Saturday, December 31, 2011


[Burt and Yvonne and the editor wish each reader a happy and prosperous New Year.]

by BurtPrelutsky

Recently, a reader wrote to ask me why anyone would spend a million dollars to become a member of Congress, a job that pays less than $200,000 a year. I explained that there were several reasons. One, they seek fame. Celebrity is a major goal for a large number of people, and not just kids who are dying to switch places with rock stars and fashion models

Two, they want to oversee fiefdoms that would have been the envy of English royals. You often see the likes of Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner striding down congressional corridors, dozens of attendants in their wake. They don’t have anywhere in particular to rush off to, they just enjoy leading parades. Too bad they can’t twirl a baton.

Three, the cost doesn’t really concern them because they’re usually spending other people’s money when they run for office. Come to think of it, that’s really all they do once they get elected. Four, thanks to insider trading, grateful lobbyists and big fat pensions, they will leave office -- if they ever do -- far wealthier than when they arrived.

Finally, five, they just want to do good. Whenever possible, I like to end with a joke.

If I had my way, being a congressman would be a part-time job, and it would be conducted using modern technology, conference calls and the like. The main reason they convene in Washington, D.C., is for the convenience of lobbyists. Think of it as one-stop shopping.

In his recent book, After America, Mark Steyn observed that America has been busy exporting its unskilled jobs while, at the same time, through encouraging invasion by illegal aliens, importing unskilled workers. As a result, America is being bled to death providing schooling, health care, food stamps and prisons, for millions of non-citizens. And those who balk at providing the uninvited with all these goodies are labeled racists. Then, to compound the problem, we have a Republican candidate for president talk about amnesty for those who have been here for 25 years. Or it might be 20 years, or maybe only five years. Or perhaps it will be a week and a half by the time President Gingrich gets around to dictating a piece of legislation.

Between the influx of illiterates and our sub-standard public schools, it seems that the collective IQ of America is declining at an alarming rate, perhaps as much as a point a year. Still, when I first heard that half of high school seniors couldn’t identify George Washington, I was shocked. Then, after a moment or two, I was shocked that I’d been shocked. After all, one merely had to see the teachers in Wisconsin using phony medical excuses in order to play hooky from the classroom and riot over their pensions to understand why I and others hold the teachers unions in such contempt. If you recall, the hypocrites in Madison even had the gall to carry signs suggesting they were doing it for the kids. I suppose if drug dealers belonged to a union, they could carry those same placards.

Speaking of hypocrites, I see that Obama, who’s planning to campaign against a do-nothing Congress, intends to take a 17-day vacation in Hawaii!

Back in 2008, when Obama said he’d never, in 20 years of church attendance, ever heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright say anything offensive, we naturally assumed he was lying. After all, by that time we had seen the obscene videos of Wright’s ranting against America, against the white race and against the Jews in Israel.

But, after Obama’s first three years in the White House, I think we may have leapt to the wrong conclusion. I suspect now that he wasn’t lying. After all, when a person is in complete agreement with a psychotic racist like Rev. Wright, there’s no reason he’d find those demonic sermons the least bit offensive. Wright, I’m afraid, was merely giving voice to what Obama, in his heart, already believed.

It works the same way when liberals listen to left-wing bilge spewed by the likes of Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Rachel Maddow, Alan Colmes and Ed Schultz.

On the other hand, if these lunkheads weren’t gainfully employed in the media, they would probably be dues-paying members of some teachers union, devoting their time to turning your kids into George Soros’ brand of hand puppets.

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

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

Thursday, December 29, 2011


by BurtPrelutsky

It seems that whenever I point out that a true conservative is not ever likely to win the presidency in a country that is only slightly right of the middle, I can count on hearing from people who regard RINOs as worse than Obama, worse than Pelosi, Reid and Waxman, and even worse than jihadists.

They are sure to let me know that Ron Paul is the only true patriot in the running. When I point out that in 2008 when he was well-financed and only had to worry about McCain and Romney, Rep. Paul couldn’t win a single Republican primary. How in the world did anyone think that he would ever win a presidential election when, for reasons I don’t really understand, they permit Democrats to vote?

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
When these folks aren’t busy lambasting any Republican who isn’t Ron Paul, they’re running around screaming about the Bilderberg Group, the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, conspiring to create a one-world government. The members of those groups are wealthy and influential, but, if that is really their endgame, they might as well form a bowling league.

I mean, this conspiracy theory has been kicking around since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Now, nearly a century later, does anyone in his right mind actually believe that a billion Muslims, a billion Christians, a billion Chinese, and a billion Russians, North Koreans, English, French, Germans, Poles and Americans, are about to come together for a chorus of Kumbaya? Heck, you can’t even get the wackos hanging out in the U.N. to agree on what to have for lunch.

Instead of worrying myself sick about conspiracies that have allegedly been hatching for 100 years, I choose to concentrate on the creep who has his shoes on the desk in the Oval Office. I realize that it is easy for liberals to discount my anger with Obama. After all, I’m a rightwing partisan. What I don’t get is why liberals don’t get angrier with him.

I mean, here’s a guy who is constantly telling Congress and most Americans that we’re not doing enough, but no president has ever taken as many vacations or played as many rounds of golf in three years as Obama. And as if that’s not enough to make him the playboy-in-chief, between February and December of this year, he spoke at 69 campaign fund-raising events. For the mathematically challenged, that’s roughly seven times a month he’s taken off to bad-mouth Republicans, millions of whom have to help pay for his jet fuel, his campaign buses and his security detail.

Frankly, I’m surprised that Air Force One can actually get airborne, what with having to fly this guy’s ego around. After doing everything but giving Benjamin Netanyahu a wedgie when he came over for a visit, Obama had the chutzpah to say, “I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. And that’s not just our opinion, that’s the opinion of the Israeli government.”

Well, I hope Obama didn’t damage his rotator cuff patting his own back, but if suggesting that Israel stop building houses in Jerusalem and pull back to 1967 borders is his idea of befriending Israel, I’d hate to think how he treats his enemies.

It isn’t only Obama who exhibits signs of being disengaged from reality. Consider, if you will, how deeply concerned those on the Left claim to be with the environment. Even at the risk of costing 20,000 Americans good-paying jobs laying an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, they insist the project be scrapped because of the potential for harming Mother Earth. On the other hand, the environment was the very least of their concerns when they congregated for Obama’s inauguration and left the capital looking like a city dump and when hundreds of union thugs trashed Madison, Wisconsin, in order to show their displeasure with Governor Walker for attempting to bring fiscal sanity to the state.

More recently, we all got to witness the liberal approach to ecology at the Occupy Wall Street events. Even if you overlook the crime, the violence and the harm they did to local commerce, it’s hard to ignore the fact that when the L.A. cops finally sent the various anarchists, socialists, anti-Semites and whiny babies home, the mutts left 30 tons of garbage and debris in their wake. That’s 60,000 pounds, which, coincidentally, is just about the combined weight of the Democrats in the House and Senate, plus what Barney Frank had for lunch today.

In conclusion, I will frankly admit that I had no use for Bill Clinton, but at least he tried to pretend he felt our pain. That’s in stark contrast to Chairman Obama, who recently had the gall to say, “I always tell Malia and Sasha, ‘Look, you guys, I don’t worry about you.’ They’re on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful.”

I can’t tell you how relieved I was to hear that. I can live with 9% unemployment, a $15 trillion deficit and a nuclear Iran, but worrying about his daughters was keeping me up nights.

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

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


by BurtPrelutsky

Apparently the Obama family holiday in the islands will run us taxpayers $4,113,038, and that’s not counting Sno-cones, leis, surf board rentals and assorted Hawaiian souvenirs. Still, it’s hard to begrudge the man his vacation. After all, for months now, it’s been one damn fund-raiser after another, broken up only by a daily round of golf and an hourly excoriation of Republican congressmen. A schedule like that can take it out of anyone.

I probably shouldn’t be making fun of Obama. After all, I have it on good authority -- the U.S. attorney general, no less -- that the only reason anyone would criticize either of them is because of their race. Frankly, I have to admit I hadn’t thought of it that way. I honestly thought that people criticized Eric Holder because, among other things, his Department of Justice had green-lighted Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in the murder of an American border agent, and because he had refused to indict the Black Panthers for voter intimidation. I was also naïve enough to believe that most Americans were opposed to Obama because of ObamaCare, the trillion dollar stimulus and because he admitted that he wasn’t entitled to a second term if he failed to turn around the economy during his first term.

On the other hand, at the risk of being labeled a racist, I must confess that I personally don’t like Obama. For one thing, I can’t stomach his arrogance. During his “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft, he bragged that in modern times no president, except for FDR, LBJ and Lincoln, had accomplished more than he during their first two years in office!

Quite a stretch to refer to Lincoln’s administration as modern times, but no more of a stretch than to boast about a record that includes ObamaCare, caving in to Russian demands by selling out Poland and Czechoslovakia, and a trillion dollar stimulus whose major achievement was to help lower America’s credit rating for the first time in history.

Compared to this egomaniac, even Donald Trump manages to look humble.

I also don’t like Obama’s attacking Republicans in the House and Senate, claiming they won’t compromise, when we all know that when he says compromise, what he really means is capitulation.

For instance, he told us that the moratorium on payroll taxes had to be extended or the typical middle class family would be hit with $1,000 more in 2012 taxes. But, for mysterious reasons, Chairman Obama only wanted it extended for two months. When the Republicans said a two-month moratorium would only result in pro-rated savings of $167, and suggested the bill should cover the entire year, thus saving the folks the other $833, Obama insisted they were being unreasonable.

In case you missed it, during a recent congressional hearing, Rep. Dan Lungren spent nearly five minutes trying to get Obama’s Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense, Paul Stockton, to simply acknowledge that we are at war with violent Islamic extremists. At the very least, he tried, but failed, to get Stockton to admit that violent Islamic extremists are at war with us. He couldn’t even get him to confirm that an official with the Defense Department said, shortly after Major Hasan massacred 14 people at Fort Hood, “Losing our program of diversity would be an even greater tragedy than what took place.”

But whether or not Stockton acknowledged it, that is how the wishy-washy boneheads in this administration and in this commander-in-chief’s military establishment deal with national security concerns. Even though Major Nidal Malik Hasan had “Soldier of Allah” on his business cards and Yemen-based terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki on speed dial, no one in the Army dared suggest the major belonged either in the brig or an insane asylum. I’m sure political correctness is also the reason that Bradley Manning, a mere private, but an acknowledged homosexual, got away with removing tons of top security documents from government files.

After all, if you’re a Muslim or gay, nobody can even dare challenge you, lest he see his own career go down in flames. Such is the tyranny of diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness, in America today.

Hell, a gay Muslim could probably stroll into the White House and toss a stink bomb into Lincoln’s bedroom without anyone’s daring to question his presence.

Finally, in North Korea, when Kim Jong-Il recently kicked the bucket, a great many of his countrymen took strong exception to his young son, Kim Jong-Un, taking his place. But even they were ultimately won over by the slogan “Anyone but Obama.”

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

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

Monday, December 26, 2011


by BurtPrelutsky
Occasionally, a reader will take me to task for covering several topics in a single piece. I assume such people somehow regard themselves as my boss. Although I generally try to be polite about it, I feel obligated to set them straight. In short, I write these articles in order to let off steam. I generally try to leaven them with humor, but that’s just the way I am.

Inasmuch as most of my fellow commentators are quite happy to devote entire articles to a single issue, I generally just steer the malcontents to the competition. For my part, I have a rather short attention span, so I like to hop around, lest I bore myself.

Rep. Barney Frank (D)
The truth is that I get just as angry as every other conservative when I see the leftwing riffraff occupying the marble halls in Washington, our college classrooms, the editorial boardrooms of the MSM and the streets of America. I just try to maintain a sense of humor about these various creeps in order to keep my head from exploding.

I also find it helps me to maintain my emotional equilibrium by keeping in mind that when a glass is half empty, it’s also half full.

Moving on, I was delighted when I heard Barney Frank announce his decision to retire from the House. Short of Obama’s announcing his own retirement, I could hardly have been happier. But I had to laugh when Mr. Frank said that the best thing about stepping down is that he would no longer feel compelled to be nice to people he didn’t like. He didn’t specify whom he was referring to. We already know that he treats Republicans and his Tea Party constituents like dirt, so could he possibly have been referring to Pelosi, Reid, Obama or even just heterosexuals in general?

The notion of Barney Frank, one of the vilest individuals in Congress, even suggesting that there’s another, even nastier, version waiting in the wings brings to mind the image of Hitler’s announcing, “Okay, Poland, no more Mr. Nice Guy.”

Although I’d never vote for a Libertarian, I must confess that I agree with them when it comes to illegal drugs. I honestly don’t think you or I have any business telling people what they can smoke, ingest or shoot into their veins. But that is not the same as saying they have a right to be hired. I wouldn’t employ a drug addict and I don’t think anyone else should be compelled to do so.

Dennis Prager
In addition, I object to those who commit crimes or cause accidents while under the influence avoiding punishment by insisting that they are the innocent victims of their addiction. Nobody, after all, put a gun to their head and turned them into a coke, meth or heroin, addict. So, do the crime, do the time…and don’t whine. You wanted to be cool? Fine, go be cool in the cooler.

Recently, Dennis Prager devoted an hour of his daily radio show to deconstructing Oregon’s Governor John Kitzhaber’s pathetic case against capital punishment. Although I agreed entirely with Prager’s logic, I felt that he fell down in one instance. That was when an opponent of capital punishment called in to argue that the biggest danger with capital punishment is that an innocent person might be executed. [Read Prager’s article on this subject in the National Review. -ed.]

As an example, he presented a case in which two guys go off to commit a burglary, but one of them decides to rape and murder a woman in the house. The caller argued that the one burglar was innocent of those more serious crimes, but might very well suffer the same fate as his partner. For some inexplicable reason, Prager didn’t point out that if someone is killed during the commission of a felony, everyone involved is held to be as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger. But, moreover, if you stand by while your fellow burglar rapes and kills a human being, on what planet would anyone regard you as an innocent bystander?

Some people despise liberals because of their politics. Some people despise them because of their arrogance. Others despise them because of their double-standards and hypocrisy. I happen to believe that all the reasons are equally valid. Take the head of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If you’ve ever seen her, you know that when she was younger, her grandmother would try to find dates for her by telling the other mothers and grandmothers in her circle, “My Debbie’s not much to look at, but she has a wonderful personality.”

But Debbie, whose personality isn’t really all that wonderful, excoriated all the Republicans who are seeking their party’s presidential nomination, saying, “If it were up to them, we’d all be driving foreign cars. They’d have the U.S. auto industry go down the tubes.”

I wager that none of you are surprised to hear that Debbie drives an Infiniti FX35, a Japanese luxury car.

Lest anyone think that I only pick on Democrats, I heard Newt Gingrich say that because he made $60,000-a-speech, he didn’t really need to lobby in order to make money. Instead, he claims, he only lobbied on behalf of issues he really cared about.

Well, inasmuch as Newt was regularly sending mailers to my wife, seeking donations, for at least a year or two before deciding to throw his hat in the ring, I have to assume that taking his wife on cruises to the Greek islands and keeping her bedecked in jewelry were a couple of those issues he really cared about.

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

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


by BurtPrelutsky

There are so many bad things one can say about those on the Left, one hardly knows where to begin. But one of their most annoying traits is that they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that they’ve ever been wrong even when actual events, as opposed to the fiction so often spun by liberal professors and historians, confirms it time and again.

Whitaker Chambers
For instance, when I was a youngster, Time magazine editor Whittaker Chambers testified that Alger Hiss, the fair-haired boy of FDR’s and Truman’s State Department, was not only a member of the Communist Party, but an agent of the Soviet Union. The way that the Left erupted, you might have thought that Chambers was a latter-day Pontius Pilate and that Hiss was Jesus. Even when the Soviet Union released the Venona Papers years later, proving that Hiss had indeed been one of their agents -- in other words, a traitor, one of Stalin’s useful idiots -- the Left refused to acknowledge their collective naïveté.

Along the same lines, one never heard the likes of NY Times foreign correspondent Walter Duranty, playwright Lillian Hellman or film director Abe Polansky, ever acknowledge that they’d been dangerously mistaken in paying homage to Joe Stalin. And when did you ever hear of Hollywood’s lefties beg anyone’s pardon for tithing the Soviet Union or acknowledging that long before any of them had been blacklisted, they had engaged in blacklisting conservative screenwriters such as Morrie Ryskind?

Alger Hiss
Did any of those on the Left ever denounce their younger selves for insisting during the Cold War that the United States should have unilaterally disarmed itself of nuclear bombs, thus setting, as they fatuously claimed, a good example for the Russians?

Did any of those louts ever declare a mea culpa for demanding that Ronald Reagan be impeached if, for nothing else, referring to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and then regurgitating their moral outrage all over again when George W. Bush declared that Iran, North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, constituted an “axis of evil”?

Apparently nothing ticks off a leftist more than calling a spade a garden utensil.

Anyone with a frontal lobe recognizes that the economic chaos in Europe is the direct result of socialist nanny states promising to provide their citizens with all their material needs in exchange for over-inflating the size of government. And yet lunkheads like Obama, Pelosi, Waxman and Reid, refuse to recognize the predictable results of these idiotic policies even when confronted with the inevitable riots every night on the evening news.

One definition of insanity is constantly repeating the same action in the cockeyed belief that the results will eventually be different. In the case of Leftists, if you point out that socialism doesn’t work any better in Wisconsin or Ohio than it did in the Soviet Union or does in Greece, they argue that it simply has never been done correctly. In the wake of such bloody failures as China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, only a certifiable lunatic would even consider defending socialism on such shaky ground. However, when it comes to unequivocal devotion to failed attempts at social engineering, those on the Left could give collies and cocker spaniels lessons in blind loyalty.

If I haven’t yet convinced you that those who inhabit the ranks of the Left are dangerously self-righteous and unbelievably stupid, consider that they not only elected Barney Frank to Congress, but then kept doing it 15 more times. Consider, too, that they hold the unholy likes of Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg, in high regard.

Finally, never forget that one of the intellectual heroines of the Left, Susan Sontag, once declared, “The white race is the cancer of human history,” and, as usual, she was being deadly serious; and that Barack Obama, after once acknowledging that America was the greatest nation on the face of the earth -- no doubt with his fingers crossed behind his back -- went on to announce that, as president, he intended to radically transform it!

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

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

Saturday, December 24, 2011


by BurtPrelutsky

One of the many things that make liberals so obnoxious is their hypocrisy. For instance, when campaigning against Christmas symbols, they make a mantra of “separation of church and state,” although those words never appear in the Constitution. They appeared in a letter that Thomas Jefferson addressed to the members of the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association. While insisting that a person’s religious beliefs were a personal matter, he did not expand upon the Constitution’s very specific wording, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Nothing there that prohibits communities from doing whatever they want to do in the way of celebrating Christmas or any other religious holiday. It’s only Congress that is limited. The Founders had a legitimate distrust of the federal government and they didn’t want to risk the establishment of something akin to the Church of England. But they weren’t quaking in their boots over decorated fir trees standing in the town square or people wishing one another a Merry Christmas.

When it serves their purpose, liberals like to quote Jefferson and pretend that he is one with them. However, pretending that Jefferson, the man who filled his Declaration of Independence with references to the Creator and inalienable rights, those rights that can only be granted by God, was an atheist is the sort of self-serving rubbish that liberals make a practice of promoting.

It’s no surprise that Rhode Island’s Governor Lincoln Chafee recently decreed that Christmas trees be referred to as holiday trees. He is, after all, a liberal, although he labels himself an Independent, and therefore, takes his marching orders from the loons at the ACLU.

On the other hand, liberals take strong exception to the Second Amendment, which gives law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, and they would gladly have it nullified, even though its importance is patently obvious; otherwise, the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have placed it right after the First Amendment, the one guaranteeing freedom of religion, free speech, a free press and the right to peaceably assemble. It’s obvious that the Founders believed that without the Second Amendment, the First risked being merely words scribbled on parchment.

Liberals assume they hold the high moral ground, taking it upon themselves to determine who is a decent American and who is a racist, even though it’s been their policies that have kept so many of those in black communities poor, ill-educated, fatherless, drug-riddled, violent, and as dependent as little babies on the federal government.

For good measure, it’s been the liberal media that has raised such miserable reprobates as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to prominence, anointing them black leaders and providing them with megaphones.

Liberals elected Barack Obama, a man with no particular experience, a foggy past and a circle of friends and mentors who, in a more honest society, would mostly be in jail. They accuse anyone who opposes his socialistic policies of racism, but turn a blind eye and deaf ear to their party leader, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, when she attacks military veteran and fellow member of congress, Allen West. They are also deaf and blind when half a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus return from Cuba, singing the praises of Fidel Castro, while the Caucus simultaneously slimes millions of decent, law-abiding, tax-paying Americans who have found their voice in the Tea Party movement.

Liberals attacked George Bush for signing the Patriot Act, but have no problem when Obama prolongs it. They called Bush a dictator, but they have no problem with Obama’s giving the NLRB and EPA legislative powers, provided they continue their pro-union, anti-business, agendas.

Although liberals had a conniption fit every time President Bush took off for Crawford, Texas, they have no problem with Obama’s spending more time playing golf and raising campaign funds than trying to curb spending and doing something about our $15 trillion deficit.

Although leftists were always trying to find an excuse to impeach Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, they don’t find it even slightly annoying that 16 of the 20 green energy companies that have received federal loans, Solyandra among them, are owned by major bundlers for Obama.

If Obama didn’t spend so many of his waking hours attacking millionaires and billionaires, it wouldn’t be nearly so egregious that he spends so much time trying to get his hands on their money. Wouldn’t it be nice if once in a while, he would forgo one of his $35,000-a-plate fund raisers and, instead, ask that they voluntarily donate the dough to the IRS? After all, he maintains that seven out of 10 millionaires that he knows would like to see their taxes raised. Isn’t it high time he called their bluff? Perhaps he could start with his pals, Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffet.

The world of liberalism, I’ve concluded, is full of bubbles. There’s one bubble filled with liberal arts professors, another filled with mainstream journalists, a third for defense attorneys, a fourth for actors, screenwriters and directors, and so on. These bubbles serve as self-contained universes. It’s not that these vacuum-packed elitists are unaware that other people exist, but they regard them as a sub-species, only fit to buy their newspapers, watch their TV shows, purchase their CDs and pony up their kids’ college tuition. They refer to these suckers contemptuously as the folks they fly over. But even at ground level, liberals feel that they tower, morally and intellectually, over these inferior specimens.

My friend, Bernie Goldberg, who spent nearly 30 years in the trenches at CBS studying liberals in their own environment, came to the conclusion, as he wrote recently, that liberals regard themselves as moderates for the same reason that fish are unaware they’re wet. They simply have no other frame of reference.

Related: The Christmas Grinch Revisited

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

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


by BurtPrelutsky

I have long insisted that the decline of America began roughly 50 years ago. That was the decade that saw the liberals take a hacksaw to the black family, as LBJ and thousands of social workers did everything they could to drive black husbands and fathers out of the household. It also saw the advent of the Free Speech movement that started out in Berkeley and culminated in Kent State.

Snapshots of the decade would include the Yippies rioting in the streets of Chicago, the Black Panthers murdering people in Oakland, suburban couples engaged in wife-swapping, and parents all over the country looking to swap places with their children, while extolling the hedonistic life style summed up by the odious phrase ”sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll”.

Had it all ended with January 1, 1970, it would have been bad enough. Unfortunately, far too many of the young folks grew up to become the judges, professors, journalists and politicians, who are still causing immeasurable mischief. For good measure, their ignorant grandchildren helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 and will try to get him re-elected in 2012.

One of the most quoted lines from the 60s was uttered by lifelong political activist Jack Weinberg, who along with Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Tom Hayden, helped make it such an execrable period: “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” Thanks to those guys and their latter-day equivalents in the Occupy Wall Street movement, it’s fair to suggest that a wiser course of action is to trust nobody under 30 unless they happen to be wearing an Army, Navy or Marine, uniform.

The pain of inflation, the sort brought about by the Federal Reserve running the printing presses 24/7 ever since Obama came along; was brought home to me after watching a couple of old movies recently. Both of which were scripted by Peter Stone. In the 1963 release, “Charade,” four crooks devote nearly 20 years to trying to get their hands on $250,000. Even if you forget about the dough they had to spend tracking their prize all over Europe, you can’t help thinking that if they’d just opened up a garage or a coffee shop, the guys would have made a lot more money. Then, in the 1965 movie, “Mirage,” Gregory Peck goes into an upscale bar in Manhattan and orders a Scotch. “That’ll be 90 cents,” the bartender reminds him when he shows signs of leaving without paying.

This being the holiday season, I found myself thinking about a few of those we annually celebrate. Thanksgiving is an oddity because we wind up eating a lot of stuff that we apparently have absolutely no interest in the other 364 days of the year.

For some stupid reason, we went from honoring our two greatest presidents on two separate days to celebrating President’s Day, a generic term that suggests that along with Washington and Lincoln, we’re also tipping our hat to the likes of Wilson, Carter, Clinton and Obama.

But perhaps the oddest of all is Labor Day, when we pretend to honor hard work by taking the day off to listen to long-winded speeches by the likes of Richard Trumka, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., and Barack Obama, quite possibly the three laziest men in America.

Speaking of Obama, I realize that back in 2008 he was called The One. Now that we know him so much better, I’m having a hard time deciding on a more appropriate moniker. A few that I’ve considered are Nanny Barack, the Preacher, the Great Pretender, the Scolder-in-Chief and Chairman Obama.

But, here’s hoping that after January, 2013, we’ll be able to simply refer to him as the Dearly Departed.

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

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

Thursday, December 22, 2011


At this time of year, it seems fitting to share this classic article Burt wrote many years ago. Don’t forget to scroll down and read the bonus article which follows. You’ll find many more autobiographical articles in About Burt. Enjoy! -ed.

by BurtPrelutsky

Recently, I received an e-mail from a young associate pastor in Maryland. He introduced himself as an avid fan of “M*A*S*H.” He said that one of his favorite episodes had been one I wrote, Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler? and that he was considering using the show as an inspiration for an upcoming sermon. He wanted to know how I had come up with the idea. He also wanted to know how my own faith and understanding of God or Christ had informed my writing.

I must confess that I am not usually given to thinking of my writing in such grandiose terms, and it shocked me to find a man of the cloth doing so. It took some thinking on my part, especially as the writing took place over 30 years ago. At the time, my TV writing career was at a standstill. Because my agents were a man and wife team who were well-meaning, but highly ineffective, it appeared that things weren’t likely to change for the better any time soon.

Fortunately, I was still a print journalist, writing a weekly humor column for the L.A. Times. Because I would occasionally mention having gone to Fairfax High School, I was invited to host an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the school’s founding. As part of the event, someone representing each of the five decades would reminisce about their years of internment. Larry Gelbart, writer-producer of M*A*S*H, spoke about the 1940s. I did double duty, hosting and talking about life at Fairfax in the 50s.

One day, some months later, I got a call from my female agent. She wanted me to know that they’d taken in a third partner. The new guy would specialize in sit-com writers. She suggested I come down and meet him. I did, and regretted it almost immediately. The guy was totally obnoxious. It seemed he wanted to be a producer more than he wanted to be an agent. He proposed that I should write up his ideas. I pointed out he didn’t seem too crazy about the way I wrote up my own. He said that was true, but this time he would be around to help. I told him that I would think about it, but in the meantime I had a family to support.

He asked me what shows appealed to me. I mentioned Bob Newhart, Mary Tyler Moore and M*A*S*H. He looked at me as if I were insane. “You’re only talking about the hottest shows on the air.” I told him I was fully aware of that fact, but those were the ones I wanted to write for, and, besides, I was merely answering his question. I told him that, inasmuch as I had to earn a living, I would gladly write for any shows that would have me. He told me that at least now I was being realistic.

When I got home, my wife told me I had a phone call from Larry Gelbart. I called him back. He started out by thanking me for having mentioned him in a column I had written that past Sunday in which I argued that for a quarter of a century the best comedy in America wasn’t in books or movies or on Broadway, but, rather, on TV. I then mentioned ten of the anonymous talents who were most responsible for writing Sgt. Bilko, The Sid Caesar Show, Mr. Peepers, The Honeymooners and M*A*S*H. Gelbart was one of the ten.

Larry Gelbart
He went on to say that when he and his wife had attended the Fairfax event months earlier, they had assumed they’d be bored to tears, but that I had been very funny, and that he felt remiss for not having dropped me a note.

I thanked him for the kind words and was ready to hang up when he said, “By the way, I hear on the grapevine that you sometimes write for TV. If you ever get a notion for a M*A*S*H episode, please send it along.”

Some of you will wonder why I hadn’t broached the possibility of my writing a M*A*S*H script. It’s not as if it didn’t occur to me, but I would have considered it impolite. I mean, Gelbart was calling to pay me a compliment and to thank me for mentioning him in my column. Taking advantage of his courtesy to ask him for a job simply struck me as rude.

In any case, as soon as we hung up, I called my new agent and told him he was now my ex-agent -- that M*A*S*H apparently wasn’t as locked up as he’d insisted it was half an hour earlier.

For a few seconds, I felt just great. Then it hit me that I was not only unemployed, but now I didn’t even have an agent. Talk about your Pyrrhic victories!

In a panic, I sat down in a chair with a steno notebook and my pen and hoped (prayed?) that a terrific idea would magically appear on the page. The idea that arrived within minutes was that a wounded soldier would arrive at the M*A*S*H unit without dogtags, claiming to be Jesus Christ. I took another twenty minutes or so to fill in the details pitting good Dr. Freedman and evil Col. Flagg in a battle for the man’s body and soul. I even came up with a title, Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler?

I typed it up and mailed it to Gelbart at 20th Century-Fox. A day or two later, he called to say that he and his producing partner, Gene Reynolds, loved the idea.

The final script got nominated for a Humanitas Prize, and led to my writing seven more M*A*S*H episodes, and totally resuscitated my TV career.

At the time and to this day, although I am a non-observant Jew, I felt the idea was divinely inspired. How could I not? After all, when I sat down with pad and paper, I had no reason to suspect that Jesus Christ was going to wind up in a sitcom episode.

Although there is no way to really explain how the creative process works, typically a notion buzzes around in a writer’s head until the opportunity to use it comes along. But that was certainly not the case here.

With Captain Chandler, there was no notion, no buzzing, just a timely Christmas miracle.

Related: Larry Gelbart: An Appreciation

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

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


Dear Readers, Burt would like you to enjoy an extra bonus article as a combination Chanukah and Christmas present. Don’t forget to read the other article, Captain Chandler & Me, which precedes this one. - ed.

by BurtPrelutsky

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 next November, but that Barack Obama be sent packing, and that Harry Reid joins Nancy Pelosi in the ranks of the terminally irrelevant.

Ann Coulter
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.

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?

Santa a socialist?
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! Subscribe to by email

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

Monday, December 19, 2011


As a combined Chanukah and Christmas present, Santa Burt has some bonus articles for you this week. When you finish this one, please scroll down to read the article which follows this one. -ed.

by BurtPrelutsky

In a way, it’s rather admirable that Ron Paul sticks to his guns when everyone knows that his ostrich-like response to a nuclear Iran positively guarantees that he will not be the presidential nominee in 2012. Although I’ve always thought that Rep. Paul has a startling physical resemblance to the myopic cartoon creation, Mr. Magoo, the real life person he invariably brings to mind is none other than Neville Chamberlin. All the man needs is the furled umbrella.

On the other hand, I’d be churlish if I didn’t commend Paul for providing me with my only laugh during the Sioux City GOP debate. That was when he let us know that none other than James Clapper, Obama’s head of National Intelligence, agreed with his assessment of Iran. That would be like my denying that the Holocaust had taken place because no less an authority than Muammar Ahmadinejad said it hadn’t.

The fact is, until Dr. Paul mentioned him, I had assumed Clapper was long gone from the administration. After all, this is the same James Clapper who, in 2010, had been unaware late in the day that a dozen Islamic terrorists had been arrested that very morning in Great Britain. He’s the same fellow who insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular group that had eschewed violence.

In March, 2011, this very same intelligence maven predicted that “Over the long run, Gaddafi will prevail.” Either he was all wet, as usual, or he considered seven months “the long run,” inasmuch as Gaddafi was dead as a doornail as of October 20th.

At the same congressional hearing, in March, he was asked why he’d neglected to list Iran and North Korea among the nuclear powers that might pose a threat to the United States. We’re all still waiting for his answer. That is, all of us who aren’t Ron Paul.

One has to assume that in a President Paul administration, Mr. Clapper would continue to be the head of National Intelligence, although combining Clapper and intelligence in the same sentence is my idea of an oxymoron.

Speaking of the Sioux City debate, I, unlike some others, did not think Newt Gingrich came out smelling like a rose.

For one thing, while arguing for his loony notion of forcing federal judges to defend themselves before the louts in Congress, he said that he would be taking on the judiciary in the spirit of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR. Well, lest anyone leap to the conclusion that I’m on the side of activist judges, let me make it clear that would never be my intention. But anything that a conservative president can do, a liberal president can do. So I’d suggest to Speaker Gingrich that he keep the political showboating to an absolute minimum.

But, more to the point, when he started to explain in what way his cockeyed idea was in the spirit of those four presidents, he said that Jefferson, when asked if the Supreme Court was supreme, replied, “That’s absurd.” He said that Lincoln had challenged the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott decision with his Emancipation Proclamation. While it’s nice to know that Gingrich still opposes slavery, I would have been far more interested in his defense of FDR.

You see, Roosevelt’s major judiciary battle arose when the conservative Supreme Court ruled several portions of his New Deal unconstitutional. FDR decided that nine old guys in black robes should not have the authority to dismantle any portion of his socialistic agenda. He therefore decided to pack the Court by appointing up to six new justices for every sitting justice over the age of 70 years, six months. Even a public enamored of Roosevelt opposed this clumsy ploy to expand the power of the executive branch.

But, then, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that historian Gingrich has stated that the greatest president of the 20th century was FDR, not Ronald Reagan.

Finally, after listening to Newt trying to explain why the $1.6 million he received from Freddie Mac was perfectly acceptable, I have come to two conclusions. The first is that it provides us with yet another excellent reason to rid ourselves of Freddie and Fannie once and for all.

The second reason is equally damning of Speaker Gingrich. If, as he keeps insisting, the services he provided Freddie were the equivalent of dusting the shelves and cleaning out the wastepaper baskets -- and not influence peddling in the corrupt halls of Congress -- the schmuck is positively shameless.

I mean, how dare Newt charge $30,000-a-month -- money coming out of the pockets of the American taxpayer -- for advice that, by his own admission, was ignored for five long years!

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

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


by BurtPrelutsky

Recently, I had an exchange with my friend Alan Caruba, a fellow Jew who had written a piece in which he pointed out that in hard economic times anti-Semites have a greater tendency to crawl out from under their favorite rocks.

After acknowledging that he was right, I went on to state that as an American Jew, I was frankly surprised that there wasn’t more hatred of Jews than there is. And for once, I was being totally serious. If I weren’t Jewish, I could see how I, as a conservative, could be very antagonistic towards Jews. I mean, not being a total barbarian, I would try to be fair; I would attempt to balance things off by listing all of the Jewish contributions to medicine and science, literature and music, Hollywood and Broadway. I would think how much more unpleasant modern life would be without the efforts of Jonas Salk, George Gershwin, Albert Einstein, Richard Rodgers, Saul Bellow, J.D. Salinger, Jerome Kern, Billy Wilder, Carl Sagan and Milton Friedman. And that’s just the tiny tip of a huge iceberg.

But the fact remains that Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Noam Chomsky and Saul Alinsky, also form a small portion of a fairly large toxic dump. It’s also true that the reason that people equate Jews with shady financial practices isn’t entirely due to the libelous charges planted in The Protocols of Zion, but to high-profile scoundrels named George Soros, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Joshua Gould and Bernie Cornfeld. It doesn’t help that Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs could just as easily be the names of two kosher delis.

Speaking of which, why is it that it’s only beloved Jews who ever got around to changing their names? Why was it always the likes of Danny Kaye (nee David Kaminsky), Jack Benny (Benjamin Kubelsky), Mel Brooks (Mel Kaminsky), Woody Allen (Allen Konigsberg), George Burns (Nathan Birnbaum), Kirk Douglas (Issur Danielovitch), John Garfield (Jacob Julius Garfinkle), Eddie G. Robinson (Emanuel Goldenberg), Tony Curtis (Bernie Schwartz), Shelley Winters (Shirley Schrift), Lauren Bacall (Betty Joan Perske), Judy Holliday (Judith Tuvim) and Irving Berlin (Israel Isidore Baline), and never such national disasters as Henry Waxman, Michael Bloomberg, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?

Speaking of which, as a conservative, it pains me to have to acknowledge that while there are 31 members in the House and another 13 in the Senate who are Jewish, only one, Eric Cantor, is a Republican. When you realize that Jews represent less than three percent of the American population, the fact that they represent 13% of the Senate and nearly nine percent of the House, you get some idea of what a difference these people would make if only they used their power for good!

Fortunately, in spite of 80% of American Jews being so besotted with the Left that they would vote for Daffy Duck so long as he was running as a Democrat, we are not entirely insane and, with fewer and fewer exceptions, such as Jon Stewart (formerly Jonathan Leibowitz), we no longer feel we have to change our names in order to advance our careers. As a result, Bernard Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Ben Shapiro, Harry Stein, Lionel Chetwynd and Ronald Radosh, make no secret of the fact that they are both Jewish and conservative. I must confess I thought I’d be able to include Mark Steyn, but I checked and found out that he was baptized as a Catholic and confirmed as an Anglican, which probably explains the funny spelling.

Why isn’t there more anti-Semitism in America? After all, we Jews tend to be extremely out of step with the majority of Americans, who tend to be slightly right of center. Moreover, even aside from all those leftwing politicians who carry Barack Obama’s water, no matter if the issue is the stimulus, pandering to public sector unions or ObamaCare, we include in our ranks such prominent leftwing loudmouths as Ed Asner, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn.

The answer is surprisingly simple. It appears that America’s Christians, by and large, are decent, logical and patriotic. As a result, they not only subscribe to the words found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but the other, older ones, inscribed in their Bible. And it probably doesn’t hurt that their savior happened to be Jewish.

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

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011


by BurtPrelutsky

There are a number of questions I keep waiting to have answered, and I am getting doggone impatient. For instance, is Barack Obama’s mother-in-law still living in the White House? If she’s living there rent-free and dining on our dime, why do we never see her? They sure made a big deal about it when they moved her in, allegedly to help look after the grandkids, but then she fell off the face of the earth. Sort of like Bo, the invisible dog.

Next, I want to know how much money Jeffrey Immelt is being paid to be Obama’s job czar. During WWII, a great many wealthy men went to Washington to serve their country and were known as dollar-a-year men because that is what they were getting paid. So, what’s Immelt’s salary? The fact is, if he, the man who runs GE, the outfit that paid no corporate taxes last year, the man who sent major divisions of his company over to China, is getting as much as a dollar-a-year, he is definitely being overpaid.

Rick Perry
I’d also like to know why Bill O’Reilly divides everyone into one of two groups, patriots or pinheads. The opposite of a patriot, after all, is a traitor, whereas the opposite of a pinhead is someone who isn’t a liberal.

I was taken aback when so many people got on Mitt Romney’s case for offering to bet Rick Perry $10,000. For one thing, Romney knew he was betting a sure thing. For another, he knew that Perry wouldn’t take the bet, so he might as well have offered to wager a million dollars. But the blowback seemed to come from people who resented the fact that Romney could even afford to make such a sizable bet. Well, I think by this time, we all know that the man is a multi-millionaire. As Republicans, we are not supposed to resent wealthy people for no other reason than that they happen to be richer than we are. We leave that to the mutts in the Occupy Wall Street movement and to such wealthy hypocrites as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Warren Buffet, George Soros and Matt Damon.

Mitt Romney
It’s one thing when Newt Gingrich, the man who subscribes to global warming, who thinks FDR -- not Ronald Reagan -- was the greatest president of the 20th century and who made his money the old-fashioned way, as a Washington insider lobbying for any outfit that met his price, to attack Romney for being a successful capitalist, but quite another when it’s done by conservatives.

In a related matter, I recall years ago watching an episode of the “Bob Newhart Show” in which the Hartleys (Newhart and Suzanne Pleshette) agreed not to exchange Christmas gifts one year. But as so often happens in the world of sit coms, the missus double-crossed her hubby by buying him a present. The gift turned out to be a $1,200 wristwatch. Watching at home, I still recall how shocked I was. As a rule, characters in TV sit coms were supposed to make it easy for the audience to identify with them. But here was a female lead in the mid-1970s spending a small fortune for a watch, and nobody I spoke to afterwards had even given it a second thought.

Now, 35 years later, a great many people seem to have been knocked off their pins because one rich guy unsuccessfully challenged another rich guy to make a bet. America is definitely getting older, but we don’t seem to be maturing.

Another silly controversy seems to be brewing over Tim Tebow’s Christian beliefs. A great many people are taking him to task because he credits Christ with whatever success he and his team have, and that he occasionally kneels on the field to give God a quick thank-you. It seems that some football fans can’t stand it when a quarterback kneels down for any reason other than to run out the clock.

Well, just as no atheists are said to reside in fox holes, I assume that everyone on a football field, whether or not he kneels and bows his head, is praying not to have his knees shattered or have his brains jarred loose.

What I don’t get is why people are picking on young Mr. Tebow. After all, nobody makes a big deal of the fact that just about every time a Latin baseball player hits a home run, he points heavenward as he crosses home plate, as if thanking God for making sure that the pitcher, no doubt a non-believer, threw him a gopher ball.

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

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