BIG BOOBS VS. DONALD TRUMP
by Burt Prelutsky
 
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 
There’s a certain irony in the fact that two of the women who are leading the attack on President Trump could collectively answer to the nickname “Big Boobs.” I am naturally referring to Stormy Daniels nee Stephanie Clifford and liar-Hillary Clinton.
 
Because those on the Left want to do everything in their power to encourage anyone who opposes President Trump, their favorite pundits on CNN and MSNBC often identify Stormy as an actress. But we should all keep in mind that her biggest hits never went into general release; not with titles like “Trailer Trash Nurses,” “Bikini Kitchen,” “Porking with Pride,” “Operation: Desert Stormy” and its sequel, “Operation: Tropical Stormy,” although I suspect they would all be easier to sit through than “The Phantom Thread,” “Ladybird” or the excruciating Oscar-winner, “The Shape of Water.”
 
I do, however, want to defend Stormy against those who insist on pointing out that she has occasionally denied having sex with Donald Trump, while at other times she claims to recall it vividly. Considering how she has earned her living for the past 18 years, I think it’s perfectly understandable if she can’t always keep the names straight.
 
On the other hand, I can’t think of a single excuse for liar-Hillary Rodham Clinton. As a young lawyer, she reveled in the fact that she had managed to get a middle-aged man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl off with a wrist slap. Later in life, she relished demeaning the women her husband had sexually assaulted while defending him and dismissing them as “lying trailer trash.”
 
Now, she has the gall to take credit for the #MeToo Movement, claiming to have been the inspiration for women calling out their serial abusers. This, coming from the woman who’s befriended the likes of Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein, and served as a blocking guard for liar-Bill Clinton, is the ultimate display of hypocritical chutzpah. It would be like Louis Farrakhan whining that the B’nai B’rith had once again passed him over when it came time to name their Man of the Year.
 
⦿  I know that most people probably don’t believe me when I insist I wouldn’t want to have a billion dollars. If such a sum fell into my lap, I would get rid of it quickly, giving some of it to friends, including some of my readers whose strained circumstances prevent their paying full price for their subscriptions. I’d also give a lot to charities for children, animals and military veterans, but only after I had carefully vetted them; and, finally, to medical researchers seeking cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s and, if I can find any, liberalism.
 
As I see it, if you have a huge amount of money, it requires spending an awful lot of one’s time with lawyers and accountants. Besides, there’s not much that I want to own. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a castle. Those places require an army of servants, and I don’t want to have to live in a place where people are constantly distracting me by cleaning and dusting and fluffing up pillows. I’m crazy enough the way things are without asking for trouble.
 
Even in movies, I’m never the least bit jealous when I see rich people riding around in Bentley’s or having the front door opened by a butler. In fact, there are only two times in my life that I ever saw something and thought to myself “I’d like to have one of those.”
 
The first time was when I saw James Cameron’s “Titanic.” While most people focused on the young lovers, I couldn’t help noticing the villain’s henchman. Even as the ship was going down, he was still trying to carry out his boss’s instructions, which I seem to recall consisted of killing Leonardo DiCaprio’ character. An order I might have given him myself.
 
The next time I found myself wishing I had someone like that in my life is when I heard that Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, say that he had not only paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket to buy her silence but was such a good egg that he never even mentioned it to the President.
 
And I can’t even get my lawyer to return my calls!
 
⦿  Every single time I hear some Democrat who’s arguing for open borders insist that all these poor illiterates are great for the economy, I feel the simultaneous urge to giggle and to hurl a brick at the TV screen.
 
If only you could tie the bozos to a chair and keep them tied up until they explained how it is that the places the illegal aliens come from – Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala – don’t boast thriving economies, even though they are blessed with tens of millions of poor ignoramuses. Or, perhaps, I would cut to the chase and simply ask them how it is that next to Antarctica, Africa is the poorest and least desirable continent on the face of the earth.
 
⦿  Although we tend to think of the American revolution as a war between good people and bad people, we are fortunate that our enemies at the time were English.
 
King George III was hardly a prince of a fellow, but England was the nation that gave the world the Magna Carta, which offered protection to the Church, protected the barons from illegal imprisonment and unwarranted taxation, and promised access to swift justice.
 
Although it was an agreement between the King and a few other nobles, having little practical effect on the lives of commoners, and although it went through various permutations through the ages, it did provide a 500-year-old jumping-off place for the Founding Fathers, who perfected the document and made it a Magna Carta for every American.
 
It probably also explains why Australia, which began as a depository for England’s most incorrigible criminals, is today a democracy and a staunch American ally. Probably the country’s major shortcoming is that progressives have so much political influence Down Under that the citizens allowed themselves to be disarmed by the politicians, just as their American cousins are attempting to do over here.
 
⦿  In related news, the city leaders of Deerfield, Illinois, are insisting their constituents surrender their guns or be fined $1,000-a-day. The Land of Lincoln is starting to sound a lot like the Land of Lenin.
 
Meanwhile, in New York, the Land of Cuomo and Di Blasio, pressure is being applied to banks and credit card companies to do their part to prevent their services being employed in the purchase of firearms.
 
⦿  Long before Donald Trump attracted the enmity of the Deep State saboteurs, the leaders and bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom, a common alias for the State Department, have been at odds with most patriotic Americans. They tried to push America into the League of Nations and finally, unfortunately, succeeded to get us into the U.N.; and their record of anti-Semitism, which, these days, takes the politer form of being anti-Israel, is a long-established fact of life. If one paid the slightest bit of attention to the globalists who have served as the Secretary of State, you would realize why our foreign relations have often been at odds with our national interests.
 
Things started out okay in the early days when the president could choose from the ranks of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, but once we got to the likes of Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson’s helpmate in pushing for membership in the League of Nations; along with Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, liar-Hillary Clinton and hanoi-John Kerry, we were clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
 
Considering the fact that one man, Barack Hussein liar-nObama, was responsible for appointing two of those deplorables, it shouldn’t come as too big a surprise that we recently learned that liar-nObama’s State Department handed nine million of our tax dollars to scum-George Soros, so he could support the communist government in Albania, while leaving him with more of his own money to spend promoting communism in Guatemala, Colombia, Romania and his own native Hungary.
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. burtprelutsky@icloud.com 

Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hank

What hearing aid?

LMAO....

Hank

I'm laughing also

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

ALERT ALERT

FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

TEA PARTY TARGET

 Trump Poised To Take
 Control Of The Federal Reserve 

  • The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
  • President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
  • Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
  • The result could be a more politicized Fed.

President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.

First, He Can

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.

The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

Second, Regulation

Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.

These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).

Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.

Three, Killing Economic Growth

In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.

This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.

Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.

Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.

Bottom Line

The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service