CIVIL WRONGS
by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

Generally, when people refer to the battle for civil rights in the 1960s, the focus is entirely on blacks and a few politicians like Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. But there were thousands of white people who risked traveling to the South to help blacks achieve their basic rights, such as the right to vote, to eat at lunch counters and drink from public fountains. A few of them were murdered, many were beaten and even more of them were arrested and jailed on trumped-up charges.

I wasn’t one of them. But I had a Jewish friend who was. In 1965, at the age of 23, he was jailed and spent a night in the colored section of a Mississippi jail. Eventually, he became a doctor and a Republican.

Last week, while tuned in to Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, he was shocked to see the members of the Congressional Black Caucus segregated either by choice or as a political tactic. It was, in his words, “wrong, ugly, immoral, sad and disgusting.”

It certainly wasn’t what he would have expected to see 53 years after he had risked his life to bring black people fully into American society.

I replied to his email: “Having the black members of Congress huddled together as they were made it easier to see them sitting on their hands even when President Trump referred to record low unemployment among blacks.

"Your intentions in the distant past were noble, but the intervening years have shown you to be a sucker. Blacks are worse off today than they were in 1965…higher illegitimacy rate, more drug addiction, criminal activity, gang membership and abortions.

“They can drink from any fountain, but, alas, they segregate themselves on college campuses and in Congress, and the babies who aren’t aborted are rarely raised in two-parent homes. They continue to vote for Democrats 95% of the time, just as LBJ predicted they would. I judge them – as I do Martin Luther King, himself – not by the color of their skin, but by their character, and I find most of them abominable. Regards, Burt”

* I have always despised Vladimir Putin. As I like to say, you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can’t take the KGB out of the man.

Even when George W. Bush said he had gazed into Putin’s eyes and seen his soul, my reaction was that if Bush couldn’t tell the difference between a soul and a block of ice, he needed to have his eyes checked.

But even I can sympathize with Putin. What must he be thinking when he hears the Democrats demonizing him on an hourly basis? He tried to interfere in our elections? Well, of course, he did. That’s what nations, especially hostile ones, do. Heck, we’ve been doing it in Latin America for quite a while. We excused it on the basis of the Monroe Doctrine, which happened to be a foreign policy we had invented out of whole cloth.

If it was so evil for one nation to try to sway elections, why was it okay when President liar-nObama paid political operatives to go to Israel in 2013 to make certain that Bibi Netanyahu wasn’t re-elected? Funny, but I don’t recall the Jewish Democrats -- people like Chuck clown-Schumer, Ben Cardin, Dianne Fein-stein, Barbara Boxer, Richard Blumenthal, Henry Waxman, Alan Grayson, Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Brad Sherman, scum-Adam Schiff, commie-Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz -- raising a stink and sounding the alarm that we were trying to interfere in the democratic process of not only another nation, but one that was an ally.

But what must Putin be thinking, as he sits at his desk in the Kremlin, his head in his hands, trying to figure out how it is that just a short time ago our Secretary of State was delighted to hand over a quarter of America’s uranium deposits to Russia and push the reset button with her Russian counterpart, and President liar-nObama was only too happy to welcome Russia into Syria, and, now, suddenly members of their political party are carrying on as if he’s Satan.

* I generally have a live-and-let-live attitude where my fellow pundits are concerned. But when I hear syndicated radio host Michael Medved, allegedly a Republican, try to conflate liar-nObamaCare with Trump’s tax reform, to prove that Republicans can be as obstinate as Democrats, he merely proves once again that an Ivy League education might not be all it’s cracked up to be.

It’s true that liar-nObamaCare was passed without a single Republican vote and that the tax reform bill was passed without the support of a single Democrat. But even a schnook like Medved should be able to recognize that the Affordable Care Act was passed because liar-nObama repeatedly lied, telling gullible Americans that they would still be able to hang on to their doctors and their health insurance; and, what’s more, it’s been an unmitigated disaster. In fact, just in political terms, it’s been a disaster of such enormous proportions that it eventually cost the Democrats their majorities in the House and the Senate.

The tax reform bill has already seen American workers receive a windfall in bonuses, pay raises and new jobs.

But so far as Medved is concerned, it is merely proof that the Republicans can be as blindly partisan as Democrats.

It’s just proof once again that sometimes a college degree isn’t worth the parchment it’s printed on.

* Clark Huskey, the pride of Waterville, OH, called my attention to the fact that California Senate Leader Kevin de León was born Kevin Alexander Leon.  In other words, he was born with a middle name, but no preposition and no accent mark. But in a state with a huge Hispanic population, apparently every little bit of deception helps.

I was reminded, although he’d never want you to know it, the man who has cashed in on being Geraldo Rivera for all these years was born Gerald Michael Rivera, whose father was Puerto Rican but whose mother was a Russian Jew, and who, when it was to his advantage, went by the name Jerry Rivers.

* Speaking of phonies, Joseph Kennedy III, who voiced strong objection to Trump’s wall during his rebuttal to the President’s State of the Union address, grew up behind a huge wall. It was the one that surrounded the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts. But of course, that’s different, because whereas Trump’s wall would only protect America; the one in Hyannisport protected the Kennedy clan.

It occurs to me that if Jennifer Lopez can be called JLO and Alex Rodriguez can be called AROD, there’s certainly no reason that Joe Kennedy III can’t be called JOKE.

* I was sent something titled “Secrets to Inner Peace”:

If you can start the day without caffeine;

If you can always be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains;

If you can resist complaining and boring people with your troubles;

If you can eat the same meal every day and be grateful for it;

If you can accept it when your loved ones are too busy to pay attention to you;

If you can take criticism and blame without resentment;

If you can relax without alcohol or tobacco;

If you can sleep without the aid of drugs;

You are probably the family dog.

In conclusion, it states that we should handle stressful situations the way our dogs do: If you can’t eat it or play with it, piss on it and walk away.
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

Views: 19

Reply to This

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service