REDEFINING DIVERSITY
©2018 Burt Prelutsky
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT TO BURT PRELUTSKY ARTICLE, PLEASE MENTION MY NAME RUDY...   Contact Burt at burtprelutsky@icloud.com  

At one time, not that long ago actually, diversity meant variety. What’s more, it usually referred to opposing points of view, not to pigmentation. In recent years, that has all changed.

According to those who insist that our borders, along with ICE, disappear entirely, diversity means more and more Latinos, even though they already constitute the largest minority group in the U.S. You’d think they’d be calling for more Finns and Eskimos if diversity was really the ideal they claim it to be.

Diversity, according to those promoting greater numbers of blacks and Latinos on college campuses through affirmative action, a prejudicial policy that is antithetical to everything Americans used to hold dear, inevitably comes at the expense of Asians, who actually represent a much smaller minority group than the other two.

The fact is, a black applicant with the exact same grade point average and test scores as an East Indian or a South Korean has a four times better chance of being accepted.

Proof of that was established when an Asian student decided to beat the system by passing himself off as black; he got in with a 3.1 GPA when 3.7 would have been required if he’d identified himself as an East Indian.

The way things are headed, the day may soon arrive when the only true diversity on college campuses will be represented by white males.

⦿  In a related matter, it seems that, in spite of the brouhaha being waged by liberals against President Trump over his immigration policy, his approval numbers among native-born Latinos jumped 10 percentage points in the past month.

It seems that in spite of the outrage among those on the far Left, it’s only number five on the priority list of those one might assume to be most concerned. Among native-born Latinos, it trails jobs, the economy, healthcare and education, which reflects the way that most Americans think.

In addition, it should not be assumed that even those who have it in fifth place want the borders open. Many of them want the wall built because the interlopers are lowering their wages and overwhelming their schools and medical clinics.

⦿  For the longest time, I used to defend TV against those who deemed it a vast wasteland by pointing out that, whatever its other failings, it provided us with most of the best comedy to be found in America.

Occasionally, a movie, a Broadway show or a book, would come along that could make us laugh. But even in the earliest days of the medium, TV was offering us the best of Jack Benny, Sid Caesar, Steve Allen, Jackie Gleason, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden, Bob Hope, Jack Paar, George Burns and Gracie Allen, on a weekly basis. And if you tuned in Ed Sullivan on Sunday evening, you would occasionally catch the likes of Alan King, Don Rickles, Jackie Leonard, Shelley Berman, Gallagher & Sheen, Jan Murray, Henny Youngman, Jackie Mason and Señor Wences.

In more recent times, so-called comedians like Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, along with late-night TV hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher and Jimmy Fallon, have turned into public scolds.

I guess it began with David Letterman, who never struck me as very funny, but along the way he grew a beard and at least when he wasn’t sexually harassing the females on his staff, adopted the role of a left-wing pundit.

These days, the comics don’t even try to get laughs; instead, like Mort Sahl in the old days, they happily settle for nods of agreement from their bobble headed fans.

Inasmuch as garnering laughs seems to have vanished from the job description, it occurs to me that they shouldn’t be allowed to identify themselves as comedians on their tax returns.

I suspect that the day can’t be too far off when the laughter stops completely and the audience will simply show their appreciation by snapping their fingers the way beatniks used to do after some pretentious phony in a black turtleneck would recite a poem about the end of the world in a smoke-filled coffeehouse.

⦿  Speaking of my bleak expectations, inasmuch as the banishing of conservative speakers from college campuses and the public shaming of Trump’s aides is now perfectly acceptable to wide swaths of the fascistic electorate, how soon, I’m wondering, can we expect the book-burning to begin.

⦿  Someone sent me the following quote: “The absolute worst mistake of my presidency was appointing Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court,” and attributed it to Abraham Lincoln.
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT TO BURT PRELUTSKY ARTICLE, PLEASE MENTION MY NAME RUDY...   Contact Burt at burtprelutsky@icloud.com  

Views: 13

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

ICE- hope I got this right ...:0...a long time ago.

LOL Tif

affirmative action is racist but reverse.   somehow that makes it ok no it does not

these people hate America but u cannot change history although they keep trying our founders were white period. that is not changing.    

the left hates America i have the solution LEAVE as for abolishing ICE keep saying that it will win the GOP for yrs to come.  

Bonnie

thats is so true ICE will never-never be abolished.

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