TRUMP DERANGEMENT
ON THE RIGHT
©2018 Burt Prelutsky
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT TO BURT PRELUTSKY ARTICLE, PLEASE MENTION MY NAME RUDY...   Contact Burt at burtprelutsky@icloud.com  

It’s bad enough when the pinheads on the Left demean President Trump and dismiss his accomplishments. After all, mental derangement is the only possible excuse for people to embrace the policies that have consistently failed in the past and have inevitably led to the two evil sides of the same counterfeit coin, Fascism and Communism.    

It’s bad enough that Karl Marx, a complete whackjob, gave birth to a movement that has somehow outlived him by 135 years, but the fact that his followers, people like scumbag-George Soros, commie-Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth dinky-Warren, Teresa May, Justin Trudeau, Raul Castro and Nikolás Maduro, are still taken seriously certainly knocks the theory of evolutionary improvement into a cocked hat. It would be like living in a world in which the Three Stooges were so influential that even decades after their passing, a great many comedians were still sticking their fingers into each other’s eyes and slapping each other silly.

As bad as those people are, I find it even more reprehensible when those attacking President Trump claim to be conservatives.

The other day, I was reading the latest issue of Commentary, a magazine that promotes itself as a counterbalance to the uberliberal New Republic, a place where, intellectually speaking, we few conservative Jews can safely tread.

The first article I read dealt with the importance of accepting loss with grace, using liar-Hillary Clinton as a living example of one’s ignoble fate when a person fails to master that ability. Halfway through the article, I was shocked and dismayed to find the President dragged in where he plainly had no reason to be. In fact, the only time I had a similar reaction was some years ago when I was reading a movie review in the New Yorker and came upon a paragraph devoted to trashing George W. Bush. It wasn’t that I entirely disagreed with what was written, but it was so out of place in a review of a movie having nothing to do with politics that I honestly assumed that a mistake had been made at the printing plant, and that the paragraph had been lifted from a different article.

It was only later, after I’d read a couple of other pieces in the same issue, that I realized that all the New Yorker writers felt obliged to earn their street creds by including an anti-Bush remark in totally inappropriate places.

In any case, I was so offended by the same sort of mischief being duplicated at Commentary that I wrote the following letter to the editor:

“In an otherwise coherent piece, Christine Rosen chose to write ‘This is why calling liar-Hillary’s campaign or Donald Trump’s administration failures which they are quickly delves into partisan mudslinging.’

“Funny, but that’s exactly how I would have described that gratuitous crack. By what metric is Trump’s administration a failure? He has cut taxes; seated one conservative justice on the Supreme Court and is pledging to seat a second, which might even lead to a reversal of the blatantly unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision; freed us from the Paris Accords; cut us loose from liar-nObama’s treasonous Iran deal; moved our embassy to Jerusalem; possibly persuaded Kim Jong-un to beat his nukes into plowshares; done his best to bring rationality to our immigration policy; helped bring about a surging economy and lower unemployment among every group; re-built the military; gotten rid of job-killing regulations by de-fanging the EPA; and announced to alleged friends and allies that we are done being punked when it comes to trade deals and tariffs.

“I thought these were all things that conservatives have been praying for. The conservatives I know personally feel as if Trump is Santa Claus bringing us every item on our Christmas wish list.

“Could it be that Ms. Rosen and the editors at Commentary are still having a prolonged hissy fit reaction to Trump’s plain speaking and his refusal to stand still and take it while the left-wing members of the media pin a ‘kick me’ sign to the seat of his pants?

“Is it just possible that for all your conservative rhetoric, down deep you secretly yearn for liar-nObama’s pretense of civility? Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky”

⦿  Media insanity reached new heights, at least at Fox News, when David Bossie, during a telephone debate with Joel Payne, suggested that Payne was “out of his cotton-pickin’ mind.”

To which Payne, who must grow weary from schlepping around a 6-foot chip on his shoulder, self-righteously replied: “I had relatives who picked cotton.”

It later turned out that Bossie didn’t know that Payne was black, not that it should have mattered. But once he got the news, he apologized, although nobody should have to apologize for using an old expression that has never had racial connotations.

And yet, Fox saw its politically correct duty and did it by suspending Bossie for two weeks. Perhaps it’s just as well that Fox never gave me a job because I would be strongly tempted to resign rather than to continue working for such a chicken-hearted outfit.

The hierarchy at Fox must be out of their scum-sucking minds. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to learn that they come from a long line of cotton-pickin’ scum-suckers.

⦿  It shouldn’t have shocked anyone that Mexico just elected a Socialist to be president. In Mexico, as is the case throughout most of Latin America, the same poor, ignorant slobs will always elect someone who promises to give them other people’s money and other people’s land, just the way their fathers and grandfathers did.

We can call it the Robin Hood syndrome -- the belief that if someone has something you want, you’re entitled to have it because you’re such a wonderful person, the proof of which is that you’re poor and, therefore, entitled.

You don’t have to go south of the border to find other examples. Every single time commie-Bernie Sanders, scumbag/mad-Maxine Waters or Elizabeth dinky-Warren, open their mouths, you might think they were running to be the president of Mexico or Honduras or Venezuela, the way they constantly promise their followers free stuff. They call it the redistribution of wealth. By which, these millionaires mean everyone’s wealth but their own.
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT TO BURT PRELUTSKY ARTICLE, PLEASE MENTION MY NAME RUDY...   Contact Burt at burtprelutsky@icloud.com  

Views: 20

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

They all do belong in Jail

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Goodbye 2020: Clinton Ordered By Federal Judge To Submit To Questioning

(TeaParty.org) – Just when Hillary Clinton began hinting that she’s ready to run again in 2020, she has been ordered by a federal judge to submit to questioning about the use of her private email server to convey classified documents during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the order as part of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a tweet following the ruling.

Judicial Watch 🔎 @JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Ordered Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under...

 (Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her...

judicialwatch.org
Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha!

As a statement from Judicial Watch explains, the ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which they began to discover why former deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, was allowed to work at the State Department while also engaged in “outside employment.”

Clinton now has 30 days to answer two key questions from a list of 25 questions composed by Judicial Watch.

The questions the judge selected are:

1) “Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

This new development is huge because it means that the two critical scandals from Clinton’s time in the State Department, her private email server and the Benghazi attacks, are facing fresh scrutiny in both the legal system and the court of public opinion.

And while Clinton likely had little chance of any run in 2020, this makes it even less likely she will stand even a shred of a chance.

We’ve have got to hope and pray that at long last, this leads to the long overdue criminal charges we’ve all been waiting to see.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service