Burt Prelutsky

We all know that whenever liberal politicians start insisting that guns are evil, it's for the same reason that stage magicians employ patter, top hats and silk capes. It's done in order to distract us. At present, Obama would like us to ignore the fact that thanks to the end of the payroll tax holiday and ObamaCare everyone's taxes have shot up. That's not to say the liberals wouldn't love to disarm us and make the Second Amendment null and void. But even they know that's not going to happen. If they were serious about reducing gun violence, they'd quit yapping about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and go after the people who use them not for hunting or for defending their homes and families, but to murder.

I'm referring to the black and Hispanic gangs that terrorize inner cities. Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, the city in which 506 murders were committed in 2012 -- only a handful as the result of assault weapons -- doesn't declare war on the punks responsible for spilling most of that blood. Instead, he demands that the city divest itself of any investments it might have in gun manufacturing firms. Displaying the wisdom for which big city mayors are renowned, he not only does nothing to diminish violent crime in his locale, but he makes certain that the city fails to profit financially from the only growth industry that exists in Obama's America.

In fact, I think it's fair to suggest that Benghazi was Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's idea of a gun-free zone.

When every massacre from Columbine to Newtown has taken place where firearms are banned, you would think that even liberals could get their pointy heads around the fact that just as outlawing guns guarantees that only outlaws will be armed, gun-free zones promise would-be killers that they have nothing to fear. They might as well post signs for the convenience of armed psychos that read: "You are now entering the Happy Hunting Grounds. Be a responsible killer and pick up your spent shells before you leave the park."

Inasmuch as cars and booze are responsible for far more deaths than guns, why don't the various municipalities initiate buy-back programs offering cash and concert tickets for '94 Chevys and unopened six-packs? I happen to have a half bottle of Manischewitz Concord Grape I'd be willing to trade in for a pair of argyle socks.

As you've probably heard, a New York rag called the Journal News published a list with the names and addresses of registered gun owners in the area. The reaction of decent, law-abiding people was so overwhelming that the newspaper hired people with guns to protect its offices.

When someone suggested that the names and addresses of the self-righteous loons who own or work for the Journal should be circulated, Bill O'Reilly, who occasionally mistakes himself for an archbishop, sermonized against it, on the grounds that two wrongs don't make a right. What unmitigated crapola! The members of the mainstream media, like the left-wing politicians they adore, assume that they can act with impunity, putting the lives and safety of others in jeopardy, while wrapping the First Amendment around themselves whenever it suits their fancy. Although they never think twice about defaming conservatives, they feel themselves impervious to the consequences of their words and actions.

If it were up to me, I'd not only print their names and addresses, I'd run their photos to increase the chances of their being vilified whenever they appeared in public. In my circle, we call it giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Some people, in attempting to show how wrong the Journal News was, suggested that what they did was akin to printing the names and addresses of those collecting food stamps. Well, frankly, I think that's a swell idea. I'd love to know if I'm helping to put food on my neighbor's table. It's one thing, after all, if people want to pay for their own guns and ammo, and quite another if I have to pay through the nose for someone else's dinner. Especially if I happen to notice that he's driving a newer and nicer car than I am.

What's more, I think welfare recipients should have to write thank-you notes. Not to me, you understand, but to society at large. Once people think they are actually entitled to live off the labor of others and not even have to express gratitude, we're telling grown-ups that it's quite okay to behave like spoiled teenagers.

Getting back to O'Reilly, I'm getting a little tired of hearing how he hosts the number one show on Fox. If that's really the case, it's because he has the number one time slot on the number one network. It so happens that I record everything I plan to watch on TV. When it comes to "The Factor," it allows me to not only fast-forward through those commercials with Fred Thompson, but through any segment featuring left-wing half-wits. In fact, I only pause if I spot Brit Hume, Carl Cameron, James Rosen, Charles Krauthammer or Bernie Goldberg.

To me, the notion of tuning in to watch and listen to O'Reilly is as absurd as it would have been to tune in to watch the "Ed Sullivan Show" in order to see Ed Sullivan. Come to think of it, what O'Reilly could use would be more Senor Wences, Jackie Mason and the HarmoniCats, and less Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams. In fact, I'd never have any of those twits on unless they first learned to juggle.

Speaking of twits, Colin Powell, who owes nearly as much to Affirmative Action as the Obamas do, claims that the GOP is having an identity problem. He also says that elements of the Party are racist and that it has shifted significantly to the Right, which has led to its losing the last two presidential elections.

For reasons of his own, Mr. Powell has chosen to overlook the fact that George W. Bush appointed two black Secretaries of State, he being one of them, whereas Barack Obama appointed a pair of Caucasians named Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. What's more, only a nincompoop with an agenda would insist that John McCain and Mitt Romney are living proof that the GOP has been shifting to the far right.

Besides, if there's anyone who has an identity problem, I'd say it's a guy who keeps insisting that he's a Republican, but has twice endorsed the most radical left-winger who has ever put his feet on the desk in the Oval Office.

Finally, although through his rhetoric and arrogant posturing, Obama seems to be suggesting that he received an overwhelming mandate from the American people, I have news for him. Starting with the election of 1860, every president who's won two terms has garnered more votes the second time around. In 1864, Lincoln received 350,000 more votes than in his first election. In 1872, Grant received nearly 600,000 more votes than in 1868. Although Grover Cleveland lost his re-election in 1888, he got roughly 675,000 more votes in 1892 than he had in 1884.

McKinley received an additional 110,000 votes the second time around. Wilson jumped an astonishing 2,800,000 votes in 1916 by promising to keep us out of WWI. FDR picked up nearly five million votes in 1936. Eisenhower received an additional 1,600,000 votes against Stevenson the second time he clobbered him. Nixon went from 31,785,000 to a mind-boggling 46,740,000. But, then, I'd have probably done as well running against George McGovern.

Reagan added more than 10 million votes in '84. Even Clinton picked up an extra 2,500,000 in 1996, and George W. Bush soared from 50,455,000 in 2000 to 61,837,000 in '04.

You may notice a pattern. All 11 presidents increased their vote total by anywhere from approximately 100,000 to over 15,000,000. However, in 2012, Obama saw his numbers tumble from 69,498,000 to 62,611,000.

As mandates go, Obama's is only slightly better than the one George Custer received at the Little Big Horn.