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

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. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

Views: 15

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