A Plague on All Their Houses

December 9th, 2015 16 Comments

question mark


Donald Trump has called for severe restrictions on all Muslim immigration to the United States.

The New York Times, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have all called (albeit in varying ways and using varying terms) for severe restrictions on all firearms ownership in America.

The estimated total number of Muslims worldwide varies greatly, depending on the source, but it ranges from a low of 1.6 billion, to a high of 2.08 billion.

The CIA has estimated that ISIS consists of no more than approximately 30,000 fighters. However, according to British news sources, the Kurdish Army leaders, who are the ones leading the on-the-ground fight against ISIS, estimate the actual number is closer to 200,000.

There are an estimated one hundred million (100,000,000) gun owners in the United States.

In the last year for which FBI statistics were available (2014), there were 8,124 murders committed by firearms of all kinds in the United States. (An unknown, but statistically significant, percent of those homicides are committed each year by hardcore repeat offenders, but because that figure is an unknown, I choose to ignore it; however, I will ask you to keep that information in mind and remember that it makes the percentage of gun owners who commit murder even smaller than the figure I will quote.)

Because my mathematical ability begins and ends with Irish math, where two plus two may equal three or five or nothing whatsoever, I asked for help from my friends Dave and Nichole Ferry, the custom knife and leather goods makers over at Horsewright Clothing and Tack (http://www.horsewrightclothing.com/).  According to their math, 8,124 homicides out of an estimated one hundred million gun owners means 0.00008124 percent of all gun owners are murderers. (Remember that because of the repeat offender effect, the actual number is less than that.)

In the spirit of trying to make Muslims look as bad as possible, I used the lowest total population estimate, and the highest (Kurdish) estimate of total fighters. 200,000 hardcore ISIS fighters out of an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims means 0.000125 percent of all Muslims are radical extremists bent on slaughtering Americans.

What conclusions may we reach from all this mathematical calculation?

  1. The New York Times, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama judge and condemn all one hundred million law abiding American gun owners based on the actions of the 0.00008124 percent who are evil lunatics. That makes the Times, Clinton, and Obama complete morons unworthy to be taken seriously on any issue.
  2. Donald J. Trump judges all 1.6 billion Muslims by the actions of the 0.000125 percent who are evil barbarians. That makes him a complete moron unworthy to be taken seriously on any issue.
  3. Significantly, Donald Trump is calling for the temporary ban of a privilege (since coming to this country is a privilege, not a guaranteed right), while the Times, Obama, and Clinton are calling for the repeal of a God-given and constitutionally affirmed right to self-defense.
  4. Therefore, the conclusion is that Donald Trump is somewhat, very slightly, less of a moron than the Times, Obama, and Hillary.



The future is not looking good, folks.

Share Button
Follow me at:
  1. Anonymous says:


    Donald Trump shakes up politics once again.

    What Donald Trump is talking about is unconstitutional. That being said what Hilly Clinton is saying is also unconstitutional.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Donald Trump’s supporters are who I fear.

    Seems as though they actually believe all the crap that is spewn from his egotistical, hypocritical, narcissistic mouth.


  3. Anonymous says:

    This is like trying to choice between Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Just remember that this kind of thing happened in the past too.

    < Home page

    Early Expressions
    Although the United States has always portrayed itself as a sanctuary for the world's victims of oppression and poverty, anti-immigrant sentiment—known as nativism—has pervaded most of the nation's history. Though in the early colonial period there was a push for immigration, prejudice against Catholics was evident. In New England this was probably connected to the fact that Puritans had come to America to escape the Church of England's "Romish" trappings, but even southern colonists were known to have enjoyed a parlor game called "Break the Pope's Neck." Politics also played a part. For example, since many immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson's Republican faction, Federalists in Congress attempted to suppress the newcomers' political activity in 1798 by passing the Alien Acts, which curtailed the rights of unnaturalized immigrants. This idea was tried again a few decades later.

    Early Nineteenth Century
    A wave of nativism occurred after the huge migration of Irish Catholics into the U.S. during the Potato Famine of the mid 19th century. Petitions from the northeastern states to Congress, including the one featured in this lesson asked Congress to pass laws limiting the new immigrants’ right to vote.

    Fear of the negative influence of “foreigners” on society, especially from Roman Catholics, was hardly new in the mid 19th century. The Protestants who had settled in the northeast differed in church management and policies but they heartily agreed in the opposition to the Catholicism. By the 1870s, Guy Fawkes Day, was celebrated in Massachusetts and other colonies by burning the pope in effigy. After the Constitution became the law of the land, Roman Catholics were barred from holding public office in many states until 1806.

    Continued immigration caused the Roman Catholic population to grow rapidly even in this hostile environment. In 1784 there were only 30,000 Catholics in America but by 1820 this number grew to over 300,000. This rapid immigration of Irish and other Europeans created fears among some native born Americans that the “foreigners” would bring undemocratic ideas, and authoritarian government. Allegiance to the Pope was seen by many as allegiance to a foreign political leader with the power to subvert America’s institutions and liberties. John Adams wrote in 1821 that “a free government and the Roman Catholic religion can never exist together in any nation or country.”

    By November of 1837 this anti-Catholic feeling had become organized into a national nativist movement. The petition from 97 electors in Washington County, New York, reproduced here clearly articulates the reasons for the anti-Catholic concerns of many Americans. Catholic immigration was viewed as a “foreign invasion” and a plot to establish “despotic” control over the U.S. Underlying this hysteria was a fear that Catholics loyal to a Roman Pope would not hold the needed loyalty to America and its political ideals. This lack of loyalty would undermine the system.

    Anti-Catholic feelings increased during the wave of famine induced Irish immigration between the 1820s and 1850s. Anti-Catholicism reinforced social, political, and economic concerns in New York and other points of entry. Some thought that other countries were dumping their poor and problem people on America. They blamed the uneducated, unskilled immigrants for the poverty, crime, and disease in New York and other major cities. Competition for scarce jobs, low wages, crowded and expensive housing were blamed on the newcomers. The city of New York even complained in 1830 that its social services were being overwhelmed by the “foreign element.”

    The Irish Catholic immigrants reacted to this prejudice by turning inward and toward the Church as their haven and support in the new society. The works of charity and education sponsored by the Church was instrumental in helping immigrants survive their new life in a hostile environment. Ironically, these efforts to help the immigrants were used as evidence of foreign “clannishness” and rejection of American customs and values.

    Hate Campaigns
    The accusations against the Catholics in the petition go beyond anti-religious feelings. There is an accusation of conspiracy by the Catholic Church against America’s liberties. Nativist writers such and Lyman Beecher and Samuel Morse were convinced that the Catholic leaders in Rome were using poor, unschooled immigrants to lead a plot to destroy freedom of religion in the U.S. by uniting church and state. They used this fear to create a sense of Protestant unity and lead a mission toward building a “Christian America.”

    Nativists believed that American values and ideals were based on Protestant Christianity, insisting that republican governments require a virtuous, educated, and independent electorate. They perceived Catholic immigrants to be superstitious, ignorant, and dominated by their priests. Though their writing and speeches led to many worthy social reforms such as abolition efforts and expanded suffrage, it sometimes led to violence. For example in 1834 after several inflammatory speeches by Beecher in Boston churches, mobs burned the Ursuline Convent school in the city.

    The growing hysteria built by the conspiracy theories led New York political leaders to organize an effort to block Catholic voting power. They saw the immigrants as uneducated and unqualified to vote and thus open to manipulation by unscrupulous politicians. In 1834 the New York Protestant Association was formed to “spread the knowledge of the gospel truth and to show wherein it is inconsistent with the tenets and dogmas of popery.” By 1835 the nativists had organized a political organization to run candidates for office and work to change naturalization laws.

    Many petitions like the one from Washington County were sent to Congress in the 1830s. They asked for changes to naturalization laws to protect America from “foreigners of doubtful morals and hostile political principles. A select committee in the House of Representative made up of a nativist majority endorsed legislation that would have extended the waiting period for naturalization. Though this legislation did not pass, it set the stage for the American Republican Party of the 1850s.

    In 1844 the nativist American Republican party, elected six congressmen and dozens of local officials in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Nativism reached its political zenith ten years later with the rapid rise of the "Know-Nothings." This secret fraternal organization, which sought to curtail the political power of Catholics and immigrants, probably derived its name from its members' pledge to feign ignorance if queried about the group. It originated in New York City in the late 1840s. In the wake of the collapse of the Whigs and the Democratic split over the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and 1855 the Know-Nothings attracted more than 1 million members. Its supporters won several offices, including mayor of Philadelphia and control of the Massachusetts legislature. The party fell apart over issues of slavery and many of its anti-slavery proponents joined the new Republican Party.

    Failure and Success
    Although no nativist political organization comparable in size to the Know-Nothings appeared after the Civil War, nativists found that the existing parties were often willing to enact their proposals. A central item on the Know-Nothings' agenda, a law banning the immigration of paupers and convicts, passed Congress in 1882. Registration and literacy tests for voters (which Know-Nothings had supported as a way to prevent immigrant voting) also became common. After this period, maybe because the predicted pope led revolution had never occurred, the cause celebre for anti-immigrant factions, moved from religion to fear of communist, socialist, and anarchist labor movements.

    Many believed that immigrants brought European radicalism with them to America, and they especially blamed the newcomers for fomenting the labor unrest that characterized much of the period. The first laws enacted to restrict immigration affected only Asians. Congress prohibited immigration from China for ten years starting in 1882 and banned it permanently in 1902. President Theodore Roosevelt concluded a "gentleman's agreement" with Japan in 1907 that excluded immigrants from that country.

    Other restrictions soon gained momentum as well. Though Northwestern Europe had provided most of America's immigrants in the nineteenth century, by 1900 a majority hailed from Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Italy. Many Americans concluded that immigrants from these countries lacked the intelligence and motivation purportedly held by northwestern Europeans, so the "new immigration" provided renewed impetus to the nativist movement.

    It is difficult to know the extent to which nativism still pervades American society. Contemporary outbreaks of hostility toward immigrants often bubble up in public outcry for new restrictions on immigration and/or increased border security. Whatever the case, it is clear that though immigration played an important role in almost every period of American history, nativism pervaded its past with equal persistence.

    * * *

    Foner, Eric, and John Garrity, ed. Reader’s Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin, 1991

    Haynes, Charles P. Religion in American History: What to Teach and How. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990.

    Wilson, John F., Donald Drakeman. Church and State in American History. Beacon Press, 1987.

    • Anonymous says:

      All good and interesting stuff you posted. My 13th or 14th (I can’t remember) grandfather was Lord Baltimore. My ancestry is smack dab in the middle of Catholic colonization.

      TD Bauer

  6. Anonymous says:

    Ah, Yes! :


    Many supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are drawn to him because they perceive him as someone who speaks the truth.

    Fed up with politicians subdued by the Washington establishment or by “political correctness,” they see Trump’s bluntness and seeming pragmatic attitude as refreshing.

    But Trump is no truth-teller. He is a demagogue in the classical Greek sense—a politician who appeals to people’s prejudices and impatience with democratic deliberation.

    He does not speak the truth, but rather what a segment of the electorate wants to hear, flattery that simultaneously affirms both their perceived greatness and their victimhood.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Early on in the GOP race I found myself amused by Donald Trump, and I admit I like that he is not PC. I think PC has really messed up America…it’s just gone too far.

    With that said it scares me that he could win the GOP nomination. I listen to him talk and while I do respect the man for what he has accomplished in business, he really does not have detailed knowledge on many subjects. Phrases like “really bad, really bad” and “it’s not good, really not good, you could say it’s horrible” does not answer a question no matter what the question is. Give me some particulars Donald! Give me some detailed plans! Who are your advisers?

    I like that he is not an insider, but I don’t like that his answers to many questions barely skim the surface with pertinent details.

    With that said, I have to agree that I think the current vetting system in place for immigrants and K1 Visas and the like are in need of an overhaul. I agree that a hold on allowing people entry into the country should be considered while the vetting processes are reviewed and updated for these troubling times, and that goes for everybody not just people who are Muslim. Get it done, get it fixed if it needs to be, and if we have to slow down the process so people can be properly vetted then so be it. You can’t NOT allow people access, but at least setup and fix the process as best we can.

    Obama made fun of the GOP a few weeks ago about the Syrian refugees claiming that women and children didn’t pose a threat. Just last week and 95lbs woman wreaked some major havoc in California because her K1 visas wasn’t properly vetted – the address she listed didn’t even exist…

    Problems in the process are being identified, lets fix them, and move forward.

    TD Bauer

  8. Anonymous says:


    No Irish need apply.

  9. Anonymous says:


    President Obama is going to try to push background checks through without Congress.

  10. Anonymous says:


    I think this is one of the reasons that people are concerned about the Muslim refugees.

  11. Anonymous says:


    This is an interesting point of view. What did the founding fathers really think about immigration.

  12. Anonymous says:

    You made me chuckle with the last two lines you wrote. I know it’s not funny but they did nevertheless. It has always amazed me how some people are in these political offices and have so much power when there is only a few of them and such a great amount of us that are being told what is going to be done.
    I am not one that understands every aspect of politics I’ll admit that but seems like if someone is in there trying to run over something we believe in some just step back and let them without a fight.
    Isn’t there some way to prevent the ones in office from making such drastic decisions such as wanting to take away guns from law abiding citizens or are we all just screwed and have to do whatever is said once those people have been voted in?
    I know they say write your congressman about issues you have concerns with but what good does that really do when the congressman is on the side of the ones who you have the concern about?
    I know I have heard only a tiny bit of the talk that you mentioned in this posting as I have to get what news I can from online so that limits my full understanding of all that they have tried to say.

    Nancy Darlene

  13. Anonymous says:

    My question for Mr Trump JP is what is Donald going to
    Do with American or Canadian born Muslims like my self
    What country would he send me back too?

    Tena French Halifax NS Canada

    • Anonymous says:

      Hey Tena, don’t be giving Trump any ideas! Not that he actually has any himself, but don’t even get him thinking in that direction, because it ain’t likely to end up very good! And I thought no one as a potential president of the U. S. A. could be scarier than Sarah Palin! I stand corrected….We certainly NEED outspoken people, and even ignorant, narrow-minded outspoken people help initiate conversations(that obviously need to be had)–but they really SHOULDN’T be IN CHARGE! What the ignorant anti-muslim factions need to do is just go HANG OUT with some Muslims! Okay, maybe not supremely radicalized murderous types, but as explained in this post, those ARE in the MINORITY. Just as I wouldn’t be drinking Kool-Aide with the Reverend Jim Jones to get a perspective on Christianity. I did live for awhile in East Africa, where the MAJORITY of folks were Muslim, and, in the countryside at least(MY OWN prejudice tends to lean against CITY FOLKS….), And I have never met/associated with kinder, more generous, affable people in my life! It would never even occur to these folks to persecute anyone who wasn’t culturally identical to themselves–in fact, the Muslim influence seemed to have helped a lot in squelching more traditional, murderous tribal factions–indeed a religion of Peace! And of course THESE Muslims far outnumber the bombing-types. Growing up, I often heard older folks lamenting that our spoiled youth REALLY should be made to do time in the Military to give them a better perspective(I personally was regularly threatened with being sent to a Military Academy. Luckily it was far too expensive for my parental units!). As a most likely practitioner of AWOL, I disagree heartily with THAT notion, but I WOULD like to see it become MANDATORY for youth in the U.S.A. to havta go live briefly in some 3rd World country with different cultural traditions, and a different dominant religion(if one exists), to give them a broader, healthier perspective and respect for others! Just sayin’…….L.B.

Top of Page