In the Bizarro world of “htraE” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!” In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: “Guaranteed to lose money for you”. Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, “Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together”. This is intended and taken as a great compliment. – Wikipedia
Last week, there was a jihadist terror attack in a Gun Free Zone in a state with harsh and restrictive gun control laws. The two jihadis murdered 14 innocent people for Islam. One of the jihadis was a recent immigrant. One of their neighbors suspected they were up to no good, but was afraid to say anything for fear of being called racist.
How would Bizarro President respond?
- Increase the number of Islamic immigrants.
- Call for more gun control laws.
- Threaten to prosecute people who spoke out against the threat of Islamist terror.
How did Obama respond?
He called for those exact things.
America has been fundamentally transformed into Bizarro World.
And the opposition party votes to fund bizarro policy.
We are definitely a post Constitutional America.
What is this opposition party you speak of? Does it really exist?
Trump is not referring only to foreign Muslims. He says his ban applies to ‘everyone.’ If that’s the case, why would he quash the rights of millions of Muslim Americans, many of whom serve in the police and armed services? How would he propose to take away rights without due process? And why in the world would he? This is truly frightening and disgusting stuff. Up until now, it’s been the left calling for Americans to give up their rights. Not anymore.
“We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.
“So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.” Shapiro
All the establishment republicans I’ve spoken with claim to be the opposition party and are very energetic in pointing out the many ways they have successfully surrendered to the democrats on every issue as part of the plan until they have the House, Senate and POTUS. Then they will really seriously teach those democrats a lesson.
Reichsfuhrer Lynch has been trying to walk back her remarks. “Of course we prosecute deeds, not words.” But in the original speech, she said that the DOJ would “take action” against speech that “edges toward violence” and that had the “potential to raise the mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
Trump went over the top, as he often does, but so what? What good does it do the roll-over-and-play-dead RINO’s and DIABLO’s to try to appear moderate and reasonable? If you dare to suggest even the slightest improvements in vetting and screening procedures for immigrants, you are accused of wanting to persecute innocent Syrian widows and orphans. If you try to express the valid concern that some refugees might be terrorist Trojan Horses, then you are a racist, paranoid, Islamophobe. And, in our bizarro political climate, being a racist or Islamophobe is worse than being a terrorist. And more likely to be prosecuted. (Lynch is still “unsure” about the terrorists’ motives, BTW.)
Anyone who can’t see Emperor Obama’s new clothes is going to be called a racist. And anyone who refers to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik as “radical Muslims” or “Islamic extremists” will be denounced as an Islamophobe. So, since Trump already has the racist, Islamophobe name, he might as well play the game.
The Muslim community in the US has offered zero support to law enforcement. For anything. As much as I hate to say it, I’m thinking Trump may be on to something.
Now rusty cares for due process?
To be fair, immigration from Muslim countries took off after 9-11 – the Bush years. Stupidity is bipartisan.
Batshitcrazy prognazis and sandnazis love them some gun free zones.
When the Muslim community in the U.S. offers very little aid, and “refugees” in Europe praise the Paris massacre, I think Trump may be on to something.
I can see the rationale for banning non-American citizen Muslims until better vetting is in place. But American citizens should not have their rights curtailed except for individual cause and after a trial, not because they are members of a religion.
Trump may believe some of what he’s saying, but I think some of it is to get people excited. That part is working. Maybe too well.
Having said that, my priority for refugees and the like are 1. those who helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan (to their extreme peril) like translators and their families. 2. Christians, Yazidis, Jews, and non-Muslims fleeing Daesh areas. 3. families in war zones. (I think too many of the “Syrian refugees” are economic migrants, not fleeing for their lives.)
@ TheQuietMan: I agree 100% with you.
I want to know: does anybody here really think that Trump is some sort of Clinton plant? What exactly does Clinton gain by giving a sizable portion of the Republican Party exactly what they want? If Trump is a plant, is Clinton operating on a, “You want X? I’ll give you more X than you can stomach!” mentality?
I sat in a hotel in Rafina, Greece for a week this past September. I watched as ferry boats, large ships actually, docked three or four times per day each. Each trip they brought in at least 2,000 so-called refugees, who came off the ships formed up into rough columns and were marched off escorted by Greek military and/or police. At least 70% of those folks were men of military age. I’ve seen refugees and they are 70% or more women, children, old men, cripples and severely wounded military age men; very few are unwounded healthy men of military age. Now, I read a story late last week of authorities in Europe seizing a shipment of AK’s (74’s? 47’s?), grenades and plastic explosives. Folks, we do not need to take people into the U.S. for any reason from Arab or Islamic nations. People from the Middle East are especially dangerous because our own FBI has said they cannot be vetted. There are already about 600,000 Middle Easterners (Arabs, etc) nearly all Muslim, in Europe who are young healthy men. All they need is guns. And in the for what it’s worth department, there are about 2 million Muslims already in the U.S. and about 1 million are citizens. Not that we should treat them like we did the Japanese in WW2, but they ought to be watched especially their clerics. One last point: No one who was not born here or naturalized as a citizen has a Constitutionally protected right to stay here or to come here in the first place. Even those naturalized can lose their citizenship. This isn’t a game. Those folks will kill until we give in to them. They need to be kept out of the U.S.
Personally, I think that it is within the realm of possibility. His support of the Clintons is well-known; both are from Nyoo Yawk (he, natively; she, via carpetbagging), both run in generally the same circles and know roughly the same people. The Donald’s contributions to and interactions with Democrats is well-documented. His positions, until very recently, aligned more with an Upper East Side Democrat than any Republican, even a Rockefeller Republican.
A commenter on a Twitchy thread last week had an interesting hypothesis: that perhaps BJ Clinton [that would be “Billy Jeff” Clinton, to any graduates from Rio Linda] realized that his spousal unit is so unlikeable and so unappealing to so many that the only way to get them to support her or perhaps just not vote for president in 2016 is to prop up an opposing candidate who is so extreme and even more unlikeable that voting for Hillary is preferable to the thought of the crass buffoon winning by comparison. I think that idea has some merit, particularly in relation to the gaffes she keeps making and the lack of understanding of basic things everyday Americans take for granted. You’ll notice that Queen-In-Waiting Hillary never attacks Donald Trump, outside of doing a drive-by on Twitter and he, in turn, never attacks and rarely openly disagrees with her or her positions, while at the same time going to great lengths to go after others’ plans or policies or even just make a snide remark on their appearance. Why is that, when the person in question practically begs to be made fun of, if for no other reason than her choice of “neon-colored orthopedic pantsuits” (as another Twitchy commenter called them)?
If by “giving…the Republican Party what they want” you mean a candidate who appears to support their values, I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the question, as I think that the majority of Trump’s support comes from people who may nominally vote Republican, but more or less self-identify as “conservative” or “independent”. To that end, I wouldn’t call them Republicans at all, but merely “voters of convenience”. They will vote for whoever tickles their fancy on the day of election, but are not party-bound in the least. There are essentially two main ways of winning an election: make sure your voters get out to actually vote for you, and/or somehow suppress the voters who would have voted for your opponent. (Or in the case of third-party candidates, make sure that the people who wouldn’t vote for you either stay home or get out and vote for the fringe guy.)
Now some are saying that this can’t be the case because it’s inevitable that Hillary will be indicted for something in the next few months, whether it’s the e-mail scandal or some other transaction. But as anyone who has followed the Clintons knows, they never take the fall for anything they’ve done; there are plenty of people to do that for them. So even if she is magically indicted for something actionable, the chances of her being penalized for those actions is slim to none. As such, she is in it to win it, and this is her last chance. She was thwarted eight years ago by some uppity half-Black guy, but that won’t happen again. She simply won’t allow it, and neither will Bill.