US politics and election

Very well said indeed, Bonny. 

I was watching an early morning political chat show where they suggested that he should not have said all that now.  The reason being that the Pres' message to the people on Sunday night was so bad, even according to so many people around the world, that Trump should have said nothing and let the Pres sink himself.  

Now they will be talking about what Trump said instead.  I do see the logic in that.

It strikes me that there is a very easy for Trump's political critics to demonstrate that he is wrong and they are right.

Just send away all their tax-payer funded security, go about the US without any armed guards. After all, if there's no danger from mad jihadists that have been allowed into the country, there shouldn't be a problem.

Obama should lead by example.

Good point, Bonny. 

O. M. G.  Disgusting.  

Yes.....we CAN and DID.  

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-josh-earnest-disqualified-president-muslims/index.html

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's statement that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States "disqualifies" him from being president, the White House spokesman said Tuesday.

"The fact is what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in Tuesday's press briefing. For a White House administration to so heavily weigh in on an opposing party's nominating contest is a highly unusual step.

Earnest noted first that every president must take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution, and thus, he said, Trump would not qualify.

I don't even know where to start on that, coming from the lacky of a president that has ripped up the Constitution, and rules like an absolute monarch.

The moonbats have been in full cry all day.

The only 'backlash' is from moonbats, and the elite chattering classes, who are totally out of touch with the public.

Which is pretty much true; there are moslem ghettos that do not live by the same rules as the rest of us.

There you go then.  

Yes, the row has now spread to the UK, with moonbats, lefties and chattering classes harrumphing and denying this, with cries of, Multi-kulti is wonderful in Britain!

Not surprisingly, the people who have to live with this social engineering are saying TRUMP IS RIGHT.

He did actually say that he would ban them from entering the US until we have got it all sorted out.

As usual all the indignation is gathering strength.

It's actually hard not to laugh at all this manufactured outrage, Lily.

Many people are doing just that.  

And you can be sure that, somewhere in the US or Europe, another bunch of deranged snackbars is plotting further atrocities between now and next November.

Which will prove Trump is correct and guarantee his election.

A Lancashire Police officer told MailOnline: 'There are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission'.
One officer from Yorkshire said on the online forum Police.Community: 'I'm not allowed to travel in half blues to work anymore IN MY OWN CAR as we're "All at risk of attack" - yet as soon as someone points out the obvious it's 'divisive.'
He added: 'In this instance he (Trump) isn't wrong. Our political leaders are best either ill-informed or simply being disingenuous.
'He's pointed out something that is plainly obvious, something which I think we aren't as a nation willing to own up to - do you think a US Police Department would ban officers from wearing their uniforms under jackets etc due to FEAR of their cops being killed by extremists?
'We implement half measures such as "No-one is allowed to come into work half blues, even in your own cars because if you get beheaded it'll be your own fault.
'It would be seen as un-American, un-democratic, not the done thing... In the UK though we accept it'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3352406/Scotland-Yard-mocks-Trump-s-claims-London-police-terrified-Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html#ixzz3tquW7R74
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And that story encapsulates the whole thing nicely - elites and moonbats are denying any problem exists, when people at street level know only too well that there is a problem.

Hissing outrage at Trump for stating the bleedin' obvious isn't going to make the problem go away.

They think the problem will go away if they throw enough propaganda at it.  Everyone is too stupid to understand (in their estimations).

To mix metaphors, I suspect the bien pensants have become so accustomed to ruling the roost, and silencing any dissenting opinion with cries of Sexist! Raycist! Fattist!, that they simply cannot deal with the tsunami of sheer rage which is building up.

And the more they try to deny reality, the worse they are making things for themselves?

I think that is at least a part of it, Bonny.  Let's face it, they are so out of touch with regular folks.

It must be perplexing them to say the least.....

This comment in the Guardian - by a reader, not one of their lefty columnists - is appearing in a few places now:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/09/banning-things-isnt-the-way-to-confront-the-far-right

The rise of the Front National in France is entirely the fault of Europe's liberal, "progressive" voices like The Guardian, Libération, Hollande and Corbyn. Their abject, total failure to live up to their own principles has needlessly handed the far-right a monopoly over one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Ever since 9/11, it's been apparent that we are witnessing a growing global religious movement, which is implacably and murderously opposed to liberalism, democracy, free speech and secularism.

But the supposed guardians of these progressive values suffered a profound cognitive dissonance in the face of this threat – the Islamist revolution is anti-Western, and its adherents are primarily non-white people from the poorer regions of the world. As the world's "oppressed", they had to be defended, never challenged. To do so would be racism, or imperialism.

After each terrorist atrocity, it became more and more clear that these fanatics are driven by an apocalyptic religious idea, not geopolitics or anti-capitalism. But after each atrocity the morally bankrupt European "progressives" doubled down on their absurd interpretation of events, excoriating their own constituency for their "Islamophobia" if they dared to question the accepted narrative. It doesn't matter that the Islamists themselves constantly tell us that they're motivated by Islam. The Guardian knows better.

Theo Van Gogh and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists gave their lives for the liberal, secular values that differentiate us from the religious fanatics. All the Guardian and the rest of the condescending, reactionary left could do is attack them for "offending" the religious sensibilities of the murderers.

When they felt they had to be seen displaying solidarity after the Hebdo attacks, they wheeled out some pathetic, safe platitudes about "free speech", waving generic placards with a picture of a pencil, while running a mile from any discussion about what's actually preventing free speech.

The 4th wave feminists that clutter up the Guardian will twitter-storm at the drop of a hat when someone wears a "sexist" shirt, or if someone is mis-gendered in their local Tesco, but they remain totally silent about the many millions of women and LGBT people world-wide who are systematically oppressed in the name of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under 24hr protection for daring to criticise Islam from a feminist perspective, but instead of supporting her, the Guardian run pieces attacking her.

After the 13/11 attacks in Paris, liberal secularists in Europe finally thought that our politicians and media will finally wake up to what's going on. No such luck. Instead we got the now-familiar onslaught of condescending, absurd warnings about "Islamophobia", and a faux-polite, mealy-mouthed silence about Islamist religious intolerance. That silence has become deafening.

Something had to give, and it was the duty of the Guardian and Libération to ensure that the inevitable questions were asked in the context of secular, tolerant, liberal values. Their inexcusable, shameful failure to do this means that the same questions will be asked in the context of old school, "blood-and-soil" race hate, like Trump and Le Pen are offering. What's the Guardian offering?

Thank you Bonny.  I find it interesting enough.....

Islam is an ideology which lays down strict rules to be followed.  Who is going to 'give' when push comes to shove?

Well, the moonbats and other leftists have given in already, Lily. But those of a Trumpish persuasion? I don't see them backing down. They certainly haven't in Europe, where burning down property earmarked for 'refugees' seems to have become a popular pastime....