America: I Do Not Like Where This Is Going

The newest political football is the refugees and all related items…..there is some statements that smack with historical context and yet supporters will not see the un-American activities and games being played.  The refugees are the latest complex issue to be turned into a politicized mess to gain support from the mentally slow.

Personally, I do not like what is going on in this country…..Trump has gone a bit far…in my book……

Donald Trump went on MSNBC Monday to discuss issues related to the Paris terror attacks and ISIS, and he had some controversial ideas about steps he might take as president. “Well, I would hate to do it but it’s something you’re going to have to strongly consider,” Trump said when asked whether he would consider a plan similar to France’s interior minister’s promise to shut down “mosques where hate is preached,” CNN reports. Trump continued, “Some of the ideas and some of the absolute hatred is coming from these areas … The hatred is incredible. It’s embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands.”

Trump had started out by discussing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to put a stop to a covert NYPD program that had previously carried out surveillance on Muslim communities. “You’re going to have to watch and study the mosques, because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques,” Trump said. “Under the old regime we had tremendous surveillance going on in and around the mosques of New York City.”

But wait there is more……..

Donald Trump voiced support Thursday evening for creating a mandatory database to track Muslims in the US—the latest in an escalating series of responses following the deadly attacks in Paris. “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely,” Trump said between campaign events in Newton, Iowa, according to video posted on He said Muslims would be signed up at “different places,” adding: “It’s all about management.” Asked whether registering would be mandatory, Trump responded: “They have to be.”

What’s next from these twats?  Maybe a suggestion to make Muslims wear a large yellow crescent moon and star patch?  (that sounds oddly familiar)….

Sounds all you Righties…all that sounds a bit unconstitutional to me…..but then when have you guys ever let the Constitution get in the way of a good fear?

I know this will not matter to those that have their minds made up and are thanking Jesus for the vote …..but just in case….the GOP God Ronnie Reagan has something to say……

Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today. The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”

And then we have the out right lies about other Americans…..and the biggest liar is that twat Trump……..

Donald Trump is insisting he saw something on 9/11 that most Americans have apparently developed amnesia about. On Saturday, he told a rally in Alabama that he had “watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering” as the World Trade Center came down, the Guardian reports. The New York Times reports that he doubled down on the comments about cheering in “areas with large Arab populations” on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, even after George Stephanopoulos told him that police have said there was no such cheering. “It did happen, I saw it,” Trump said. “It was on television. I saw it,” he continued, adding that while “it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it,” it was “well covered at the time.” More:

  • Trump’s remarks were widely condemned as simply untrue by both parties, reports. “Clearly, Trump has memory issues or willfully distorts the truth, either of which should be concerning for the Republican Party,” said Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, a possible Democratic candidate for governor.
  • “I think if it had happened, I would remember it,” said NJ Gov. Chris Christie, per the Times.
  • “It did not happen. He didn’t see it. But who’s there to challenge him on that?” wondered NBC’s Tom Brokaw, calling Trump’s statements “flat-out lies.”
  • The Washington Post gives Trump’s claim four Pinocchios on a scale that does not go up to five, finding that while there were rumors of isolated celebrations in New Jersey, they were not covered on TV and no video or other proof exists. The police commissioner of Paterson, which has the state’s largest Muslim population, says the community was extremely helpful and law-abiding after the attacks. “There were no flags burning, no one was dancing,” he says, using what the Post calls a “barnyard epithet” to describe Trump’s claims.
  • In the ABC interview, Trump also refused to rule out a mandatory database to track US Muslims and promised to bring back waterboarding, the Times reports.
  • On Sunday, Trump tweeted what the Huffington Post calls a “chart of racist and wildly inaccurate crime statistics” that appears to be aimed at “perpetuating racist myths about black people and crime.” The numbers in the chart bear no relation to the FBI’s crime statistics, and the source is listed as the “Crime Statistics Bureau of San Francisco” which does not exist.


The Right wing talkers are doing a fine job of alienated American citizens…..look at over the weekend in Irvine, California armed protesters showed up at a mosque and threatened attending religious services….that is NOT what Americans do to fellow Americans…..this is MORONIC!

You dipshits realize you are doing what the bad guys want?  They want alienated minority that makes for good recruiting…..and YOU are aiding in that effort.

You people are MORONS!  Your kneejerk reactions are playing into the hands of those you are afraid of…..ever thought about thinking your little ideas through before acting?

Wait Just A 2nd (Amendment)!

This post ought to bring in the mental midgets from all corners of the internet……I certainly  hope so………the trolls will have a day with this post but first they will have to put down the Cheetohs and do what their Mommie tells them……….that is if I did not use too big of words for them…….(insert smiley face)………..if these words are a problem then ask a 10 year old……they will understand.

I have been watching the news in Texas…..they have this debate going on about the possibility to openly carry a hand gun in public……it is a debate the we should have but it has gone beyond reasonable to the brutish……it appears that thugs from some guns rights group is pushing its way into legislators offices and basically intimidating them into voting for the bill…..they even conned the Lt. Governor into a meeting so he could avoid a scene…..but what can you expect from a spineless politician?  (This is a quick definition of what is happening if you want more info then Google will do you proud)

My take on this situation…….

If it is illegal to intimidate a witness or juror in a trial, how isd it legal that such intimidation is legal when it comes to law makers?  Okay you do not like that take………Is it legal to intimidate a retailer to get him to do what you want?  Then how is it legal use harsh words and maybe a gun to convince someone to see things your way?  I believe that is called coercion.  And the last time I checked it was against the law as well as the Constitution.

Does the term “Brown Shirts” ring a bell?  In case you missed the PBS special…the Brown Shirts were thugs in 20’s and 30’s Germany that intimidated the population to get what they wanted….does it ring a bell now?

Okay another angle…..let’s say you go to a rally or protests whatever you would like to call it and most everyone there were people of color and almost all of them had weapons in plain sight…..what will be your reaction?….I mean besides running to FOX News that is…….

Hey Haters!  You dildos do realize there is more to the Constitution than the 2nd amendment, right?

When You Have NO Solutions—Sue The Bastards

Americans are ate up with the “Lawsuit Lotto”.

Then there is the Congress, the most wasteful institution in DC…..not only is it a part-time leadership but it is equally as worthless as a governing body……Obama recently got fed up with the dance that Congress was playing on immigration and took matters into his own hands…..

And of course whatever he does is wrong in the eyes of the GOP….they bitch and moan…..whine and shout……and still cannot come up with a plan…

But now they have their little lap dogs to do their work for them……GOP governors…….

More than a third of the states have joined a lawsuit fighting President Obama’s sweeping executive action on immigration. The suit brought by 17 states against the federal government was filed in Texas and announced by Greg Abbott, the state attorney general and governor-elect, reports the Los Angeles Times. He accuses Obama of “abdicating his responsibility to faithfully enforce laws that were duly enacted by Congress and attempting to rewrite immigration laws, which he has no authority to do.” The filing in federal court says the suit “is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the US Constitution.”

The other states suing are Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Supporters of Obama’s immigration order called the suit grandstanding, and the administration says the order was legal and has precedent, reports the Wall Street Journal. “The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and we are confident that the president’s executive actions are well within his legal authorities,” a White House spokesman says.

Just what the resident of those states need…..a moronic lawsuit instead of jobs and policies that benefit the people…but NOOOOOOOOOOO!  These turkeys want to grand stand and play the Constitutionality card….a term they do not understand.  It all sounds impressive but in reality it is a game and a political theater.

Is It Time For A Change?

Change?  A subject that Americans clamor on and on about…..but yet Not one of them can accurately say just what change entails……….most are not looking for real change but rather just a new set of politicians ………..which is NOT change.

When the war of words between the two drag ass parties gets heated someone always brings up the issue of constitutionality…….and then some else has the brilliant idea of a constitutional convention to solve any dispute…..and then everyone takes a step back and calmer heads prevail…….

But in reality is there ever going to be a convention to possibly re-do the constitution or maybe add an amendment or two?

The US Constitution has 27 amendments, all of which have been added in the usual manner laid out in high school civics texts. But Bloomberg catches up with a movement to alter the Constitution in a way that’s never been done—by holding a constitutional convention to draft changes. In order for such a convention to happen, two-thirds of the states need to call for one, and advocates say they’ve already cracked the two-dozen mark on the way to the necessary 34. As Bloomberg’s Albert Hunt explains, most of the push is coming from fiscal conservatives who want to add an amendment requiring a balanced budget or some other kind of financial discipline.

Hunt thinks it’s “still not likely” the movement will succeed, but what has critics and constitutional scholars worried nonetheless is the unprecedented nature of such a convention. Would anything be up for debate? Might the Bill of Rights be endangered, at least theoretically? Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes in the Washington Post that everything about a possible convention, from the selection of delegates to the voting rules, is uncharted territory. “That means that under a convention, anything goes,” he writes. The website rounds up views from high-profile advocates, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who calls a convention the only way to “restrain the size of the federal government.”

Lots of bold talk……but who has the cajones to ride this issue to finish….my guess is…NO ONE!  It is all talk….making political points…..but No action will ever occur.

Personally, I think that it is beyond time to take a hard realistic look at a new convention……there are so many issues that need to be cleared up and put into perspective.