Nebraska Dem Party Official Glad Scalise Was Shot

According to his words in a released YouTube video, Phil Montag, a technology chairman for the Nebraska Democratic Party, was glad that House Majority Steve Scalise was shot last week, and he wishes that Scalise had been killed.

“This motherf***r, his whole job is to get people, convince Republicans to f***ing kick people off of f***ing health care,” Montag was captured saying. “I’m glad he got shot. I’m not gonna f***ing say that publicly. I’m glad he got shot.”

“I wish he was f***ing dead,” he later added.

Montag was fired by Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb soon after the audio became public.

The firing came one week after another Democratic leader in Nebraska, Black Caucus Chairwoman Chelsey Gentry-Tipton, posted these disparaging remarks on Facebook about victims of the Congressional baseball shooting:

“Watching the congressman crying on live tv abt the trauma they experienced. Y is this so funny tho?”

“Hard to be empathetic towards those that have no empathy for us. The very people that push pro NRA legislation in efforts to pad their pockets with complete disregard for human life. Yeah, having a hard time feeling bad for them.”

Gentry-Tipton was asked by the state party to resign for her comments, but it doesn’t appear that she has.

It’s hard to fathom, even in the hyper-partisan culture that we now live in, how any political leader could find amusement or take pleasure in another political leader being shot and having to fight for his life.

Is this kind of sentiment representative of the Democratic leadership in Nebraska and beyond? The answer is would certainly be no, but you can bank on one thing: Members of the national media will not demand that prominent Democratic leaders denounce these controversial statements, the way they would Republican leaders if this rhetoric had come from the other side of the aisle.

In the case of Montag in particular, it would seem pertinent to seek comment from Senator Elizabeth Warren. After all, she’s been publicly saying that the Republican healthcare bill will literally kill people, and that the legislation comes down to the GOP trafficking in “blood money” to help rich folks.

Some might dismiss such statements as political hyperbole, but people like Montag clearly subscribe them — to the point where a GOP congressman pushing healthcare reform is so dangerous to society that his murder (in Montag’s mind) would be justifiable.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that individuals should be held accountable for their own words and actions. Then again, I didn’t write the rules of the mainstream media. One of those rules, as often exercised selectively against Republicans, is that when a political figure or group says or does something provocative, notable figures from the affiliated party must answer for it, and be called on to denounce it.

This has been the case with everything from random Tea Party rhetoric, to Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” comment, to statements from political surrogates and local candidates, to Joe Wilson yelling “you lie”, to practically all forms of domestic gun violence, to just about anything related to Donald Trump (going as far back as when he was leading the Birther movement, years before he became a politician).

But you won’t see this in the case of Phil Montag, even though his words could have easily been inspired by the extreme sentiment echoed from the top-tiers of the Democratic party. The mainstream media will instead cast Montag the same way a typical person probably would: as a lone-wolf offender who was dealt with quickly and effectively, thus leaving no need for deeper examination.

And this course of action (or rather non-action) will seem perfectly reasonable to most journalists, even though a much different standard would have been applied if Montag were a Republican.

That’s how ideological bias operates, after all.

And now, a special message from the President of the United States, concerning the release of John A. Daly’s upcoming novel, Broken Slate.




You Know You’re a Liberal If…

A friend recently sent me a list defining the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Because so many people write to me, insisting that they can’t see any difference, I’ll print out my slightly revised version as a public service:

  1. If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one; if a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants them outlawed.
  2. If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat; if a Democrat is a vegetarian, he expects the federal government to ban meat products, along with salt, sugar and chocolate.
  3. If a Republican is a homosexual, he quietly leads his life; if a Democrat is homosexual, he demands that marriage be turned into a free-for-all.
  4. If a Republican is poor, he thinks about how to best improve his situation; a Democrat demands a hand-out.
  5. If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches stations; Democrats demand that he be tossed off the air.
  6. If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t attend church; an agnostic Democrat wants all references to God, Jesus and Christmas, to be banished from the land and will lie about the First Amendment to help him get his way.

In spite of believing all of that, I still doubt that any of the Republicans seeking the nomination will be able to carry through on their promise to eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education and Energy, and all the federal regulations that Chairman Obama has put into place. It’s not that I doubt their sincerity, but getting rid of regulations means getting rid of regulators. And I simply can’t picture a Republican president adding hundreds of thousands of unskilled, essentially unemployable, bureaucrats to the unemployment rolls.

The fact that liberals are so sheep-like in their opinions has led me to conclude that they’re not born like the rest of us, but merely cloned.

I have spent years trying to get inside the mind of a liberal. I can only explain my failure as an inability to blast through all the concrete. One of the few things I have managed to figure out is that they are not unaware that socialism hasn’t worked out too well in China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, France, Greece or Nazi Germany, but they have somehow convinced themselves that the only problem with the alternative to capitalism is that it has never been done correctly. In that way, as in so many others, they’re exactly like those goofballs who assume they can use heroin and cocaine without becoming addicted.

The only reason, I’ve decided, that people can be so easily convinced that day is night, black is white, and up is down, is because it’s only very small lies that are transparent to everyone. To see through big lies, lies that are foisted on us by those who want to peddle us bad drugs and even worse ideas, is that you actually require the ability to think for yourself.

This being an election year, I hear a number of people claiming what they seek in a president or a senator is a statesman. I, for my part, think “statesman” is a euphemism that politicians concocted for themselves in the same way that garbage collectors decided they preferred being called waste managers.

I say, if you got your job by running for office and getting elected, thus avoiding having to prove you’re qualified to do anything genuinely useful, you’re a politician. What’s more, if you owe your job to a politician, you’re a bureaucrat.

The only time a politician should ever be referred to as a statesman is when he dies. After all, nobody expects sincerity in obituaries, and his family will probably appreciate the gesture.

Cyril Northcote Parkinson was an Englishman who gave his last name not to the dreadful disease, but to the Law that states that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. It’s hard not to believe that he had the U.S. Congress in mind when he came up with that notion, but perhaps Parliament served equally well as his muse. Mr. Parkinson also observed that there’s nothing that an official loves more than multiplying his subordinates, which is why bureaucracies regularly rise by 5-7% annually, irrespective of the amount of work to be done, even in the midst of a financial meltdown.

C.N. Parkinson was also the fellow who pointed out that expenditures inevitably rise — and I would add, generally exceed — income. And that holds true for governments every bit as much as individuals.

Speaking of excess, we have an aristocracy in America, but instead of the dukes and lords Parkinson had to contend with, ours consists of actors, rock stars, professional athletes and people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, who seem to have glommed onto fame and fortune through the simple but mystifying process of drawing a number out of a cosmic hat.


©2012 Burt Prelutsky.Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com!

Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, postpaid.
Get both for just $39.90.
Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)



Confessions of an Ex-Democrat

When you’re a conservative, it’s just about impossible, unless you’re the sort of person who wins million dollar lotteries, to not have some friends and relatives who are liberal. The secret, I’ve found, to maintaining even slightly cordial relationships with them is to never share your honest opinions about anything important, sliding through social occasions discussing the weather, sports and, well, more weather.

The truth is I have removed a fair number of people from my social circle over the past few years simply because they support Barack Obama’s policies and respond favorably to his race and class warfare rhetoric. That may strike some people as petty and intolerant, but what would it say about me if I associate with people whose beliefs, values and behavior, I abhor? Why on earth would I want to spend time with those whom I am convinced are doing their utmost to destroy the nation I love?

I understand that most people who vote for people like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Waxman and Reid, are benign. They may be great neighbors and wonderful, caring parents, but they are also enablers. When people help addicts feed their habits, they’re not acting out of love, but out of fear that if they behave responsibly they will no longer be loved by the addict. But of course the addict doesn’t love anyone or anything but his drug of choice.

Liberals are by nature bullies, which is why in Hollywood, they openly boast about blacklisting conservatives and why, in Washington and the mass media, they bludgeon Republicans who stand by their principles, referring to them as fascists, racists, obstructionists and hostage-taking terrorists.

Ironically, I have found it easier to draw a line between myself and the liberals I know personally than between myself and the repugnant creatures in the entertainment world. I would love to be able to boycott the movies and TV shows that feature the likes of Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, Janeane Garofalo, Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney, Ed Asner, Larry David and Morgan Freeman, but the truth is I lack the requisite amount of character to go cold turkey even when these left-wing turkeys are involved.

Furthermore, in the interests of full disclosure, I should confess that for a long time I was a Democrat. But, in my own defense, I was never a liberal. For those of a tender age, I should hasten to mention that there was a time when it was possible to be one without being the other. So, for instance, I could be a registered Democrat while simultaneously opposing unilateral disarmament. I could be a Democrat and still believe that Whitaker Chambers was telling the truth and that Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg were lying when they denied being Soviet spies. I could oppose Jim Crow laws while at the same time regarding racial quotas as reverse racism. I could be angry about Watergate and still oppose the slandering and libeling of Clarence Thomas. I could even be a Democrat and still despise the universally beloved Walter Cronkite, whose pose as an objective newsman was as phony as Obama’s attempt to foist himself off as bi-partisan, for doing his best to make certain we didn’t win the Vietnam War.

These days, I’m not at all confident that a Democrat could make those distinctions. Not when Rep. Maxine Waters has the audacity to label Rep. Allen West, a retired military officer, an “Oreo,” and not be denounced by the media, the NAACP or the Black Congressional Caucus.

Even when I was a Democrat, I knew that nobody was entitled to sneak into this country. And if he was found out, he certainly wasn’t entitled to receive schooling, health care and financial aid. I also was bright enough to know that when a nation’s border consists of sand, deportation isn’t going to be much of a deterrent. Even I, at my present advanced age, can easily scale a non-existent wall.

I can understand why Rick Perry, running for governor in a state that has a huge Mexican population, would feel he had to speak out against a barrier on our southern border and had to promote in-state tuition for the offspring of illegal aliens. That doesn’t mean I approve, but politics isn’t a game for purists unless they have their hearts set on losing elections. However, when he appeared at the GOP debate and said that if we opposed his tuition policy we were heartless, and added that because the illegals had Hispanic names, it also meant we were racists, he stepped way too far over the line.

While it’s true that the children of illegal aliens had no say in the matter when it came to sneaking across our border, we all know that no one is ever entitled to profit from the commission of a crime. Just because the child of a bank robber, for instance, didn’t drive the getaway car doesn’t mean that he’s entitled to live off the ill-gotten loot.

So, although I had been delighted when Governor Perry tossed his 10-gallon hat into the ring, I’m no longer cutting him any slack. He didn’t simply misspeak; he went and stuck both of his expensive cowboy boots in his mouth. It had nothing to do with his lack of debating skills. It had everything to do with arrogance and stupidity. We’ve just endured three years of that combination, and we don’t need four more years of the same.

Perry simply had no business saying what he did. After all, if conservatives want to be gratuitously insulted by ignoramuses, they merely have to turn on MSNBC.


©2011 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write Burt!
Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, shipping included.   Get both for just $39.90. Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)



Myths and Misses

by Burt Prelutsky

A lot of the things that people accept on faith are nothing more than time-honored, widely accepted lies. For instance, ever since its inception, we have all come to accept as gospel that Israelis are the most formidable fighters in the world. At one time, that may have been true. They certainly made quick work of the Arabs during the Six Day War. But that was then and this is now.

Back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, Israel was a pit bull of a nation. But during the intervening years, thanks to a left-wing population and a series of left-wing prime ministers who more closely resemble Michelle Obama than Golda Meir, Israel has been reduced to the condition of a toothless poodle that wags its tail anytime someone utters the words “peace process” within earshot. By the way, “peace process,” when translated into Arabic means “Give us more land and, in return, we might stop firing missiles at your civilians for the next five minutes.”

Another bit of hooey that’s enjoyed credence, at least in right-wing circles, was a recent survey that indicated that whereas only 20% of Americans identified themselves as liberals, twice as many call themselves conservatives. Frankly, I’m astounded and embarrassed that so many of my fellow conservatives accepted this as solid evidence that Americans were coming to their senses. I have to wonder how could so many otherwise intelligent people overlook the obvious fact that the survey wasn’t a scientific measurement. It merely asked people what they were.

Well, I would think that everyone realizes that there are a great many people who are liberal but would prefer not labeling themselves as such for the sake of a survey. After all, all by themselves, blacks — 90% of whom are Democrats — constitute about 14% of the population. Toss in Jewish voters, 80% of whom are Democrats, and you add a couple more percentage points. Add youngsters between the age of 18 and 30, most of whom are registered Democrats, and you can easily see how absurd those survey numbers are.

The truth is that in every presidential election, 40% of the people will vote for any Republican and 40% will vote for any Democrat. It’s that remaining 20% who regard themselves as moderates or independents, but are actually political nincompoops and can be swayed by slogans as mindless as “Hope and Change,” who unfortunately determine election results. It’s from their ranks that you also find the five or ten percent who, even a week before an election, remain undecided. That isn’t because they are carefully weighing the pros and cons of the candidates or the issues, but because, more often than not, they are totally clueless.

What I find scary is that even some of my fellow pundits bought into that survey, somehow ignoring the obvious fact that in spite of the 20% showing by liberals, twice that number think Obama is doing a swell job. Who do they think those additional people are? Erstwhile conservatives who’ve seen the error of their ways? Whigs who had second thoughts and have snuck back in from Canada?

The problem is that the pundits forgot that most liberals, in and out of the media, are so delusional, they actually believe their positions on such matters as ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, the stimulus bill and card checks, are sensible and middle of the road, and that they, themselves, are moderates.

Their lunacy is in such an advanced stage that they never even wonder why it is, if they’re so darn moderate, that on every major issue, they are in total agreement with socialists like Bernie Sanders, communists like Noam Chomsky and Van Jones, and just plain crazy people like Barack Obama, Henry Waxman and Harry Reid.

©2010 Burt Prelutsky>

Write to: BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.

Want more Burt? Check BurtPrelutsky.com

To send this article, click the envelope icon↓