Trump Freakout Number 999

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

No doubt jealous that President Obama was getting all the attention for his latest inane speech, and worried that Ted Cruz had passed him in the polls in Iowa, Donald Trump offered his latest off-the-cuff, incendiary policy proposal: prohibiting Muslim immigration and foreign travel to the United States. There are five key points to make about this and the reaction to it.

1. It’s stupid and unworkable. A blanket ban on all Muslim immigration fits in well with Trump’s basic approach to politics, which is to use a jackhammer to screw in a nail. Not only does the proposal cast all Muslims together as the enemy, it could have potentially adverse foreign policy implications, as Ben Shapiro explains:

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

It’s unworkable for all of the reasons Reihan Salan suggests:

So I understand Trump’s anxiousness, and I share in it. Where we part company is on how the United States ought to treat people who identify as Muslims going forward. I use this awkward locution (“people who identify as Muslims”) advisedly, because the screening mechanism Trump seems to have settled on is to ask travelers if they are Muslim and to turn away those who say yes. There is something almost quaint about this approach, as if we should expect that people who are trying to do us harm will play by the rules Trump has laid out and openly profess their religious beliefs, knowing all the while that it would lead to their exclusion from the country. Granted, there are many Muslims who would never deny their faith, even if it meant that they wouldn’t be allowed into the country. Indeed, I can imagine such professions sparking a social media campaign designed to discredit the exclusion of Muslims, and to celebrate principled resistance to it. The trouble is that terrorists rely on deceit to achieve their objectives, while the kind of people who’d never dream of lying about their religious convictions generally fall in a different category.

<br>

As usual, Trump is speaking off the cuff. Perhaps he is not entirely serious about simply asking people if they are Muslims or not, in which case he could rely on country of origin. Shall we exclude travelers from Muslim-majority countries? This approach would exclude Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and other religious minorities, and it would ignore the Muslim citizens of non-Muslim-majority countries, like India, Britain, or France. We might instead exclude people with Arabic surnames, as this is generally a good marker of Muslim ancestry, though not a perfect one: this approach would exclude some nontrivial number of non-practicing Muslims, converts to other faiths, atheists, and agnostics, not to mention a large number of Muslims who reject Islamism and Islamist violence.

Now I can already here the Trumpeteers shouting: aha, so that means you’re with Obama and just want unfettered Islamic immigration. Trump supporters and sympathizers have an unusually Manichean worldview: if you don’t support Trump that means you must support Jeb, if you disagree with banning Muslim immigration you’re for open borders, etc. On the contrary, it’s quite possible to disagree with the proposal to ban all Muslim immigration while simultaneously viewing President Obama and the left as dangerously naive when it comes to the problem of Islamic radicalism.

2. Trump doesn’t even mean it. As I wrote elsewhere, if Donald Trump became dictator tomorrow this ban would never occur, just as most of his over-the-top immigration proposals would never see the light of day. Trump offers up this red meat in the hopes of getting his supporters riled up while also getting his opponents to lash out in over-reaction. As usual, he accomplished both missions, and so in that respect Eric Erickson is correct in calling this a brilliant political move.

If you truly believe that this is a well thought out proposal, here’s the Donald explaining how it would work:

Willie Geist: Donald, a customs agent would ask the person his or her religion?

Donald Trump: They would be probably, they would say, ‘are you Muslim?’

Geist: And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?

Trump: That is correct.

Wow, that’s almost as foolproof as asking immigrants if they are terrorists. This will certainly ensnare any would-be evil doers.

3. No, this will not help Isis. It has became all the rage to denounce all unpopular policy ideas as things that would be recruiting tools for ISIS. We were told that the refusal to allow Syrian refugees into the country would be used as a recruiting tool, and now we’re hearing that Donald’s proposal will only create more terrorists. I suggest we turn this idea around: I think that using the no-fly list as an excuse to deprive people of their second amendment rights without due process will only enable the terrorists, and will clearly create more jihadists.*

*No, I don’t actually think that, but it’s no less absurd.

You know what fuels the terrorists: our very existence. Some damned fool idea by a loud-mouthed American is not pushing anyone over the edge to jihad.

4. No, this is not unconstitutional. There seems to be an insistence in some quarters that all bad policy ideas are ipso facto unconstitutional. Jim Geraghty, for one, has been banging the drum on the proposal’s lack of constitutionality. Sorry to say bu the US government can pretty much restrict immigration to whoever the hell it wants. There is no constitutional right to emigrate here, and neither the first amendment or the ban on religious tests for public office speak to this issue. Unconstitutional does not mean “icky ideas.”

Now there has been some confusion as to whether Trump has lumped American citizens into this blanket ban, but it seems at the moment that this is confined to non-citizens overseas.

5. Only one person has not taken the bait. Like night follows day, the denouncements came in from all sides. Twitter quickly filled up with angry tweets, and presidential candidates giddily joined the fray. Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio and pretty much the rest of the remaining GOP field quickly jumped in to declare how horrible a person Trump was.

Jeb Bush getting on twitter to denounce Trump might be the most tone-deaf political maneuver one can imagine. Donald Trump’s position as the lead horse in the GOP field is almost entirely due to Jeb Bush’s existence in the race. Bush’s continued delusional run – and lump Graham, Kasich, and most of the others in there – is what is keeping Trump atop the polls. Narrow the field to three candidates, or even four, and suddenly Trump’s 25 percent doesn’t look so impressive. Yet not only does Bush persist, he does the one thing Trump desires most: he gave him negative attention.

Only one GOP candidate didn’t take the bait, and it’s the one person who seems to know what the hell he’s doing. Ted Cruz didn’t denounce Trump, but instead chose a softer way to distance himself from the Donald:

“I do not agree with his proposals. I do not think it is the right solution,” Cruz said in the Capitol. “The right solution I believe is the legislation that I have introduced.”

More on what Cruz has proposed here.

So not only did Cruz refuse to poke the bear, he made his own policy proposal the centerpiece.

Amazingly Cruz is being roundly denounced himself by some for refusing to do his own denouncing. While it’s certainly possible that this is a cynical ploy not to anger Trump’s supporters for fear of alienating them down the road, it also happens to be the proper strategy, and one that other Republican candidates would be well advised to employ. Yet only Cruz seems to have the wits to understand this. That almost in and of itself is why Cruz is now in position to surpass Trump sooner or later.

More to explorer

92 Comments

  1. Given that the United States Government virtually banned immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe after WWI, I don’t want to hear that Muslim immigration can’t be stopped.

    if Cruz passes Trump, great. Cruz is smart and he is no ass-kisser of the GOP Establishment. If he doesn’t pass Trump, I’ll vote for Trump in a heartbeat to keep the Hildebeast out of the White House.

    I respect Mr. Zummo, but I have grown to like Trump because he tells off the people who need being told off. To hell with political niceties.To hell with the GOP Establishment and their K Street electioneers who shove losers like Dole, McCain, Romney and Jeb down our throats.

  2. If Trump is the GOP nominee, I will not be voting for a president. I sincerely hope Cruz gets the nod and can be persuaded to vote for the dunderhead, Rubio.

    Your post is spot on and I hadn’t thought about the wisdom of NOT denouncing. That is a smart idea that hadn’t occurred to me.

  3. I could never vote for Trump, but a large part of his popularity is due to the obvious fact that our political class simply will not address many of the issues that need to be addressed. Political cowardice and blindness ever paves the way for demagogues. I agree however that Trump will not be the nominee.

  4. I’m thinking Trump is a liberal plant. That statement took the negative attention away from Baghdad Bob/Sergeant Schultz Obama and Hillary.
    .
    If the USA were not a dictatorship disguised as a democracy, she would be in prison in 2016. But, Hillary will not disappoint me, as any of the GOP establishment picks will. I’m prepared for the apocalypse.

  5. Not voting for the republican nominee would be a mistake.
    .
    As a start, the U.S. could restrict immigration from Muslim countries.

  6. You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority. Don’t think it can happen in a democracy? Think again. It’s a ‘religion” of jihad and they want to either enslave or destroy you.

  7. If the Republican establishment really wants to rid itself of the Trump “menace” they should convince five or six of his competitors to leave the race forthwith. The fact that they probably will not just shows the level of their own selfishness and lack of candor about what they say about “the Donald”. If we want a real horse race lets get rid of the horses asses.

  8. Steve D wrote, “You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority…”
    So why did the Turkish Republic, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, abolish Sharia law in 1926 and replace it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code and the Italian Penal Code?
    Why have not Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan – all Muslim majority countries – replaced their Soviet era civil, commercial or criminal codes with Sharia law?
    Why has not Albania or Kosovo done so?

  9. Lord Macaulay showed a sound understanding of human nature, when he wrote:

    “If, indeed, all men reasoned in the same manner on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely judicious. But as people who agree about premises often disagree about conclusions, and as no man in the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps in the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended….
    “We do not believe that every Englishman who was reconciled to the Catholic Church would, as a necessary consequence, have thought himself justified in deposing or assassinating Elizabeth. It is not sufficient to say that the convert must have acknowledged the authority of the Pope, and that the Pope had issued a bull against the Queen. We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical. Let it pass, however, that every Catholic in the kingdom thought that Elizabeth might he lawfully murdered. Still the old maxim, that what is the business of everybody is the business of nobody, is particularly likely to hold good in a case in which a cruel death is the almost inevitable consequence of making any attempt.
    Of the ten thousand clergymen of the Church of England, there is scarcely one who would not say that a man who should leave his country and friends to preach the Gospel among savages, and who should, after labouring indefatigably without any hope of reward, terminate his life by martyrdom, would deserve the warmest admiration. Yet, we can doubt whether ten of the ten thousand ever thought of going on such an expedition. Why should we suppose that conscientious motives, feeble as they are constantly found to be in a good cause, should be omnipotent for evil?”

  10. “So why did the Turkish Republic, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, abolish Sharia law in 1926 and replace it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code and the Italian Penal Code?”

    Because of Kemal Ataturk whose legacy is under siege in Turkey.

    “Why have not Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan – all Muslim majority countries – replaced their Soviet era civil, commercial or criminal codes with Sharia law?”

    Largely because they are ruled by oppressive authoritarian regimes reminiscent of the old Soviet regimes they replaced. Life in these lands is not a happy one for most of the inhabitants, a sure recipe for the growth of Islamic radicalism.

    “Why has not Albania or Kosovo done so?”

    Albania largely because only 58% of the population is Islamic, rising prosperity, a large percentage of the population leaving Albania and because most of the Muslims are nondenominational, following no sect of Islam, and the legacy of the years of Enver Hoxha’s rule which saw an attempt to eliminate all religious identity in Albania. The UN created state of Kosovo has not embraced Sharia and seems to be doing well as a democracy. The moral I guess is that Islamic majority countries, other than Indonesia, can resist radical Islam if their regimes are authoritarian or they are in Europe with small populations.

  11. “Why have not Azerbaijan…Why has not Albania…” They have not done so…yet. They may well do so in the future. Turkey replaced her Islamic laws some years back, but has been drifting back to them.

  12. The fact that they probably will not just shows the level of their own selfishness and lack of candor about what they say about “the Donald”.

    Or it is proof that the “establishment” is a lot less powerful than a lot of frustrated people believe. Maybe it all really is just a bunch of people making it all up as they go along.

  13. I can think of another reason why Trump’s proposal is a bad idea: if it were ever made permanent U.S. policy it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights. I could easily imagine some future far-leftist administration deciding, for example, that conservative Catholics were too “intolerant” of women’s rights (abortion) and gay rights to be allowed into the country. Let’s not forget that in the 1850s there was a bona fide popular political party, the Know Nothings, devoted to the idea that Catholic immigration was a dire threat to national security — even though, AFAIK, there was not any kind of “Catholic terrorism” going on at the time.

    Yes, I know that today’s militant Islamists are far more of a threat than the most “militant” Catholics of today are (the one group that could possibly be classified as “Catholic” terrorists, the IRA, were entirely political in their aims; they just wanted the Brits out of Northern Ireland, not to force people to convert to Catholicsm or to establish a worldwide Vatican State ruled by the Pope). Still, one can’t underestimate the potential for a religion-based immigration policy to be grossly misused.

  14. “it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights.”

    If such a regime were in power they would make such an attempt notwithstanding what is done in regard to Muslim immigration today. Of course throughout the history of the US, up until 65, immigrants from Europe were favored and immigration from other areas was disfavored. In regard to the current administration it could be argued that when it comes to the Middle East Christian immigrants are disfavored.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

  15. Donald R. McClarey wrote, “Because of Kemal Ataturk whose legacy is under siege in Turkey”

    Of course, but why? Why would Ataturk wish to antagonize the country’s overwhelming Muslim majority, if, indeed, it was likely to do so? Is not the real answer that he believed it would be popular with a significant and influential section of the public, Muslim to a man?

    “Rising prosperity”

    Indeed. Thus, Fadela Amara, herself a Muslim, when she was French Secretary of State for Urban Policies described fundamentalism as something clung to by some people through ignorance and isolation in ghetto communities that will vanish when they are given better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences.

  16. A 1950’s Rock song had lines: “Don’t know much about History . . .”

    “it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights.”

    Also, Dear Leader Obama has a de fact ban on Middle East Christians who are in danger of genocide by peace-loving Muslims.

  17. “Of course, but why? Why would Ataturk wish to antagonize the country’s overwhelming Muslim majority, if, indeed, it was likely to do so?”

    Because Ataturk was a Turkish nationalist who viewed Islam as a cause of his nation’s weakness and backwardness. He was very much in the Peter the Great mode of modernizers and could care less whether the reforms he was sponsoring were popular with the masses, which is why Turkey was effectively a one party state under his rule.

  18. “Thus, Fadela Amara, herself a Muslim, when she was French Secretary of State for Urban Policies described fundamentalism as something clung to by some people through ignorance and isolation in ghetto communities that will vanish when they are given better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences.”

    This statement is a gem of miscomprehension of human motivations based upon a materialist view of history. Actually the jihadis are disproportionately from well to do or middle class families. Farook of San Bernardino infamy was a graduate of California State and was earning 70K a year inspecting restaurants.

  19. Let me expand on that. If you’re a good guy, you’re denouncing bad guys. That’s the defining characteristic of good guys. If you’re a bad guy, you exist to be denounced. If you’re someone who doesn’t denounce, then you’re hard to classify. You have to be denounced for not denouncing, because the only merit the good guy has is the quality of his denouncements.

  20. Pinky has just described liberal progressivism – the politics of dragging everyone else down flat on his face in the mud and lifting up no one to proudly stand free and independent on his own two feet.

  21. It’s unworkable

    There’s a list of 25 or 30 problem countries to whose passport holders you can close the door. You can apply an algorithm to applicants from other countries. (Danish citizen named Mohammed… hmm). Hermetic sealing is not possible, but closing the valve most of the way is. (Not that its a capital idea).

    See R.M. Kaus on this point: a way to defang Trump is to take his issue away from him. The only one who has made an effort to do that is R. Santorum. Maybe it’s donor pressure or maybe its just the way the GOP elite is in our time. My policy is anyone but Hellary.
    ==
    Memo to Tito Edwards: the site’s gotten hopelessly buggy.

  22. ‘… ban on Middle East Christians who are in danger of genocide by peace-loving Muslims’
    .
    Yes, all this talk is happening while specifically Christian Syrian families who sought refuge in the US are being returned to the place they left ( due to brutal, unspeakable torture ) by some branch of the Federal Government.
    As I learned this last night during an impassioned prayer request for these families from Fr. Pacwa on EWTN, I thought about how great their struggle for Hope becomes when no Christian leader in the mix is able or willing to choose these families scheduled for return to Syria for sanctuary. More sick world news as cathedral doors open.

  23. It would be entirely possibe for the next election to be between a blowhard caricature of a businessman on the right of the center-left and a murderous crook or commie pinko on the left.

    .
    FTFY as they say. Trump may be to the right of Bloomberg, but I’m not sure he’s to the right of Giuliani.
    .
    Personally, I find it hard to argue with Ed Driscoll.

  24. It doesn’t look like Fr Longenecker likes/repsects us any better than Trump or Obama does.
    .
    I admit we have been gullible – very gullible! but I think that is over.
    .
    and I think Fr Longenecker’s estimation of us can be shown false.

  25. “It doesn’t look like Fr Longenecker likes/repsects us any better than Trump or Obama does.”

    Can we add “simplistic” for the good Father.

  26. Hey, even loose cannons hit their targets a day, or something like that….
    Seriously, Trump represents the failure of rational responses to our nation’s corruption at the highest political levels. The political system so corrupted it no longer works. I don’t believe many of his “supporters” really like the man.

  27. Re: Don L.

    I find that my really orthodox Catholic friends really like Donald Trump. Trump stands for a the new CEO who inspires confidence and enthusiasm in the company’s employees. I remember the very first meeting Lee Iacocca had with the top 300 execs. You could feel the change in the air as he talked, from depression to jubilation. When he finished I think every one thought we had a real chance of making it. That’s Donald Trump.

  28. Penguins fan – spot on. Elaine; not so much from my view MHO. I applaud Trumps position purely because it is an aggressive, reasonable forward step toward a national recognition and conversation that the real battle here is with Islam,; we call these characters ‘ terrorists’ – they don’t. they refer to themselves as good fundamental, traditional, Q’ran thumping muzzis. When is the last time you saw a traffic jam caused by Islamists protesting Islamist treatment of Christians in Mosul. or the yizzi’s , or the tragic kurds………
    Put another way – jerusalem @700A.D- vienna @1500 Rome 2XXX – These folks are continuing their war against us…… and won’t stop or rest nor stop ; not with standing those attaturk – ottoman genocidal anatoli greek armenian slewing “capitalists”.
    Choose between Communist law and Sharia law. you say….??/ that’s cute, like there is a difference…….Heavy water or deuterium, make a choice,

    and you would not vote for a Trump? if he is the best [ theory of relativity ] this pagan, zombie loving ,baby killing elderly punishing ,bankrupt, sick,evil mediocore cultural morass can put forward, you simply won’t play the hand you are dealt? is that how you render to Caesar? and let the obamatites continue- ?? just when our congress has finally voted to gut PP Federation and the Affordable care abomination? really- that is how you see your civic duty? that shakes me to my core…… Tactical play is so crucial in this war – you recall Morgan and the cowpens – Trump is not an end game. WE ARE AT WAR! read the bishop primate of syria, again. and again….
    Trump is one tactical step back toward a presbyterian/ protestant based , defined borders national identity, albeit a very long road …..

    I say warn their civilians, drop the booklets and launch the squadron[S] . i’m flexible on the warning aspect… then let [ fund$’s ]the Israeli’s bringing in their housing construction teams. and put the saudi’s on notice.

    We back shale oil big time and define a national policy to get us off oil and onto methane or electric or hydrogen……. [ see dept. of energy 1972; the myth] Trump is a point in time. James k. Polk,anyone? #11 – 1845-1849. the point man for a new nation, right or wrong.

  29. I get Trump’s appeal. When led by the feckless, decisiveness is attractive.

    Trump is unhinged and unreliable though. What does he stand for? I don’t know and I’ll warrant that those who think they do are in for a surprise if he becomes president. He is pure populist and loves controversy. He says that thing no one else does. He’s that guy you’d be embarrassed to bring home to Mama’s for dinner but roar about when you hear his antics.

    He has the potential to be quite dangerous as a world leader, our own little despot.

    No thanks.

    Leave the first true despot to Progressives, vote Cruz.

  30. Trump’s main talent is his ability to annoy liberals and GOP losers, er, establishment types.
    .
    On TV this morning, an economist made a metaphor/statement on the Muslim immigration issue. He said something like, If you were offered a bowl of m&m’s and knew that ten of them were poison, would you eat any from the bowl?
    .
    It seems the people calling Trump, “Hitler” believe scores or hundreds more dead Americans are acceptable losses (“They Were Expendable”) so long as we don’t anger any more Muslims or add, as if already they don’t have enough men and women to cause us harm, more recruits to ISIS.

  31. In a sense, T. Shaw, I agree.

    I despise the GOP Establishment and find it to be only distinguishable from the Dem Establishment on some, narrow culture issues. Even there, Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and Company left their backbones in their other suitcases.

    My problem with Trump’s hateful remarks come from two quarters: 1) they are, essentially trolling, intended to get press. They surely do this so his aim to keep the spotlight on him IS good politics. And, 2) if he doesn’t mean them, he is just another liar, masquerading as a principled champion. If he DOES mean them, he is either terribly naive or outright dangerous.

    Turning the engine of the State on a group is dangerous as hell. That dog, once unleashed, WILL turn on the one who thinks he is its master. The pragmatist in me rebels against the hubris-laden claim to be able to control mob rule with personality alone. The Framers knew better and we should heed their warnings.

    No, Islam is an ideology and loosely a religion crafted by a diabolical pedophile with a violent streak as wide as the road to hell. I fundamentally disagree with the Church on how to deal with the menace. BUT, Trump would feed the patient an deadly dose of poison to rid us of the virus. There is more Jim Jones than Hitler to Trump and I, for one, will not drink from his Dixie Cup.

  32. “. . . .Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and Company left their backbones in their other suitcases.” My take is the same but a bit different. Each needs to request from her gynecologist two testicles.
    .
    Agreed. However, unlike Obama I believe President Trump will not rule by executive order and will not ignore the Constitution or create laws and regulations out of his whims. We live under a dictatorship disguised as a democracy. It’s just that it is so ineffective being run by halfwits and useless scum, i.e., Democrats. .

  33. And, 2) if he doesn’t mean them, he is just another liar, masquerading as a principled champion. If he DOES mean them, he is either terribly naive or outright dangerous.

    Well said, Dave. I wish his supporters grasped how he’s playing them for fools. What’s ironic about it is that so many of his supporters come from people who are (rightfully) frustrated with the GOP letting them down, yet they are backing a guy who is even more disingenuous.

  34. If Trump is so clearly playing people for fools (and I believe he is) why haven’t the GOP candidates (Rubio, Cruz et al) been able to effectively expose it. The fecklessness of the GOP establishment and the the presidential candidates are a big reason why the fraud that is DaDonald candidacy is still gaining ground.

  35. “if Cruz passes Trump, great. Cruz is smart and he is no ass-kisser of the GOP Establishment”

    The Republican establishment despises Cruz–mainly because he won’t play their games in relation to giving Obama everything Obama wants. There are a myriad of examples. Here is one.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/24/cruz-on-senate-floor-accuses-gop-leader-mcconnell-lying.html

    Also, Cruz is absolutely brilliant.

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/dershowitz-tex-cruz-one-of-harvard-laws-smartest-students/

    “n private practice in Houston, Ted spent five years as a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national Appellate Litigation practice. Ted has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. During Ted’s service as Solicitor General, Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories”

    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=about_senator

    If you want to see some vintage Ted Cruz, be sure and watch the You Tube video entitled “BLOWOUT! Ted Cruz vs. Dianne Feinstein. It is so much fun watching Ms. Feinstein go beserk under Ted’s gentle questioning. 😀

    Cruz is an international debate champion–and it shows–all of the time.

    Another great example of vintage Cruz is his announcement speech for his presidential run given at Liberty University.

    I am behind Cruz 100%. However, I love his father even more!! 😀

  36. “You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority. Don’t think it can happen in a democracy? Think again. It’s a ‘religion’ of jihad and they want to either enslave or destroy you.”

    It already IS happening here in the US.

    The word “stoning” in this article means hitting very hard with full water bottles because no stones were available. I guess you would call it “bottling.”

    http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/arab-americans-become-majority-on-dearborn-mich-council/3460591/

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/michigan-its-christian-bells-vs-muslim-prayer-calls

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1118274/posts

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/28/voluntary-sharia-tribunal-in-texas-this-is-how-it-starts/

  37. “If the Republican establishment really wants to rid itself of the Trump “menace” they should convince five or six of his competitors to leave the race forthwith. The fact that they probably will not just shows the level of their own selfishness and lack of candor about what they say about “the Donald”. If we want a real horse race lets get rid of the horses asses.”

    We elected a Republican majority US House & Senate–just to watch establishment Rs be put in charge of those bodies who promptly preceded to give Obama everything he wanted.

    The establishment is hoping that they can excoriate Cruz & Trump to the point of making both unelectable. Meanwhile, the establishment Rs are smiling kindly at us and politely telling us what they think we want to hear–while sticking multiple knives in our back and continuing to implement freedom revoking Socialistic policies that are robbing us blind.

  38. “Steve D wrote, “You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority…”
    So why did the Turkish Republic, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, abolish Sharia law in 1926 and replace it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code and the Italian Penal Code?
    Why have not Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan – all Muslim majority countries – replaced their Soviet era civil, commercial or criminal codes with Sharia law?
    Why has not Albania or Kosovo done so?”

    Just because the written civil law itself is not full Sharia does not mean that Sharia is not being implemented and regularly practiced, in part or in whole, among a given Muslim population. Muslims often have an alternative court system and legal/governmental system being implemented and executed along side civil laws–similarly to the Jewish high preists in the New Testament ruling the Jewish population in Jerusalem despite being technically under Roman rule and law.

    They are already beginning attempts at this here in the US.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/28/voluntary-sharia-tribunal-in-texas-this-is-how-it-starts/

  39. “I can think of another reason why Trump’s proposal is a bad idea: if it were ever made permanent U.S. policy it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights. I could easily imagine some future far-leftist administration deciding, for example, that conservative Catholics were too “intolerant” of women’s rights (abortion) and gay rights to be allowed into the country.”

    Christians from Syria, who have and are facing unimaginable slaughter and suffering to the point of being stamped out through genocide, are being systematically denied entry to and political asylum in the United States by the Obama administration RIGHT NOW.

    The courts and congress have allowed the currently elected president to have explicit discretion over immigration in regards to numbers and who can come. Of course, congress is supposed to pass the funding for these type decisions and has to this point, to my knowledge–although I have read of a very recent effort to block funding for the current Obama admin efforts to bring 10s of thousands of Syrian Muslims to the US over the time Obama has left in office.

  40. “I can think of another reason why Trump’s proposal is a bad idea: if it were ever made permanent U.S. policy it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights. I could easily imagine some future far-leftist administration deciding, for example, that conservative Catholics were too “intolerant” of women’s rights (abortion) and gay rights to be allowed into the country. Let’s not forget that in the 1850s there was a bona fide popular political party, the Know Nothings, devoted to the idea that Catholic immigration was a dire threat to national security — even though, AFAIK, there was not any kind of ‘Catholic terrorism’ going on at the time.”

    It is a very good idea to place a temporary moratorium on bringing people into the US who are from regions of the world where Muslims have been and are being radicalized. It only took 19 Muslim men, who came in on Visas, to kill 3000+ Americans and destroy the World Trade Center and much more. If that moratorium were in place, those 14 Americans from San Berdino, CA, would still be alive.

    Good God! We are at war!! How many more Americans are going to have to die before people acknowledge what is actually taking place?

    Dead people have no rights!

  41. Re: Barbara Gordon
    “The establishment is hoping that they can excoriate Cruz & Trump to the point of making both unelectable. ”
    What you say is true. Big Business runs the show. Dem’s and Rep’s are two sides of the same coin. Big Business needs employees who work cheap, friendly tax laws, enough welfare to keep the natives from getting restless and a general atmosphere of fear so the public will support a strong military and local police and not rise up against the establishment in any meaningful way. Remember the most important thing is to keep the world safe for money making. Big Business doesn’t care whether you are Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, etc.

    Remember the movie ‘Network” where CCA chairman Arthur Jensen, who explicates his own “corporate cosmology”. Jensen delivers a tirade that suggests Jensen may himself be some higher power—describing the interrelatedness of the participants in the international economy and the illusory nature of nationality distinctions. There’s lots of truth in ‘masters of the universe’ idea. For example, terrorism will not end until it is decided it is “bad for business”. Cockroaches and corruption are always with us.

  42. Just so no one misses it in my comments above. Trump and Cruz are the Howard Beales of our time and they gotta go–too disruptive of the status quo, can’t have that, you know.

  43. Let’s be clear that big business in all its forms is no friend of conservatives and anyone with “traditional” values. Big Entertainment, Big Media, Big Insurance, Big Anything. Bill Gates is the big guy behind Common Core, which is Math By Satan. Gates backs Worse than Murder as well. I HATE using Microsoft.
    Since the US Govermnent already limits immigration and visas from many parts of the world – citizens of Poland must apply for a visa to visit the US, but not the Czech Republic – slowing down immigration from Muslim countries, allowing only persecuted Christians is a good idea. Of course, Obama wants Iraqi Catholics deported. Still not a peep from the USCCB.

  44. An excerpt from Phineas Finn by Anthony Trollope, published in 1868.
    “Many who before regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among the things probable;–and so at last it will be ranged in the list of those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made.”
    “It is no loss of time,” said Phineas, “to have taken the first great step in making it.”
    “The first great step was taken long ago,” said Mr. Monk,–”taken by men who were looked upon as revolutionary demagogues, almost as traitors, because they took it. But it is a great thing to take any step that leads us onwards.”

  45. “Of course, Obama wants Iraqi Catholics deported. Still not a peep from the USCCB.”

    Included in Big Business is the Catholic Church and it’s stand-in, USCCB Pope Francis has the role of CEO and President. The part about being Pope was broomed in interest of ecumenism and one-worldism. After all, being too Catholic is not good for business.

  46. It came in !05 minutes to three minutes (7 to 9 December 2015) media minutes bashing Trump versus laudatory coverage of horrid ISIS speech. ANd, the GOP piled on big time.
    .

    Unexpectedly, Trumps’s numbers immediately rose, especially South Carolina.
    ..

    Why is he rising? It may be that the GOP donor class, the chamber of commerce, the Bush dynasty, GOP Obama (Ryan) enablers, et al don’t control sufficient primary votes to trash him.

  47. Penguin Fan on Thursday, December 10, A.D. 2015 at 5:33am (Edit)

    Let’s be clear that big business in all its forms is no friend of conservatives and anyone with “traditional” values. Big Entertainment, Big Media, Big Insurance, Big Anything.

    Can’t agree.
    Business is just people. Big, small, transitory– they’re all just groups of people, with the strengths and weaknesses of the same.
    It’s easier to notice when they do something bad, because it’s bigger, but nobody even blinks at the good things being bigger too. Usually they don’t even notice.

  48. I suspect a sociological study of corporate elites (compared with data Stanley Rothman collected a generation ago) would show large cultural shifts. What’s interesting is that a mess of attitudes you saw a generation ago in academe or in the public interest bar or in newsrooms now seem to have swept the legal profession and the boardroom.

    Twenty-three years ago, I was invited to a dinner gathering. One of the guests was an AC-DC Episcopal priest. He was telling us (among many stories) of a corporation executive in his circle of friends who had showed up for work one day (a decade or so earlier) with an ear-stud and been summarily fired. Nowadays, Brendan Eich is ejected from the company he founded for having contributed to an organization which resisted the grotesque mutation of matrimonial law. The boardroom is not your friend.

    Now, if you’re talking about you’re local hardware dealer, that’s something different.

  49. Yes – both good and bad can become “Big”. “Big accrues power.As in seven sticks bound togethr by a leather strap are very difficult to break, but individual sticks can be snapped. Then the moral valence must be considered. Like everything else, goodness is the required ingredient.
    It would be great if that goodness was inspired by the culture but increasingly the “culture” is ambivalent about morality. When the communists attacked the Church as a way of attacking the West, they went for the jugular.

  50. Re” Foxfire

    “Business is just people. Big, small, transitory– they’re all just groups of people, with the strengths and weaknesses of the same.
    It’s easier to notice when they do something bad, because it’s bigger, but nobody even blinks at the good things being bigger too. Usually they don’t even notice.”

    Not true. Big Business is not just people. Big Business or the Corporate Person is morally indifferent or amoral; it is entirely secular. They pay benefits for gay couples, pay for abortion, back both Republican and Democrat. They are religiously indifferent. Big Business is in bed with the unions, the politicians in office, the government. Basically they have the morals of the Democrat party. Big Business will do anything to make money short of getting caught breaking the law. If you work at these places you better tow this line or you are gone.

  51. hey Foxfire- Penguin Fan on Thursday, December 10, A.D. 2015 at 5:33am (Edit)
    Let’s be clear that big business in all its forms is no friend of conservatives and anyone with “traditional” values. Big Entertainment, Big Media, Big Insurance, Big Anything.
    Can’t agree.
    Business is just people. Big, small, transitory– they’re all just groups of people, with the strengths and weaknesses of the same.
    It’s easier to notice when they do something bad, because it’s bigger, but nobody even blinks at the good things being bigger too.

    Please reconsider that – Ever seen the policy and procedure manual for IBM?- vs. Angelo’s pizzeria? or experienced the budgeting process and marketing plan for a multi division global firm vs. Ed’s hardware- it’s not just people- it is beaurocratic diversity and not in a good way

    further- giant Corp. s multi divsion topology provide”fiefdoms” wherein miscreant V.P.’s get to spend their dollars and groom their people in ways not necessarily aligned with the corporate policy. or with the goals and objectives of the Gospel. American express is a posterchild for this- as is the breast cancer advocate ‘ something for the cure ‘ which name escapes me as i write. J&J come to mind as well…….. Kraft foods …..

  52. Not true. Big Business is not just people. Big Business or the Corporate Person is morally indifferent or amoral; it is entirely secular. They pay benefits for gay couples, pay for abortion, back both Republican and Democrat.

    Sudden mental image: a boardroom full of people, screaming “Run, run while you can! We can’t stop it– we have no control over where the money goes!”
    ***
    For the homosexual couples getting benefits, that came because either they got good PR from it, or they’d be sued if they didn’t. (Depending on which company.) Ditto on the abortion. They back politicians based on either a hope of their goals being helped, or out of fear of being harmed.
    That’s ignoring the problem where an awful lot of these “X company supports Y” either predates when the cause was known to be bad, is based off of what the employees privately choose to donate via payroll deduction, or both.
    ****
    paul coffey-
    Yes, I am familiar with a range of small businesses. That’s why I know that it’s a people problem. It just gets a lot more notice when Starbucks chooses to deliberately insult half of the country vs when the owner sets up his mistress as a cook/manager and channels gifts to her through that business, or a cashier routinely “forgets” to apply coupons and pockets the difference.
    The miscreant VP you mention is not uniquely created by ‘big business.’
    ****
    Maybe, instead of finding a scapegoat in “big ___,” we should look at why they do things. I know Starbucks keeps insulting traditional morality because they know that we are unlikely to boycott them in numbers large enough to hurt, while the radicals will not only boycott them (and are a bigger chunk of their customer pool in the first place) but may take illegal measures to express their displeasure.

  53. foxfire- you wrote paul coffey-
    Yes, I am familiar with a range of small businesses. [eoq].

    IBM is not what most would consider a ‘small business’. When i was with IBM, we considered Walmart of Canada a small – medium business. That’s condescension for you. We employed more people[ 330k worldwide] than the U.S. Marine Corps.’s 225k. – Size matters; yes it is people on the unit level , but behavior changes in a crowd which is what a large corporate entity is upon inspection. where as at Ed’s hardware you can go in and meet with the entire board of directors and CEO on the shop floor. large entities, perhaps because they are the antithesis of subsidiarity, are fundamentally different. and when they defy Natures law or the laws of Natures God, that could be dealt with almost immediately thru their income stream. big business – hollywoood, disney -starbucks AMEX, not so easy – I know the point is not lost on you, so i’ll stop.

    penguin fan – keep up the laser shots- i find them thought provoking.

  54. I suspect a sociological study of corporate elites (compared with data Stanley Rothman collected a generation ago) would show large cultural shifts. What’s interesting is that a mess of attitudes you saw a generation ago in academe or in the public interest bar or in newsrooms now seem to have swept the legal profession and the boardroom.

    All we have to do is vote for Trump with all of our hate, and our journey to the Dark Side is complete!

  55. All we have to do is vote for Trump with all of our hate, and our journey to the Dark Side is complete!

    No clue what Trump actually thinks about anything. David Horowitz once offered that in his observation, businessmen regard politicians as fungible. The thing is, Trump is not other-directed, so the forces which manufacture and maintain orthodoxies of attitude (manifest in the person of Anthony Kennedy) do not touch him. Carly Fiorina, OTOH, I suspect does believe what she says, in part because she’s speaks against type.

  56. I stand by what I said. I know of several companies who do exactly as I said.

    The missus showed me a Glenn Beck Facebook post. He is taking a number of Iraqi Catholics to the US and they plan to have Mass after they land. Where is the Roman Pontiff in all of this? Maybe there will be a movie with Obumbler and Bergoglio. “Dumber and Dumber”? St. Catherine of Siena had little use of the men who called themselves Popes in her time and never hesitated to say so. I’ll never be canonized, but I feel the same way about the current Pontiff.

    I repeat that I would vote for Trump over Sea Hag in a pantsuit. That lying miserable wretch belongs in a jail cell and so does her husband. Then again, so does most of the Democrat Party leadership.

  57. paul coffey-
    I am aware that IBM is not a small business. You asked:
    Ever seen the policy and procedure manual for IBM?- vs. Angelo’s pizzeria? and I responded with some of the things I’d seen at the smaller places, since nobody was arguing that big businesses are without wrong.
    You seem to have missed the point that big or small, they’re still people with the same flaws, and run off to state unproven assumptions about an unrelated area– subsidiarity. Strangely, you do this while also attacking ‘big business’ for enabling people to have ‘fifedoms’ that aren’t in line with the company’s goals, or even good.
    The topic of subsidiarity is interesting enough, but it does nothing to prove your claims about ‘big’ being inherently bad and doesn’t have to do with the topic.
    ****
    Shorter: you keep claiming they are fundamentally different, but haven’t even made an argument, much less offered evidence.

  58. foxfire- ad hominem, really?? i thought that beneath us – you write ” I missed the point” is that intended anything like’ the the spec in your neighbors eye’……..

    my point looked you in the eye but you did not see – Angelo’s pizzeria DOES NOT HAVE A P&P MANUAL!!! – what you see is what you get – that is the difference between small business and big big business . no where to hide- no slush funds, no skunk works ….. you deal directly with decision makers, not committee’s or divisions thereof .SB immediately feel the results of stupid, immoral, insulting decisions unlike an Oracle and the like who support Planned Parenthood. Larry E and his friends could care less what you or i think is moral and righteous …… we have no leverage with them .

    penguin fan was right all along . Big business and small business, both comprised of individuals, are NOT the same. now be a big boy, put on your big boy pants and admit he was right. from the start :-))

  59. foxfire- ad hominem, really?? i thought that beneath us – you write ” I missed the point” is that to imply anything like’ the the spec in your neighbors eye’ whille missing a small log…….. is it??

    my point looked you in the eye but you missed it – Angelo’s pizzeria DOES NOT HAVE A P&P MANUAL!!! – what you see is what you get – that is the difference between small business and big big business . no where to hide- no slush funds, no skunk works ….. you deal directly with decision makers, not committee’s or divisions thereof .S.B. immediately feel the results of stupid, immoral, insulting decisions unlike an Oracle and the like who support Planned Parenthood. Larry E and his friends could care less what you or i think or what is moral and righteous …… we have no leverage with them .

    penguin fan was right all along . Big business and small business, both comprised of individuals, are NOT the same. now be a big boy, put on your big boy pants and admit he was right. from the start :-))

  60. i would accept and help cruz, rubio,trump at this point – i especially like carson for what he has personally achieved and can do on live bodies; like decisions; value based treatments etc etc not voting is not an option this time around – we need the biggest turn out possible.
    now launch the squadron

  61. paul coffey-
    I’m not sure what on earth you are talking about in accusing me of ad hominem; you responded to examples of where small businesses did bad by acting as if I had said “IBM is a small business.”
    Pointing that out is not an attack on you as a person, that is pointing to a black-and-white, still on the unedited page failure of understanding.
    Were I to accuse you of being unable to understand the point or incapable of forming a rational argument, or maybe of being an evil idiot– three common attacks on the person– that would be different. Note, this is not a passive aggressive attack, it’s illustration for clarity. I notably have NOT said a blessed thing about you as a person, the only thing I talked about was the quite obvious conclusion that you had missed the point of my statement about familiarity with small businesses.
    ****
    Since you both failed to support your claims of an inherent moral difference and decided to falsely accuse me, before jumping to yet another topic that responded to things not said, it’s pretty clearly dead.

  62. Foxfire

    Perhaps this will help. In the auto industry where safety is an issue and failure rates are calculated for each part along with cost, a trade off is must be made between cost and safety. Consequently a certain amount of product failure and lost of safety is accepted in the interests of the profit plan. This lost of safety is then translated in a “acceptable” number of deaths for which insurance and reserves are planned for. So in others words a few folks sit in a sound proof room in a meeting for which there is no agenda, no notes and no minutes and decide it’s OK to 200 folks die because of the decision they are making. Top management is not told about any of this in order to protect their deniability.

    Another aspect in big business is the desire for higher stock prices where management makes big bucks on their options. When stock prices lag management will have a profit improvement program (PIP) whereby, say, 10% of the employees will be fired causing great harm to families and children. This might be done even though the company doing it is very profitable. It is strictly done to satisfy Wall Street and, of course, will result in large bonuses for top management.

    Big Business is different Foxfire.

  63. Foxfier wrote, “Business is just people. Big, small, transitory– they’re all just groups of people…”
    But we should remember A V Dicey’s point: “When,” he said, “a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted.” The group a real will of its own, just as really real as the will of a man and permanently organized groups, from a college or a regiment to a great nation, have a true corporate spirit, immanent in its members, pervading their natures and expressing itself in their actions.

  64. Michael Dowd wrote, “Big Business is different…”
    But small businesses, by their very nature, tend to be dependent on big ones.
    There is a small engineering business (about 30 employees) near me. It has two customers: Babcock Marine and BAE Systems Marine. How long do you imagine it would last, if it started querying their specifications?
    Then there is a local pub. In return for an interest-free loan for refurbishment, it has a tie to a brewery chain, making it its sole supplier of beers and most of its spirits. Part of that agreement requires it to host the brewery’s promotional events and materials. How much input do you think it has? It stopped hosting the Boxing Day Meet of the local hunt, because the brewery did not want its outlets in London or Manchester picketed by Animal Rights protestors.
    The local newsagent, dependent on the discounts negotiated by his wholesaler with the publishers by his wholesaler, has little choice in the packet of publications that wholesaler provides.
    I could go on.

  65. In the auto industry where safety is an issue and failure rates are calculated for each part along with cost, a trade off is must be made between cost and safety. Consequently a certain amount of product failure and lost of safety is accepted in the interests of the profit plan.

    Thank you for the attempt– now, what do you do every morning when you get in your car? (for a common example)
    You have a chance of killing someone. Because you, personally, do not drive much– that chance is small, but it’s there.
    But you do it, so that you can live. Because the cost of not doing so, for the safety of doing it, is too high.
    Like wise for, say, cooking. There’s a chance you could poison your family– do you always use a food thermometer? At all points? Go five above the FDA guideline? Only grow your own in land you personally control absolutely, and eat no raw fruits or vegetables? (most commonly identified vector for food borne illness)
    The term I’ve heard used for it is the law of very big numbers; it sounds impressive to say “they knew 200 people would die if they made that choice,” but less so to say “I knew .001 people would die today if I drove.” Even if they are calculated the same way, by taking total deaths and dividing.
    ****
    When stock prices lag management will have a profit improvement program (PIP) whereby, say, 10% of the employees will be fired causing great harm to families and children.
    That would work a lot better if a relative wasn’t just now recovering from the small business he helped start doing roughly the same thing– roughly, because it was actually more like 70%. All their long time employees. Which happened to include the co-founder who’d become ‘just’ a manager.
    It may look different, but the cause is the same– personal profit at the expense of others.
    (digression: “profitable” is an oddly hard to pin down word; Amazon, for example, is calculated as not being profitable because it reinvests a lot of the net income, while places that are eating the seed corn are calculated profitable)
    ********
    In return for an interest-free loan for refurbishment, it has a tie to a brewery chain, making it its sole supplier of beers and most of its spirits.
    Assuming that’s legal there– then the brewery traded something it did not value for something it did. If the loan is interest free, they’re being paid for only offering that brewer’s beer; presumably they knew enough about their own area of business to know what beer they were selling, and the brewer knew that they’d be able to stay in business even if the outlet didn’t have a wider offering.

    How is the pub doing? (Yes, I am actually curious. It’s an enduring flaw. The crocodile in the gray-green greasy Limpopo river has not got me yet, though.)

  66. Foxfire:

    I think it is futile to go on. Either I can’t explain myself or you can’t understand.

    Just one last try. On the safety issue the car company has to decide how many folks are going to die because of what they do and in a sense it is intentional killing. They could kill 100, 200, or 300. They decide 200 makes the most sense. Your car driver example is not the same at all as he is only taking risk. The auto company is causing risk and certain death.

    Hope you have a Blessed Christmas out there in the Pacific North West where, it just so happens, six of my kids also live.

  67. With all this talk about the auto industry and the number of acceptable deaths per year from auto malfunctions, one of my favorite US NRC Commissioners, Edward McGaffigan, once said:
    .
    The Regulator’s job is to “…provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection, not absolute assurance of perfect protection. When they change the laws to require absolute assurance of perfect protection, there won’t be a lot of nuclear reactors in this country. Also, there won’t be a lot of cars or McDonald’s.”
    .
    Sadly he died of cancer:
    .
    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/09/nrc-commissioner-edward-mcgaffigan-jr.html?m=1
    .
    He also said:
    .
    “We self-irradiate ourselves at 40 millirems per year because of the potassium-40 we carry in our bodies. In double beds, you know your spouse will irradiate you to about 2 or 3 millirems a year. These are the doses we actually regulate at. And I’ve always wondered, when people demand even tighter regulation, why they’re not demanding that double beds be regulated or bananas [from which we get potassium-40] be regulated or Brazil nuts [another source of radionuclides] be regulated.”
    .
    Folks, the ONLY people who got off the planet alive are Enoch, Eiljah, Mary, and a handful of astronauts and cosmonauts. No one here at TAC rates that high. You and I are gonna die. Perfect safety is pure unmitigated horse manure. Cannot be done. Will not be done. Get over it and go to Confession (me especially) so that when death comes, you and I are prepared.

  68. And for all those talking about how evil capitalists factor in so many deaths per annum for their auto manufacturing, have you ever asked yourself who sets the regulations and standards to which those evil capitalists must comply? Can you say the US Federal Govt? It is the Govt – unelected bureaucrats (regulators) generally appointed by politicians (the President) and confirmed by politicians (the Senate) – who set the rules that evil capitalists (those who actually generate new wealth) must obey. From the US DOT – enjoy:
    .
    http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/
    .
    By the way, does anyone out there want to pay the price for a 100% perfectly safe car? Or if cars cannot be made 100% perfectly safe, is anyone out there willing to forego using a car, and walk or bicycle instead, both of which activities may have a higher mortality rate than driving one of those less than 100% perfectly safe cars?
    .
    Let me guess the answer: NO!
    .
    Then I say what I do anti-nuclear activitists: quit complaining.
    .
    😀

  69. Foxfier asks, “How is the pub doing?”

    Pretty well. Breweries are shrewd investors and they knew their lines were already popular with the clientele.

    A large part of the refurbishment money was for a more up-to-date kitchen and dining area; the landlord is a good cook (Ex-Royal Navy), the style hearty and traditional. This has drawn in a lot of new business from a wider catchment area.

    There was some grumbling over the Meet, but the loss in revenue is trivial.
    My point is that even a “small” business is only a part of a wider economic network, often a very intricate one and subject to the constraints that that entails.

  70. I forgot about MPS’s United Kingdom. Here are the govt regs for autos there:
    .
    http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/index.asp
    .
    You will have to click on what you want to see, and drill down till you get to the regulation or standard. Being part of the European Union, the UK defaults to EU Directives (too many to list here – I got my first taste of EU Directives at a different compnay when I had to come up with reactor protection design procedures compliant with the Low Voltage Directive and the EMI / RFI Directives – yuck!).
    .
    Bottom line: don’t blame evil capitalists for what the govt strangulates by over-regulation.

  71. michael D- i gave up .- non biblical quotes : none so blind or is it…… when arguing with a ???, make sure he is not similarly occupied.

  72. Michael Dowd–
    It’s not that I don’t understand, I just don’t agree. I’m trying to rule out a talking-past-each-other route by finding points that are not accurate, or that are a matter of judgement. (Like the pub trading their range of choices for beer suppliers for the cost of interest on a loan.)
    ***
    Your car driver example is not the same at all as he is only taking risk.

    No. Drivers are not the only people killed in automotive accidents– and they do go up as the number of cars goes up, as do pedestrian deaths. People have even died in their own living-rooms because a driver lost control. There are at least a half-dozen fences in my normal driving area that have been taken out by drivers that lost control, and anybody in that yard could have been killed. Hardly a week goes by that you won’t find a small-time news story about someone driving through the front of a store.
    .
    There’s willful negligence or lying about risk– my husband suggested the Volt’s risk of the battery exploding in an accident, not sure how clear that risk was– and there’s what LQC points at, recognition that *perfect* safety isn’t possible.
    ********
    This is a way of viewing risk that’s quite near and dear to me, because of my “high risk” pregnancies. There’s almost a one in a thousand chance of serious complication on average for all births after more than two c-sections, so I’m under heavy pressure to be sterilized.
    Applying the standard of risk that would claim the hospital group “knew” that over five years, two women would die, because they allowed us to continue our pregnancies… I hope I don’t have to explain how exactly that horrifies me, do I?

  73. Oh, good! Not a chance I’ll ever get to even visit, but I like to hear about things going well.

    My point is that even a “small” business is only a part of a wider economic network, often a very intricate one and subject to the constraints that that entails.

    *nod*
    A point that’s frequently missed in subsidiarity discussions is that it doesn’t say “tiny is the best,” it’s about doing things at the lowest effective level. It’s not reasonable to expect, say, car manufacturing out of your garage, or for the Pope to personally supervise your parish priest. (If something goes horribly wrong, a whole lot of times, it can eventually get up that far– but that takes a LOT of failures. I’ve spent way too much time trying to explain this to family members. 😀 )
    A lot of the arguments are familiar to anybody who’s been around hard core libertarian/radical individualist philosophy– roads and national defense come to mind.
    Part of why I didn’t want to get into it. 😀

  74. i said i would quit but i had a good nights rest so i’m gonna give it a shot- i love this blog!

    Foxfire- you initially wrote “Business is just people. Big, small, transitory– they’re all just groups of people, with the strengths and weaknesses of the same.
    It’s easier to notice when they do something bad, because it’s bigger, but nobody even blinks at the good things being bigger too. Usually they don’t even notice.

    i had asked you to highlight the difference between IBM and angelo’s pizzeria, since you think they are the same in the face of Penquin Fan pointing out the immoral things big business does by virtue of their size and i’d add isolation to consumer rage –

    and you did not respond with a difference, you wrote I did not understand- that can be taken only one of two ways – 1-u think i am STUPID and unable to comprehend, which is a not so subtle ad hominem attack….. yes it is : OR- I, foxfire FAILED TO MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, which is a more polite diplomatic way of trying to clarify communication – take the failure to communicate on to ones self rather then calling the hearer stupid –

    the fundamental difference between big and small business is not the larger needing a Policy and procedures manual , it is communication -it is so, so hard in a big business to get everyone lined up on the companies mission, selling its existing product set and not “futures”, marketing the companies core competence and reaching its’ market with clear messaging that delineates is value proposition- much easier for a small business to communicate. by virtue of its’ size and ability to communication directly with consumers. [ oh, you want more cheese on your pie- no problem. by virture of their size, big firms can fund outrageous behavior and never feel any repurcussion? When i saw Oracle supported Planned Parenthood with corporate donatation – i sold all 64 shares of my Oracle stock. Larry ellison didn’t notice – i’d suggest he doesn’t even care. Do you not see this?

    I find your slight detour now on subsidiarity – anticipating you think some of us dummies think it has to do with size [‘ tiny’] when it has all to do to proximity to the problem which really screams communication. E.G. you can’t even understand education problems in Massena NY from Washington DC because you lose too much in communication – Big business inspite of being comprised of people, is fundamentally different than small. that is why there are CEO’s who specialize in taking companies to different levels of growth and size – different problems – now think Ben and Jerries . and this really is my last attempt at clarity

    p.s. fear of uterine hemorrhage C rupture from previous Caesarians is dwindling – though it does still happen. i wish you well with your challenges.

  75. Hmm… if we’re talking about big organizations, one wonders if it’s gauche to start bringing up the Catholic church and “big religion”…

    Maybe how it compares to the tiny “small churches” working alone out there…

    much easier for a small business to communicate. by virtue of its’ size and ability to communication directly with consumers. [ oh, you want more cheese on your pie- no problem. by virture of their size, big firms can fund outrageous behavior and never feel any repurcussion? When i saw Oracle supported Planned Parenthood with corporate donatation – i sold all 64 shares of my Oracle stock. Larry ellison didn’t notice – i’d suggest he doesn’t even care.

    Yes and when Chik-fil-A angered the wrong consumers, they were large enough to withstand their attempted boycott. As with almost all things, it can go both ways.

    Your problem seems to be a confusion that size is somehow equal to morality. A small company isn’t innately more moral than a large one just by virtue of being small. Likewise, consumers are not innately more moral than the companies by virtue of being even smaller than businesses. Customers can be moral or immoral, just as companies large or small can be moral or immoral. After all, there are not an insignificant number of people who will boycott and pressure a company into adopting gay marriage or abortion, see: Hobby Lobby. And ever since that first week on Earth, it’s more likely all involved is going to be immoral than not.

  76. Ok. The Catholic Church is corrupt, e.g. Vatican II, Pope Francis, finances, willing to sacrifice and discount beliefs for cultural acceptance, accept government control for profit. Not exactly the local Sunday school I’d say.

    Big Business has a strong tendency for corruption, e.g., anti competitive and monopolistic, bribes politicians for favorable laws, internally is intensely political and amoral more interest personal career that corporate welfare, in league with unions, will sacrifice employees for profit. Aside from this they are a bunch of nice guys.

  77. What’s that, Mr Dowd? We live in a fallen world?

    Hmm… I could swear I’ve heard that idea before…

  78. The Catholic Church is corrupt, e.g. Vatican II, Pope Francis, finances, willing to sacrifice and discount beliefs for cultural acceptance, accept government control for profit.
    De-emphasize, arguable.
    Focus on things they think will get those who disagree to listen, definitely yes.
    That’s a matter of finding and emphasizing common ground to get past automatic rejection. (I think that’s almost as bad of an idea as deliberately trying to insult them, but it doesn’t make it an illicit tactic.)

  79. Foxfier wrote, “Focus on things they think will get those who disagree to listen, definitely yes.
    That’s a matter of finding and emphasizing common ground to get past automatic rejection. (I think that’s almost as bad of an idea as deliberately trying to insult them, but it doesn’t make it an illicit tactic.)”
    St Paul seems to have done this in his address on the Hill of Mars (Acts 17:22-31), which met with a mixed reception (Acts 17:32-34).
    By the by, it was long believed that Dionysius the Areopagite was the Saint-Denis venerated in the abbey of that name in Paris: the traditional burial site of the Most Christian Kings. The banner of the abbey was the Oriflamme, the sacred battle standard of France; the porte-oriflamme was one of the great offices of state, along with the Constable and Marshal.

  80. The Trump phenomenon may be based on physics. A force in one direction results in an equal reaction in the opposite direction. Obama is so extreme he generates Trump. This reactive force would be resisted if it had to penetrate a larger mass of intelligent knowledge resident in the electorate.

  81. If a larger mass of intelligent knowledge resided in the electorate in the first place, there wouldn’t have been an Obama farce generating the Trump farce.
    .
    The farce will be with us, always.

  82. It isn’t ‘knowledge’ that’s the problem. It is a quality one might call ‘seriousness’. Consider that academics voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Consider Charles Fried’s denunciation of Sarah Palin. These are tribal declarations, and because he was one of their tribe his manifest hollowness was dismissed from consideration.

  83. It depends on what we mean by knowledge. As Reagan said, “It’s not what they don’t know, it’s what they know that isn’t so.” Our Lord says” The truth will make you free.” It’s the malarkey that will enslave us.

  84. Donald Trump tried to use the power of the state in condemnation of Vera Coking’s house to get Coking’s property for a parking lot for his Casino. Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice protected Coking’s Fifth Amendment civil right for Just Compensation.

Comments are closed.