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: 30

Reply to This



Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa BensonPolitical Cartoons by Henry Payne


‘Watch: Female HS Student Says She ‘Felt Violated’ After Seeing Trans Student’s Penis In Locker Room

“I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it”

 A Pennsylvania student attending Honesdale High School has filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights after her school administrators allowed a trans woman, a biological male who feels he is a woman, to dress and undress in the female locker room.

The student said she felt violated and scared when she looked across the aisle in the locker room to discover a member of the opposite sex in his underwear. In a video released by her legal team, she says it was obvious he was biologically male, as she “could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it.”

“It was the first period, and I had gym class,” said the student, “And I walked in with all my friends, and while I was putting on my pants, I heard a man’s voice, so I turned around, and he’s standing there on the opposite aisle looking at me.”

“I glanced down and I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear, and what was beneath it.”

She added that having a man apparently gawking at her while in various stages of undress made her feel unsafe.

“When I knew that a man was looking at me, I felt very violated, and very scared,” she said. “Especially looking at me while I am getting dressed.”

Her attorney said that this should be considered a form of sexual harassment in the eyes of the law.

“Opening up restrooms and locker room facilities to members of the opposite sex is sexual harassment,” said Andrea Shaw, the high school student’s attorney, “And like many forms of sexual harassment the girls in this school have little power over their situation.”

The attorney also notes that the school’s only attempt to remedy the situation was to allow the female high school student to wait to change until the biologically male student was finished, making her chronically late to gym class.

According to local media, the school district’s superintendent claims he is not able to comment on the case, but stated that the school is following the letter of the law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to take up the case, otherwise biologically male students will continue to be allowed to dress and undress with biologically females.


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service