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: 14

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

They all do belong in Jail

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