YOUTH IS WASTED
by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

It was George Bernard Shaw who is credited with observing that youth is wasted on the young. He said it in 1931, but it was truer than ever in the 1960s when young Americans decided they were the fount of all wisdom, and were encouraged in that belief by their parents, who in too many cases, abdicated maturity in favor of adopting a life style that included drugs, promiscuity and unbridled arrogance.

The only thing George Bernard Shaw or any adult might envy about the young savages is their boundless energy. But even at 78, I wouldn’t go for the deal if along with their energy, I also had to accept their ignorance and insolence.

When it comes to their take on history, economics, culture and religion, to suggest it’s merely half-baked is being far too kind. The little rats are ever eager to follow any Pied Piper who promises them free stuff meaning that which belongs to those who have actually worked and paid for it and who puffs them up with unwarranted flattery. Which explains how it is that slugs like Barack liar-nObama, liar-Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth dinky-Warren, Nancy Pulosi and commie-Bernie Sanders, have the same iconic status with the kids as movie stars and rock groups.

⦿   It recently came out that Donald Trump’s lawyer bought off a porn star to the tune of $130,000 in hopes of keeping us from finding out that Trump had an extramarital affair with Stephanie Clifford screen name Stormy Daniels.

I don’t think anyone is terribly surprised that President Trump had a hyper-active sex life before he took office. Frankly, I don’t really care. I figure that’s between him and Melania. What I find amusing is that when liar-Bill Clinton was accused of rape and of engaging in sex with a young intern, which would warrant a full-pronged attack from the ladies of the #MeToo movement these days, the Democrats pooh-poohed his perjured testimony to a grand jury as being of no consequence because it only involved something as inconsequential as sex.

⦿   We hear a lot about the necessity of doing something drastic to keep Social Security from bankrupting the nation. Some people have suggested that the retirement age be raised, others that the funds be privatized or that retirees who have other adequate sources of income simply not accept their monthly checks.

The problem was inevitable once FDR and his adherents in Congress foisted the Ponzi scheme on the American people. In the mid-30s, when the legislation was passed, people, on average, died at 67. Once they began living, with inconvenient regularity, into their 70s, 80s and 90s, the system fell apart because instead of relying on the monthly checks for a couple of years, people began counting on them for a couple of decades.

But as bad as that system is, the pensions to members of the public service unions are requiring states to keep increasing taxes to pay them off. There should never have been such a thing as a public service union. Even a besotted socialist like FDR thought it was a goofy idea. But when John Kennedy saw how easily they could be used in New York City to guarantee the re-election of Mayor Robert Wagner, he couldn’t wait to use them to ensure his own re-election in 1964.

The obvious problem with this state of affairs is that inevitably when it’s time to negotiate a contract, those on one side of the table are teachers, cops, DMV clerks, trash collectors, etc., and on the other side are gutless politicians who see an easy way to buy votes with other people’s money.

⦿   There is a good deal of present-day irony when it comes to those on the Left and their attitude towards Russia. Back when the Soviet Union was in full flower, everyone from the New York Times to Lillian Hellman, Paul Robeson, Dalton Trumbo and Franklin Roosevelt, were among Joseph Stalin’s loudest cheerleaders.

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russia reverted to being just another third world troublemaker, Barack liar-nObama and liar-Hillary Clinton never stopped trying to curry favor with Vladimir Putin and his favorite oligarchs. liar-nObama even mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for having the effrontery to accuse Russia of being America’s single greatest geopolitical threat.

It’s only since Trump’s victory that those on the Left suddenly decided that in a world in which Iran, North Korea and China, are clearly out to get us, Russia is our number one nemesis.

So much for liar-nObama’s flexibility and Mrs. liar-Clinton’s reset; now we need to crush Putin because the Russkies spent $45,000 on Facebook ads in order to influence an election in which over a billion dollars was spent by the principals.

Instead of setting our hair on fire over Russia, how about going after George scum-Soros who spends countless millions of dollars financing just about every nihilistic, anti-democratic, group in the nation, doing everything in his power to undermine our institutions, destroy our culture and trash the Constitution?

⦿   Someone recently sent me a list of absurd laws that have either been passed or are on the legislative agenda in Sacramento. He wondered if it was true or if he had been pranked by a friend.

I assured him that the loonier something about California politics sounded, the likelier it was to be true.

All you have to do is check on the people we keep electing, people like Jerry Brown, who is just as cockeyed in his 70s as he was in his 30s when it was, I believe, Chicago columnist Mike Royko who re-christened him Governor Moonbeam.

Just recently, Brown, who has decided that California should be s safe haven for illegal aliens, including those guilty of arson, rape and child molestation, declared that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ filing of a federal lawsuit in opposition to California’s sanctuary state status was “a cheap political stunt.”

So, according to Brown, defending federal law is a cheap stunt, whereas trying to increase the number of registered Democrats by any means possible is the ideal that men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were seeking when they suffered the summer heat and humidity in the non-air-conditioned confines of Philadelphia’s Liberty Hall.

⦿   Years ago, I wrote that liberals were so open-minded it should come as no surprise that their brains fell out. Things have only gotten worse in the intervening years. In Seattle, the city fathers have decided that the municipal code will be revised to exclude all gender-specific words, including he, him, her and she.

Damn the expense! Some things are just so essential, the city council has no option but to prioritize pronouns over everything including repairing potholes and institutionalizing those living on the streets who pose a danger to themselves and others.

In related news, those on the Left have managed to exceed Baskin-Robbins’s boast that their 31 different flavors offered their customer the ability to savor a different one every day of the month. The loons have determined that there are now 37 different genders, a veritable smorgasbord that the terminally confused are free to choose from, starting as early as the age of four or five.

⦿  A few of my readers, noticing that I had begun replying to their email with all caps, assumed I was implying anger. No such thing. I was using capital letters because it made it made it easier for me, and, I assumed for them, to read. Believe me, when I get angry, I don’t rely on typography to get the message across.
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

Views: 21

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

George Bernard Shaw Is A Idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 To Place All The Apples In One Barrel

OK

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