The pseudo-creators who oppose Trump's efforts to keep the USA safe
Trump's taken the step of barring entry from 7 Muslim countries in order to screen carefully for possible terrorists trying to infiltrate. None of which matters to the following comics writers/artists I could find blabbering about it, beginning with one of the most obvious:
And Marz couldn't be more ignorant. Especially of how Obama selected the list of countries in the executive order. And that a pretty good majority support temporarily blocking entrants from terrorist havens, if that's what's needed to keep the neighborhood safe.
Oh, and he relies on a UK paper as embarrassing as the Guardian happens to be. I grew tired long ago of their hugely dishonest junk. But now, here's where he really says something disturbing in response to Trump's announcement that the government wants to prioritize Christian refugees from Muslim regimes:
*Shudder* Is he saying he considers them inherently dangerous, whereas not a single Islamist could pose any danger in the USA? What a disgrace, and all coming from one of the apologists for allowing men into women's bathrooms at the expense of the ladies. To imply that Christians persecuted by Islamofascists have no value only compounds the view that Marz is not worthy to take the assignments he's been given in comicdom. Bizarrely, at the same time, he put down a so-called conservative activist who's actually on the left's side:
Honestly, I do think it's weird that somebody who's an Islamophile would have a problem with someone like Norquist after all the problems he caused for the USA. Seriously, it's bizarre, and the biggest problem in all this is that Marz obviously isn't carping about Norquist because he has an issue with his standings.
Is he also proud of the "women's march" activists who gave a platform to a woman who'd been convicted in the kidnapping and murder of a gay man? And when somebody points out how the Obama administration wouldn't give asylum to Christian refugees, the possibly anti-religious Marz said:
Something wrong with that? I think not, and Marz is only making himself look laughable, and shameful.
So he's perpetuating an already debunked claim about Bannon. What a sorry case he's being. Now, here's another guy who's going out of his mind:
How long will it be before Palmiotti takes note of the 4 percent of Clinton voters who regretted their choice? His post was followed up by:
Umm, like I noted above...
Let's not. Safety must come first.
Translation: the 1st Amendment's religion clause is invalid, and nobody can make distinctions between religion and race. All that aside, the "ban" hardly affects Muslims by any stretch. Now, here's another one of the usual band of buffoons:
Portrait of somebody who won't make distinctions between religions, and ask whether there's such a thing as a bad one.
Will the perverse comments never end? Guess not.
Waid's mood is very 9-10, and not particularly concerned about the public's safety. And then he says:
In reply to a comment about Peter King and McCaul being involved in working out the temporary ban on arrivals from Muslim countries who could possibly be dangerous. What a sad case.
And continuing our little look at all these embarrassments in motion, here's somebody who's taking a one-sided view of things:
I'd say Slott's being an opportunist, because the MSM downplayed Obama's more reprehensible approach in 2009. This current tempest is just a phony, and WJC chairman Ronald Lauder's condemned the moonbats crying wolf:
And so many of the leftist sources Slott buys into without question or reservation have lied too, yet has no issue with that.
He sounds like a 9-11 Truther here, and refuses to consider that it's temporary, in order to screen entrants properly, or that Obama chose the countries in the exec order long before Trump did. Public safety is no concern to Slott. Now, who else is there:
All this coming from somebody who most likely didn't vote for Reagan in the 1980s.
Wouldn't it be better to congratulate those senators who, specifically, are concerned for the innocent citizen's safety? Conway doesn't make any sense.
And there's some examples I could find of "creators" making idiots of themselves, and not giving any consideration to safety for country.
This administration couldn't run a Bennigan's without screwing it up.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 26, 2017
And Marz couldn't be more ignorant. Especially of how Obama selected the list of countries in the executive order. And that a pretty good majority support temporarily blocking entrants from terrorist havens, if that's what's needed to keep the neighborhood safe.
This is sobering reading. https://t.co/ByWyyxk7G2— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 26, 2017
Oh, and he relies on a UK paper as embarrassing as the Guardian happens to be. I grew tired long ago of their hugely dishonest junk. But now, here's where he really says something disturbing in response to Trump's announcement that the government wants to prioritize Christian refugees from Muslim regimes:
This MUST NOT be who we are. https://t.co/pryKWEzEX4— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 27, 2017
*Shudder* Is he saying he considers them inherently dangerous, whereas not a single Islamist could pose any danger in the USA? What a disgrace, and all coming from one of the apologists for allowing men into women's bathrooms at the expense of the ladies. To imply that Christians persecuted by Islamofascists have no value only compounds the view that Marz is not worthy to take the assignments he's been given in comicdom. Bizarrely, at the same time, he put down a so-called conservative activist who's actually on the left's side:
Watching @TimRyan pummel @GroverNorquist with facts, while Grover sputters incoherently, on @billmaher is a beautiful thing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 28, 2017
Honestly, I do think it's weird that somebody who's an Islamophile would have a problem with someone like Norquist after all the problems he caused for the USA. Seriously, it's bizarre, and the biggest problem in all this is that Marz obviously isn't carping about Norquist because he has an issue with his standings.
I am ashamed of my country. But I am inspired by my countrymen who are protesting and resisting this cowardly, greedy administration.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 28, 2017
Is he also proud of the "women's march" activists who gave a platform to a woman who'd been convicted in the kidnapping and murder of a gay man? And when somebody points out how the Obama administration wouldn't give asylum to Christian refugees, the possibly anti-religious Marz said:
"bible college graduate" https://t.co/A54XDv9L1K— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 28, 2017
Something wrong with that? I think not, and Marz is only making himself look laughable, and shameful.
As bad as Donald Trump is, Steve Bannon is worse.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 29, 2017
So he's perpetuating an already debunked claim about Bannon. What a sorry case he's being. Now, here's another guy who's going out of his mind:
How long before we see " I voted for Trump and I don't approve of his message " posts? Would be nice to see that.— Jimmy Palmiotti (@jpalmiotti) January 28, 2017
How long will it be before Palmiotti takes note of the 4 percent of Clinton voters who regretted their choice? His post was followed up by:
Followed maybe by "I'm so so so so so so so sorry for what I did to make this happen." https://t.co/FtSI2eqlx9— Cully Hamner (@CullyHamner) January 28, 2017
Umm, like I noted above...
Over 330,000 so far. Let's make it millions. https://t.co/uEtkE1eFqk #ImpeachUnPOTUS— Cully Hamner (@CullyHamner) January 29, 2017
Let's not. Safety must come first.
Don't let anyone obfuscate what this EO is about. #LittleManTrump's cronies admit they're targeting Muslims. Absolutely unAmerican. #resist https://t.co/F6KRlHgYH4— Cully Hamner (@CullyHamner) January 29, 2017
Translation: the 1st Amendment's religion clause is invalid, and nobody can make distinctions between religion and race. All that aside, the "ban" hardly affects Muslims by any stretch. Now, here's another one of the usual band of buffoons:
Huh. Redneck-looking dudes in this Irish airport pub are talking about what a crappy idea the #MuslimBan is. Hope!— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 28, 2017
Portrait of somebody who won't make distinctions between religions, and ask whether there's such a thing as a bad one.
Trump might as well be doing PR for ISIS at this point. They will use his words as proof the US can't be trusted, even by its allies. https://t.co/U6SsxWZxC9— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 29, 2017
Will the perverse comments never end? Guess not.
The mood in this country is very reminiscent of 9/12...but gradually getting worse, not gradually healing.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) January 28, 2017
Waid's mood is very 9-10, and not particularly concerned about the public's safety. And then he says:
Shocked I’m shocked https://t.co/RnGKwwtBYF— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) January 29, 2017
In reply to a comment about Peter King and McCaul being involved in working out the temporary ban on arrivals from Muslim countries who could possibly be dangerous. What a sad case.
And continuing our little look at all these embarrassments in motion, here's somebody who's taking a one-sided view of things:
My fellow Jews, if you didn't understand why saying "All Lives Matter" is such a dick move, you will now:https://t.co/MmZvTR7Fcl— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) January 29, 2017
I'd say Slott's being an opportunist, because the MSM downplayed Obama's more reprehensible approach in 2009. This current tempest is just a phony, and WJC chairman Ronald Lauder's condemned the moonbats crying wolf:
“It does no honor to the millions of Jews murdered in the Holocaust to play politics with their memory.And Slott won't be doing anybody a service if he keeps up his own shameless exploitation of manufactured outrage culture and opportunism. All Slott's suggested is that he doesn't care about victims of persecution in Muslim lands. Remember, if Jewish lives matter, so must many others.
“Any fair reading of the White House statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day will see it appropriately commemorates the suffering and the heroism that mark that dark chapter in modern history.
“There are enough real anti-Semitism and true threats facing the Jewish people today. Our community gains nothing if we reach a point where manufactured outrages reduce public sensitivity to the real dangers we confront.”
ATTENTION MEDIA:— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) January 29, 2017
The phrase "Trump says..." is meaningless.
He's demonstrably lied so many times now,
it doesn't matter what he says.
And so many of the leftist sources Slott buys into without question or reservation have lied too, yet has no issue with that.
Don't let them gaslight this.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) January 29, 2017
IT'S A MUSLIM BAN.
He sounds like a 9-11 Truther here, and refuses to consider that it's temporary, in order to screen entrants properly, or that Obama chose the countries in the exec order long before Trump did. Public safety is no concern to Slott. Now, who else is there:
"The Politics of Cowardice" This from a professional GOP apologist. People like you enabled this party, Brooks. https://t.co/rzzOIJB8U9— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) January 29, 2017
All this coming from somebody who most likely didn't vote for Reagan in the 1980s.
"US Senators on Muslim Ban" Handy tip sheet for voters who want to hold their Senators accountable for #MuslimBan https://t.co/PDcOAflEll— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) January 29, 2017
Wouldn't it be better to congratulate those senators who, specifically, are concerned for the innocent citizen's safety? Conway doesn't make any sense.
And there's some examples I could find of "creators" making idiots of themselves, and not giving any consideration to safety for country.
Labels: Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, terrorism, violence
Well, that was soul-sickening. At least, they won't make the female comic characters do this, yet.... (Give it a few months.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/sag-awards-simon-helberg-big-bang-theory-red-carpet-protest-stand-donald-trump-travel-ban-refugees-a7552586.html
Cucks are going to cuck.
Posted by
Killer Moth |
9:17 AM
There is no "Muslim ban," just a temporary delay for immigrants from known terrorist hotbeds (countries that even the Obama administration designated as being "of concern").
But the leftists are so heavily vested in their "Trump is Hitler" meme that they can't give it up now.
If I go to the DMV and renew my driver's license, I have to wait in line, fill out forms, pass a vision test, and pass a computer check of my driving record. It's a nuisance, but it's worth it, if it keeps some reckless drivers off the roads.
If I go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun and/or ammunition, I have to show photo I.D., fill out a form, and pass a background check. And that's OK, too, if it keeps just one criminal or psychotic from obtaining a firearm.
Similarly, it's worth making immigrants submit to some delays and inconvenience if that's what it takes to prevent another 9-11, or another San Bernardino massacre, or another Boston marathon bombing.
Posted by
TC |
9:39 AM
CNN did a segment a few days ago about the plight of refugees stranded by "the Muslim ban." The reporter sneered, "The refugees need compassion and mercy, but those are not high priorities under the Trump administration's 'America first' policy."
And, as we saw for the past eight years (Boston, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Orlando, San Bernardino), protecting the lives and rights of American citizens was never a high priority under Obama's (and Clinton's) "America last" policy.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:46 AM
And make sure they don't slip or lie their way through the cracks, like Tashfeen Malik did. Deception is a tool for The Cause, after all.
Latest Champions issue addresses a mosque bombing. Given the proper criticism against the infamous pseudo-Taliban issue, it looks like we'll be having a redux. Goodie.
Posted by
Killer Moth |
10:47 PM
Should analyze Waid's social justice ridden Champions #5 by Waid. Just terrible and the perfect example of everything wrong with Marvel today.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:58 AM
Mosque bombings and other hate crimes against Muslims are as common in fiction as they are rare in real life.
In fact, every anti-Muslim "hate crime" that I've seen reported by the so-called mainstream media turned out to be a hoax.
IRL, anti-Trump protesters are rioting, looting, setting fires, and assaulting people. And former president Obama has responded by saying he is "heartened by the level of engagement" and by people "exercising their right to assemble."
At the Portland airport, thugs (i.e., Democrat "protesters") beat up a Trump supporter while calling him a Nazi.
In Chicago, black thugs tortured a handicapped white kid while yelling "F**k Donald Trump!" They also called the victim the N-word. CBS reported that a special needs kid was tortured by assailants who called him racial slurs and who "repeatedly referenced Donald Trump." Giving the impression that white Trumpkins attacked a disabled black victim, which was the exact opposite of the truth.
Since Trump won't allow ISIS Trojan Horses ("refugees") into the US, the Democrats are launching terrorist attacks themselves.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:19 AM
Tashfeen Malik entered the US and obtained a visa even after openly posting pro-jihad comments online. Syed Farook was an anchor baby who returned to the US after visiting the Middle East. Neither one of them was ever on the No-Fly List, or any sort of anti-terrorist watch list.
Both were observed behaving suspiciously at home, but their neighbor did not report it to the police or FBI, because he feared accusations of racism and Islamophobia. Farook's employers did not say or do anything about his suspicious behavior at work, for the same reason.
Then the jihadists murdered unarmed victims, in a designated gun-free zone, in a blue state that had strict gun control laws.
The Obama administration's response:
1. Increase unvetted Muslim immigration (while turning away Christian refugees).
2. Blame the NRA, and call for more gun control laws. Specifically, call for a ban on gun sales to terrorist suspects on the No-Fly List. The list that never included Malik or Farook. (Since Obama ordered the FBI and Department of Homeland Security not to spy on Muslims, it's possible that the list has never included a single real terrorist.)
3. Threaten to "take action" against anyone who said anything that could be considered "anti-Muslim rhetoric."
Obama's "No-Fly, no buy" proposal would not have prevented the massacre. Trump's so-called "Muslim ban" would have.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:32 PM
So Trump's put in a screening process for Muslim terrorists now, how about extending it to other terrorist groups as well?
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:37 PM