IT’S LUCKY (D) STANDS FOR DUMB
by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 


If you’re a conservative, there are times when things seem bleak and hopeless. What chance have we when the Democrats can count on the mass media to not only defend them against charges of malfeasance, but to attack those who make the charges. It’s been decades since football players were expected to play all 60 minutes of a game, playing both offense and defense, but left-wing pundits do it all the time.

Moreover, Democrats can count on the votes of those who have no legal right to cast a vote, which is why they fight so hard against electoral safeguards such as photo IDs.

Still, the Republicans managed to capture the majority in the House and Senate and, against all odds, to defeat liar-Hillary Clinton with a candidate who was allegedly as unpopular as broccoli.

You could credit divine intervention, but I doubt if even God, with all the other stuff He has to take care of, could pull off these miracles, even with the collusion of Russia. I believe that credit should go where it belongs, and that’s to the Democrats. I’m not saying they’ve thrown these elections. What I am saying is that for Republicans, their secret weapon is that the Democrats are stupid. And for that, I suppose we should thank God.

I mean, whether it was stupidity, sloth or over-confidence, that prevented liar-Hillary Clinton from campaigning in the Rust Belt, we may never know. What we do know is that the tortoise out-worked the sleepy hare and maybe that was enough.

Mrs. liar-Clinton has blamed everyone in the world for her defeat, but it’s just possible that watching her collapse on the way to her SUV was enough to plant a doubt about her health and stamina in a few thousand minds in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, enough to tilt the election. So, perhaps the election turned on those two extra gin-and-tonics at lunch.

But even with liar-Hillary now no more than an irrelevant footnote in history, look at what passes for a major political party. Leadership consists of Chuck clown-Schumer, a man who has probably not been more than 40 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean in his entire life; and Nancy Pulosi, who seems to constantly be rehearsing for her role as mad Miss Havisham in “Great Expectations,” at least as the part would be played by Zasu Pitts, with the fluttery hands and eyes that have lost the ability to focus on stationary objects.

Perhaps we have reached the point of no return in America. But if we have, I think the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. I mean, when Trump delivers a speech in which he proposes family leave, a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal aliens and brags about a supercharged economy that’s resulted in more jobs for blacks and Hispanics, and can’t get a single “Hallelujah” from the liberal side of the aisle, I can’t believe there’s a single Independent voter at home watching clown-Schumer, Pulosi and their martinets, sitting stony-faced, and thinking: “I admire that sort of obstinacy. I can’t wait to vote for those people in November.”

*  One of the oddities of the scandal swirling around the FBI is the way that those on the Left feel they have to circle the wagons and defend the underlings, even though nobody has attacked them. I mean, I don’t recall anybody assuring us in the wake of the Lois Lerner scandal that the rank-and-file at the IRS were all super patriots. It was generally accepted that Ms. Lerner had given the order to target conservative groups and individuals, and the lowly bureaucrats simply followed orders like the good little toadies they were.

However, now that the unsavory activities by McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Page and the Ohrs have come to light, the leftists and the lap dog media can’t stop carrying on, pretending that thousands of anonymous bureaucrats are being slandered.

*  Sometimes, the goofs by Washington bureaucrats are so outrageous that you have to wonder who helps them put on their shoes in the morning.

Brenda Fitzgerald, who was recently appointed Director of the Center for Disease Control, lost her job when it was discovered that shortly after being named to head up the CDC, she invested in tobacco stocks. Easy come, easy go.

One can only hope that the new director will refrain from opening a recreational marijuana shop, at least for the first six months.

* I understand that it was a judge named Rudolph Contreras, appointed to the federal bench by President liar-nObama, who issued the first FISA warrant, allowing the FBI to use the phony Russian dossier to surveil Carter Page.

Considering what Trump had said about judges with Hispanic surnames, which was that Gonzalo Curiel, to name one, couldn't be trusted, I’m guessing Senor Contreras couldn't wait to issue the warrant, even if the dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC, liar-Hillary Clinton and, rumor has it, the FBI.

* In a recent article, which some may have construed as nostalgia for vigilante law, I tried to explain why I basically distrust the American legal system.

Something I neglected to mention is the immoral nature of plea-bargaining. I know that judges and prosecutors claim that without it, our courts would be backed up for years, if not decades. To which I say, as I do whenever people complain that our prisons are over-crowded, build more damn prisons.

So, go out and hire more judges and prosecutors. Perhaps if we didn’t waste so many tax dollars feeding, clothing, schooling and plea-bargaining, with illegal aliens, we would find ourselves with enough money to do the things that citizens have a right to expect of their lawmakers.

There are many problems with plea-bargaining. For one thing, the punishment never comes close to fitting the crime because the crime he’s sentenced for is never the one the perp actually committed. It may not even still be a felony.

The reduced sentence also means the perp will be out on the streets sooner rather than later. It also means there is less risk in committing crimes because the punishment isn’t as severe, meaning that for the public it’s a lose-lose situation.

While I’m at it, I would do away with parole boards. If a sentence is five years, that is how long the criminal should remain behind bars. If new evidence proves the prisoner wasn’t guilty of the crime, he should be pardoned. But removing years from a sentence because of good behavior is farcical. What are they saying? That he hasn’t robbed any banks, burgled any homes, raped any women or molested any children, while being kept in a cage and being watched by armed guards 24/7? If he’s dumb enough to misbehave in that situation, you simply add years to his total.

* Jan Hooper of San Mateo, CA, claims that a good friend of hers, after seven years of medical school and training, has been fired for one minor indiscretion. It seems he had sex with one of his patients and can no longer work in his chosen possession. He hadn’t even had time to pay off his student loans.

“It just goes to show,” Mrs. Hooper concluded, “how one little mistake can ruin a person’s life. It’s a shame. He’s a great guy and was, in most ways, an excellent veterinarian.”
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

Views: 36

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

IT’S LUCKY (D) STANDS FOR DUMB
by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com

RSS

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