by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 

I know that some of you are aghast that I’m not an absolutist when it comes to the Second Amendment even though there is not supposed to be any infringement on the right to own and bear arms. But I don’t believe that people, even those as wise as the Founding Fathers, would have anticipated a nation of 330 million people -- many of them certifiably insane; tens of millions of others who are slaves to alcohol and a plethora of both illegal and mind-altering prescription drugs; along with tens of thousands of black and Hispanic gangbangers -- all being free to possess guns.

In the same way, as adamant as the Founders were when it came to the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, I don’t expect they would have defended libel, slander or human sacrifices, no matter how protective they were of free speech, a free press and freedom of religion.

I heard from a lot of people who object to raising the age limit for buying long guns from 18 to 21. Some of them simply object to any laws that inhibit the rights of Americans to protect themselves from criminals or from the federal government, even when it’s protection from teenagers we sometimes need the most.

Others pointed out that if teenagers can serve in the military, they should be old enough to buy a gun.

To the first, I say that the Soviet Union and Germany were both lost causes long before Stalin and Hitler started confiscating guns. Also, as muddle-headed as Australia was in disarming its citizens, the nation did not turn into a brutal tyranny as a result. I’m certainly not recommending we follow suit, but simply wish to point out that similar policies can have different results in different localities.

To the second point, I’d say if the 18-year-old is serving in the military, Uncle Sam will give him a gun and teach him how to use it safely. If he’s a civilian, it won’t kill him to wait three years. In the meantime, if the father is confident that his son or daughter is mature enough to have a weapon, he can always give his offspring a weapon on his or her birthday. If the kid doesn’t have a father, I’m not sure I’d trust him with a gun. Besides, if he’s a gangbanger, as the fatherless often are, the chances are that he already has a gun.

Which brings me to the hypocritical Left. They keep bemoaning gun violence, but they never lift a finger to disarm the young hoodlums in their own communities. It’s only the weapons in the hands of “those who cling to their guns and their religion” that the likes of Barack 
liar-nObama, Bill DiBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Chuck clown-Schumer, Jerry Brown, Rahm Emanuel and Michael Bloomberg, seem to worry about.

Liberals show their true colors whenever a Republican proposes that a mandatory 10 years be added to the sentence of anyone convicted of committing a crime with a gun, and the liberals vote against it, lest the law have its greatest impact on their major voting blocs.

⦿   The folks responsible for the Constitution were idealists, but they were also pragmatists. They understood the shortcomings of people, and they didn’t exclude themselves. That’s why they made it possible to amend their divinely-inspired conclusions. But as you may have noticed, they made it a very difficult process. They understood that changing times would call for certain adjustments, but they also understood human nature and understood that a nation, just like an individual, will go through phases. They didn’t want to allow their work to be undone because the nation was undergoing a temporary loss of sanity, as might occur during a war or when a would-be tyrant like Barack liar-nObama was elected.

Those who don’t trust the system to self-correct keep calling for a Convention of States. It is beyond me to imagine how they believe that a gathering of 50 state representatives could improve on the 535 representatives we already have on salary in the House and Senate.

I mean, if those people can’t agree about term limits, a balanced budget, a sensible immigration policy or limiting the power of the federal government, how can we expect better of these unelected individuals representing the 50 states?

In the last election, Donald Trump took 31 states, Mrs. 
liar-Clinton carried 19. But it would require that 38 states would agree to making changes to specific items in the U.S. Convention. Heck, you couldn’t even get the representatives from New York and Texas to agree about the lunch menu.

Or consider the quadrennial argument about the Electoral College. Every four years, the Democrats insist it’s outmoded. That’s because they have a death grip on certain large states. They want elections determined by popular vote. Fortunately, the Founders saw through that ruse. That’s why they created a Republic, not a Democracy.

They wanted to avoid a situation such as occurred in 2016, when Donald Trump won the popular vote in 49 states, but because California gave liar-Hillary Clinton a four million vote plurality over Trump, she was able to holler she’d been robbed.

But, again, imagining that smaller states, be it in the houses of Congress or at a constitutional convention, would ever hand over to heavily-populated states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois and California, the means by which to elect the president every four years is a pipe dream from which it would behoove the Left to awaken.

Interestingly enough, in 2016, even the Electoral College showed its flaws when seven representatives betrayed their pledges, although not in the way that the Left expected. Although George scum-Soros and certain wealthy members of the liberal elite tried to pressure and even bribe the electors to vote for liar-Hillary Clinton, five formally pledged to her broke ranks, whereas only two showed bad faith by abandoning Trump. Three of the seven votes went to Colin Powell, with one each going to John Kasich, Ron Paul, commie-Bernie Sanders and Faith Spotted Eagle.

⦿  One of my clear-thinking readers who doesn’t care to be targeted and will therefore not be identified, started out his email asking that I compare our schools today with those we had 50 or 60 years ago.

He goes on to blame the obvious decline on the Supreme Court, pointing out that it was Court decision (Engel v. Vitale, 1962) that prohibited prayer in public schools. A year later Abington v. Schemp they removed the Bible from classrooms. In 1980, the nine unelected individuals deemed the 10 Commandments too controversial to be posted in our schools.

What all of these things were replaced with was moral relativism, the belief that one person’s idea of right and wrong is as good as anyone else’s, even if that person is an uneducated eight or ten-year-old or a badly-educated 16-year-old.

Also, by focusing on Darwin’s Theory, the survival of the fittest, to the exclusion of God or Intelligent Design, the schools promoted the notion that the soul is a fiction concocted out of whole cloth and that people are no better than any other creature on earth, and in most cases, far worse.

Finally, he concludes with abortion, which has been pushed for decades by those on the Left who insist that pregnant women have the moral authority to commit murder and, moreover, have every right to demand that the government use our tax dollars to facilitate the crimes.

⦿  In case any of you were wondering if I was tuned in to the Academy Awards, I was. I watched them for the same reason that I sat through all of Barack liar-nObama’s State of the Union addresses; I feel it’s my responsibility to comment on the vilest activities of America’s archenemies.

The only difference between sitting through liar-nObama’s blather and Jimmy Kimmel’s is that I came away from the latter a nickel richer. I made my annual wager with my wife, and, as usual, I won. Her problem is that she can’t help occasionally picking a movie or a person that she believes deserves to win.

I, on the other hand, never allow good taste to infringe on my selections, which is why I managed to guess correctly in 18 of the 24 categories, even when it came to Best Picture, which, knowing Hollywood’s denizens as well as I do, I predicted would be the absolutely putrid “The Shape of Water.”

My wife, silly girl, naturally guessed “Darkest Hour” would carry the day because it was such a good movie. I know better even though I had seen very few of the movies nominated. Winning the nickel was like taking candy from a baby. Actually, it was easier because Yvonne didn’t kick up a fuss.

The show itself wasn’t as awful as I had expected because the folks in charge, in an attempt to turn around the declining ratings, must have warned off the presenters and winners to keep the anti-Trump cracks to a minimum. But you can’t expect the likes of emcee Jimmy Kimmel and the rest of the Hollywood crowd to avoid the occasional stupid crack for an entire evening.

They even made a feeble attempt to display a vestige of patriotism by paying a brief tribute to the military by showing a short montage of movies that pictured the military in a positive light, although it should be noted that most of the movies were 75 years old. But the polite applause the montage generated was dwarfed by the greeting that presenters Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty received 51 years after they were paired up in “Bonnie and Clyde,” or the standing ovation the assembled loons gave “Hanoi Jane” Fonda.

Cosmetic note: Ms. hanoi-Fonda, Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino, have undergone such extensive plastic surgery, I doubt if even their dogs recognize them.

The oddest thing of all wasn’t that every single black, Hispanic, homosexual and transgender, working in Hollywood must have appeared on the stage of the Kodak stage during the four-hour siege, but that Hollywood still persists in recognizing winners and losers.

One would have assumed that long before now, those who object to competition, because they hate the idea of people having their feelings hurt, would have resorted to handing out participation trophies to anybody who had anything to do with producing the claptrap Hollywood persists in calling art.

Well, maybe next year.
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 

Views: 9

Reply to This



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service