False Choice: Lick Putin’s Boots or Go to War


You know it’s an especially bad day for Donald Trump when even some of the president’s most loyal and notable sycophants feel compelled to publicly condemn his conduct. And it didn’t take long, after Trump embarrassed our nation in Helsinki by seemingly siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies (and their findings that the Russian government unequivocally interfered our 2016 election), to realize it was going to be one of those days.

“It was probably the low point of the presidency so far,” said Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.

“Hint: Don’t use ‘strong and powerful’ to describe Putin’s denial re. election meddling,” Fox News’s Laura Ingraham tweeted. “Use words ‘predictable and damaging to US-Russian relations’ to describe Russian meddling.”

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, tweeted, “President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected—immediately.”

On CNN, Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci said, “Any time somebody puts their ego and their pride in the situation, they can get emotionally charged and they can make tactical and strategic mistakes and I believe [Trump] did that in Helsinki.”

Former Trump national security advisor, Michael Anton, reportedly even cancelled a national television appearance because he couldn’t defend the president’s performance. And trust me, that’s really saying something. I listened to Anton speak at length at a political event back in May, and he left a ballroom full of attendees with the impression that there was nothing about Trump that he wasn’t prepared to defend.

There’s no two ways about it (at least from an American perspective): Trump’s joint press conference with Putin was an absolute disgrace.

Our president undermined months and months of work (along with a subsequent indictment) from American intelligence services — and by extension those agencies themselves — to the benefit of a murderous regime that has attacked (and continues to attack) our nation. He not only refused to condemn Russia’s election interference and destabilization methods, but went as far as to provide Putin with an alibi of sorts by suggesting that it wouldn’t have been in his interest to ever engage in such an act.

And don’t even get me started on Trump once again entertaining the insane idea of forming a cyber-security partnership with Russia.

Our president’s fixation with Vladimir Putin (and Putin liking him) pre-dates Trump’s entrance into politics, and it has always been weird. It may have started out as a creepy strong-man man-crush, but with Trump now the leader of the free world, it’s damaging our stature and credibility as a nation. It’s making our country look weak and servile in front of allies and foes alike. It’s stoking doubt in our foreign intelligence findings, which provides our enemies with numerous propaganda opportunities. And it’s potentially opening up vulnerabilities in areas of our national security.

Simply put, it’s indefensible.

Still, there are plenty of Trump enthusiasts out there who are more than willing to take a stab at rationalizing Trump’s decision to kneel before Zod. And among all of the expected whataboutism in regard to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a notable defense tactic has emerged.

Well, “emerged” might not be the right word. The method has been around for a few years now, starting out as a popular defense of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and later adopted by Trump supporters as a tool for covering for Trump’s foreign policy flops.

I’m talking about the painfully false narrative that the only alternative to the U.S. capitulating to a foreign foe is full-scale war with that foe.

President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden (along with other prominent Democrats and members of the liberal media) played this card time after time whenever critics accused their administration of not acting sufficiently against foreign threats, or giving up too much leverage in our dealings with hostile countries.

“What are you — you’re going to go to war? Is that what you want to do?” Biden memorably asked of Paul Ryan in their 2012 Vice Presidential debate.

Biden was referring to presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s assertion that more than sanctions may be needed to deal with the Iran threat. The theme became much more prominent when Obama was selling the Iran Deal. The administration and the Democratic Party defined only two possible alternatives: Obama’s way or war.

This of course laid the groundwork for defining anyone opposed to the Iran Deal as a war-monger. The false ultimatum drove Republicans and conservatives nuts at the time, but some of these folks clearly took note of its effectiveness, because they’re now using the same argument to defend Trump.

“Do you want us to nuke Moscow? Is that what you want?” Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld asked on yesterday’s The Five, of those who were criticizing Trump’s words in Helsinki.

“The US media, perhaps the most threatened of all the swamp parasites, are melting down because President Trump didn’t start a war with Russia,” wrote a conservative blogger whose column The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway touted as an “outside-the-beltway” view.

Senator Rand Paul commended President Trump for trying “to prevent us from having World War 3.”

My personal favorite came from Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro, who asked, “What was [Trump] supposed to do, take a gun out and shoot Putin?”

Of course, the notion that the only alternative to licking Vladimir’s boots is to nuke Moscow or shoot Putin is breathtakingly stupid. Yet, that became a highly popular straw-man rebuke from lots of Trump supporters on social media yesterday, which compelled a number of sane conservative commentators to weigh in on the ridiculousness:

Exactly right.

What makes this situation even sadder is that the same people who’ve been defending Trump over the past 24 hours and pushing this dopey mantra would have been among the first to demand President Obama’s impeachment had he said the same things under similar circumstances.

Team over country. That’s how we roll these days.




Russian Hacks Unleash Partisan Hacks

untitled-design1Whether or not you believe that Russia’s cyber-campaign to mess with this year’s U.S. election somehow altered the election’s outcome, it should bother every American that there was purposeful, foreign interference in our nation’s democratic process.

Unfortunately, there is no such consensus, and the divide between those who care and those who don’t is not only deeply partisan, but also a testament to the culture of unabashed political hypocrisy that we now live in.

As many will recall, during the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama and other prominent Democrats famously mocked Mitt Romney for recognizing Russia as a serious geopolitical threat.

“The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” chided the president in one of his debates against Romney. “The Cold War has been over for 20 years.”

John Kerry took it a step further in that year’s Democratic National Convention. With his arms flailing in condescension as he addressed the audience, he called Romney’s assertion that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe “preposterous,” adding that “Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.”

Four years earlier, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was similarly maligned after she observed Senator Obama’s reaction to the Russian Army invading the nation of Georgia, and called it “one of indecision and moral equivalence.” She went on to say that it was the kind of response “that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Also widely criticized over the years for his strong words on Russia has been Senator John McCain. He’s been calling out Vladimir Putin as a villain since long before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were concocting “reset” buttons and ways to end missile-defense deals with our allies.

Of course, these prominent GOP leaders were later vindicated. Military invention in Ukraine, the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, the undermining of our efforts in Syria, and other high-profile conflicts have made our country and our president look downright impotent when it comes to Russia. And Republicans, especially over the last four years, have had an absolute field day in pointing this out.

The conservative media and the Republican party have been relentless in their criticism of the rise of Russia, as a geopolitical force, under Obama. That’s why it’s beyond remarkable that Russian interference in our national election process — the very heart of our system of representative government — has been met, for the most part, with striking disinterest by the Political Right.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but that’s exactly what it has become. Many in the conservative media have joined President-elect Donald Trump in completely dismissing this concern as “sour grapes” by the Democrats, who are still having trouble accepting the election results.

While there’s little doubt that many liberals are struggling to recognize the legitimacy of Trump’s impending presidency, that’s not the story (at least not the important one). The real story is that a foreign entity hacked our political institutions, and used the information they gained to muddle with our election.

And now the same conservative pundits, who for years raised holy hell about Russia’s interference in American interests, are suddenly okay with it, simply because their guy (who happens to be a big Putin fan) won the election.

The turnabout has been so sharp that between this and their newfound love for WikiLeaks, I’m half expecting some of these individuals to start wearing ushankas on their cable-news and radio shows. The hypocrisy has been astounding.

On yesterday’s The Five, Greg Gutfeld (one of the few people in the media who frequently decries political double standards) pointed out that if Hillary Clinton had won the election amidst Russian interference, “It will be all-out war around here [Fox News].” He added, “Trump would be screaming, and of course, the [mainstream] media would dismiss it. That’s the nature of team sport politics, which prevents us from seeing that a foreign power may have subverted our system, and we know that that’s wrong. But maybe we don’t care that it’s wrong because our side won.”

He was absolutely right. And it should be noted that Gutfeld hasn’t been the only intellectually consistent voice, in regard to this story. John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and other GOP leaders have articulated the concern as well, and conservative writer Ben Shapiro struck the right note yesterday when he tweeted, “You can be concerned about Russian interference in our election and still think Trump would have won without that interference.”

Unfortunately, the instinct of far too many pro-Trumpers (and partisans in general) is to prioritize the image of their tribe above the interests of the nation. Many on the political Left are engaging in similar behavior, in regard to this story.

It was the Democratic party and the liberal media, after all, that had been assuring the American public for years that Russia was an ally, and that our strained relations with the country were attributable only to George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy.” We were told that Obama had Putin’s number, and that Russia was not a genuine threat to the United States.

Now, these same people (who mocked Romney and the rest) have the gall to say that Russia is such an existential threat to the very heart of our nation that they actually changed the outcome of our election? Give me a break. If there was one thing clear about election night, it was that Hillary Clinton didn’t need any help from Russia to lose. She was a weak candidate, and her campaign made unforgivable mistakes.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has even charged that the Trump campaign was actually colluding with Russian officials behind the scenes — an serious accusation for which there is absolutely no evidence. Of course, such rhetoric can simply be written off to Reid’s long history of lying. Either that, or he had a flashback to four years ago, and confused Trump for Obama, and Putin for Medvedev.  Unsurprisingly, Harry had absolutely no problem with that little exchange.

Despite the unprecedented hackery of 2016 (both literally and figuratively), I’m still convinced that this country is capable of viewing certain things through a non-partisan lens. But if we can’t even form a consensus that a foreign rival intervening in our elections is a serious problem (that needs a serious answer), I’m not sure how much longer I can continue to believe that.

If Russia’s intent was merely to sow distrust in American politics, they could have saved themselves some time and resources by simply studying up on American hyper-partisanship.




“His Highness, King Barack the First” and “Obama in Wonderland”

How is it that Obama gets to decide how ObamaCare will be administered? As he keeps saying, it’s the law of the land. So where does he get off unilaterally granting waivers to his supporters while forcing everyone else to abide by the rules? And how is it that the GOP hasn’t forced the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of what he’s doing? No one is going to convince me that he has the legal authority to grant waivers to big businesses while forcing individuals to toe the line.

Obama reminds me of the sort of sneak who goes around cheating on his wife. When he’s on TV, talking to crowds of the working class and the underclass, he pretends to be a blue collar guy. He’s invariably in shirt sleeves, with the sleeves rolled up as if he’s about to work on a car engine or an assembly line, dropping his “g’s” as if he never made it through high school, let alone college or law school.

And just who are those mooks who are always standing on stage behind him, ready to laugh and clap on cue, just like those shills getting minimum wage to fill the seats at TV cooking shows?

But when he’s not in front of the TV cameras, Obama spends all his time playing footsies with the rich and powerful, whether on the links or at $35,000-a-plate dinners. Those are the people getting waivers from the Affordable Care Act. Democrats always claim to be the party of the underprivileged, but it’s no accident that under Obama, the lower 93 % of the population have seen their wealth decrease by about five percent, while the fortunate few have seen their wealth increase by 30%.

The truth is, liberals aren’t really concerned with guns; it’s law-abiding gun owners they despise. That’s because they know that most of them are conservatives. Otherwise, they would make a real effort to disarm inner city punks, who never register their weapons, but commit most of the cold-blooded murders in America. At the very least, they would add years to the sentences of felons who use guns in the commission of their crimes. But that’s a non-starter for criminal defense attorneys, who are major donors to the DNC.

At the very least, you would think that liberals would refrain from embarrassing themselves by insisting that if only there were stricter gun laws, gun violence would fade away. Chicago and Washington, D.C., two cities run entirely by Democrats, have two things in common: the strictest gun laws in the nation, and two of the highest murder rates. I suppose you could safely list a third; namely, the most corrupt politicians this side of Iran.

For all their blather about gun violence, it’s the liberals who account for most of it. Not only are most street criminals registered Democrats, it was Bill Clinton who decided that military bases should be gun-free zones, making him an accessory to the murders committed by Nidal Hasan and Aaron Alexis at Fort Hood and the Navy Yard.

It might be a good idea if all so-called gun-free zones, including schools, malls and movie theaters began posting those little yellow signs we’ve all become accustomed to, indicating to drivers where pedestrians and deer might be expected to cross a road. The ones I have in mind would depict a group of sitting ducks.

What astonishes me about liberals is that they don’t seem to have a threshold when it comes to embarrassment. Whether it’s Dianne Feinstein caught packing a heater in her purse, the House and Senate Democrats excluding themselves from ObamaCare or Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explaining to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn), in 2010, why Corker’s proposal that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify for a home loan was a foolish idea: “Passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.”

Finally, it’s not just the politicians who are creating all the mischief in the world. The World Council of Churches, which is nearly as left-wing as the Politburo, recently organized a four-day conference in Volad, Greece, where the discussions centered around Israel, which it decided is an occupying power guilty of oppressing the Palestinians. The Council did everything but declare a fatwa against the Jews.

They were joined by England’s senior Catholic, the Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, in demonizing Israel for its harsh treatment of Palestinians, with nary a word about Hamas, about suicide bombings, the kidnapping and torturing of Israeli soldiers or even their hatred of Christianity!

The Geneva-based Council referred repeatedly to Israel’s security wall – actually a fence – without ever mentioning the reason for its existence; namely, the suicide-bombing of discos, pizza parlors and school buses by their vile neighbors.

Frankly, I was surprised that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wasn’t the keynote speaker at the conference, but I guess the old puppet master was busy elsewhere, pulling the strings of his new and improved Pinocchio, Hasan Rhuhani.

Obama in Wonderland

When Alice followed the White Rabbit down the hole, she got to meet a very strange group of individuals. Besides the Rabbit, who was always in a hurry and had a pocket watch to remind him he was late, she encountered a dormouse, a blue caterpillar, the obnoxious Queen of Hearts and a host of other very boring oddities. For the life of me, I never understood why anyone ever claimed to enjoy the book. I always figured those were the same people who pretended they thought the madcap comedies the Marx Brothers churned out for Paramount were funny.

But for weird characters, I don’t think the gang in Wonderland could hold a candle to the bunch currently running the world. Take Pope Francis. For all I know, he may be a nice guy, but I personally wouldn’t trust him to bring potato chips to a tailgate party. I mean, it’s one thing for him to say that he opposes military action in Syria or anywhere else. One expects religious leaders to suggest that diplomacy and negotiations are always the way to settle things. However, when he goes on to say “Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake,” Pope or no Pope, I’m throwing a penalty flag.

I mean, really?! Well, perhaps because he was born in Buenos Aires in 1936, and Argentina, having been a place of refuge for Nazis after WWII, Francis has a skewed view of past events. But I would suggest that the employment of violence against Nazi Germany brought a great deal of peace to a great many people.

I am also a bit surprised that, having no doubt heard that the jihadists in Syria had beheaded one of his priests and paraded a number of his nuns through the streets, it would have at least earned the Islamists a stern rebuke from His Holiness.

But when passing out insults to people in high places, one should never overlook our own self-proclaimed messiah. After warning Assad about red lines for over six months, His Schmoliness announced that he didn’t set the red line. Of course not. The world set it. Congress set it. I fully expected him to say that Malia and Sasha had set it while fooling around on Martha’s Vineyard. “Those darn kids! You have to keep your eye on them every doggone minute. Just last week, I caught them up in Sasha’s room passing around the nuclear football.”

According to John Kerry, some of the Arab states have offered to defray the costs of an attack on Assad. But, naturally, we wouldn’t take a dime from them. We also didn’t get any money or free oil for defending Kuwait, deposing Saddam Hussein or fighting the Taliban for the past decade. Just because we act like mercenaries doesn’t mean we want anyone to think we are mercenaries. Besides, our economy is flourishing. We’re rolling in money. That’s why we keep gift-wrapping our tax dollars and sending them off to our enemies.

If you actually listen to what Democrats say — and why would you? — it can drive you nuts. Not too long ago, Kerry called Bashar al-Assad a generous man and Hillary Clinton reported that he was a reformer. But lunacy on the left is a contagious disease. Why else would Obama keep referring to our common interests with Russia, unless he was finally confessing that, like Putin, he, too, would like nothing better than to destroy America?

Getting back to things nuclear, it recently occurred to me that our nuclear arsenal serves no actual purpose except that by periodically diminishing its size, left-wing presidents can appease both Russia and their liberal base.

But even conservatives aren’t perfect. For one thing, they tend to be too nice. Liberals hit them with every name in the book, and far too often conservatives respond by saying, “Sorry, I won’t do it again.

Instead, they should be confronting liberals, including friends and relatives, and responding in kind. Sitting back and taking it doesn’t make them morally superior, as they seem to believe; it makes them wusess and traitors to their cause.

It won’t tilt the world off its axis if conservatives start giving the morons a piece of their mind. For one thing, we can afford to be generous. For another, they are sorely lacking and need all the pieces they can get.

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.




A Nuclear Arsenal Is A Terrible Thing To Waste

Obama insists that in spite of Putin’s body language, their private conversations are often very productive. Indeed they are. For Putin, that is. Without his lifting a finger to help us when it comes to Iran, Syria and Edward Snowden, Obama has agreed not to supply Poland with a promised anti-missile system, has agreed to diminish our nuclear arsenal and, for all I know, agreed to subscribe to Pravda.

If it were up to me, we would have used a few nukes to curb Islam long before now. Just because the jihadists don’t wear uniforms or carry flags is no reason not to let their host nations understand that certain rotten activities will inevitably result in very unpleasant consequences.

Besides, someone recently sent me photos of modern day Hiroshima. Far from being a nuclear wasteland, it appears to be a thriving metropolis. In fact, it suggests that just as Nero apparently burned down Rome in order to clear it of slums and rodents, a well-placed nuke might be the only way to brighten Detroit’s future.

Why, I’d like to know, are people like John McCain so eager to oppose the Egyptian military? Would he raise the same loony objections if the Iranian military got rid of the mullahs or the Russian military disposed of Putin? The Egyptian military got rid of Morsi, who, although he managed to win a democratic election, quickly showed himself to be the front man for the Muslim Brotherhood.

And arguing, as McCain does, for a reconciliation of secular Egyptians with the Brotherhood is moronic. But, then, it would take a self-righteous pinhead like McCain, the fellow who argued against the very enhanced interrogation practices that ultimately led to the elimination of Osama bin Laden, to call for it.

McCain speaks out against Islamic terrorists, but like Obama, he seems blissfully unaware of the fact that they often go by other names than Al Qaeda.

Speaking of people who seem unqualified to speak as authorities, Chip Saltsman and Joe Trippi recently appeared on Chris Wallace’s Sunday morning show to speculate on upcoming elections. Mr. Wallace introduced them as veterans of presidential campaigns. Technically speaking, they are that. After all, Mr. Saltsman managed Mike Huckabee’s ill-fated primary campaign in 2008, while the older Trippi spearheaded the failed campaigns of Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale and Howard Dean, among others. But wouldn’t it make more sense to have the guys who managed winning campaigns pontificating on Fox?

I readily confess that I have very little interest in professional football and basketball, but at least even I get why other people might be fans. But when it comes to soccer, I’m at a total loss. I mean, I can see why those in third world countries might grow up being aficionados. After all, the only things required are a large empty field and something round, maybe a melon or an animal skull, to kick around. But why an American would ever follow the so-called sport is beyond me. The game requires stamina, but so do marathons and sitting through an Obama speech, but nobody ever claimed those were spectator sports. In fact, one of the few activities that require even greater stamina than playing a game of soccer is watching a game of soccer.

I am still hearing from people who are taking me to task over my defense of the NSA by pointing out that, after the scandals involving Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the IRS, the present administration is not to be trusted. Of course I never said anything about trusting Obama. But the thing to keep in mind is that tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao, didn’t require electronic data to imprison or kill anyone they considered suspicious. If collecting phone numbers helps prevent another 9/11, I’m all for it and I don’t consider my civil liberties lost or even diminished. It just seems to me that blind distrust is every bit as naïve, and perhaps even more dangerous, than blind trust.

I know that some of you, especially those living in places like Massachusetts, Washington and Illinois, are convinced you live in liberal-run asylums posing as states. But, believe me, compared to California, you might as well be living in Utah or Oklahoma.

For instance, our governor, Jerry Brown, just signed Assembly Bill 1266, which will allow transgender youths to use whichever bathroom and participate on whichever team they feel most closely matches their gender identity.

Still not convinced? Okay, people who are trying to give up nicotine by using the product known as e-cigarettes will no longer be allowed to smoke them in public places or even in their own homes. In case you’re unfamiliar with the item, it provides ex-smokers with the tactile experience provided by cigarettes, but replaces the tars and nicotine with water vapor. The stated reason — hold on to your hats! – is because of the unknown health risk! As we all know, you can’t be too careful when it comes to those pesky, cancer-causing, water vapors.

I guess the next item on the liberal agenda will be to do away with baths, showers and Niagara Falls.

©2013 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.




Pravda, Isvestia & The New York Times

Once you’ve read this article, Burt hopes you’ll enjoy O’Reilly, Obama & Oh Brother!.

Recently, one of my readers, George Gunning, reminded me that in the bad old days of the Soviet Union, there were two major newspapers. One was Pravda, which translates to Truth; the other was Izvestia, which means The News. The joke on the streets of Moscow was that there was no pravda in Izvestia and no isvestia in Pravda. Today, the same could be said about the New York Times, and just about every other major media outlet in America.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, Vladimir Putin recently celebrated his 60th birthday. The former head of the KGB is known to friends, relatives and any other Russian who doesn’t want to end up dead, as “The Most Kind Hearted Man.” I’m serious. No doubt, he envied the late dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-il, who, among various other pet names, answered to “Brilliant Leader,” “Superior Person,” “Father of the People,” “Sun of the Communist Future” and, my own personal favorite, “Glorious General Who Descended from Heaven.”

But far be it from me to only ridicule foreign leaders. It wouldn’t be right when here at home, we have the likes of Rep. Elijah Cummings, formerly the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, who, these days, is the senior member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That position offers him the opportunity to attack Rep. Darrel Issa, the chairman of the committee, for daring to question the administration’s cover-up of the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Clearly, the downside of the GOP taking control of the House in 2010 is that committee chairmen such as Issa and Peter King will still have to constantly deal with the likes of Cummings, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee. Frankly, they couldn’t pay me enough.

I find it ironic when liberals claim that the reason that sane people oppose Barack Obama is because of his race when, clearly, if you see the way that House blacks and Fox’s Juan Williams defend his every word, it’s they who are far more concerned with his pigmentation than they are with his pathetic record.

It seems to me that a stronger case could be made by those who believe the earth is flat, that Elvis is working the night shift at a Nashville 7-11 or that James Dean, now that he’s all healed up, is getting ready to stage a comeback, than by those who are convinced that Barack Obama deserves a second term.

I mean, when his own Treasury Department reports that for every $7.00 we take in, Obama has spent $10.95, how much additional evidence of his incompetence does anyone need? To put it in basic terms, it’s like a family making $70,000-a-year and spending $109,500. Is there anyone who really believes that at that rate, whether we’re speaking about an individual or a nation, bankruptcy isn’t waiting right around the corner?

When I see polls showing a 3 or 4% differential between Romney and Obama, and they then tell me that it’s within the margin of error, I think what they’re really saying is that it’s within the margin of cheating. That’s why it disturbs me so much when I hear people arguing against photo IDs being required for those wishing to vote. The only possible reason anyone would oppose such a law is that it would make it more difficult for Democrats to commit election fraud.

As goofy as politicians are, it would be naïve to think that judges are any more sensible. For instance, a military judge ruled that terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammad would be allowed to wear a U.S. military uniform at his trial. The only stipulation was that it couldn’t be a uniform that is presently being worn. If I had been the judge, I would have granted his request, and I would have decked him out as a World War II WAC. No disrespect to the women in the military, but I think that faced with the prospect of looking like a drag queen, Sheik Mohammad would have quickly confessed and saved us the time and expense of a trial.

Knowing how unaccustomed Obama is to losing, I would have advised him to quit the race after the first presidential debate. Like the character Algernon Moncrieff in Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, he could have blamed his departure on Bunbury. In the play, Bunbury is a fictional invalid invented for those occasions when Moncrieff wished to get away from his boring relatives. He would simply announce that he had received word that poor Bunbury had taken a turn for the worse, pack his bags and be gone on a mission of mercy.

Would any of us dare to question His Fatuousness if he suddenly flew off in order to ease his friend’s last days, however long it might take for dear old Bunbury to finally get his ticket punched?

Finally, speaking of Obama, a notion that has begun to plague me is that people really do get the government they deserve. As a result, I may not get a good night’s sleep until the election. And unless Romney wins, not even then.

Now that you’ve read this article, Burt hopes you’ll enjoy Pravda, Isvestia & The New York Times.

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Now that you’ve read this article, Burt hopes you’ll enjoy O’Reilly, Obama & Oh Brother!.