"But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators.' No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel and the President has asked the FBI to launch a very concerted effort against gangs everywhere."
"bring them to heel"?
Even back in the '90s her comments bothered some of us.
Clinton bad-judgment or a Clinton concession to the right?
The number two contender in the Republican Presidential primary, Ben Carson, used an analogy this week in which he called all Syrian refugees dogs:
"For instance, you know, if there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably gonna put your children out of the way. Doesn’t mean that you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination. By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly."
You'd think there would be a lucrative business opportunity as a Republican analogy screener given their difficulties making analogies that don't make them sound like inhuman dickwads.
Senator Marco Rubio, one of the front runners in the Republican Presidential primary, meant to criticize Democratic Presidential front runner Hillary Clinton's refusal to refer to "extreme Islam" when discussing recent terrorist activity, but what he did was call members of the second largest global religion Nazis. On ABC's "This Week," Rubio said:
"That would be like saying we weren’t at war with Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party but weren’t violent themselves."
Yes. In this analogy, Rubio is comparing all Muslims to Nazis.
The leading Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, thinks the United States should start registering Muslims and keeping an active database of them.
On Thursday with Yahoo News, Trump told a reporter that he wouldn't rule out forcing Muslims to register with the federal government.
He went on to say:
“We’re going to have to—we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”
Most of the rational people in the US thought that Trump couldn't possibly mean that he was in favor of forcing members of a specific religion to register with the government (what with such parallels to Nazi Germany and the Jews). Clearly, beltway pundits argued, there is some misunderstanding.
Later that evening, Trump would double-down on his registering Muslims comment, proving the often wrong beltway pundits wrong again.
He told NBC News, who was asking if he meant there should be a government program to track Muslims:
“There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems.”
When asked how this would differ from Nazi Germany's registration of Jews, Trump responded:
“You tell me, you tell me. Why don’t you tell me.”
Now, some rational people may think that these comments, echoing a horrible policy associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (not to mention meaning increasing the size of government) would end Trump's presidential aspirations, but this is the same candidate saw his poll numbers increase after calling Mexicans murders and rapists and John McCain a loser for being captured in war.
I have a hard time believing that Republican voters, the same ones who are terrified of Syrian refugees right now, will have the same problems with what Trump is suggesting as rational people do.
But the real question is, if Trump's poll numbers go up as a result of these comments, what does this mean for the rest of the Republican field, already pushed into making ridiculous and offensive comments just to get a sliver of the attention that Trump gets? Will they also echo similar sentiments?
This week, Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush, said, "My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.”
In Omaha, Nebraska in 2005, Jeb's brother, then-president George W. Bush told a divorced mother of three, “You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."
Meet 2nd term Vermont Republican State Senator Norm McAllister.
This week he was arrested and plead not guilty to "three felony counts of sexual assault and three misdemeanors of prohibited acts, the charges arising from what police describe as a sex-for-rent scheme involving several unwilling tenants."
In graphic allegations that shocked McAllister's colleagues, the governor, and the courthouse, prosecutors outlined a tale of several years where McAllister sexually assaulted two tenants/employees and attempted to assault a third for rent on a trailer on his diary farm.
In other Baltimore news, today, the Department of Public Works announced the termination of an employee for watching 39 hours of pornography on his work computer during the 82 hours he was investigated.
It is estimated that this DPW supervisor cost the city taxpayers $28,400 in hour he was supposed to be working but was instead watching a porno DVD on his computer.