by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 
Believe me, it’s not the easiest thing in the world to narrow down all the scary things about those on the Left to a single item. But when I saw Rep. scum-Adam Schiff exit the meeting where the Republican members of an intelligence committee voted to release a memo listing the unconstitutional activities of liar-nObama’s FBI and Justice Department during the 2016 presidential campaign, and heard scum-Schiff claim the memo was merely a partisan distraction to divert our attention from Trump’s collusion with Russia, I decided that the way in which Democrats ignore obvious facts is perhaps the single most repulsive thing about them.
Even though they all swore an oath to abide and to protect the U.S. Constitution, they stood by and allowed liar-nObama to subvert it by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens even after he had declared on 25 separate occasions that he lacked the constitutional authority to do so, and then left it to Trump to clean up the mess.
These days, with every hour bringing forth evidence that a cabal of high-ranking members of the FBI and the Justice Department have dedicated themselves to undermining a duly-elected President, people like clown-Schumer, Pulosi, scum-Durbin and Blumenthal insist it’s much ado about nothing. They’re like brats on a schoolyard covering their ears and humming, incessantly repeating: “Can’t hear you!”
* On the other hand, if you’re a conservative, liar-Hillary Clinton continues to be the gift that keeps on giving.  After spending months blaming everyone in the universe for her loss to the Trumpster, she is back to portraying herself as Wonder Woman, the Greatest Feminist who ever lived, the breaker of glass ceilings, the protector of all women everywhere.
Well, maybe not everywhere. She never spoke up on behalf of the downtrodden women of the Muslim world, especially when she was the beneficiary of Middle East bribes to her family’s Foundation.
She is, in fact, the single biggest enabler of boorish men in America. For openers, there’s her husband, who put grease on his zipper, so he didn’t have to waste any time getting out of his own pants and into some woman’s.
Then there’s her good friend and political ally, Harvey Weinstein, who, even prior to the recent expose, was as well-known for his abuse of women as he was for his movies. Even after legions of women had come forward to testify to his swinish behavior, Mrs. liar-Clinton was reluctant to speak ill of her financial benefactor.
Now, it comes out that back in 2008, when liar-Hillary Clinton was waging a battle for the party nomination, she was told that a senior male advisor had been making life intolerable for a female underling, and instead of firing Burns Strider, demoted the young woman.
And still, millions of American women swear allegiance to her. But, I suppose it shouldn’t come as too big a surprise in a world in which those on the Left believe liar-nObama was a better president and a more honorable man than Trump, that Bill Maher makes sense and that people like Joy Behar, Stephen Colbert and Whoopi Goldberg, are both funny and politically perceptive.
* When Robert Mueller kicked off his investigation, he was supposed to get to the bottom of the charge, based we now know on a phony dossier bought and paid for by liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that Trump or his advisors had colluded (I love that word) with the Russkies.
I keep waiting for someone on the right side of the aisle to ask the Democrats when it was exactly that Russia became our archenemy. I know it was some time after 2012 because liar-nObama mocked Mitt Romney for suggesting during a debate that Russia was America’s major geopolitical threat in the world.
I also know it came after that because both liar-nObama and his Secretary of State had been playing footsies with the Russians for a number of years, during which time liar-nObama promised to be increasingly flexible towards Russia, leaving many of us to wonder how he would manage that, inasmuch as he had already stepped aside and allowed Putin to gobble up Crimea, invade Ukraine and send troops into Syria to protect Iran’s puppet, Bashar al-Assad.
In the meantime, Mrs. liar-Clinton turned over a sizable amount of America’s uranium deposits to, of all places, Russia.
Getting back to Robert Mueller aka James Comey’s best friend, if the rumors are true, he’s nosing around everything Trumpian, including his deportment in nursery school.
To me, it would appear that Mueller has failed to find anything connecting Trump and his closest advisors to Russia, and now, like a D.A. who got an indictment for murder against an innocent party, decides midway through the trial to pursue a conviction for driving with an expired license, just so it won’t be a total loss.
* It seems that the French Air Force has trained four golden eagles to intercept and destroy suspicious drones in the area of the presidential palace and restricted military sites.
They were trained, as birds of prey always are, with food.  Bring home a drone in its talons and they get fed.
Although the eagles include a female, they have been named d’Artagnan, Athos, Porthos and Aramis, as an homage to “The Three Musketeers.”
Apparently, the birds have been outfitted with mittens made of leather and Kevlar to protect them from the blades of the drones. It hasn’t been reported whether the birds have been supplied with little white flags in case they ever happen to encounter German drones.
* Someone told me that Ann Coulter said that the Democrats treat black people like the wife who will iron their husband’s short for a date with his mistress. I apologize if my informant got it wrong, but that would better describe the behavior of blacks towards Democrats, who, after all, consistently display contempt for the black drudge sitting at home, sewing his socks, while he pursues the hot Latina number, pledging amnesty and citizenship the way a sugar daddy bargains for the favors of a chorus girl with furs and diamond necklaces.
*  Speaking of immigration, Dick Frohman, who calls Indian Wells, CA, home for some inexplicable reason, sent me a copy of Zambia’s Immigration Policy.
It seems that if you’re considering moving to that African nation, they want you to know that “An immigrant to Zambia must have a contribution to make in the form of skill, profession or capital that would be of benefit to the people of Zambia.”
Moreover, “An immigrant should not deprive a citizen of Zambia of employment; neither should he be a charge on the state.  He must have the means with which to support himself and his dependents in Zambia.”
And, finally, “An immigrant intending to settle in Zambia must be in possession of an entry permit.”
In some ways, it would seem that when we demean other countries, it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle a shithole. 
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 

Views: 41

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 
Will It Change?

Are you sure about that

by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 
I really can not wait to go back to war against the UK.
I would sign back just for the chance to see
The United Nations Nuked
and this Bitc*
 The Queen Of England
In Prison

Nope, hanio queen of scum

by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 


by Burt Prelutsky
If you want to Comment directly to Burt Prelutsky, please mention my name Rudy. 





Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


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.


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. 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