Surely I can’t be the only person who has a hard time falling asleep at night, thanks to all the unanswered questions floating around in my head. For instance, after seeing Juan Williams constantly trying to pooh-pooh away questions about the Benghazi cover-up on both Bret Baier’s “Special Report” and O’Reilly’s “The Factor,” I keep wondering if he’s been required to register as a lobbyist for the Obama administration.

For instance, how is it that lefties like Michael Bloomberg think that adults should have no say in the matter when it comes to sugar, salt, guns and the size of soda containers, but insist that teenagers should have free choice when it comes to purchasing the day-after pill and/or aborting their babies without parental consent or even awareness?

I’m sure most of us breathed a sigh of relief when the Pennsylvania jury found Kermit Gosnell guilty of first-degree murder. But perhaps not all of us. Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, who is a professor of Bioethics at Princeton, in response to whether he would be in favor of killing a disabled baby, replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”

Well, God knows I’m not a moral philosopher, but I’m wondering how the baby would go about voicing an opinion. And I’d like to hear what Stephen Hawking has to say about all this.

Professor Singer also declared: “One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.”

Experience more of Burt Prelutsky’s humor and wit in his books – at WND’s Superstore.

Apparently when you get to bill yourself as a moral philosopher, people tend to treat you with kid gloves, so nobody, as far as I’m aware, asked him if there was a sharp distinction between a newborn baby and a 4-year-old or between a professor of Bioethics and a Nazi.

By now, we’re all aware of the fact that background checks would not have spared us the massacre at Newtown, but the question I haven’t heard asked is whether background checks would have prevented Operation Fast and Furious. After all, how much do we really know about notorious gunrunner Eric Holder?

For sheer irony, it’s hard to beat Hillary Clinton, who campaigned as the person we’d all want to see at the receiving end of a 3 a.m. phone call, totally botch the call she got in the wee hours regarding Benghazi.

Speaking of Benghazi, we keep hearing the various Pinocchio’s who speak on behalf of this administration insist that they could not have possibly sent armed reinforcements in the seven hours our people were under attack. Well, one, I keep wondering why not, inasmuch as our military base in Italy is a mere three-hour flight away; and, two, lacking the gift of precognition, how could they have had the slightest idea how long the siege would continue?

Moving on to a more recent scandal, we have a spokesperson for the IRS stating: “Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation. We were – and will continue to be – dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner.”

And what’s more, it was a sheer coincidence that for two years only groups of a conservative persuasion were targeted, never a single group that had “Progressive,” “Liberal” or “We Love Obama,” in its title.

I confess I am less concerned about the scandal swirling around Obama’s tapping the phones of the Associated Press. To me, considering how supportive the news agency has been of Obama, this is more like a falling-out among thieves. Still, I can’t help wondering about his motive. The only thing I’ve come up with is he just couldn’t wait to find out what swell things they were going to say about him next.

We all grew up hearing people say with something resembling awe: “Is this a great country or what?” Ever since 2008, when Obama was elected, I’ve been thinking “what” is the correct answer.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.