By Rick Clements
I have said it since the Progressives took power in Chico, I said it when the Progressives lied to the Californian voters and got elected by calling themselves “moderates”. They now control 68% of the State Assembly and Senate, they got Moonbeam elected; and they all did it using the same tool their political model requires. Lie about yourself. Cook the books when you have the power to do so. Use the Liberal media to shame and embarrass your detractors, and support the “talking point” lies issued from the top party officials, but most importantly and above all, always,…support, defend, and never break ranks when using the Progressive Liberal/Democrat motto: “United We Lie”.
The Progressives and their Unions have spent years in the making and building of how to grow their ranks. First, and most importantly of all, they had to be in control of the Educational system from K4 to College graduation. After adopting their Union friends, they would pick the teacher’s and college professors in which to control and allow the manipulation of the young student minds and their lifestyles to begin. Using Political Correctness was instrumental to starting the brainwashing process. The use of “protected tenure” created by the Unions and by requiring the Tenure inclusiveness within their negotiated contract language terms, this would allow the Progressive Liberal indoctrination process to go on long term without being interrupted. The tenure apparatus created, also allowed all teachers and professor’s to live worry free about any termination of their job employment. The Democrats and the Democratically controlled State Assembly under Governor Gray Davis put everything planned into motion by putting the Educational system under the Union’s blanket by renaming and including them as “Public Sector Employees” to which the Government controls the financial purse strings.
The Californian voter never saw it coming until it was to late to stop. And now you have total destruction of the entire Country and it’s capitalistic economy having been underway with the election of Obama which included the last seven years of abusing the powers of the Congress and the Constitution. The Progressives don’t care who will prevail in Court, they have learned to survive and grow by installing their own laws that will never survive the Judicial system’s check and balances, or any of the Court’s final legal findings; rather, it’s the damage to the financial system they will and do intentionally inflict while everyone during the interim of awaiting the legal conclusions, which they know, drags on for years on end. Obama’s ObamaCare, illegal immigration executive orders that bypassed Congress, The IRS scandal, The Debt rising to over 19 Trillion, the American Foreign Policy image, you name it, this Progressive Liberal model of which I have described here, is the legitimate source of this Country’s infection. How to get rid of and cleanse the Country and its citizens from this corruption is entirely up to the voter to correct and cure, but the mainstream liberal media’s job is to see that that cleansing process never begins…that is…until Trump.
The “United We Lie” Democrats cannot destroy Trump financially and that is what has been the base of their frustration and failures to control this election; unlike the way they made sure Obama won with their “Control the message..Control the Voters” strategy. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Lying New York Times!!
Rick Clements sees it for what it is. A brilliant mind that cuts to the heart the fascistic (bundle of sticks) left-wing Democrat machine that rules California. I am happy that Post Scripts took my advice to put this on the front page.
By the way, the notion that fascism is some sort of right-wing invention, only the ignorati of the left believe that.
Pie Guevara (David Walton)
Actually, Pie, it’s in dictionary. I’ve explained this to you before. I don’t know why you can’t keep it straight. I am a socialist. You are a fascist. I don’t want to have to explain this to you again.
It’s you Libby, who needs to get a clue. The communists and fascist of Europe and Russia argued over which brand of socialism was best and there i where left and right were born…both are still socialist brands and neither is anything like the brand supported by right wingers in America.
American conservatives (including conservative Democrats) simply believe in the American form of government based on individual freedom supported by the rule of law. Capitalism, tempered by the rule of law, is an obvious outcome of freedom, as individuals pursue happiness unencumbered by big government interference and the desire to manage and control outcomes. The law in this system is meant to support the people in their pursuits and guard against fraud and abuse. It is not meant to manage or pick winners and losers.
So NO, Pie is not fascist nor are 99.999% of Republicans. We are patriots who eschew socialism in any form as a failed system.
The Democrat Party, on the other hand, has been overcome by radical socialists based in the principles of Marx (shared misery) but inclusive of fascist ways (government management). There are few patriots left in your party which explains the great divide. You guys love America as you see it becoming (European style socialism) and not as she was founded.
Again, if you will not agree to abide by the established meaning of words … we cannot communicate … if that’s what you want to do.
Fascism is of the right. Socialism is of the left. You don’t get to call people fascists just because you like the way it sounds.
And capitalists most certainly do pick winners and losers. You support it because they’ve persuaded you that you are in the winner’s camp. But I don’t think that a “winner” would be quite as frightened and resentful as you seem to be. Give it some thought.
Pardon me dear Libbya, I am not a fascist, and you are an idiot.
An idiot who thinks a dictionary is the only credible resource > Libby.
Yes Libbya, you are are socialist but I am not a fascist. Go f*** yourself you obnoxious and silly c*** from Rat hell.
Ooh, the C word. Nice. My mother taught me never to call a woman that, no matter the circumstances. Pie, unfortunately, never got that lesson.
Pie Guevara, you are one nasty individual.
I think he thinks it’s entertaining.
We could try to tell him, again, that it makes him look like a potty-mouthed nine-year-old … But if, intellectually, that’s what he is … well, probably we should just leave him to his entertainment.
Off Topic
House Republicans finally getting some balls?
I could be wrong, Pie, but I think the Republicans have been dragging their feet, biding their time, and carrying a pile of evidence in frustration because they know the administration and it’s many czars have no integrity and no intention to either adhere to the law or engage in appropriate processes honestly. This administration is coordinated as the most hard core attempt at dictatorship this nation has ever seen. Tipping the scales to socialism,redistribution, and permanent single party rule has been the only goal. Everything else going on has just been a slow walk through the circumstances without regard to outcomes.
I fear you may be right.
Single party? So now WE are responsible for the impending implosion of the Repugs?
Everything is always somebody else’s fault. Paranoia has its uses, I guess. Prevents the painful business of examining you own culpability.
I’m sorry Rick, but the airing of assorted bigotries in public is shameful. If you were hoping we’d pretend otherwise, you’re out of luck.
You may think that The Donald has given
you “permission” to undo 50 years of social progress … but you have been mislead.
The problem for you Libby is that your picture of a bigoted right wing is a figment of your imagination. You constructed this enemy and now get to live with the lie. As far as “social progress” is concerned if any REAL progress has been made it has been made by ordinary people eliminating and breaking down barriers together…there was no fight to hold minorities back. The idea is a political construct made by the bigoted, KKK embracing party. Once the worm had turned in the sixties your party did what all agitator based parties do, you created a straw man enemy of the opposition to perpetuate your own power.
The only barriers left in America for any person of any color are the ones our government constructs. The progressive position of dependency, is the greatest of all barriers! You people are a disgrace to the notion of equality for people of color! You convince them they are being victimized to keep them in their place and convince them to fall in line for Democrats…despicable!
If Trump proposes bigoted policy (you are not really denying this are you?) and people vote for him, do they not support the bigoted policy?
Now, of course, if you are denying the flagrant bigotry in The Donald’s pronouncements, then we two are not occupying the same cosmic plain, and there is no point in continuing with this. We’ll just have to hang until November, and see whose “reality” prevails.
Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder, especially when it’s a knee jerk fabrication!
Libby, most of the conservatives here have denied that Trump’s policy of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is bigoted. Of those that have not explicitly denied it, I’ve seen none call it what it clearly is, which is religious bigotry, by definition. So I have to conclude none of them find this policy bigoted.
It’s unbelievable, but it’s what they believe.
Bullshit from the king of bullshit.
It’s unbelievable that you guys don’t or won’t get that when a male human sperm penetrates a female human egg a human life is created. It doesn’t compute and that in America we value and protect human life. Some of you even deny that killing a full term baby, as long as the head is prevented from exiting the woman’s body first, is murder, but there you are.
Somehow it must be made clear that Muslims who wish to live in freedom need to force reform in their religion and work with the rest of the world to end the violent, aggressive, bigoted totalitarian elements that dominate in their religion. The statement speaks to that sentiment. It has to be the most difficult problem any have confronted within their religion in centuries, but it cannot be tolerated or ignored. The bigotry is righteous outrage at what is wrong in the religion. Do you disagree, Chris or will you continue to hold to the PC cowardly line that creates animosity and chaos and never solves anything?
Tina: “Somehow it must be made clear that Muslims who wish to live in freedom need to force reform in their religion and work with the rest of the world to end the violent, aggressive, bigoted totalitarian elements that dominate in their religion.”
And…banning all Muslim immigration will help them do that how, exactly?
As I wrote, clearly wrote, this is messaging. (The statement speaks to that sentiment.)
The message: We will not tolerate the violent, aggressive, bigoted totalitarian elements in the Muslim religion….and until we can figure out exactly what to do about the extraordinary danger and mess the former administration has created through his feckless handling of the situation we will take a pause.
It will not be the only message but it is one message. A message of strength, not bigotry or anger…or appeasement. If a band of rogue Christians were suddenly bombing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan and threatening to establish Christian religious, social, and legal authoritarian rule I’d expect them to do the same.
This is an unconventional enemy requiring unconventional methods of aggression and defense. That it’s also a religious enemy is unfortunate but also something we cannot avoid or pretend away. You cannot defeat an enemy you will not name.
No, it’s *not* a message of strength, it’s a message of fear and weakness; a message that we will compromise our values out of desperation; and a message that we will let the terrorists win at changing the fundamental character of our nation.
Only the chronically afraid would interpret that as “strength.”
Say what you will about George W. Bush, he never would have suggested banning all Muslim immigration. Never.
“It will not be the only message but it is one message. A message of strength, not bigotry or anger…or appeasement. If a band of rogue Christians were suddenly bombing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan and threatening to establish Christian religious, social, and legal authoritarian rule I’d expect them to do the same.”
Really? So if Uganda bans all Christian immigration due to the Lord’s Resistance Army, that’s OK with you? It’s not bigoted if England bans all Catholic immigration due to the IRA?
You’re not being honest with yourself, Tina.
I ask again: can you name ONE foreign policy expert who agrees that banning all Muslim immigration wold help, rather than harm, our efforts to fight terror? If you can’t, will you conclude that–like your support of anti-trans bathroom laws–your support of this proposal is simply you wanting to FEEL more safe, rather than something that will actually improve safety?
Another thing I don’t get: Trump supporters say that banning guns won’t reduce gun violence…but banning Muslim immigration will reduce terrorism? And social conservatives say the same thing…but banning transgender people from bathrooms will reduce sex crimes? It doesn’t make any sense.
” a message that we will compromise our values out of desperation”
There is no compromise to our values nor is this messaging done out of “fear” or “desperation.”
In all of nature living things defend themselves against attack and when appropriate, violently.
It is a valueless society indeed that tolerates the violent, bigoted, oppressive and totalitarian nature of the Muslim jihadists while others around them are oppressed, maimed, tortured and murdered in cold blood. It’s a valueless society that allows such a group to silently invade the nations of the earth to commit these acts and more from within and do nothing. If this evil group were reasonable, in any way shape or form, we might be able to take another tack…they are not. The movements of Martin Luther King or Gandhi would have no effect with these animals; you don’t seem to get that.
“Say what you will about George W. Bush, he never would have suggested banning all Muslim immigration. Never. ”
udes
Oh, now the nasty Bush hater is suddenly a Bush fan?
Tell you what, neither you nor I knows whether a circumstance might occur to cause Bush to make such a statement. What we do know is that he managed the war in such a way that we were not confronted with such a desperate problem. This is a direct outcome of the President’s reckless appeasing attitude and his casual sleepwalking approach to this war being waged on us.
“So if Uganda bans all Christian immigration due to the Lord’s Resistance Army, that’s OK with you? It’s not bigoted if England bans all Catholic immigration due to the IRA? ”
No. It would be a (temporary) tactic taken during extraordinary times. It has NOTHING to do with DNA and everything to do with handling a threat. It would be an honorable thing to me as a Christian to cooperate so that the evil people calling themselves the Lord’s Resistance Army could be defeated. As a Christian I do not recognize them as Christian and do not appreciate what they do in the Lords name.
“You’re not being honest with yourself, Tina.”
Please don’t try to paste me into your PC reality. I am being entirely honest. In terms of “values” we are either against evil where ever it exists or we are not.
“…can you name ONE foreign policy expert who agrees that banning all Muslim immigration wold help, rather than harm, our efforts to fight terror?”
Not off the top of my head but then, not all policy experts bother to weigh in publicly so in reality neither of us knows one way or the other. I do know that a number of policy experts would prefer someone who might say something that makes them wince BUT will consult with them and the generals and come up with a workable strategy over the un-engaged, apologist and appeaser they’ve had to put up with for the past seven years.
“…your support of this proposal is simply you wanting to FEEL more safe, rather than something that will actually improve safety?”
No. Neither point is true. The condescending tone is unappreciated as well. You can’t stuff me into your little box and expect to see me to smile and say, “Wow, epiphany!”
There are statistics that show stronger gun laws do not prevent unlawful gun use. That’s because gun laws only affect (restrict) LAW ABIDING INDIVIDUALS. They do not affect criminals.
The idea of a temporary ban on Muslims was about giving those charged with identifying possible terrorists time to better evaluate the situation and get their acts together. It was only about ‘reducing terrorism” to the degree that we do a better job than we have of vetting and profiling. Please remember that this statement came in the midst of the refugee problem and the San Bernardino attack.
No conservative suggested “banning transgender people from bathrooms.” We responded to a federal decree that we must accept the idea that men dressed as women can use female bathrooms and teen-aged boys can shower with and compete in sports with teen-aged girls.
“…banning transgender people from bathrooms will reduce sex crimes”
Do you even bother to listen? A federal decree just created another opportunity for sex offenders. Do you deny that making sure people adjust to seeing males enter women’s bathrooms helps create opportunity for pedophiles? Do you care about freshmen girls being asked to accept big hairy male seniors (Even in wigs) in their locker rooms? How about girl athletes forced to compete with a stronger male?
Why has this suddenly been made a federal issue? Obviously trans people haven’t been holding it all this time. The answer is, we are in the midst of an election…Obama is pandering for votes for Hillary.
Tina, thank you for admitting that you cannot think of any foreign policy experts who have supported Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration.
The reason you cannot think of any foreign policy experts who have done so is because there are no foreign policy experts who have done so.
Because it’s a stupid, counter-productive, needlessly discriminatory policy.
I have cited numerous foreign policy experts who have explained that this proposed policy would strengthen terrorists, alienate our allies, further ISIS’ narrative of a war on Islam, and leave ISIS with more people to victimize.
You have never addressed a single one of these counter-arguments, nor have you ever explained exactly *how* this proposed ban would help keep Americans safe.
Discriminatory policies are only justified as a last resort–there has to be a great reason to discriminate. That reason has not been produced by Trump, you, or anyone else supporting this proposal.
“There is no compromise to our values”
Really? Respecting and tolerating different religions, and not discriminating baded on religion, isn’t an American value?
It may not be one of *your* values, but it certainly is an American value.
“In all of nature living things defend themselves against attack”
Yes, but we are not being attacked by all Muslims, and thus should not ban all Muslim immigration.
“It is a valueless society indeed that tolerates the violent, bigoted, oppressive and totalitarian nature of the Muslim jihadists while others around them are oppressed, maimed, tortured and murdered in cold blood.”
No one is tolerating that. We are arguing we should tolerate peaceful Muslims.
“Tell you what, neither you nor I knows whether a circumstance might occur to cause Bush to make such a statement.”
We do know that 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 didn’t cause Bush to decide to ban Muslim immigration, and in fact Bush praised Islam as a “religion of peace” before the week was over. What possible “circumstance” has occurred in the past fifteen years that would change that?
Me: “So if Uganda bans all Christian immigration due to the Lord’s Resistance Army, that’s OK with you? It’s not bigoted if England bans all Catholic immigration due to the IRA? ”
Tina: “No. It would be a (temporary) tactic taken during extraordinary times. It has NOTHING to do with DNA and everything to do with handling a threat. It would be an honorable thing to me as a Christian to cooperate so that the evil people calling themselves the Lord’s Resistance Army could be defeated.”
And how exactly would a ban on all Christian immigrants help with that goal? It wouldn’t.
“As a Christian I do not recognize them as Christian and do not appreciate what they do in the Lords name.”
And most Muslims feel the same about ISIS.
“Please don’t try to paste me into your PC reality. I am being entirely honest. In terms of “values” we are either against evil where ever it exists or we are not.”
And a ban on immigration for all members of one religion is evil.
” I do know that a number of policy experts would prefer someone who might say something that makes them wince BUT will consult with them and the generals”
WHY do you continue to insist Trump will “consult with generals” when his response to “What will you do if the military refuses to follow illegal orders” was “They won’t refuse me?” Does that really strike you as the attitude of a man interested in consulting before making a decision?
Tina: “No conservative suggested “banning transgender people from bathrooms.” We responded to a federal decree”
My god, your ability to rewrite the past is AMAZING. How do you do this?
The “federal decree” was last week. The trans bathroom debate has been going on for months. It began when conservative lawmakers tried to pass state laws regulating what bathrooms transgender people can use. The federal decree *was* the response.
You know this. HOW did you convince yourself that the cause and effect were entirely backwards? I’m really dying to know; I’m not this good at lying to myself.
“that we must accept the idea that men dressed as women can use female bathrooms and teen-aged boys can shower with and compete in sports with teen-aged girls.”
No. Transgender people are not “men dressed as women,” and transgender girls are girls.
(And notice that no one ever complains about transmen going into men’s rooms? If you follow the “logic” of the anti-trans crowd (you still haven’t offered an alternative word for this), men are bad and scary and we have to protect women from them by discriminating against trans women.
“A federal decree just created another opportunity for sex offenders.”
It didn’t, unless you think that sex offenders always follow the law.
“Do you deny that making sure people adjust to seeing males enter women’s bathrooms”
No one is going to see males in women’s restrooms. They might see trans women, though. Again: would you prefer Laverne Cox use the men’s restroom? Would you prefer Ian Harvie enter the women’s? (Google these people before you answer, since I know you don’t actually know what any trans people look like.)
” helps create opportunity for pedophiles?”
*The existence of public restrooms* creates opportunity for pedophiles. Where is your concern for male victims who must share a restroom with adult male predators? What should we do about that? Ban all adult men from ever using a public restroom?
“Do you care about freshmen girls being asked to accept big hairy male seniors (Even in wigs) in their locker rooms?”
Fantasy. You’re making stuff up, because you have no idea what you’re talking about. I am willing to argue about real things that happen in the world, not this fiction.
“Why has this suddenly been made a federal issue?”
Because states made it an issue by passing unnecessary, unenforceable, discriminatory laws.
Really? Respecting and tolerating different religions, and not discriminating baded on religion, isn’t an American value?
Not according to the party that has no respect for pro-life Christians in America, for instance. You can’t have it both ways.
What possible “circumstance” has occurred in the past fifteen years that would change that?”
Oh I don’t know…how about three or four nuclear devices going off here or here and around the world on a day like 911…would that be enough for you to CONSIDER a temporary ban since the abject failure of the previous administration has placed the world in such perilous danger? You keep pretending these remarks were made while the whole world was at peace. Indeed they occurred in a world of recent attacks in Europe, the ME, and San Bernardino, and the the surge in refugees across Europe and the mass rapes and assaults in Europe were going on. A little perspective makes these remarks understandable after watching the current president make this mess and continue to have no plan at all. Why are you not screaming about THAT? You were pretty damn vocal when Bush had a plan and managed to execute it leaving relative stability…you have no credible platform on which to stand.
“And a ban on immigration for all members of one religion is evil.”
Temporary! It is practical. It is nothing new and it is NOT evil.
“WHY do you continue to insist Trump will “consult with generals” when his response to “What will you do if the military refuses to follow illegal orders” was “They won’t refuse me?” Does that really strike you as the attitude of a man interested in consulting before making a decision? ”
It strikes me as someone who knows how to play the media like a drum and push the drama queens’ buttons like a kid with his favorite video game. He sure as hell gets to you.
But once again…you have to credible platform on which to stand. The president you continue to defend has been rebuffed by several generals who are frustrated and disgusted with his unwillingness to follow their advice or create a plan of action. And his poor treatment of our military is also a subject that angers them.
Trump is already consulting with others on foreign policy, immigration, and economic policy:
Your problem Chris is you believe the left anti-trump campaign machine, much of it from the so-called unbiased MSM.
“The trans bathroom debate has been going on for months. ”
That’s what prompted states to take action. The “idea” originated with agitators for the cause. I rewrote NOTHING. Quit pretending people just make these laws up for no reason…out of the blue…just to be mean. Take some responsibility for once.
” Transgender people are not “men dressed as women,” and transgender girls are girls.”
That is a matter of opinion. Respect that other opinion and the rights of other people.
“men are bad and scary and we have to protect women from them by discriminating against trans women. ”
We should be as concerned about women in men’s bathrooms with respect to young children. One reason we don’t is that so far male pedophiles greatly outnumber females:
Boys wouldn’t object to a female who wanted to take a shower with them…I can’t say I’d guarantee her safety with all of that young raging testosterone going on in a not fully developed psyche. It’s just stupid.
I write: “Do you deny that making sure people adjust to seeing males enter women’s bathrooms”
You respond: No one is going to see males in women’s restrooms.
Can you read? The point was if the law is allowed people will get accustomed to seeing men, dressed as women, ENTERING women’s bathrooms. By law they won’t have to look like a woman, they only have to look like they’re trying, or want to look like a woman. this does open a new opportunity for pedophiles.
Answer my questions. Have these people been holding it all of these years or have they found a way to work it out. Can they indulge their feelings in more private settings and dress more appropriate to their sexual organs in public or not? Why must the entire country change to accommodate less than 1% of the population?
Tina: “Not according to the party that has no respect for pro-life Christians in America, for instance. You can’t have it both ways.”
Please show me a liberal politician endorsing that we ban pro-life Christians from immigrating to America, and then your analogy will make sense. If you can’t do that, please admit this is a bull—- analogy.
“Oh I don’t know…how about three or four nuclear devices going off here or here and around the world on a day like 911…”
What are you talking about? That hasn’t happened. You’re saying we should ban all Muslim immigrants for something that is only happening in your imagination?
“Temporary!”
Why are you still under the impression that this matters? Japanese internment was temporary. It was still bigoted.
“It is nothing new”
Yes, it is. We have never banned immigration based on religion.
“It strikes me as someone who knows how to play the media like a drum and push the drama queens’ buttons like a kid with his favorite video game.”
And if you find being an attention-seeking troll an admirable quality for a presidential candidate, then I can see the appeal.
But what you’re really saying here is that we shouldn’t take Trump seriously when he says things like “I’ll make soldiers kill terrorists’ wives and children and they won’t refuse me,” because he’s just messing with the media. Maybe years of listening to Limbaugh and his “media tweaks” has led you to think this is acceptable behavior for a political leader, but it’s actually extremely untrustworthy behavior. If he’s just saying things to “push buttons,” how can you believe ANYTHING he says? Why do you expend so much energy defending policies like his proposal to ban Muslim immigration, which has been condemned by the left and right alike, when he might not even MEAN IT?
“left anti-Trump campaign machine”
Is Peggy part of that machine? Is the National Review? Is Rod Dreher?
Stop pretending that all opposition to Trump is from the left! It’s a pathetic, partisan dodge. And you know better! I don’t know why you think I’m going to just let you say things you know aren’t true without pointing them out.
“Answer my questions.”
Why should I when you’ve refused to answer mine? Which bathrooms should Laverne Cox and Ian Harvie use? Why aren’t you concerned about male pedophiles in MEN’s restrooms? If bathrooms are such dangerous places, where are the efforts to regulate them so make predators don’t target young boys?
But I will answer your questions, because they help my case. Yes, transgender people have been using the bathrooms they identify with for a long time. This is a scary experience for many transgenders. You’d know that if you knew any. But you don’t, so why tf do you think your opinion on this issue is in any way informed?
“Can they indulge their feelings in more private settings and dress more appropriate to their sexual organs in public or not?”
It’s like you don’t even know that sex change operations exist. Every time you say a word about transgenders it’s like you’re somehow becoming less informed on the subject.
“Why must the entire country change to accommodate less than 1% of the population?”
Again: the status quo is that transgenders use the bathroom of the gender they appear to be, so as not to become the victim of a hate crime. YOU are the one asking that we change the laws of our country to make them unable to do this.
Looks like TownHall has joined the “left anti-Trump media machine,” showcasing other moments from the past few months where Trump has called for raising taxes on the wealthy, despite his official website saying the opposite.
http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/21/trump-oh-you-bet-i-support-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-n2152154
I don’t usually like TownHall, but the whole article is worth reading.
The liberal media strikes again! Jim Geraghty of the commie rag the National Review (started by noted socialist William F. Buckley) takes aim at Trump’s brilliant strategy to keep Muslims out:
“Oh, and as noted on Hot Air, Donald Trump said on Morning Joe this morning, “They’re certainly going to be exceptions, sporting events, things like that” to the policy–so I guess if Muslims wants to attend the Super Bowl or something, they’re allowed in?
Here’s the foolproof Muslim-immigration-prevention-system, as explained by the candidate:
Willie Geist: Donald, a customs agent would ask the person his or her religion?
Donald Trump: They would probably, they would say, ‘are you Muslim?’
Geist: And if they said ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: That is correct.
That take, ISIS! There’s no way any of their sleeper cells could get through that kind of scrutiny!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428198/muslim-immigration-ban-and-constitution-jim-geraghty
Wow. So strength. Much manly.
When are you going to accept this guy is winging it?
Geraghty spends the bulk of the article arguing that the proposal would not pass constitutional muster. I’m not sure he’s right about that, as I’ve seen many experts say it could be constitutional, but it certainly violates the spirit of the first amendment if not the letter.
I’m going to ask it again: listen to YOURselves:
“… A federal decree just created another opportunity for sex offenders. Do you deny that making sure people adjust to seeing males enter women’s bathrooms helps create opportunity for pedophiles? Do you care about freshmen girls being asked to accept big hairy male seniors (Even in wigs) in their locker rooms? How about girl athletes forced to compete with a stronger male?”
You are making fantasies … completely devoid of any relation at all to the issue at hand. You are being hysterical.
This is for dear Libby only. All others beware. DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!
http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/