. Can you explain why Trump finally took what seemed to be the logical step and decided to declassify a number of documents that we have been wanting to see, only to backtrack on it and keep those documents hidden to this day? I have a hard time with that one. Thanks. — Jim C.

I’m having a hard time with it, too, Jim.  Maybe there’s something in it that isn’t good for … wait for it … Donald Trump.  Who knows.  Let’s hope he de-classifies the documents.  If he doesn’t, I will become very suspicious. And I won’t be alone.  Let’s wait and see.

Mr. Goldberg, you have written a lot about bias in the mainstream media, but what are your thoughts on bias in sports media, namely ESPN. For several years ESPN has been accused of having a liberal bias and it even admitted it may slant left in an article published by its ombudsman following the 2016 election. Do you have any thoughts on these claims and do you think politics has any place in sports reporting? Since John Skippers’ departure from ESPN, the network has claimed it is going to just “stick to sports”. — JM

Just sticking to sports isn’t a bad idea for a sports network, right?  But you ask a good question … and yes, I think liberal bias creeps into sports reporting.  When the story is about “Who’s a better shortstop, this guy or that guy” there’s not much chance of bias.  But when it’s about social issues that trascend sports — race, gender, even politics (teams visiting the White House) — then, just like non-sports reporting, bias is a possibility.  And since reporters — sports or otherwise — tend to be liberal … that’s the kind of bias we’re going to get.


Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

“Dr. Frankenstein, Meet Dr. Obama” and a bonus…

A lot of people are saying that ObamaCare is dead, thanks to its disastrous rollout and the embarrassingly low number of enrollees. The line they’re using is either comparing it to putting toothpaste back in the tube or getting the genie back in the bottle. But, frankly, when I look at it, the image that comes to mind has nothing to do with bottles or tubes, but, rather, involves a bodily orifice.

FDR gave us the New Deal, LBJ gave us the Great Society, and BHO gave us the Dirty Deal.

There have been times in our nation’s history when people could look at the White House and feel some measure of pride in being an American. These days, you have to look to the Marines on the U.S.S. George Washington delivering food, water and meds, to the sick and dying in the Philippines. Semper fi.

It’s been said that when Lyndon Johnson lost Walter Cronkite, he lost the Vietnam War and his chance of being re-elected. I would think that when Obama lost Dianne Feinstein and 39 Democrats in the House, he lost the Affordable Care Act.

Speaking of which, some wag observed that Barack Obama is what happens when Affirmative Action collides with the Peter Principle.

Sometimes, mere nomenclature can create unimaginable and totally unnecessary problems. For instance, Israel should never have referred to any communities within its borders as being “settlements.” The word conveys the impression that something is of a temporary nature, something easily traded away or ceded.

Another such term is “pre-existing conditions.” To my ear, it sounds like a situation in which a person without health insurance becomes seriously ill and finds himself unable to then obtain a policy. That would be the equivalent of purchasing fire insurance after your house burns down. The real problem is that insurance companies simply drop paying customers once they develop cancer or heart disease, leaving them out in the cold. At which point, those people have an existing condition and find it impossible to sign up with another company.

That should have been an easy fix, whether it meant raising everyone’s policy by a few cents a month to cover catastrophic illnesses or by forcing every insurance company to contribute to a common pool to cover such tragic eventualities.

What it didn’t call for is a Marxist one-policy-fits-all approach that was solely intended to intrude the federal government even further into our lives and to simultaneously gobble up a huge percentage of the nation’s economy.

One of the ironies of ObamaCare is that the man behind it, who had spent a good portion of the past five years apologizing for America, suddenly forgot how to say “I’m sorry” to the American people in general, and, specifically, the Republicans in Congress. After all, they did everything in their power to prevent him from becoming the poster boy for incompetence and deceit by unanimously voting against the Affordable Care Act. He owes a special shout-out to Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for doing everything in their power to help him avoid his Waterloo.

When you get right down to it, there has never been a medical product prior to ObamaCare that was ever sold without a single test having been conducted by the FDA, nor one peddled in the marketplace with nary a warning by the manufacturer of its toxic ingredients or its lethal side effects.

What has gone unnoticed outside of Israel is that John Kerry, on behalf of Obama, was prepared to not only unfreeze Iran’s bank accounts, but allow it to freely sell oil on the world market, thus nullifying sanctions on the rogue state and allowing the mullahs to more quickly produce a nuclear bomb. Four words I never imagined I would ever have reason to express are “Thank God for France,” but thank God for France, and its refusal to condone the worst deal since the one Neville Chamberlain made 75 years ago in Munich.

The only people who still believe that Obama is a friend of Israel are the same ones who believe that a health insurance policy that offers mammograms to men, pre-natal care to elderly women and drug rehab to the Amish, is actually superior to the policies that people select for themselves. Anyone who has paid any attention at all to Obama would be aware that when it comes to death panels, he not only approves of them for Americans, but for Israelis.

Finally, let me say that I appreciate hearing from those of you who have asked for updates regarding my rheumatoid arthritis. It has gotten progressively worse, so I have finally opted to have surgery performed on my right wrist.

It is slated for Friday the 13th (of December). Fortunately, I am not the least bit superstitious. I’m just hoping that when Dr. Hanker shows up, he’ll be wearing a standard surgical mask, and not the sort typically worn by hockey goalies.

“Boston Beards and Baking Bullies”

Now that the World Series is behind us, would someone please explain why the Red Sox players decided to grow those silly-looking beards? While it’s true that I have a beard, I grew mine because I hated shaving. But I have a feeling that’s not why Dustin Pedroia, David Ortiz and the rest of those guys grew theirs. I suppose it’s possible that someone thought it would be a great way to unify the team, but I thought that was the purpose of the uniform and the fact that the same guy was signing their checks.

I swear, I wasn’t sure if I was watching a professional baseball team or the House of David.

It always seemed to me that nothing better showed the arrogance and stupidity of unions than the New York City newspaper strike of 1962. The union targeted seven dailies. When the strike ended, 114 days later, only three of them had managed to survive.

You would have thought the workers would have ridden the union leaders out of town on a rail, but that’s not how such things work. Although they call each other brother and sister in labor circles, the fact that the survivors were getting a few bucks more was all that really mattered.

But I have now come across an even more suicidal example. As Kathy Jessup spells out in a Blaze article, even after the Teamsters decided to cut Interstate Bakeries Corp., better known as Hostess, manufacturers of the iconic Twinkies and Ho Hos, some slack, the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International – you know, the good old BCTGMI – decided to dig in. As a result, Hostess is now owned by Dean Metropoulos, who does not suffer fools or unions gladly, and bakers who were once earning $16.53-an-hour are now starting out at $11-an-hour. So who’s ho-hoing now?

I realize there are people who like and respect Barack Obama. What I don’t understand is why. I mean, he’s a guy who started out, by his own admission, boozing and using drugs. Along the way, he became a compulsive liar, a racist and a class warfare-waging Marxist. Consider that at one of his 2008 fund-raisers, he told a group of wealthy San Francisco pinheads that, just like them, he despised those Americans who clung to their guns and their religion. At one fell swoop, he demeaned decent, law-abiding Americans, for no other reason than that they took their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights seriously.

Speaking of Obama, it recently came to light why the rollout of the Affordable Care Act was such a royal hash. It seems that Toni Townes-Whitley, the senior VP of CGI Federal, which got the no-bid contract to build the $675 million enrollment website at, was a Princeton classmate of Michelle Obama’s. I know it’s embarrassing, but Barack is in no position to berate her. After all, he blew two or three times as many tax dollars underwriting those various solar panel and electric car companies for no other reason than that the company owners were major contributors to his presidential campaigns.

Someone recently sent me a list of single foreign words that manage to sum up things that would require an entire sentence in English. For instance, the German word, waldeinsamkeit, is defined as the feeling of being alone in the woods. (And I say that if you’re the sort who goes around dropping words like waldeinsamkeit, you have nobody but yourself to blame if you’re alone in the woods or anywhere else.)

In Russian, a pochenuchka is a person who asks too many questions. (In Russia, the other word to describe such a person is dead.)

In Hawaiian, pana po’o describes the action when you scratch your head because you’ve forgotten where you left your car keys. (I would think it would be easier to find one’s keys than to know how to pronounce that darn apostrophe.)

In Indonesia, a jayus is someone who tells a joke so badly, you can’t help laughing. (I happen to know several of those people, and I’ve always been able to control myself.)

And among the Eskimos, iktsuarpok is the feeling of anticipation that makes you go outside and check if anyone is coming. (It’s the North Pole, guys…believe me, nobody’s coming.)

Speaking of things foreign, Ann Coulter defines the Irish form of Alzheimer’s as the inability to remember anything but your grudges.

I must confess that struck a chord, making me wonder if I just might be Irish, and if at some time, the name may have been O’Prelutsky. That’s because I’m convinced that on my death bed, my last words will be “Damn that Obama!”

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

Gang Warfare

Ever since I first heard about the Gang of Eight, I knew that, as with the Arab Spring, nothing good would come of it. It didn’t take Nostradamus to make such an obvious prediction.

For one thing, the group was supposed to be bi-partisan, consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans. But one of the latter was John McCain, a lunkhead who’s never met an amnesty bill he didn’t like.

The real problem is that nothing good ever comes of these bi-partisan alliances. Either they wind up divided along party lines like the guys who gave us Sequester, the political equivalent of a hung jury; or they end up, as in this case, with seven senators (McCain, Flake, Graham, Durbin, Bennett, Menendez, Schumer) beating up on Marco Rubio because he had the good sense to back Sen. John Conyers’ amendment calling for a secure border as a precondition to the bill’s passage.

Every so often, in her chosen role as the dominatrix of the GOP, Ann Coulter delivers a well-deserved spanking to the hindquarters of Republican sissies.

In a recent article, Ms. Coulter pointed out the absurdity of Republicans turning themselves inside out in their childish quest for Hispanic votes. She started out by reminding us that their vote total has been greatly exaggerated. In the last presidential election, for instance, 98 million whites cast votes, 18 million blacks and only 11 million Hispanics, representing a bit over eight percent of the total.

It’s not an insignificant number, especially in a close election, but devoting great amounts of time and money to pursuing it makes about as much sense as trying to separate blacks from the Democratic Party. Consider the fact that even after Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican presidential candidate, George H.W. Bush, received a mere 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988, which represented a dip of seven percent from the 1984 election. What’s more, Mr. Bush even boasted one Hispanic daughter-in-law and three half-Hispanic grandchildren, for all the good that did him. Furthermore, he was running against Michael Dukakis, whose photo in the dictionary is used to illustrate “non-entity.”

Even John McCain, who has had a second amnesty at the top of his wish list for several years, only garnered 31% of the Hispanic vote in Arizona while being re-elected to the Senate in 2010.

The final irony, though, is that polls have shown that Latinos in the U.S. are opposed to open borders. If there’s one thing they can do without, it’s additional unskilled laborers undercutting their wages. The things they do care about, not too shockingly, are the things most of us are concerned about: jobs, the economy and national security.

Reince Priebus and the other Pooh-Bahs of the GOP are all making a big mistake when they try to make the Party attractive to everyone through pandering to various groups. All they succeed in doing is turning off those people who sincerely believe conservative values are the best thing for America. They can yak all they want about a large tent, but no tent is large enough to encompass those dunces who want a huge federal government, increased welfare, same-sex marriages, abortions-on-demand, open borders, increased national debt, fraudulent elections, and those of us who don’t.

The GOP may think that Hispanics are stupid, but they shouldn’t also assume they’re crazy. The only loons are the politicians who believe they can turn Latinos into Republicans by trying to mimic Democrats. It hasn’t worked with blacks or with my fellow Jews, and it’s time they quit banging their heads against the wall, whining that it’s not fair that all these groups, including union members, single women, homosexuals, teachers, social workers, college students, defense attorneys and members of the media, all love liberals and hate us. They only succeed in highlighting their pathetic desperation.

Perhaps if the Republicans put on their big boy pants and started behaving as if they actually have core principles and a well-conceived plan for bringing America back from the brink where the Marxists have brought us, the shock alone might attract some converts, including any number of disenchanted conservatives.

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

Reading Political Tea Leaves

Burt would like to present all his readers with some Chanukah and Christmas presents. When you finish this one, please be sure to read Captain Chandler & Me.

Ann Coulter

When I see all the infighting taking place in the ranks of the GOP, I find myself hoping that by the time we finally get through the primaries and nominate a candidate, hard feelings will have subsided and we’ll all be able to support the last person standing. After all, the most important consideration isn’t whether it’s Gingrich, Romney or Perry, who carries the banner nex November, but that Barack Obama be sent packing, and that Harry Reid joins Nancy Pelosi in the ranks of the terminally irrelevant.

Although I, personally, would prefer to see Bachmann or Santorum heading the ticket, with Marco Rubio holding down the second slot, the writing on the wall doesn’t look good for either of them. Some people suggest that the main problem for Bachmann is that she’s a member of the House, and members of the House rarely get elected president. Frankly, I think her anemic poll numbers have more to do with the memory of the unfortunate pissing contest she engaged in with Tim Pawlenty. As for Santorum, it simply doesn’t look good on your resume that in your last senatorial election, a flaming liberal like Bob Casey, Jr., crushed you by a 59% – 41% margin.

Santa a socialist?

What I don’t understand is why Ann Coulter, who seems to feel that she is a human litmus test, possessing the mysterious power to tell who is and who isn’t a true conservative, recently informed the world that Bachmann and Romney are the only two true conservatives in the running. It’s fine to suggest that in a general election, Gov. Romney is far likelier to attract moderates than Speaker Gingrich, which, along with his general demeanor and character, is my main reason for supporting Romney. But what would possess Ms. Coulter to insist that Romney is more conservative than either of the Ricks, Perry or Santorum?

My concern for Ms. Coulter’s mental condition began when she declared her devotion to Chris Christie. Like every other Republican, I’ve very much enjoyed watching Gov. Christie go mano-a-mano with the public sector unions, but, by no stretch, is he a true conservative. If he were, New Jersey’s voters would not have elected him.

I don’t want to be accused of gossip-mongering, but I’m wondering if Christie and Coulter have been sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. I mean, first she pushes him to enter the race, looking, for all the world, like a stereotypical stage mother. Then, when he finally convinces her that he has no intention of tossing his hat in the ring by endorsing Romney, suddenly there’s cheerleader Coulter assuring us that Romney is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

As in past holiday seasons, I was reminded all over again that Santa Claus is a socialist. As socialists go, he’s a nice one. At least he doesn’t try to push his health care program down our throats or spend us into insolvency or accuse people who work ten times harder than he does that they’re lazy. But what else would you call a guy who doesn’t require anything of the people who receive his bounty? He doesn’t ask that they do chores or put away their toys or make their beds. He only requires that they be nice, a rather vague term that could mean they don’t rob or pillage or maim.

When you get right down to it, the only difference between Santa and a typical Democrat is that he bestows gifts without demanding that the little tots troop out and vote for him in the next election.

Finally, Time magazine decided that their Person of the Year is The Protester. Although the unwashed anarchists, communists, socialists, and assorted riffraff, who comprised the Occupy Wall Street movement, are mentioned, Time also includes those who, in 2011, have demonstrated in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Russia.

Every year, the Time editors have to explain that they’re not voting for the greatest person necessarily, but the person or persons who did the most to change the world for better or worse. That explains, to a degree, why the likes of Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Jimmy Carter, have all graced the magazine’s cover. But it doesn’t come close to explaining why Wallis Simpson was their cover girl in 1936 or why, this year, they decided that Kim Kardashian and Casey Anthony achieved runner-up status and were included as people who mattered.

It’s strictly out of sincere conviction that I protest Time’s decision, and definitely not because I am trying to weasel my way into a bit of tawdry glory.

©2011 Burt Prelutsky.Comments? Write! Don’t miss a single article!

Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Successfor just $19.95, postpaid.Get bothfor just $39.90. Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

Chastising Colmes, Cain and Coulter

I am not a wealthy person. If I were, I would pay as little in income taxes as I could possibly get away with. I would hire excellent accountants to assist me in this endeavor. For one thing, I’d know that I was already paying far too much in a nation in which nearly half the people don’t pay anything. For another, I would regard it as something of a sacred mission to make sure that the federal government didn’t get its hands on any more of my money than I could help, in the same way that I wouldn’t finance a drug addict if I happened to be related to one. And unlike all those various goons and chiselers I despise in Washington, I might actually like my relative.

However, if I were one of those rich people like Nancy Pelosi, Matt Damon, Roseanne Barr and Warren Buffett, who keep yammering like a bunch of monkeys that taxes should be raised on the well-to-do, I would shut my mouth and simply write a real big check and mail it off to the IRS. After all, just because normal people prefer to donate their hard-earned money to the Salvation Army, the Boy Scouts, cancer research and their church or synagogue, it doesn’t mean that left-wing morons can’t donate to their own favorite charity, which just happens to be the federal government.

Although the next election is still a year away, it’s not too early to start objecting to lame duck sessions. Why on earth should a president, a senator and a member of Congress, continue to stay on the job that he’s just lost? Perhaps in the old days, when people had to travel by horse and buggy, and Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., were far away, it took time for winning candidates to get to the nation’s capital. But today, anyone can get there in less than 24 hours.

In the private sector, when you lose a job, you clean out your drawers and leave the same day. At most, you might get two weeks’ notice. But in Washington, you get to stick around for nearly three additional months. If you were voted out, it’s because we’re sick and tired of the mischief you’ve been creating for the past two, four or six years, and we want you gone. From my point of view, it shouldn’t even be legal that people who have been voted out of office get to keep writing bills and passing laws.

Speaking of things that make no sense, I realize that Fox likes to promote itself as the network that’s “Fair and Balanced.” So I wouldn’t object if they invited left-wingers on to debate issues once in a great while. I might even consider it a public service. After all, I find that after five minutes of listening to Alan Colmes, Leslie Marshall, Geraldo Rivera or Marc Lamont Hill, doing their best to prop up Barack Obama, I’m reminded all over again why liberals should never be trusted anywhere near sharp tools, machinery or voting booths. But when, time and again, I see Juan Williams on Bret Baier’s panel or find him sitting in for Bill O’Reilly, I can’t help wondering what the heck the man has on Roger Ailes. But whatever it is, it must pale by comparison to what Bob Beckel has on the old man. At least Juan Williams manages to remain upright and awake during his appearances, even if I don’t.

I must admit I was disappointed when I heard Herman Cain pile on Rick Perry. If I had his ear, I would tell him that just because a reporter asks you a question, there is no good reason to waste your time answering it. Remember, he is not your friend and even if you get the nomination, he will not vote for you. In fact, he will do everything in his power to make certain you lose the election. So, if you want to insult someone, make it Obama. Saying “no comment” is not only permissible, it should be mandatory when the question involves another Republican contender.

What Mr. Cain, along with all the other men and women seeking the GOP nomination, should keep in mind is that knocking your competitors is not going to gain you any votes. It will merely make his or her supporters think less of you. The reason that Mrs. Bachmann went down in the polls, even after nosing out Ron Paul in that silly popularity contest in Iowa, is because she wasted time in two debates engaged in pissing contests with Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry. It hurt them without helping her, giving new meaning to a Pyrrhic victory

For some reason, Republican politicians keep paying homage to Ronald Reagan, all the while ignoring his 11th Commandment. It’s high time the candidates took his words to heart. Speak ill of a fellow Republican and suffer the consequences.

Speaking of Republicans, what is the deal with Chris Christie? I admit that I enjoyed watching him shoot down that New Jersey teacher, but he is hardly a conservative’s idea of a knight in shining armor. He’s at best a moderate when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he’s okay with civil servants being unionized, he’s a big booster of green energy, he’s soft on illegal immigration and he subscribes to the notion of man-made global warming.

It sure makes me wonder why the heck Ann Coulter has seemingly made it her mission in life to get him the nomination. Could it be that Annie has a thing for fat guys?

©2011 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write Burt!
Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, shipping included.   Get both for just $39.90. Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

// //