Burt Prelutsky

If you have decided along the way that I despise liberals, it merely proves that you've been paying attention. I don't just think they're misguided or that they have a different take on the issues than I have, I believe they are evil. I believe that if they had their way, America would be a third world nation.

I think they lie, partly out of habit and partly because they know that the equally evil media will aid and abet them by providing cover and by churning out propaganda.

For instance, when some flabby-brained weasel like Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, claims that Republicans don't care about the plight of old people and would love to just push them off the edges of cliffs, the way they illustrated conservative objections to ObamaCare in their TV ads, does anyone take them seriously? Even their fellow left-wingers must know better, but they belong to a cult that demands total fealty. Catholics will doubt the Pope's infallibility sooner than liberals will doubt Obama's. On the Left, you either fall into line or you stand condemned for heresy.

In a recent article, I questioned the wisdom of the 19th Amendment, the one that gave women the vote in 1920. Insisting that women just aren't very good when it comes to voting shouldn't be taken for misogyny, any more than saying that most men tend to get tongue-tied when trying to express their emotions should be regarded as my clumsy attempt to appear even-handed.

In spite of what the feminists say, the genders are not the same; each has its strengths and its weaknesses. The proof in this case is not in the pudding, but in the voting. Consider that starting with the 1980 presidential election, women gave Reagan only a 1% advantage over Carter. That's Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake! In 1988, proving that it wasn't a fluke, the ladies gave Bush a mere 1% edge over Dukakis. That's Michael Dukakis, for heaven's sake!

After that, things only got worse. In the next five elections, they not only helped to elect Clinton twice, but they voted overwhelmingly for Gore, Kerry and Obama.

If a major league baseball player struck out that many times, he'd be on the next bus to Trenton or Wilkes-Barre.

One of the most annoying things about this election is that people keep asking the candidates what they'll do to create jobs. The problem is that the only way the federal government can create jobs is by hiring more bureaucrats, which is the last thing any sane person wants to see. The job of the president is to create an environment in which entrepreneurs and small businesses can flourish. That means you cut the tax rate and you get rid of stupid, power-grabbing, regulators, like the storm troopers at the EPA, and you take the jackboot of the federal government off the necks of those driven to succeed and get wealthy. Prosperity is the greatest engine for job creation and it's the only way that a $16 trillion national debt won't sooner, rather than later, turn us into Greece.

Speaking of money, in 2010, during the worst days of our recession, we were sending $4.16 billion in foreign aid to Afghanistan, $1.8 billion to both Pakistan and Haiti, $758 million to Mexico and $615 to Nigeria. All of that would have been bad enough, but that was money we had to borrow and then pay interest on to the Chinese. To me, that sounds a lot like the dumb schmuck who borrows money from a shylock and then races down to the corner bar to buy drinks for the house.

Speaking of Mexico, a nation that has seen 50,000 of its citizens murdered by drug dealers in recent years, I, for one, don't believe that the government couldn't wipe out the creeps if it really wanted to. Those goons may have a lot of automatic weapons, thanks to Eric Holder, but they don't have tanks. I suspect that the cartels are allowed to run wild for the same reason that Mexico does nothing to shut down its northern border: money, money, money.

If it weren't for millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. wiring billions of dollars back to their relatives, and the drug loot that's floating around south of the border, Mexican politicians would actually have to do something for the people or face a civil war. It's the same reason that Pakistan lets its farmers continue to grow poppies, the source of most of the world's heroin.

Finally, although several motives have been suggested to explain why John Roberts sided with the loons on the Court, the one I like best is that by doing so, he not only forced Obama to defend ObamaCare during the campaign, but to defend what is now officially, thanks to Roberts, the largest tax increase in history. Only time will tell, based on his future decisions, if Roberts suffered a brain cramp or if he is so diabolical that people might start referring to him as Mac, short for Machiavelli.

Although Obama's immediate reaction to the Court's decision was one of unbridled glee, by the time this all plays out, he may find himself like the fencing master in the cartoon who apparently dodges his opponent's sword, and says, "Aha, you missed!" a second before his severed head drops to the floor.