Surprise: Orange Powerbottom Brad Chase Is In Favor Of Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban

Posted January 29, 2017 by with 174 comments

trumpLast week (as seen above), we had a strong indication that Helix Studios performer Brad Chase was a supporter of Donald Trump. (I guess all these oompa loompas like to stick together.) Today, we now have clear proof that Brad Chase isn’t just a Trump supporter, but also a fan of Trump’s Muslim ban, a blatantly unconstitutional executive order blocking hundreds of millions of people from entering the United States, based solely on their religion or ethnicity.

bdJust like Trump—with no facts, logic (none of the people mentioned in the below tweets were from Trump’s list of banned countries), or grammar, Brad Chase took to Twitter this morning to try and make his ludicrous, bigoted case:

bradchase bradchase2Despite the fact that no terror attacks in the United States have ever been committed by anyone from the countries on Trump’s list of banned countries, the cowardly Brad Chase, whose pathetic fears are based entirely on his own hatred of Muslims, continued:

bc1 bc2 bc3 bc4 bc5If Helix, or any studio, decides to hire this clueless clown again, it will be noted here. Brad Chase’s best bet is to go and apply with Michael Lucas, where at least he’ll fit right in.

  • Ben

    Oh someone put their dick in his mouth. I’d do it myself but I don’t wanna catch anything.

    • joeguy45

      Are you the same ben who loves tanner & world peace ? lol

      • Ben

        I never said about world peace lol. You did. You’re the one who acted like a victim and started throwing tantrums like a kid.

        • joeguy45

          lol… I think im falling in love with you Ben…. you are funny

          • Ben

            cool

  • Miss Tea

    I didn’t like him before,now it’s just a matter of how much we can laugh at the cost of his stupidity.

  • moondoggy

    Trump is the only religious zealot I can think of who doesn’t even pretend to pray or attend church. (I mean, neither do I, but I’m not declaring a holy war in the name of Jeebus.) I wonder if he can name even three apostles.

  • #FearlessFanatic ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜ

    Fuck him and his blown out hole. I knew he was a trump supporter way before he was elected. (His trump snapchats are embarrassing).

  • #FearlessFanatic ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜ

    He also looks like a meth head under the 20 pounds of makeup he carries on his face https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f9afdc7278bef2d492bdcc6a657d125d000a333164b496527d7f3a2a5b5627be.gif

  • Benjam

    Good. I hope closet fascists/nazi sympathizers keep exposing themselves. and drag helix the next time they promote him.

    also can’t believe that racist jacob dixon came crawling back.

  • Sed

    Brad Chase is a racist employed by a racist studio. Why are we surprised?

    • McM.

      I don’t know if it was Brad Chase, but I do remember Zach made a post on a Helix twink that gave a “separate but equal” argument on studio’s lack of non-white performers.

      • Sed

        That was Troy Ryan who made that statement McM. Ironically he’s a big time Obama supporter and hates Trump. Of course that doesn’t mean he would have done a scene with a black guy :-)

    • realitytvIV

      Yeah, the majority of them are pretty racist. Isn’t Cooper Steele on Twitter right now talking about how his white ass has the right to say the n-word because he’s from the “hood” and sleeps with black men? Lol. They never learn…mainly because their white (mainly older women) fans dismiss valid criticisms as “hate”.

  • OverKill
  • Dulcis Memoria
  • Zealot

    His age belies his ignorance. How sad and tragic he didn’t do his due diligence so that he’d understand that all immigrants to this country are extremely well vetted already, through a system put in place during the Obama Administration. He’s clearly swallowing the far-right’s Kool-Aid and speaking out of ignorance and/or hate. He’s also electing to forget all the crimes committed for centuries against our community by the Christian faiths, and the millions slaughtered of all genders, sexual orientations and ethnic backgrounds by Christians since history has been recorded. To support such an anti-LGBTQ Administration (Trump’s) which also appears to be afraid of, and therefore eager to persecute, demonize, blame, ridicule and pass hateful laws to further marginalize women, minorities, people of the Muslim faith during this, their swan song in power. These are things these people feel and believe. They understand that soon, all these factions will realize what has been done– lying, cheating, swindling, rigging and otherwise twisting our Democratic system to maintain themselves in power. Once we realize these truths and stop voting against our own self interests, we can truly begin to weed out these elements from our system and get on with the work of justice, love, acceptance and fair treatment for all in this nation. Unfortunately, we have polluted young minds like Brad Chase, who won’t strain themselves to find out if the information they’re blithely swallowing has any merit. So, I can hate him which is the easy thing to do, or I can hope he learns a lesson the way many people of his age must– to suffer at the hands of those they worship and keep in power. Medicine can often taste bitter and sour on the tongue, but when it works, the patient lives.

  • Xzamilloh

    Remember when Donald Trump imposed a Muslim ban to “protect America” but left Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan off of the countries banned, thus demonstrating what a massive lying hypocrite he truly is?

    http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb127/ganhyun/GAF/pepperidge%20farm.png

    And he’s talking about the next 9/11, blissfully unaware that the individuals behind 9/11 were from countries not on the proposed banned list. I have my issues with Islam and regressives fawning all over themselves to protect such a terrible ideology, but this is some draconian nonsense.

    • Dazzer

      It’s worth pointing out that Trump hasn’t proposed a travel ban on people from countries where he’s doing business.

      • Xzamilloh

        Precisely. From the minute he clomped his way into the oval office, he has been one conflict of interest after the other.

      • A.C.

        You are free to disagree with the inappropriately named ‘ban’, but it is worth pointing out that in order for the implication of your observation to be true, he would have compiled the list himself or with foreknowledge of its implications. Factually, that is not the case. The list of seven countries (which are not explicitly mentioned in the executive order) was compiled by the previous administration. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, indicated that the reason that these seven countries were on the list was because their respective governments did not provide adequate information or utilize adequate informational databases that the United States could access to vet the veracity of the statements made by applicants for entry into the United States. That was one of the criteria used in addition to the fact that the Country may continue to harbor terrorists, provide them with material aide and comfort, and or support them in their efforts. There may well be other countries that we need to add to the list, but countries like Saudi Arabia, have information that we can use to verify claims and the Obama and Trump administrations found no reason then to add them to the list of seven.

        • Maximus

          The point is that Trump likely would have thought twice about this idiotic move if it could have conceivably impacted his personal financial interests.

          • A.C.

            I am prototypically cynical, but I am not going to impute to him some ill intent in the absence of any compelling evidence. I will also add that I do not find the executive order to be anymore idiotic than any of its previous iterations issued by past Presidents. It is predicated on sound reasoning and supported by the weight of statutory and constitutional authority that has been reaffirmed by the High Court. While admittedly its execution was not handled well, something I will continue to concede, there is no indication from this order or anything else made public, that this list was compiled based on pecuniary interests. While I have staked out a personal and political position on the matter of the executive order, I have decided to simply address the legal sum and substance of it and leave the debate as to its moral and political efficacy and legitimacy to others for now.

          • Dazzer

            That’s a reasonable and reasoned position to take.

            I don’t agree with it because the way the order has been implemented indicates a knee-jerk response rather than the reasoned consideration you give to the matter.

            While I acknowledge the truth that this Executive Order was very loosely based on policies about background information established in the Obama era, in itself, that’s not a persuasive argument.

            Even with the safeguards established in the Obama era, there wasn’t a need to ban Muslims from those countries so long as they were legal Green Card recipients and had passed some of the most stringent vetting processes in the world. Essentially, the Trump Executive Order is stating that the policy practised by the Obama administration was legally faulty, did not provide protection to American citizens and the threat was so great that the ensuing implementation of that Order was worth all the chaos and legal purgatory that it would create for vast numbers of people.

            Also, the blanket ban on Syrian refugees is entirely contrary to the Geneva Convention on Refugees 1951, to which the USA is a signatory.

            I understand your reasoning about there being no pecuniary advantage – on the face of it – of the Trump Executive Order, but this is a coincidence too far that a man who has not divested himself of his business interests should implement that Order without considering what advantage it would bring to him personally.

            Had he followed his own campaign promises (which is the argument his administration is putting forward), then Trump’s Executive Order should have been more far-reaching than just banning people from places based on the Obama administration policies (which Trump has already stated are ‘failed’).

            Obviously, I dearly love your contribution to this – please don’t think I’m looking for a fight. This is more my intellectual musings than a solid argument against what you’ve stated.

          • A.C.

            I appreciate your intellectual musings, and welcome a civil discussion on this matter because in cool reflection we are able to see things much more reasonably and respond accordingly.

            The implementation not only seemed haphazard, but was indeed handle more than clumsily. The truth is that the executive order relied upon the well vetted intelligence information provided by the Obama Administration concerning the efficacy of the information that these countries could provide for proper vetting. Those seven countries, not named specifically in this executive order, were then included in a bill that both houses of congress voted in favor of (including those claiming this was a cruel and heartless action by the President) and codified into what we now know of as 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). This was all done in 2011-2012.

            The countries specified by the statute were placed there not because they were majority Muslim, as only seven of the worlds fifty six Muslim majority nations were singled out, but because they possessed inadequate informational clearing houses that we could use to properly vet all individuals seeking entry into the country. As this applies to everyone coming from these seven countries, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, was only applied to seven of the worlds fifty-six Muslim majority countries, and will last a total of three months (time allotted to determine a work-around the bureaucratic shortcomings of these countries), it seems hardly fitting to refer to it as a “Muslim ban”.

            Unfortunately, the bungled manner in which the executive order was implemented initially gave rise to the belief that green card holders were subject to the strictures of the order, however, we now know that that confusion has been resolved and they are exempt. In total, 109 individuals out of the three hundred thousand plus people that flew to the United States on that day were detained. I do not mean to suggest that their experience was trivial, but in light of the real concern as assessed by the Clinton through Obama administrations, I can be disgusted with the roll out while being supportive of the intent and spirit of the order.

            As for the “ban” on Syrian refugees, it lasts the equivalent of four months, with the possibility of an extension for further review, and thereafter caps the total number of refugees the country will take in at fifty thousand a year – a number consistent with previous administrations. While it is true that we are a signatory to the Geneva Convention, nothing in its writing prevents us from taking a stay from it while we sort out the appropriate manner in which to comply. The reasons for this are clear. President Obama rightly recognized that terrorist organizations like ISIL were seeking to infiltrate the refugee process for nefarious and homicidal purposes and therefore it was incumbent on the nation to employ the most appropriate vetting system possible in thwarting those intentions. President Trump intends to strengthen them and I am waiting to see what this three and four month review produces before I condemn the action outright.

            I would grant that it would be a coincidence too far but for the fact that the countries that have been left off the list were also countries that President Obama agreed should not be included as there simply was no intelligence suggesting that they should be included. The President’s advisor, Reince Priebus, has stated that more countries could be added to the list, but it is likely that they will only be added when and only when they can show to Congress that those countries deserve to be added to the list using the same vetting process and intelligence review used by the Obama administration. Until then, and in the absence of compelling evidence, I will continue to treat this as mere coincidence.

            His campaign promise was to implement “extreme vetting”. I always thought it was such a silly and juvenile way to describe such a serious process, but such is his way. I was simply glad that his red meat for the masses ‘muslim ban’ proposal did not materialize. This order is targeted, time limited, and constitutional. I can understand the political disagreement, but not much else.

          • Dazzer

            I really, really, really appreciate that you provide a well argued brake against my worse impulses.

            My problem in debating with you is that you’re so much more informed and educated than I am.

            Ultimately, though, I learn so much about American law and the philosophies that inform it that I treat your posts like a tutorial by an expert.

            you’re a thoroughly difficult person to argue against, Sir. But I appreciate it every time we do.

          • A.C.

            Thank you for that kind word, I appreciate every bit of it. More than that, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in these intellectual back and forths with individuals who are willing and up to the task – as you are, despite what you believe about your level of knowledge and education. I hope that we find another topic that allows us this opportunity, only I hope that it is done in the far distant future.

          • Sean

            It is NOT an intellectual back and forth, It is legal masturbation to justify a position. The law and religion can be used to justify ANYTHING including internment camps, banning gay sex, banning porn, torture, and owning another human being as a slave.
            The fact is he is doing what TSA and the rest of the “terrorism industry” is doing It is a jobs program for them. The entire wall, Muslim ban and tarrifs are all theater for idiots to believe he is helping them, I could justify statistically that all humans with a penis should be detained because there is a MUCH higher propensity to break laws if a person has one.
            Legally a lot of stupid shit can be done in this world. And guess what, when a US citizen is held in another country for a crime they may or may not have committed, remember that they are being held LEGALLY, and the rest of the world can justifiably say, we are following what is best for OUT country and we dont give a fuck about you, When North Korea gets an atomic bomb, Donald Trump can not argue a moral high ground because the fact is the US has them. When Palastinians drop a bomb on Israelis killing innocent civilians, the US has no moral authority to say anything since they are protecting THEIR interests. The US has no moral authority to say they are better than anybosy

          • A.C.

            Alright.

          • cluelesswitness

            I swear I get more education from porn blogs than I did in high school.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1385cdc6f1b8768400d40291fed3d06e0da6ee97f86b510e130ff2f21815d6a3.gif

          • Maximus

            I do appreciate and admire the masterfully subtle shade you have exhibited in this post. I honor you with a GIF of the goddess who I worship: https://media.giphy.com/media/7428g6l35bQYhG5PR6/giphy.gif

          • A.C.

            I apologize unreservedly if you read anything in my posts as a dig or slight, that was not my intent. I deal in transparency and would rather be direct than to shade anyone. Again, my apologies if any part of what I wrote was read as anything other than civil.

          • Maximus

            Gurl! Don’t apologize! Shade is one of the most venerated art forms of our people. It requires intellect, creativity, and comedic timing. Embrace your inner shade queen, dear.

            https://68.media.tumblr.com/d380d3c1fe3eb93abe6959055f2dd685/tumblr_nify748Cz01ql5yr7o1_500.gif

          • Maximus

            Gurl. Nobody is questioning the legality of executive orders in and of themselves. This one, however, is a blatant violation of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, and probably the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

            No ill intent?! Bitch, have you not been paying attention to the fact that Steve Bannon, a souless neo-nazi white supremacist, has been pulling Trump’s strings?! Did you not hear Giuliani explicitly state that this order was born from the proposal of a Muslim ban?!

            Also, can we clock the fact that the order is in no way based upon empirical evidence of a substantial threat? I research violent crime, and there is no strong, reliable statistical metric for predicting future dangerousness of individuals. It is impossible to say with even the slightest degree of confidence whether somebody from one of the countries on the ban list is more likely to commit a violent act upon arrival in the U.S. than somebody from a country like France or Japan.

            Some people might try to make the argument that risk assessment can be applied at the group/demographic level, but (1) there is no evidence that immigrants from the banned countries are statistically significantly more likely to commit violent acts than immigrants from non-banned countries, and (2) even if that weren’t true, inferring individual characteristics based upon group probabilities is the very definition of stereotyping.

          • Dazzer

            First of all, I was standing up and cheering your post.

            Although I don’t do it now, I used to be an academic criminologist and your analysis is 100 per cent correct. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

            However, in defence of A.C. he is producing a purely legal analysis of the situation. And if Trump’s actions end up in court, I can see A.C.’s arguments being used to some effect.

            I don’t get the impression that he agrees with Trump, but he’s taking a level-headed approach to point out some of the legalities.

            I’m not picking sides here – I think you’re both magnificent and enjoy the debate between intelligent and passionate people more than I can describe.

          • Maximus

            His purely legal analysis conveniently avoids the politics of the executive order, and therefore, the moral implications. As you know, there is no empirical evidence that this ban will make America safer. Trump is a reckless, uneducated bafoon, but Bannon is not. He—and most likely Michael Flynn, whom is mentally unhinged but still capable of insidious plotting—knows that the ban is only effective as a political attack against Muslims. Giuliani literally admitted to Fox News that the order was constructed as a Muslim ban that could conceivably withstand legal scrutiny. That intent is what matters here, and we cannot allow ourselves to legitimize and normalize discriminatory actions on the part of the world’s most powerful executive. I vehemently reject the notion that this topic is appropriate for reasoned intellectual discourse; it is a fundamental moral issue. Government policy that is based in prejudice instead of empiricism is WRONG.

          • A.C.

            Let me start my reply by saying that I do not appreciate the use of name calling or anything of the like. I always give respect in my exchanges and I appreciate it in return. I understand that I am always entitled to my expectations but not that the other person fulfill them, I just respectfully request that you keep our exchanges civil and respectful.

            That said, your assertion that the executive order is a blatant violation of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, with respect, is hyperbolic, patently incorrect and ignores the litany of case law that supports such an action: see Fiallo v. Bell 430 U.S. 787 (1977).

            I presume that the specific act that you are referencing is 8 U.S.C. Section 1152(a). This provision facially bans all discrimination on the basis of national origin. The history of this provision reveals that it was put in place by President Johnson to end the practice of limiting refugees to this country in favor of white western Europeans. Trump’s executive order, to the contrary, is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants as it is clear that 1. 50,000 refugees will be permitted into the United States following the end of the one hundred and twenty (120) day suspension and, 2. that a number of those refugees will come from the fifty six (56) Muslim majority nations.

            Furthermore, while most who contend that the provision you site prohibits this discrimination, they fail to read 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f) of the same act which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
            proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”.

            Section 1182(f) clearly allows the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, President Trump expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute exactly (finding the entry of aliens from
            these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).

            President Trump also finds more than enough statutory support in 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). That is the provision of the same statute that you site that deals with the visa waiver program. Under this provision, an “alien” is eligible for the waiver only “if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.” It is clear from a plain reading of this provision that Congress supports the president’s sweeping statutory power to exclude classes of aliens from entry on national-security grounds. I might also add that this particular bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support from the likes of Senators Corey Booker, Chuck Schumer, and Elizabeth Warren.

            Decades after the 1965 anti-discrimination provision you implicitly reference, Congress continues to authorize discrimination on the basis of national origin when concerns over international terrorism are involved. It is the reason why President Carter’s action against the Iranians in 1979, of the same scope and magnitude, was upheld even though he targeted applicants on the basis of national origin.

            Finally, on this point at least, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has never interpreted the equal protection clause to be absolute. They have consistently held that when the State is able to provide a compelling interests in discriminating against a class of people and the means by which they discriminate is narrowly tailored, then the discrimination will be upheld. In this case, the discrimination serves the instantiated compelling interest in National Security that congress has affirmed and reaffirmed with the passage of the provisions that I have sited. The last reaffirmation coming in 2011. The means by which this discrimination is carried out is also narrowly tailored in that the suspension lasts for one hundred and twenty (120) days and thereafter normal refugee inflow continues up to 50,000 refugees a year.

            I am not going to argue about Steve Banon’s racial predilections or Rudy Guiliani’s statements, not because I am not aware of what some have to say about it, but because it is of no difference to me. The question for me, as it should be for all individuals in a nation of laws, is whether the law comports with Constitutional mandates and this most assuredly does. I will leave the character assessments and parsing of surrogates words for the pundits. I am here to merely to discuss the the law.

            Last, the Obama administrations criteria for compiling this list was quite practical actually. Congress and the President identified seven countries that 1. were the site for known terrorist organizations, 2. that provided safe harbor for terrorist organizations, and 3. failed to supply adequate informational clearing houses that the United States could access in order to test the veracity and validity of the information provided by visa applicants. The reason for this was clear to congress and President Obama. The desire to be compassionate should not compromise first principles of government – to secure the nation. In order for us to reasonably assure ourselves of safety we needed to make sure that the applicants to this country are who they say they are or represent themselves to be, lest we find ourselves in the near perilous situation we did in 2011 when we thankfully foiled the plot of two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky that the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence found had “exploited special Iraqi refugee programs”. These same considerations, we are told, guided the Trump administrations plans and in the absence of anything more concrete or compelling, I am not convinced that these considerations were unsound or, better yet, unconstitutional.

            I would be sincerely interested to know what your alternative would be. I always believe that we should be able to appeal to another alternative if a better one presents itself.

          • Maximus

            Of course he’s trying to affect the ethnic make-up of the country. Bannon is a white nationalist. Your stricly legal interpretation is completely disingenuous. The legal system does not operate in a vacuum. It, like all societal institutions, are shaped by political, cultural, financial, and individual interests and influences. You can’t just ignore that this ban was born from rightwing bigotry.

            Furthermore, most of your arguments hinge upon the notion that the ban could improve national security, and I am telling you as a scholar in the field of criminology that there is no reasonable, rational argument for the order because it is not based in empirical fact. There are no methods for predicting future dangerousness that satisfy the Daubert standard. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

            Don’t bring Obama into this. His administration’s reasons for compiling the list are irrelevant because he never intended to place a halt on immigration from those countries. Secretary Napolitano testified before the Senate that the 2011 policy regarding visas for Iraqis only increased scrutiny, which had the effect of slowing down the approval process. It was never a moratorium or hiatus.

            In regard to alternatives, let me begin by saying that Islamic terrorist attacks are proportionally nominal. Since we know that alienation from society begets antisocial behavior, policies clearly meant to target Muslims are completely counterproductive. If you have an issue with violence in this country in general, then the only empirically valid remedies would be stricter gun control and social, educational, and labor reforms that would ensure that fewer people are driven to rely upon illicit economies to survive. Banning already extensively vetted immigrants from countries whose citizens have not committed any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil within the past 20 years is an intellectually lazy, irrational, unscientific, populist, bigoted, and immoral course of action.

            That you would in any way defend such a policy and the individuals who conceived is almost more disappointing than I can articulate. How can you ask me to respect you when you are arguing counter to fundamental intellectual values and giving tacit approval to politicians who do not believe in the principle of equality under the law?

          • A.C.

            Let us first acknowledge that in your retort to me you stated with factual certainty that the executive order was unconstitutional and violative of the statute in question. My analysis strictly sought to disprove that thesis; and I believe that it did. You did not start this conversation arguing morality, you started this conversation arguing legalities. I am not here to argue the moral efficacy of the executive order when the call of the challenge was – is it constitutional and or legal?

            My legal analysis is what is required in a debate about the law. There is always room for what we call in jurisprudence, a co-constitutive approach. This is when we ask the court to recognize the reality of the application of a law and its impact on society and or specific groups. The Court’s response is not to be dismissive of these concerns, but to ask if the intent of the law was to harm these specific groups, in other words, is there any compelling evidence tending to show an unlawful, discriminatory intent. I am not persuaded that an order that 1. does not impact the vast majority of Muslims, seeing as the law only applies to seven of the worlds fifty six Muslim majority nations, 2. lasts for four months before returning to normal immigration inflows, and 3. Is made incumbent on everyone from these respective seven nations regardless of race or faith expression, could be the work of a rabid white supremacist.

            My understanding of white nationalism as applied to world migration is that it would seek to stop all immigration to this country from everywhere in the world that is not white, and more specifically anglo-saxon white. This presents a curious expression of that supremacy if it only targets these seven countries and leaves all the others unscathed. Steve Banon’s racial machinations cannot be the sole source of protest in demonstration of an unlawful discriminatory intent. The President’s executive order is in perfect alignment with the statute as passed by Congress and signed by the previous President. It is also in alignment with longstanding and undisturbed constitutional precedent. That was the sum of my argument on that point.

            If you believe that this suspension does not improve national security based on your understanding of criminology then I cannot disagree with your analysis. I know the limitations of my expertise in that area and I certainly do not know enough to broach the subject on that level with you; in short, I am humbled. What I can say is that all of the immigration statutes we have referenced allow the President to take action to preserve national security and it has given him the expressed authority he is exercising now. It might not be effective, it could all be a bit of security theater, but that is a separate issue from whether his expression of power is constitutional and or lawful.

            As for President Obama, the question is not how limited in scope his executive order was. Too many people today have argued in retort that his ‘ban’, which like this one should be called a suspension, only increased the intensity of the screening process and did not halt it altogether. Interestingly, the number of refugees from Iraq dropped from 18,016 to 9,388 as a result of the suspension. That number increased to 12,163 the following year but never to the numbers it once enjoyed. Arguing the distinction between complete cessation and mere diminution misses the point. Whatever the objective of the Obama administration, they discriminated against Iraqi applicants on the basis of their national origin for the sole purpose of insuring national security. That is what is alleged to be wrong and more importantly, an ineffective pursuit. The point of true commonality remains the same.

            I take every approach you stated above to heart and consideration, but I guess the question is: why not take that approach to refugees and employ the measures included in the executive order? Why must it be either or instead of both/and? You may find the action dubious, but I do not find an order that asks for a four month suspension of immigration from these seven countries so that a more competent vetting system can be put in place is intellectually lazy, irrational, unscientific, populist, bigoted, or immoral. We simply disagree on that point.

            I would presume that disagreement would not come at the expense of questioning my moral sensibilities. I first examined the order and upon determining that it is neither inconsistent with the constitution or statutory authority, I am defending the law against claims of unconstitutionality because there is no evidence of that. I am not defending President Trump or Steve Bannon, but I am defending the law – something I am tasked to do by dent of my profession and my love of the exercise.

            I asked you to respect me because I have offered you nothing but respect tonight and in the past, and I believe that is the purchasing currency of that virtue. The idea that I am not deserving of that because I have simply argued that the law is constitutional seems beyond the pale. I am sure that there will be a time or two when we have to grapple with an issue of equality under the law, but respectfully, that is not this issue. The discrimination being practiced in this instance is lawful under our constitution and I argue nothing more than that.

          • Maximus

            In order to defend the legality of the executive order, one must both argue its potential benefits and dispute discriminatory intent, both of which you are doing. There is no evidence to suggest that immigrants from the ban countries are more dangerous than other immigrants, nor is there evidence that existing vetting procedures are insufficient to weed out terrorists. If anything, this will make the U.S. less safe by alienating domestic Muslim communities and making foreign Muslims less likely to assist American military forces abroad. If there is no logical, evidence-based justification for the order, then I can only suspect that your support for its reasonableness is driven by ideology, and that is what concerns me. Your analysis also continues to disregard Bannon’s candid white nationalism, Trump’s campaign promise of a Muslim ban, and Giuliani’s admission that the order was born from that idea of a Muslim ban. That it does not achieve a complete purging of Muslims from U.S. soil does not purify it of its discriminatory and bigoted intent. Your continued dismissal of that clear underlying intent is incredibly troubling.

          • A.C.

            Frankly, that is not true. In order to prove that the order is legal all the government need show is Constitutional and statutory authority – they can do both handily. There is no court case, statute, or even ethical guideline that requires that the government prove the potential benefits of any law in order to establish that it is legal. Its effectiveness and its legality are separate concerns; the former being an issue of overall public policy evaluation. Our statutes are replete with laws that are, by most estimations, not particularly effective and or should be replaced by more effective ones, but neither of those two things answer the question of whether it is legal. 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) grants the President that power and a chorus of other cases support that authority, that is the end point of the question of legality. Your concern for my position is duly noted, but the only thing even remotely approaching an ‘ideology’ that drives my view point in this discussion is the very discrete question of constitutionality. As it is the guiding document on all things legal in this country, all questions of that type should begin and end with that. I encourage your dissent on the issue of effectiveness, I believe that there is much room for debate there, but there is no room for dissent on the question of legality in this instance because it is firmly rooted and grounded in US constitutional law and statute. I can acknowledge all of the three things you stated above (not that I agree that equals intent in the way that the Supreme Court defines the term – discriminatory in intent) and at the same time conclude that the order is still legal. You should not be troubled by any point of my analysis as it is what you should expect from anyone in my position, to objectively evaluate the law. What you are arguing is politics and not legality, the latter, on this issue and in this discussion, is my exclusive domain.

          • Maximus

            Again, Giuliani explicitly stated that the order was designed to reduce immigration by Muslims. He actually said that. There is a video clip. Trump also proposed that Muslim ban during his campaign.

            Effectiveness speaks to intent. No reasonable, logical person could expect the order to make America any safer. Thus, it must have a different intended purpose. Since Trump and his surrogates are on video stating what that intent is, it seems like a pretty open and shut case. I believe that MA Attorney General Maura Healey will be able to convince a federal judge or jury of that bigoted intent.

          • A.C.

            Whatever the statements of Mr. Giuliani or the previous iterations of a “muslim ban” made by candidate Trump, the reality still stands that the executive order is grounded in 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) which specifically permits him to discriminate against “certain classes of aliens” if the he believes that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the Country”. The order certainly discriminates, but the statute allows for such discrimination. A congress of 535 legislators debated and voted to allow the President to make a determination of whether a suspension of this sort was in the best interest of the nation. Arguing that it is not in the best interest of the nation is a matter of politics and not one of law. Furthermore, it is incumbent on the opposition to prove that it was the desire of the President to discriminate against all Muslims in issuing this executive order. If “effectiveness speaks to intent” (and I concede this point for the sake of argument), then one would have to say that the President did not intend to ban Muslims based on the mechanics of the order. A “Muslim ban” that only bans Muslims (and every other citizen with them) from seven of the worlds fifty six Muslims majority nations, for a total of one hundred and twenty days, and does not ban Muslims from anywhere else in the world – ex. a Muslim from England, Australia, Mexico, Mali – seems to be a rather ineffective means of expressing such an intent. It would seem to me that if his intent was to stop the inflow of Muslims he would have cast a much wider net to ban them from entry from wherever they may be, indefinitely. You can make the argument for discrimination, but before the court you cannot read into an order what is not there to be reviewed.

            Finally, effectiveness does not speak to intent under the law. A law is deemed ineffective if it is found to be unconstitutional, not if it fails to achieve its stated purpose. The reasons for this was stated by the Court in the case of Calder v. Bull, in which the Court found that it is was not the job of the judiciary to second guess the wisdom of the legislature in enacting a law provided that law was constitutional, as this is. If this were an open and shut case, it would seem that the judges who ordered a temporary stay against the deportation of green card holders would have determined the entire order unconstitutional at that point. That no court did so reveals that it is far from open and shut and the burden that those challenging the order have is preeminently great. Whatever the MA Attorney General can do she should, but I happen to agree with Alan Dirshowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Carl Bernstein that the order is constitutionally sound. That for me is the penultimate conclusion, but we will of course see.

          • sanfv

            Draaaaag her!!!

    • Luca

      He’s very much aware of that. He didn’t make the ban to actually curb terrorism, he made the ban to feed his followers some reason to masturbate, give them a scapegoat to be happy and keep them in support (maybe ahead of some bad economics times?).

    • A.C.

      I understand your point, and it is well taken. I would like to mention, for the sake of fairness in this discussion, that the seven countries included on this list were added by the previous administration for reasons having less to do with their connections to terrorism and terrorists, and far more to do with the fact those respective countries presently cannot provide adequate information concerning their citizens (Yemen and Syria in particular considering their present state). As the previous administration begrudgingly yet rightly pointed out, to maintain the high standard of vetting that refugees are subjected to the government needs the information to validate the claims that applicants make on their applications for entry. This executive order mirrors in substance and statement orders made by previous presidents with the full support and weight of statutory and constitutional authority. Without question, it is the execution of this order that has left many wanting.

      • Xzamilloh

        Thank you very much for that. You’re right, the execution is shitty and has left more questions than answers, but if these countries cannot adequately provide info on its citizens, being cautious is smart. Of course the proverbial man-child Agent Orange is determined to turn the government into a dysfunctional mess with these kinds of overreaching legislative orders

      • Ben

        This makes sense but I really doubt this is what Cheeto had in mind,

        • A.C.

          I cannot divine what President Trump had in mind when he signed the order. I can only respond to what is actually in the order, and what was there is not new and as you rightly pointed out, makes sense.

  • Sed

    Hey Zach. Joey Mills thinks you are cyber bullying Brad Chase. You point out that Brad Chase supports a super racist policy and you are the cyber bully.

  • Trev Nich

    The 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, and the UAE. The Boston Bombers were from Chechnya, which is part of Russia. Many of the incidents he is listing were committed by citizens, not by refugees. There is no evidence of any of the refugees admitted from the countries on the ban list as having committed any violent acts. The Pulse night club shooter was of Afghan background. But, there’s also the “White” terror list. Oklahoma City bombing, and the Atlanta bomber come to mind. Then there’s also the Christians that have bombed numerous Planned Parenthood clinics. And frankly, who knows how many we’ve missed because of how the media spins stories that will get them attention, and thus more money. An incident that is committed by a Muslim or non-white person in general gets tons more coverage because it plays into the rhetoric that people want to hear. It’s all manipulation and fear mongering. And it’s pretty rich coming from the country that has committed the greatest acts of terrorism in global history (The atomic bombs in Japan, chemical warfare in Vietnam, and the fact that America created the Taliban to fight off the Soviets from conquering Afghanistan).

    • Trev Nich

      And there’s the crimes against humanity in general that America has committed in Iraq and Afghanistan which has turned an entire generation against America. America doesn’t do anything to police their soldiers, which is why they’ve done minimal to punish the soldiers who have raped and murdered young women in Japan and Korea. There have been massive protests in Okinawa to remove the American military base because of how many times American soldiers stationed there have committed violent crimes against local women, and the American military doesn’t do shit about it. Honestly, Colby Keller was right in his reasoning for wanting to elect Trump. America is on the complete path of self-destruction now, so maybe the political elite that has been rampaging across the world, terrorizing the rest of humanity, will finally come to an end, and America will stop being the global bully that it is.

      • sammy1023

        Don’t give me this “crimes against humanity” bullshit about the atom bombs, those bombs SAVED maybe a million allied troops, A MILLION, most of them American, including, very possibly, the guy posting this retort as a descendant of one of those soldiers saved, so go be sanctimonious with someone else’s life and GET EDUCATED!!

    • Casey Scott

      I’d also bring up Sandy Hook and the Charleston Church shootings as examples of white terror acts.

    • Casey Scott

      There’s even a Wikipedia page detailing acts of Christian terrorism. Ugh, Brad Chase…you idiot.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

    • Trev Nich

      I don’t know where “Sammy1023″‘s comments went but if that bitch wants to fight, lets fight. First of all, you can’t justify the atomic bombs by claiming millions of lives, especially American lives were saved by ending the war sooner. For one thing, you’re saying that American lives matter more than Japanese lives, which is inherently racist. Next, if America had entered the war sooner, you could argue that millions of lives would have been saved as it would have caused a resistance to Hitler to have gained momentum a lot sooner. Instead, America watched as millions were being murdered saying “that’s not my problem” and even rejected thousands of refugees, sending them back to Europe and sending them to their deaths. The Atomic bombs were crimes against humanity and claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Just because it brought about the end of the war does not make it justifiable, especially since the radiation from it caused thousands of Japanese to die long after the war was over.

      Also, “Sammy1023” is ignoring all of the other atrocities America has committed, like the chemical warfare used against civilians in Vietnam, which is causing Vietnamese babies to be born with deformities to this day. And it’s also ignoring how America refuses to punish their soldiers for committing crimes. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was created when a gay soldier was murdered by a fellow soldier and the government decided the best solution would be to just not allow anyone to be gay. And there’s the persistent issue of sexual assault in the military.

      Finally, I’m not American, which is why I actually have a clue about this shit. Bye Felicia. (I don’t know if he deleted his own comment, or it was deleted, but I have the email showing what was said and this Canadian bitch isn’t going to back down to any American cunt).

    • Xzamilloh

      Except “white” isn’t an ideology. “Black” isn’t an ideology. How is “white” vs. “Muslim” a valid comparison? Oh, I get so tired of having to speak up for Christians in America because they don’t need it, but apparently, a religion of over 2 billion is seen as needing special defense. Christians that bombed numerous Planned Parenthood clinics… you’re grossly exaggerating and you know it. In the entire history of abortion clinic bombings, less than 10 people have died. Let’s stop pretending that the media spins coverage that isn’t in favor of radical Islamists, because let the media tell it, it was the truck that killed people in Nice, the guns that attacked Charlie Hebdo, the “rowdy men” who were responsible for thousands of German women assaulted two New Years ago. The fact that you and those of your regressive ilk continue going to the Christianity’s past to compare it to today’s Islamism demonstrates that maybe Christianity has reformed for the most part. How many of those points did you get? And I’m black by the way, so spare me the “racist white” card. I’m just someone who doesn’t want anyone discriminated against but is not afraid to call a spade a spade.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv8JrRsWAAAjJ99.jpg

      • Ulf Raynor

        No need to go to Christianities past to look for it’s abhorrent effects on LGBT people.
        How many LGBT teen and young adult suicides or attempted suicides can be directly attributed to the anti-gay animus of Christianity in this country alone, let alone the world?
        The numbers are staggering, not to mention the wholesale physical, spiritual and psychological damage *legally* operating *conversion* torture camps funded, promoted and operated by Christian’s.
        Not all deaths are caused by some nutjob with an assault rifle, I’d argue more damage is done by nutjobs armed with their Holy books and yes, that includes the Bible.

        • Xzamilloh

          “No need to go to Christianities past to look for it’s abhorrent effects on LGBT people.
          How many LGBT teen and young adult suicides or attempted suicides can be directly attributed to the anti-gay animus of Christianity in this country alone, let alone the world?”

          I don’t dispute the harm Christianity has inflicted on LGBT individuals over the years and now. But, to compare to what LGBT individuals go through in Islamic countries and the attitudes expressed and shared by an alarmingly high number of Muslims is being willfully obtuse. It’s like comparing a stab wound to a gunshot wound. Both are painful, but one is demonstrably worse.

          “The numbers are staggering, not to mention the wholesale physical, spiritual and psychological damage *legally* operating *conversion* torture camps funded, promoted and operated by Christian’s.”

          You seem to be under the impression that I am unaware of the harms of fundamentalist Christianity. You’re not going to get any arguments from me about it, and you’re setting up a false dichotomy. Christianity is not the opposite of Islam, so when I bring up how backwards I feel the religion is, bringing up how backwards Christianity is isn’t a retort… because I agree that Christianity is ALSO backwards.

          “Not all deaths are caused by some nutjob with an assault rifle, I’d argue more damage is done by nutjobs armed with their Holy books and yes, that includes the Bible.”

          Well, duh… because nutjobs armed with their holy books inspire quite a few of the nutjobs with the assault rifles. I’m an atheist… you can spare me the whole diatribe about Christianity because I’m not defending it or any other religion. Maybe stop operating under this guise that those who are critical of Islam are racist, Islamophobic, or are Christians.

          • Maximus

            We’ve had this conversation before, but it’s been so long that I’ve forgotten some of the details. Your position on Islam is in line with the Sam Harris/Bill Maher school of thought, right? I actually find their views refreshing—although I take issue with the reckless way in which Harris has profited from disseminating those views—given how intellectually inconsistent many liberals tend to be in regard to Islam. I’m completely opposed to religious discrimination and religious hate crimes, but I’m not about to cozy up to one of the most oppressive patriarchal institutions in the world. I chose not to attend the Boston protest yesterday when I learned that it was being organized by CAIR and would feature a Muslim prayer session. My woke gay feminist atheist ass ain’t getting anywhere near that nonsense.

          • Xzamilloh

            Harris, while a bit of an intellectual snob, is right when he discusses the harms of Islam and how those of us on the left have sort of catered to this wave of Islamism that has gone unchallenged out of fear of being called racist or Islamophobic, because as any good regressive leftist knows, labeling someone as one of those things allows them to not only discount that person’s opinion, but now that person has to deal with the extra baggage of removing the label from their name. CAIR is a mixed bag for me… I feel like they have a good purpose, but their leadership is murky, as well as where they stand on the spectrum of Islam

        • WyattTF

          Christian extremists: want to take away your legal right to marriage.

          Muslim extemists: want to take away your right to have a head which connects to your body.

          Dumbfucks like you: Same thing! Christians are just as bad!

          • Dazzer

            Actually, there’s actually one ‘Christian’ pastor in the US who wants it to be legal to kill gays.

            And if you look at some of the ‘Defending Religious Freedoms’ legislation being circulated in various States of America, they’re explicit that all kinds of goods and services (including medical) can be refused to anyone who a self-professed ‘Christian’ considers to be ‘gay’.

            Context is everything.

  • Sed

    Brad has been on twitter doubling down on his previous statements. The racism is strong with this one. Goodness I would hate to know what he thinks of black people.

    • WyattTF

      Recognizing Islam for the violent, disgusting hateful cult it is is not racism. It is realism.

      • Ken Masterson

        Exactly, well said!

      • Sed

        Really? But one form of racism usually portends another, I wonder how Brad feels about black and brown people right here in the Good Ol us of a.

  • Thomas Baudinette

    “Waiting for the

  • WyattTF

    The irony in seeing a gay man defend Islam….it’s beyond me. You do realize you would be executed for existing in most of the countries upon which we have placed restrictions?

    I’m tired of acting as if we have to ignore what’s plainly visible on our planet: Islam is a horric, violent faith. It treats women like trash. And gays even worse than that. And I know some dumbfuck will try to say Christians are as bad. No. Not even close. In majority Christian nations extremists want to take away your right to get married. In majority Muslim nations? They hang you. Once can be opposed to Christian oppression of gay rights in the US while still recognizing it pales in comparison to the treatment of gays by Muslims.

    Restricting the migration of Muslims to the USA is in our nation’s best interests. ESPECIALLY if you are gay.

    • Dazzer

      If you think that discriminating against someone because of their religion, you shouldn’t be living in a democracy. Nor should you be a citizen of the United States.

      • WyattTF

        A gay man defending Islam…you are like a black person defending the KKK. Jews advocating for increased nazi migration.

        There is nothing wrong with recognizing Islam for the violent ideology that it is.

        • jacob221

          Like you care about black people

        • Dazzer

          What religion are you? I might want to discriminate against you, some time.

          Also, I’m old enough to have been caught up IRA bombings. If I followed your logic, I should be discriminating against all Roman Catholics, because the the IRA was notionally Roman Catholic in its membership.

          I don’t and never have discriminated against Roman Catholics, despite what some members of that religion have done.

          I’ll judge Muslims as I find them. Attempting to justify hatred of an entire religion is as pointless as it is fruitless.

          • WyattTF

            I don’t believe in any of those old desert fairy tales. I think they are all harmful, but Islam is singular in it’s harm to humanity.

          • Dazzer

            In real terms, Islam – historically – is no better or worse than most religions tend to be when they have power.

            You’re just noticing Islam right now because of a virulent strain of death cultism that infects it. But that strain of death cultism has infected most religions at some time or another.

    • nick

      Christians in Africa don’t just want to stop us getting married, they want us dead, and where did they get their unique view of Christianity from I wonder ?

      • WyattTF

        A defection from stating the plain fact that Islam is a regressive barbaric faith.

        • DrunkEnough

          The only regressive thing I see here is you.

        • nick

          I’m saying they both are, in the wrong hands.

    • jacob221

      NO
      by your other previous comments

      You’re just a EO BIGOT

    • Luca

      you know that the five countries with the biggest Muslim population (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria) are not included in the list, right?
      Or that none of the people that made homophobic killings in US (or terrorist attacks, for that matter) are refugees from the banned countries but certified US citizens?
      Or that Saudi Arabia (which doesn’t really treat gays royally, and where 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 came from) is -not- in the list, together with several other risky countries?

      And I might conclude that this is not defending Islam, it’s defending human rights and dignity. If you don’t know what these are, it’s all your problem.

      • WyattTF

        You are right. This ban is far too narrow. This is a first step in the right direction towards limiting the growth of Islam in America. Islam is a cancer upon humanity…..look at Europe right now.

        • Luca

          considering that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US are made by US citizens, maybe it’s you that should be banned by your own country

          • WyattTF

            Google “per capita” you simpleton.

    • McM.

      Christians are just as bad. Point blank. The difference is the atrocities against women and homosexuals in Islamic regions occur in theocratic states. But both religions teach the same thing in regard to gender roles and sexuality.

      What you fail to understand – as with most people – is:
      The ONLY thing mitigating the batshit craziness inherent to Christianity is a SECULAR state. Were it not for secular governments, homosexuals would still be killed and subject to various physical torments deemed acceptable and necessary by society.

      • WyattTF

        No. Not at all. Compare the Pope to the Mullah of Iran. Not even close. Islam is unique in its barbarity.

        • Xzamilloh

          In the present world it is. Islam needs the same reformation that Christianity went through. Judaism is a better example of overcoming one’s doctrine, as the Old Testament is worst than the Koran and New Testament combined.

      • Xzamilloh

        I’m an atheist. I agree and disagree with you that Christians are just as bad… but Christians being “just as bad” is not an argument for bad Muslims… it’s a smokescreen that ends up obfuscating the real issue. Trump’s executive order is a fascist’s wet dream, but historical Christianity is a better example to compare to today’s Islam. Fundamentalist Christians are a persistent pain in my ass, and with this new Administration, it’s likely gonna get bad. But as it stands, I’d rather be gay here than gay there.

        “The difference is the atrocities against women and homosexuals in Islamic regions occur in theocratic states. But both religions teach the same thing in regard to gender roles and sexuality.”

        This demonstrates a growth in Christians that has not happened with Muslims, based on your own words. If both religion teach the same thing, why is that one religion spawns more terrorist groups than the other? I think it’s safe to say that today’s Christians don’t know jack shit about the bible or Christianity in its original form, because we’d have more Michele Bachmanns and Duggars running around.

        • McM.

          I agree with your points, but I’m not one to give Christianity a comparable pass because while the majority of sects have undergone a social evolution, each notable step wasn’t something that occurred within churches or religious communities by themselves. They were always prompted by preceding changes in society and laws (religion: it is okay for ppl to do this shit; courts: this shit is not okay), so in my view this doesn’t make Christianity inherently better. It appears “better” due to a secular society forcing changes in behavior that later become reflected in teachings.

          For this reason, I also would rather be gay here. Though I’m not under the illusion I’d be any safer in Christian theocracy. We’re all aware what they are capable of, historically and by contemporary actions, so it’s perplexing when Christianity is presented as “better” without any recognition as to why. And that why – a secular state – is exactly what should quell fears of incoming groups “enforcing Islam” or their culture in the US or other non-Muslim countries. That is, provided it (continues) to properly work.

    • Casey Scott

      Like Islam, Christianity is a religion with a holy text calling for the execution of gays (Leviticus 20:13). It’s about the interpretation of that text that matters. This is where radical Islam, as well as extreme Christianity, becomes dangerous and terrifying, though neither represents the entirety of a religion or its followers. Painting with broad strokes is a wildly irresponsible thing to do, especially if you’re in public office. If you think all Muslims who come into this country are seconds away from hanging gays or whatever other heinous things the extreme followers of the religion do in other nations, and if you think any of the downtrodden refugees (mostly women and children) are laying in wait to massacre Americans instead of just looking for hope and opportunity for better lives free of fear and danger, you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and there’s really no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

      • WyattTF

        The Muslims who come here are not all terrorists willing to strap bombs to their chests, but they create space for that extremism to grow. Islam is a cancer. To let it grow is to make way for it to metasticize.

        • Xzamilloh

          I grow tired of the extremists like you and the regressives like some of the others on here who are just two extreme ends of the same coin. YES, Islam is a regressive ideology and it perplexes me how individuals who are eager to condemn Christians who refuse to bake cakes for us as gay people would then turn around and muddy the waters and attempt to make Islam this benign force. The solution isn’t to remove Muslims from America or to try those who practice the faith from coming in. I believe our vetting system has been working fine as it is, considering it is one the most difficult systems in the world.

          The “not all Muslims” trope is a weak strawman at best, considering A. We already know not all Muslims are extremists and B. The largest group that falls victim to Muslim extremism… is MUSLIMS. So we can be Americans and open our borders up to victims of this violence while also conceding that there is indeed an alarming number of radicals and radical groups inspired by some interpretation of Islam that breeds violence

      • Xzamilloh

        “If you think all Muslims who come into this country are seconds away from hanging gays or whatever other heinous things the extreme followers of the religion do in other nations, and if you think any of the downtrodden refugees (mostly women and children) are laying in wait to massacre Americans instead of just looking for hope and opportunity for better lives free of fear and danger, you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and there’s really no point in trying to convince you otherwise.”

        What about those of us who don’t fall prey to that tired ass strawman of “all [insert here] are guilty of [insert here]”, who aren’t Christians and don’t subscribe to the Christian religion and still have a problem with Islam just like they do the other Abrahamic faiths? At least with most Christians here, you will get a piss poor explanation of Jesus doing away with the bad shit in the Old Testament, which of course I find preposterous and contradicting with a few passages in the Matthew and Luke, but if it keeps you believing such nonsense, good for you. I look at the state of Germany, France, and Sweden, countries that opened their arms to refugees and yes, I see things that concern me. But, we should not close our arms to those escaping peril. But, the only thing I will say is that on paper, Christianity and Islam are just as bad. But in practice, current day Islam is far worse than current day Christianity… it just is.

    • a b

      But who’s defending Islam here? We are defending muslims, not their religion. If you care for gay people in muslim nations, why do you support when USA wants to block them from emmigrating from the living hell they are?

      • Mike Julius

        Because it’s about keeping dirty arabs out of his pristine country.

  • Diogenes Veritas

    who?

  • realitytvIV

    He’s been making very messy comments about politics for a long time now, I’m surprised people are only now noticing. He always deletes them though once he’s corrected.

  • jacob221

    Someone should tell mr. chase that he could do the same thing to gay people and especially gay men who participate and engage in ” unsafe behavior ”

    Don’t act like if SOME republicans had their way
    they wouldn’t ask for names and put us on a list

    • jacob221

      SUPRISE SUPRISE

      Sean Spicer Refuses to Discuss Rumored Anti-LGBT Executive Order Coming from Trump This Week

  • Sed

    The people Trump has put in his administration in Washington hates gays and they think people who watch porn are mentally ill. The people who do porn would be considered demons from Hell to them.

    The so-called Alt-Right seems to be very popular with a lot of gay men. Probably because they hate women and they hate minorities.

  • Scrapple

    https://media3.giphy.com/media/26gs8xStzAyEkGEZG/200.gif#2

    I can’t with stupid people who choose to wallow in their own ignorance. Yep, keep out all the Muslims. That’ll protect us. Because we all know Muslims were behind Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Aurora, Newtown and countless other acts of terrorism, large scale violence and anti-government attacks. We absolutely can’t forget history. We all know Muslims led The Crusades. And the Spanish Inquisition. And The Holocaust. And Executive Order 9066? Totally Muslims. Keep everyone out. Because it’s not like any of the early American settlers came here to escape religious persecution. It’s not like Ellis Island was an immigration station. Never happened. This is how we have to protect our country. Through fear and profiling. Might as well start handing out the pink triangles and scarlet letters now. Because when it’s time for the gestapo to start rounding up fags and whores I wouldn’t want Mr. Chase to be overlooked.

    This is great, because it solves the problem of what to get Brad for Christmas:

    https://media0.giphy.com/media/l2SpMaNVyvzCK4TIY/200.gif#5

    I hope he doesn’t already have one. Maybe I should check his Amason wishlist first.

    • WyattTF

      What the fuck is with you idiots who bring up the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to deflect from the clear barbarity of Islam TODAY??? Those incidents were hundreds of years ago. Muslims to this day have theocratic states that ban non Muslims, stone rape victims for adultery, bar women from driving, execute gays. You are so fucking brainwashed and afraid of being labeled intolerant that you are unwilling to label an evil religion for what it is. Islam is disgusting and has no place in America. End of story.

      • Zachary Sire

        The majority–millions and millions and millions–of people who are Muslims do not believe in or practice the violence you’re trotting out, and they have not distorted the Quran or Islam. You, like so many Milo and Trump stans, are full of shit.

        • WyattTF

          Really? The majority don’t believe in that? Then why is Islam such fertile ground for horrific totalitarian states that are awful for human rights? Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Brunei, Egypt, Afghanistan, Bangledesh, ad nausem. A majority Islamic country that is democratic and actually respects human rights is damn near impossible to name. Why Zach? Perhaps because Islam is disgustingly flawed. Why are you afraid to admit that?

          • Xzamilloh

            Islam is in need of a reformation within its population… because as it stands, Jews and Christians morally evolved beyond the tenets, and now we need the moderate and secular Muslims like Maajid Nawaz to push in the kind of Islam that is just as hypocritical but benign as moderate Christianity and Judaism. Let’s be real: the Torah and Bible are just as archaic and draconian as the Torah (The bible New Testament is the most nonviolent of the three), but luckily we live in a country where people don’t really care about their faith the way others do.

        • Xzamilloh

          Except the millions and millions that do not believe in or practice the violence in the Quran and Hadith are not the problem… it’s the other millions and millions that do. Milo is a glorified attention whore who would suck his own dad’s dick if it meant getting his Twitter back, but a busted clock still tells the correct time twice a day. Wyatt lost me with the last two lines that went Orwellian, but as someone is currently reading the Quran, I’d say like the bible, it’s open to interpretation, but unfortunately, with no “god” to clear up the confusion, it becomes based on popular opinions and hide the faith. The Quran offers no definitive punishment when it comes to homosexuality… that is the Hadith, and that is when we start getting thrown off of roofs. Figuratively… I’m not worried about Muslims in America, coming, going, or here to live their lives.

        • Tim

          Darling, the Koran is plain as a pikestaff when it comes to exhortations to kill the non-believers and other degenerates like the gays. You need to stop being a useful idiot by trying to ignore that. The real problem are the fundamentalist sect, like Wahabism, which take the words literally and you end up with the killing of gays by ISIS by various methods, usually throwing them off roofs. In London these beliefs manifest themsevles by vigilante groups of muslims attacking gay men in certain areas they consider to be muslim. A few perpetrators have been jailed, but the virulently anti-gay ideology of ISIS is already planted deeply. These sects are funded by Saudi, Qatar, UAE and have a huge grip now on muslim thinking in Europe, where 20 years ago, it was largely confined to the Middle East. Trump’s failure was not to extend the extended vetting from these states.

          • Mike Julius

            So is the Bible, dearheart.

          • Dazzer

            As someone who lives in London and who is well aware of the vast variety of problems anyone – not just LGBT people – face, I followed the Muslim ‘attacks’ closely.

            The ‘attacks’ happened in one area of east London, and weren’t just aimed at LGBT people – women were also being attacked for wearing too-short skirts.

            It should be noted that the local police and the local mosque (Whitechapel) worked together and efficiently to stamp out the problems. As you say, the perpetrators were imprisoned of fined – and the Muslim community helped put them there.

            The way to deal with terrorism is to work with different communities to point out it is in our best interests to work together. When terrorists strike, there is guarantee that it will hurt only non-Muslims. When bombs have gone off in London, Muslims have been killed just as much as any other religion.

            And the essential flaw in your argument is that if all these millions of Muslims who live in Europe were hell-bent on destroying Western life, there would be civil war on the streets of our cities.

            There isn’t.

            Instead, we have small cells of vile people carrying out atrocities.

            More terrorist attacks are prevented through good intelligence than any full-on attack on every innocent person in the city.

          • Sean

            “the Koran is plain as a pikestaff when it comes to exhortations to kill the non-believers and other degenerates like the gays”

            Oh so the Xtian bible is good on these issues?

            “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

            Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

            If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

            This one is especially good because it justifiies killing Donny Trump

            They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

            1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

            2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

        • Stacy

          Maybe they should ask the nine dead black people in a South Carolina church what that Muslim did to them…or wait, that wasn’t a Muslim, it was white trash. Zach, I know you are quick to block people so I hope you have kicked these asshats off here so we can go back back to guessing the amount of trash on the floor at the Sketchy House or the % of tats on the average CockyBoy

          • WyattTF

            What kind of bullshit deflection is this? Convenient you don’t mention the Muslim who slaughtered dozens of LGBT people in Orlando.

          • Mike Julius

            Less convenient: this order would have done zero to stop him since he was fucking born here.

          • Xzamilloh

            Why kick anyone off because of political disagreements? Is that not fascism-lite? I think Zach and everyone here is capable of arguing their points without trying to shut down dissenting opinions.

      • Scrapple

        You have issues. Bigoted issues. I hope you never have to deal with people assuming you’re automatically evil or up to no good because of your faith or the color of your skin. Have a blessed day.

        • WyattTF

          Why should I sympathize with Muslims? They dedicate their lives to the teachings of a child fucking warlord. Literally. He married and fucked a 9 year old. And committed atrocities and killed numbers of people that would make Hitler blush. Yet they dedicate their lives to his teaching. Fucking monsters.

          • Mike Julius

            Abraham fucked child brides and yet 3 major religions, including Christianity, sprang out of those balls. Your point earlier was to forget the Inquisition, what about TODAY??? Well, you can’t have it both ways, friend. Either the past matters or it doesn’t. Or does cherrypicking only apply to the Bible and White Pride?

          • WyattTF

            You want to talk about the state of Islam today?? Fine with me. That’s surely a losing argument for you. Islam is burdened by widespread extremism Christianity hasn’t seen in centuries. Not that I’m defending Christianity. But it’s such a common tactic for people like you to deflect critiques on the barbarity of Islam by pointing elsewhere. Because it’s impossible to defend and you’d rather change the argument because youre unable to admit the truth for fear of being labeled an Islamophobe.

          • Dazzer

            There is no single ‘state of Islam’ today.

            There are many different forms of Islam – it’s not a unified whole.

            Many Muslims are perfectly happy with the way their societies are run. I disagree with many of those policies, but if they leave me alone, I’m happy to leave them alone. It’s not up to me to tell those people that they are automatically wrong because they exist in a different society.

            I would say, though, that where there are Muslims attempting to escape vile regimes, as far as reasonably possible, we should be prepared to offer them sanctuary.

          • Xzamilloh

            I agree with everything you said except this line: “It’s not up to me to tell those people that they are automatically wrong because they exist in a different society.”

            What does “automatically wrong” mean to you? Because if I see a society that condones female genital mutilation, female subjugation, the imprisonment/execution of LGBT individuals, I will most definitely say that their society is bad and that ours is better. They can choose to live that way if they wish, but ours is still better. The problem is, most of these countries are leaving us alone, but their people are being subjected to atrocities. So that “If they don’t bother me, I’m good” is kind of a fucked up thing to say… even though when it comes to the preservation of life, I completely understand where you are coming from. It’s more of a “better them than me” kind of thing.

          • Dazzer

            I argued too glibly. I take full responsibility and thank you for pointing it out delicately while not stating it baldly.

            I work from an anthropological position (both social and historical) in which all humanity are related at some level. even the most remote Amazonian tribes still manage to have experience, knowledge of or communication with people not of that tribe.

            And every time there is communication between members of humanity, information passes to all sides. That can be for good or ill, but every part of humanity comes away with some scintilla of an idea about what the other side is all about.

            As such, all aspects of human society are learning from each other over time.

            So, of course I abhor things like female genital mutilation. And I welcome the outlawing of it in many western societies. (In the UK a doctor was prosecuted for performing a form of mutilation a year ago – the first prosecution of its kind. And it’s sent a chilling message out to any other health professional who gets caught up in culture versus law.)

            The (mostly African by birth) women in the West who are being educated about the horrors of FGM take those lessons back to their own countries. Girls in UK schools are taught to speak up and speak out about it – and they bring that message back to their parents.

            It’s an osmosis of ideas and cultural norms.

            Similarly, if you look at things like female subjugation you have to take in the historical context.

            The first leader of any kind of Abramaic religion to give women power in their own rights was Mohammed. He gave wives and daughters inheritance rights from their husbands and fathers that simply didn’t exist in the rest of the world.

            And by the ninth century, Islam had women judges and chancellors of universities that Christian and Jewish societies couldn’t conceive of for centuries.

            But, of course those rights of women were eroded and then turned back because they were a threat to a patriarchy. But there are still some remnants of women’s power. In most sections of Islam, a woman can still divorce her husband for being bad at sex.

            Similarly, LGBT people are treated differently according to the society in which they live. We’re infinitely better in they way we’re treated in most of the West, but those changes have only happened in the last 60 years.

            Abuse, torture and murder of LGBT people used to commonplace in the West – still within living memory of LGBT today. And although it’s only in mostly Western countries (France, Brussels and South Africa), LGBT-friendly mosques – with openly gay imams – are going about their business as a part of Muslim life. They’re not popular with the rest of the Muslim communities, but they exist.

            In a similar fashion, there are some Sharia courts recognised in English law (and I think in some parts of Canada). But those courts are lower courts of arbitration and parties to disputes can appeal to higher secular courts for redress. (Note, English law also recognises lower courts that are governed by Jewish and Christian ecclesiastical law – the Muslims aren’t being allowed anything new or different.)

            My problem with adopting an ‘absolute’ position of enmity towards other cultures is that it never works.

            Ideas have already been exchanged – and societies will gradually change over time.

          • Xzamilloh

            What can be seen as progressive then is simply not the case now. Maybe the rights women were given in Islam were not seen before in the 7th and 8th centuries, but such “rights” mean nothing in today’s context; in fact, of the three abrahamic faiths, it is quite ironic that the one religion that gave women more rights is now the most restrictive of the three.

            “Abuse, torture and murder of LGBT people used to commonplace in the West – still within living memory of LGBT today. And although it’s only in mostly Western countries (France, Brussels and South Africa), LGBT-friendly mosques – with openly gay imams – are going about their business as a part of Muslim life. They’re not popular with the rest of the Muslim communities, but they exist.”

            Yes, they exist, but there is a reason we don’t hear much from them: for the very reason you stated, in that they are not popular in the rest of the Muslim communities. And being “unpopular” in certain Muslim communities carries the kind of baggage that not even someone in witness protection feels. Because unfortunately, many LGBT Muslims, moderate Muslims, secularists, and other minorities live under Islamic rule and they know being vocal can mean signing their own death certificates.

            You don’t spark changes by siding with the people who treat dissidents of Islam as “native informants” and “house Muslims” who are guilty of causing other Muslims to seek them out and kill them for offending the prophet. You don’t spark changes by setting up smokescreens that attempt to obfuscate the issue with Islam by regaling us all with stories of Christianity’s bloody past. It doesn’t demonstrate that Islam doesn’t have a problem… it demonstrates that Christianity had the same problem, and to a lesser extent still does, but went through a reformation, which is why when you see Christians defending appalling actions, we as nonbelievers and even other Christians don’t hesitate to condemn it. There is no “But Muslims do it too”…

          • Dazzer

            I completely agree with your analysis that Islam is in desperate need of a Reformation.

            I can envisage the arguments against it from most/many Muslim scholars. I disagree with them.

            Ultimately, though, we can’t force a Reformation on Islam from without.

            And that’s why I mentioned the LGBT mosques and the absorption of aspects of Muslim Sharia law into Western structures. These things aren’t a one-way street. Even though the osmosis of thought seems to be one-way in terms of Sharia seeping into Western thought, Western thought is slowly oozing back into the various interpretations of Sharia in more fundamentalist Islamic societies.

            It’s interesting to see that while Russia (an increasingly Russian Christian Orthodox country) is now waiting for Putin to make domestic abuse of married women legal, in Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan, the move is for slowly giving women more control of their own lives.

            It’s a slow process.

            I’m emphatically not dismissing or diminishing your argument here – it has real power.

            Instead, I’m coming from it sideways. Your analysis isn’t wrong – but there need to be additions to it.

            I keep on coming back to the necessity of context in any discussion of Islam.

            But it’s not just important in discussion about Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Context is vital in discussion of Buddhism, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Mithrism, Shinto, Hinduism, Jainism, Bahai’ism, Druidism, Paganism and any number of other religions.

            And when Scientology has it’s collapse and rebuilding – in 50 years time, people will be discussing that as well.

          • Sean
          • Zealot

            People also forget that Abraham’s relative, Lot offered the townspeople of Sodom his virgin daughters for sexual favors rather than bring out the strangers (angels) who were in his home. I totally agree with you that people cherrypick what supports their beliefs and ignore the rest. As a History major I came to realize that so much of what happens has happened before and we should be able to see it coming and act differently. People who believe that Muslims are the problem are missing a critical point. If any part of persons in that faith hate the West and our culture, it’s because we’ve blithely cultivated that hate and now we don’t feel we should have to be responsible for our actions. Well, human nature doesn’t work that way. I don’t feel that violence or efforts to control any particular group are ever effective. It just perpetuates a cycle of events that you can’t get out of. It takes someone or a lot of someones to decide we’re going to do something differently so that we can rebuild bridges and begin a process of understanding and peaceful coexistance. My fear is that radicalized people of any faith (and I’ll include the multi-wife-having folks as well as the ultra right survivalists who take by force and hole up on Federal lands as well as cults and other groups who believe violence is an answer) have already given up on having bridges built. If we’re there getting back to a place of feeling safe is going to be difficult at best. And impossible given the actions of our current administration who appear to be acting out of fear and mistrust rather than trying to understand what’s happening and working with the non-radicalized members of those faiths in a different, more positive manner. I fear all Trump is doing is exacerbating the problem which later generations will have to live with and try to overcome.

          • Blacharrt

            Guessing you never heard of Warren Jeffs you seriously make it sound like other religions which are also loose to interpretation don’t or didn’t do the same thing, until the 20th century and this isn’t even included in all US states because still in some states it’s legal to marry someone who is 14 or younger, based on misinterpretation on Christian dogma. Yet people have on blinders when it comes to Islam. Country based on religious freedoms denying people entry due to religious freedom, after poisoning the natives, killing them then pushing them off their land, now you want to put oil in their water…. Very Christian of you

          • WyattTF

            Always deflecting. You bring up Warren Jeffs as if he isn’t a far fringe figure with a few thousand devotees and no real power. His ideological counterpoint in the Islamic world could rule a country of tens of millions.

            And BTW I am not Christian, so that critique falls flat. All religion is harmful, I just recognize Islam is especially malevolent.

          • Mike Julius

            To you the past only matters when it’s about Mohammed, and when someone gives you an example of something similar in moderm times, you move the goal posts. Nice try, but we’re not the ones deflecting. History will look at this the same way they view the ship full of Jews being turned away in the 30’s.

      • Sean

        Ok how long ago was Dylann Roof? Tim McVeigh? Many things have been done in the name of religion, including killing gays, owning blacks. denying women the right to vote. Oh and the KK is alive and well along with other Xtian terrororist groups. Why dont we hear about these fuckers? http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/

        http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

        • WyattTF

          McVeigh was an atheist. Here is what people like you can’t seem to grasp. Christian extremists exist, yes. But they are powerless. They are the fringe shunned by mainstream Christian societ. The KKK is a few thousand rednecks who wear hoods to parades a few times a year. Compare them to the Muslim Brotherhood, Isis, Hamas, the Iranian Government, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram. These are powerful organizations with armies at their disposal. Actual armies with tanks and serious weaponry. They have billions of dollars in funding, and millions of followers. Extremist Islam isn’t a powerless fringe like their Christian counterparts.

    • Remember though, when a school, office, church or other public or private place is shot up or blown up by an American, they’re not a terrorist. They’re troubled & misunderstood. Unless you’re a person of color in America. Then you’re no better than a terrorist.

  • C3xxx

    He must have deleted a good part of those tweets as I can’t find them on his t/l.
    Sad how hate simply exploded all at once like an alien from a chest cavity.

  • Blacharrt

    White people….Just how many ppl that weren’t american’s killed who had nothing to do with 911 outside of the US

    well over a 100,000 more than the 3,000 americans who died and the additional 7 thousand who died during the war, And we bomb other nations killing even more. Not to mention the domestic terrorism, hate crimes that go unpunished by Christian religious zealots. He needs to shut the fuck up from his ivory tower, and go back to taking dick. I never even heard of him until today. Patriotism my ass, Read the fucking bloody history of this country and the crimes committed by Christians throughout it, it ain’t pretty. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f6c852892f7c29dbd21564e8c2490250c7059d116853c06bccc2299ccbbf1a9.gif

  • badgamer1967
  • Ken Masterson

    I agree totally with Brad, as do the majority of Americans, as shown in the latest Quinnipiac poll! There are about 45 Muslim dominated countries. 7 were banned because they are in such turmoil that vetting is impossible. How is that racist or anti-Muslim? If so, ALL Muslim countries would have been included! Get off your moral high horses. Gays are not lemmings as you would wish. We don’t all think alike. Brad has every right to express his beliefs without being trashed by you. You reveal gross hypocrisy by attacking a young gay man for daring to have a conservative political thought!

  • Ricky

    OK, you expressed your opinion “Brad”, now please return to the insignificant red state bubble from which you fled – oh and upon your return, please assure everyone you know, that if you and they believed the blue state elites looked down upon you previously, well I can assure you poor little snowflakes, once he and his annoying children leave the scene you will be dropped and ignored in a way you previously thought was not even possible.

    • Ken Masterson

      Brad is from a blue state, as am I. Insignificant? That is exactly what your political party and ideology have become. You lost the white house, the Senate, the house of Representatives, the supreme Court, the governorships, and state legislatures. Continue your devisiveness and moral elitism and it will only get worse.

      • Ricky

        Oh I read your comments and had you in mind as well Ken. Please note while while your points about Republican “wins” are absolutely spot-on – I agree it will get worse for the red states, because all of that power will not lead to another Industrial Revolution. All of the jobs will continue to migrate to the cities. And even if you are from a blue state, I have no doubt it is the “Staten Island” section.

  • Ken Masterson

    Perhaps we should remind my loving, accepting, open minded gay friends of this . Thereligionofpeace.com/attacks

  • TalkDirtyToMe

    Thank Allah, Christians don’t kill.

  • a b

    Zach, any chance you will make a post about Cody Deal support for Trump?

    • Zachary Sire

      No. I literally have no idea who that is.

      • a b

        WeHo straight instagram whore

  • BLACKjHAMMER

    The one thing that Brad IQ and dick have in common is that they R both EXTREMELY small !!!

  • DaddyYankee

    I don’t want to talk about politics, but I know something for sure: if we all lived in a muslim country we would face a trial and we would be sentenced to death only because we are gay.

    • nick

      Same in most of Africa

  • ToxicBrew

    Poor Brad Chase is now Egg Chase. The poor hoe is now martyring himself and has deleted his image off his Twitter and left a semi suicidal goodbye. Yawn!

  • ToxicBrew

    Poor Brad Chase is now playing the martyr and has temporarily abandoned his Twitter. Yawn!
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6757c6f44d5315d9ad93872b0218863d8718897b33f7b5500877771f090b8d58.jpg

  • bloodhound

    Basic bitches will never learn.You are only attractive as your facials and creampies. Why would you want to give an opinion about something like that when you suck dick and get impregnated for a job?Gurl , learn your place!In other news
    http://i.pokeme.com/meme/img/01i1.jpg

  • Smithian

    I would love to see every single asshole who screams for “extreme vetting” go through the screening process refugees already have to endure to get into this country. They have no fucking idea.

  • pangelboy

    “Not all Muslims are bad, but not all Muslims are good. Practicing a religion of hate: is hate”

    http://i.giphy.com/S0gMhKlBBSmPe.gif

  • Caesarimp

    Y’know, I’m normally not in favor of it, but this is why some studios don’t want their models on social media. Only thing I can say in his defense is that as a Helix model, he is very, very young, and hopefully he’ll grow into some better opinions

    • Sed

      Yeah but it’s not like he can learn in the lilly white environment that is Helix Studios.

  • jacob221
  • jacob221

    I wonder how many days we have to wait for a comment from Trump on what happened in Canada

    • Dazzer

      Breitbart and his other surrogates have already been blaming the attack on Muslims – despite the police arresting a Trump-loving, Marine Le Pen supporting terrorist who is definitely from the European mould.

  • Ninja0980

    Will he be lauding the anti-LGBT SCOTUS nominee and Trump’s anti-LGBT executives orders that are coming?

    • Dazzer

      I get the impression that he’d be hard-pressed to ‘laud’ anything.

      If you mention ‘laud’ to him, the chances are he’ll think he’s been made a member of the British aristocracy.

  • Sed

    White supremacist theory seems to appeal to a lot of gay men. The so-called Alt-Right movement is being lead right now by a closeted(barely) gay man named Richard Spencer.

    • Dazzer

      Yeah. He might be gay. But every time he gets punched, a fairy gets her wings.

    • a b

      Homophobia is not a gay-on-gay problem. The problem is straight people.

  • Benjam

    and he skipped town before anyone could point out a white guy just shot up a mosque

  • When some stupid twink willingly outs himself as an ignorant, racist, piece of shit but you were never interested in him to begin with so boycotting his scenes is literally a nonissue to you and he can fuck off as far as you’re concerned.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a83237ab9596f0a8a8865e32d6430b5610be897071db84f0c76cab63b35423c.gif

  • bob80

    Banning muslim is wrong, but so is defending Islam. Can’t believe so many gay people here are being so naive. Yes christianity has been horrible to us and continues to be in many places, but NOWADAYS our biggest threat is Islam. All the countries that put us to death (except one or two) are muslim countries, almost every muslim country criminalises homosexuality. Meanwhile no catholic country does, and some of them (spain, ireland, France) even have gay marriage.

    So while I agree that the fight is not over and we should carry on fighting against christianity’s influence in the public space, and against christian bigots like Pence, we shouldn’t fool ourselves, the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. All enemies of Trump are not our friends. Muslims should be free to practise their religion, but we should also feel free enough to challenge it, and remind them that they have A LOT of work to do when it comes to tolerance.

    Source: I live in a muslim country so I don’t have the luxury westerners have to pretend that Islam is “just like christianity”, historically it may have been, but nowadays it’s not. Most muslims are like conservative american christians, they’re both our foe, so while we shouldn’t fight them with violence we should always challenge them.

  • Andrea Spiga

    Remember when christians used to kill homosexuals and people with different beliefs, Brad?
    Oh wait, they still fucking do it.
    They should be banned from the US too? Or maybe a ban doesn’t really have a purpose except reassuring scared voters?

  • So young, so cute, but so misinformed and misguided.

  • TK

    He just doesn’t know when to quit. Brad, this is not going to end well for you. Take comfort in your sugar daddies who share your views and move the fuck on…

    https://twitter.com/BradChaseXXX/status/826454514572066816

  • Sed

    So let me get this straight. Brad can make all of the outrageous racist xenophobic statements he wants but when someone calls him on it and points it out he goes whining to twitter. What a punk ass bitch! Hypocrite.

  • night falcon

    He’s lame and has the smallest fucking meat out there. Yet stays posting cock selfies one of those real trump supporters are gonna do this to him https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/abdc4c2badc287e4c4e19bad3112f35733795a8d7044cb20569b8a004af548a5.gif

  • Badger

    Just goes to show taking a dick up your ass doesn’t make you smart.