Trump, Fetuses, Eagle’s Nest on Display at Brown County Fair

The Brown County Republicans are giving Donald Trump two thumbs up at their booth at the Brown County Fair:

Brown County Republican booth, Brown County Fair, 2016.08.18.
Brown County Republican booth, Brown County Fair, 2016.08.18.

I open the floor for debate over whether the Brown County GOP are displaying moral courage or cowardice or, as Dr. Newquist suggests, a suicidal desire to crash the great American experiment in democracy. I will observe that the booth also has a life-size cutout of President Ronald Reagan, placed as far as possible from the image of his aspiring heir.

Elsewhere in the Expo Building, the Aberdeen Area Lutherans for Life (meaning they never intend to change affiliation?) offer this plastic biology lesson…

Aberdeen Area Lutherans for Life display models of fetuses, Brown County Fair, 2016.08.18.
Aberdeen Area Lutherans for Life display models of fetuses, Brown County Fair, 2016.08.18.

…which changes my respect for life and women’s autonomy and the proper role of the state in individual reproductive decisions not one whit.

The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge has their own model, a life-size eagle’s nest. Kids can climb inside (uh oh—what if this model gets the anti-abortion crowd thinking of a more interactive display…), but watch your fingers:

Sand Lake Wildlife Refuge eagle's nest display, Brown County Fair, 2016.08.18.
Sand Lake Wildlife Refuge eagle’s nest display, Brown County Fair, 2016.08.18.

Please do not touch the eagle—gee, maybe Trump’s new campaign team will adopt that as their slogan.


54 Responses to Trump, Fetuses, Eagle’s Nest on Display at Brown County Fair

  1. Darin Larson

    Overheard at the fair, “Quick, get the Reagan cutout away from Trump. It will remind people of how far the party has fallen and Patti Davis will sue us if we don’t quit using her father’s likeness near Trump.”

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/video/ronald-reagans-daughter-speaks-out-against-trump/vp-BBvwerK

  2. “America Deserves Better Than Hillary” says the sign. The Republican Party probably would have won this year if they had offered someone better than Hillary.

  3. Roger Cornelius

    Trump would probably object to that junkie republican both because it isn’t all about him.

  4. owen reitzel

    What? No cardboard of a starving kid that can’t because because the GOP cut food programs?

  5. owen reitzel

    “can’t eat” sorry

  6. Robin Friday

    As I walked by the Republican booth (with my Heidelberger t-shirt on) I was soo tempted to have my photo taken with the Donald to send to my nasty Republican friends on another site. But I didn’t want to be rude to the booth caretakers, so I overcame the temptation to ask for permission. (Sheer cowardice, I know.)

  7. Robin, that’s politeness, not cowardice. Carry on, and enjoy the fair!

  8. Are there many of those dangerous rides for the Aberdeenite kids, and what is the run down on the types of food they are making available? Falafels are good but probably banned due to the mid-east connection. Fry bread is always a favorite, and especially when dusted liberally not conservatively with powdered sugar. And sticks with large chunks of meat. Meat on a stick is a must.

  9. Joe Nelson

    Where is the Brown County Democrat’s booth? They could counter act the GOP booth with cardboard cutouts of FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton. I think thy could also still get away with a “America Deserves Better Than Hillary” sign, because we really do.

  10. Steve Hickey

    Need you to turn your brain on for this abortion issue Cory. The individual reproductive decision is made. The only remaining decision is to kill the child or let it live. In raw terms the matter is child sacrifice, which btw, is never okay. We have two patients now, not just the mom. Women deserve better than 1973 science regarding the reality of the situation they are in. Ask your daughter to look at those plastic models and tell you if she thinks it’s okay to dismember a living one without anesthesia? It is never okay to kill a biological human being. Hopefully you aren’t teaching her it’s okay to kill someone.

  11. Are those Christian or Muslim fetuses? You know it matters to the GOP.

  12. Joe, the BC Dems booth has no cardboard cut-outs, just real live candidates.

  13. Blah, Cory I agree with you most of the time, except in regards to the fact that I am pro-life. I don’t like to see the issue trivialized on your blog. I have, however, very gradually, come to see myself as a Democrat vs. hard core Republican, so for that you can be proud. :)

  14. Carol Hayse, LCSW

    Of course, if Trump gets elected, there will BE NO MORE Sand Lake Refuge, as his ilk want to eliminate governmental funding for public-access recreation.

  15. “Are those Christian or Muslim fetuses? You know it matters to the GOP.”

    No. No, it really doesn’t. Carry on with your caricatures if it makes you feel better.

  16. Brown County Republicans are proud of both their new spiritual leader and his Russian agenda. It is all hands on deck for a total embrace. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6eed1ef61eb744e1aac584f8ac1f7247/trump-advisers-waged-covert-influence-campaign

  17. Do you support pregnant Syrian Muslims refugees coming to South Dakota, Dicta? Do you Steve Hickey, Troy Jones, Stace Nelson and all the other ones who claim to be so pro-life?

  18. I do not believe anyone should be prevented from legally establishing themselves in our nation on the basis of their religion or country of origin.

  19. Troy Jones

    Jenny,

    First of all, what is the “claim to be?” I believe the failure of our government to protect the civil right to life of unborn persons to make all civil rights a subjective matter and thus cease to be rights but selective privileges for some and not all.

    That said, your question seems to imply a resentment those who oppose abortion use the moniker “Pro-Life” for this single or in some cases related issues like the death penalty when you think the term should be applied even more broadly to positions you think are pro-life. I’ll make a deal, if you quit using the term “pro-choice” (which only extends a choice to one person) to describe your position of allowing abortions, I’ll quit using the term pro-life as a moniker for being anti-abortion.

    Second, I am not opposed to the principle of America being a refuge for political refugees, regardless of their religion. Concurrently, I support adequate assurance and controls that political refugees not be threats to the domestic tranquility of the United States. Until there exists adequate assurance and controls, some political refugees will have to remain in refugee camps outside the United States, camps which I think we should assist in their protection and sustenance.

    Third, I think refugees as a result of a civil war is a separate category than political refugees (those whose political views expose them to a reasonable exposure to death, imprisonment, or extreme discrimination) because resolution of the civil war may allow the people to stay in their homeland, which is most often preferable for all concerned.

    Fourth, I find it confusing that some think the claim of being a refugee is sufficient for entrance to our country without reasonable controls they aren’t a terrorist. Do you lock the door to your house when you leave? Why wouldn’t a person being cold be sufficient reason to enter your house without your permission or confidence such entry wouldn’t endanger you, your family or your possessions? Do we only have prisons to punish rapists, child molesters, and murderers or does it also have the benefit of protecting us from these people? Why wouldn’t we apply the same principle by not allowing terrorists to enter our country?

    Finally, I find it confusing all those who “claim to be feminists” (flipping around your “claim statement”) to be so open to allow these refugees into the United States considering their attitudes toward women and open desire to subjugate women under Sharia Law. Makes me wonder if some women’s equality is secondary to some cause greater. Can you tell me what that higher cause is? I’m really confused.

  20. Traci, I think plastic fetus dolls trivialize the issue.

    Steve, my brain is on. I’m teaching my daughter to turn her brain on all the time. And I’m teaching her not to impose certain personal decisions on others by the force of law.

  21. Troy, at no point have I advocated letting refugees in without vetting or allowing terrorists into the United States.

  22. I’m confused, Troy. You’re making claims about sharia law. Tell us what you claim sharia law says about women, and tell us what refugees here follow sharia law.

  23. Roger Cornelius

    I’m confused, how do you legally compel a pregnant woman to give birth to child without violating her civil or rights? Or, would that be a form of American Sharia Law?

  24. Darin Larson

    Troy says “Fourth, I find it confusing that some think the claim of being a refugee is sufficient for entrance to our country without reasonable controls they aren’t a terrorist.”

    Who are the people that think the claim of being a refugee is sufficient without vetting? Is this like when Trump says “A lot of people are saying . . .” and then he makes some crap up?

    Troy, the only one I have heard making blanket statements like this are on the other side of the argument. Trump says we should stop all immigration to the US from any country that has experienced terrorism or imposing a religious test on immigrants. I have heard no blanket statement from any Democrat that we should let all immigrants into the US even if they are not properly vetted.

  25. Troy Jones

    Ror,

    I’m not sure I understand what you are asking so I’m going to guess.

    What Sharia says about women: One example (there are others where rights of women are less than men) is a husband can have divorce granted without permission of wife. A wife can only be granted divorce with consent of the husband.

    What refugees follow sharia law: Muslims who practice their faith. All Muslims are expected to submit to Sharia even if Sharia is not the law of the land. For some moderate Muslims, submission to the law of the land is not a de facto violation of Sharia. When the law of the land and Sharia conflict they are to do their best to conform to Sharia when dealing with other Muslims but to some degree allowed to submit to the law of the land with regard to non-Muslims. For less moderate Muslims, no submission to the law of the land is permissible to the extent it conflicts with Sharia.

  26. Troy Jones

    Darin exactly.

    Trumps position now is a moratorium until they can be vetted. Since I presume you accept Hillary’s wholesale change/reversal in position on TPP, I presume you will also allow Trump to slightly modify his position.

    And since the FBI director said the strife in Syria makes vetting virtually impossible, I assume you support a moratorium.

    It’s great when we all agree on a policy. Should happen more often.

  27. I don’t know what sharia law is, Troy. I thought maybe you were getting at the fact that women can’t be priests or something, but I guess you were talking about Muslims treating women differently and not Catholics. I guess I’m just relieved you’re not proposing a moratorium on Catholics or people from say Ireland. It’s kind of hard to tell the IRA militants from the good folks, you know.

  28. W R Old Guy

    Most of the Muslim terror incidents have been conducted by US born or legal residents of the US that have been radicalized. I know Trump thinks that we can control the internet and social media to block terrorist groups from getting through. My IT friends say it is not possible.

    I do not think a ban on immigrants will solve the problem. What about Christian immigrants from countries which have a history of terrorism? Do we ban them too?

  29. The reasons republicans vote are almost all stupid reasons. They really need to take step back, realize that government is 1 million times more complicated as the abortion issue and keeping people who are different from being treated humanly or equal, and then just do what’s right: stop voting – because deep down inside, I’m pretty sure that yall know full well for yourselves that you’re idiots.

  30. Don Coyote

    @Dicta: “I do not believe anyone should be prevented from legally establishing themselves in our nation on the basis of their religion or country of origin.”

    And yet US Code 1158 covering asylum of refugees specifically lists religion as one of the reasons that can be taken into account in denying or granting asylum. For example under Conditions for Granting Asylum; Burden of Proof: “To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

    Or under Exceptions to Granting Asylum: “The alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

    And under Termination of Asylum: “The alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

  31. Troy Jones

    Poll released today:

    1* A proposal has been made to temporarily ban immigration into the United States from “the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism” until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Do you favor or oppose such a ban? Favor- 59% Oppose-32%

    2* Do you favor or oppose implementing a screening test for those looking to enter the country that determines whether they have hostile attitudes towards the United States and its constitutional freedoms? Favor- 73% Oppose 18%

  32. Roger Cornelius

    Troy,
    Is that a Breibart poll you are referring to?

  33. Troy Jones

    Roger,

    Rasmussen poll. 3% MOE. Same poll that had HRC up by 2%.

  34. Troy: Why don’t you share an in-depth analysis of how poorly written and leading those poll questions are, resulting in highly skewed results? Do they ask “Have you stopped beating your wife?” along with their questions along the line of “Would you support banning people ‘from the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism?’ Naturally, a question like that is going to get an overwhelming affirmative response. How about pollsters asking, “Would you favor allowing citizens suffering under the tyranny of terrorism a chance to live freely and in peace in the United States?” Or is that too leading?? BTW, is the poll from which you cite conducted by a credible organization, such as Gallup, that uses scientific methods, or did you find these questions on a Fox News web site?

  35. John Kennedy Claussen, Sr.

    Well, when it comes to the polling of the American people about constitutional principles, the results are often shocking and removed from established stare decisis precedence.

    About twenty years ago, I read the results of a poll, I believe it was from Harris or Gallup, which claimed that 71% of those polled did not believe a defendant was innocent until proven guilty. Apparently, a vast majority of those Americans polled in that poll adhered to the principles of Roman law and not common law and lacked a fundamental understanding about what our country is all about, how and why it was created, and how we have always wished to be lead and not ruled and free and not imprisoned without the due process of law.

    That said, public policy of constitutional complexities, especially, should not be tested to the wind, rather it should be conducted with a constitutional soundness by those who wish to lead instead of rule us….

  36. Don Coyote

    @John Kennedy Clausen: Which Constitutional principle are you alluding to? If you’re making reference to the religious test clause in the Constitution, it only refers to a government office holders or government employees adherence to a religion or doctrine as a prerequisite for political office or the government job. This has absolutely nothing to do with immigration or refugee asylum.

  37. Troy Jones

    Dave,

    1) I provided the question exactly as asked. If you think it is so leading as to be dismissed, dismiss it. I couldn’t care less. You question might get a high number of positive respondents but it doesn’t mean a majority of those same respondents wouldn’t support a screening test. The point of the question was specific to whether or not there should be a ban from immigraiotn from some countries and a screening test and not a general question on whether or not we should have refugees. It was not a question of whether or not we should allow refugees. I don’t know how to gauge the opinion of the people on a matter without asking them directly how they feel.

    2) The poll is done by Rasmussen which is credible and scientific to both realclearpolitics.com and Nate Silver. There are about 15 polling groups who are watched by both these poll analysis/aggregators whose methodology is virtually identical (statistics standards are not scientific but mathematical). Some of them often poll for Republican candidates (Rasmussen) or Democrat candidates (PPD). Personally, I’ve found all of these polling firms to be credible and don’t discount them out of hand as you appear to do.

    3) As Silver (or one of his analysts) has said, all polling is essentially the same with regard to methodology. Differences (or inaccuracies) aren’t because of bias of the pollster as much as the reliability of how they gather the information and then the adjusting assumptions they make with regard to specific turn-outs within relevant demographic groups. For example, especially early but to some degree throughout the primary, Sanders and Trump consistently out-performed polling because the pollsters were slow to adjust (and never caught up with) the turn-out differentials due to enthusiasm.

  38. Don, the code would not have allowed many of your family in. What makes you all so special? Remember, many Muslims are whiter than you.

  39. Darin Larson

    Troy says: “As Silver (or one of his analysts) has said, all polling is essentially the same with regard to methodology. Differences (or inaccuracies) aren’t because of bias of the pollster as much as the reliability of how they gather the information and then the adjusting assumptions they make with regard to specific turn-outs within relevant demographic groups.”

    Troy, your statement above is only true with regard to simple polling of choice A or choice B, for example, are you voting for Clinton or are you voting for Trump.

    Otherwise, if the polling question is more complicated, bias is inherent in how the question is asked. Do we really need to debate this? Are you seriously saying that polling on the refugee question is not affected strongly by how the question is framed, just as Dave has pointed out?

    I’m also not sure how doing the right thing is a matter of what the polls say. Morally, ethically, and as a matter of American ideals, not to mention our religious calling to help our neighbor, helping refugees fleeing from war, starvation and oppression is our duty. Trump is using the issue to scare people into voting for him. He has no moral compass, ethical code, or religious tenets that he feels strongly about to guide him.

  40. Darin Larson

    Troy, You talk about Sharia law as if most Muslims want Sharia law and as if most Muslims agree that Sharia law should be the extreme version that you portray. Muslims don’t even agree among themselves what Sharia law is, but you have it all figured out? I have heard from Muslim scholars that Sharia law is more like a personal code of conduct for some Muslims. For others, it is analogous to the Ten Commandments. For some Muslims, it is the extremist version that you have in mind.

    Trump supporters want to talk about the fight against ISIS and stopping terrorism as the preeminent issue because that rallies their base. But Trump is the worst on this issue. If we start imposing restrictions on Muslims and not let them be a part of legal immigration in this country it plays right into the hands of ISIS who wants to falsely frame this fight as the West versus Islam. They want to stir up the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world and they would love to point out that the US discriminates against Muslims. This is the only way ISIS has of increasing their power. They will never win on the battle field and they know it. They are competing for hearts and minds. If we want to win this terror war, we have to stop posturing and playing into the terrorist’s hands like Trump.

  41. 2* Do you favor or oppose implementing a screening test for those looking to enter the country that determines whether they have hostile attitudes towards the United States and its constitutional freedoms? Favor- 73% Oppose 18%

    Wouldn’t such a test prohibit Trump from returning to the US when he goes golfing in Scotland?

  42. Troy Jones

    Darin,

    Huh? Read again what I said. I didn’t all Muslim’s want imposition of Sharia Law on us, I specifically mentioned how moderate (non-extreme) Muslims make accommodations to the law of the land, and didn’t claim I had it all figured out. I was answering a specific question of Rorschach based on what I have learned. If it is inaccurate, illuminate me. The context of what i said was based on the following.

    1) The matter of divorce is not extreme or disputed inside most of Islam. Research “Khula” and “Talaq.”
    2) Sharia even under the most benign interpretations in some cases makes the Imam the arbitrator of justice or resolution of disputes regardless of the law of the land.

    Regarding the polling question, again read what I said, especially in #1 which goes to your comment. Of course, the wording of the question can affect the result. I provided the question as asked. If you think it is leading, discount it to the degree you want. I don’t care. My only point is there is I think it indicates support for a more rigorous test and vetting from nations which export terrorism beyond those who support Trump. And, supporting essentially Trump’s current position doesn’t imply an opposition to political or Muslim refugees per se.

  43. 2* Do you favor or oppose implementing a screening test for those looking to enter the country that determines whether they have hostile attitudes towards the United States and its constitutional freedoms? Favor- 73% Oppose 18%

    If such a test is imposed, Troy, I suggest you never leave the country given your opposition to the abortion.

  44. Douglas Wiken

    The latest Foreign Affairs magazine reviews a book concerned with Islamicists. Islam is not just a religion as it is now. It is an intricate entwining of religion and government. The Islamicists use religious slogans and the idea that the only good Moslems are those who support conservative anti-women, anti-democracy, criminalizing blasphemy, etc.

    No matter what Moslems say since it is perfectly OK for them to lie to infidels if it furthers Islam, I don’t really think we can believe or know that a negligible percentage of potential immigrants are in favor of destroying democracy.

    The authors pretty much agree that there is little hope that Islam will reform as has Christianity in relations between religion and government.

    I think allowing Islamicists into the country is suicide for democracy and separation of religion and state. It is foolish to assume they are a benefit to the US.

    Democrats better understand the “silent majority” support for Trump because of his positions on Islam and uncontrolled borders.

  45. Wiken, I think the big problem in America is a certain demographic that votes for one party because they believe they are “Christian.”

    These people want to grow government bigger in order to force their moral values onto everyone else – yet they claim they are “conservative.” It’s the opposite of making government smaller. It’s a disingenuous ploy.

  46. Douglas Wiken

    Adam, I agree. The pols play fundamentalists like a bad fiddle. The religious types don’t seem to understand that the separation of church and state has been the best they could have gotten even if they don’t realize it. Some of the Moslems who have been in Europe and returned to Africa have shifted their Moslem parties to positions separate from religion because they have seen the benefits of the separation themselves. They are however the exception. Ironically, the situation in Iran is often overlooked by the reactionary Moslems. After 30 some years of religious control, participation in Friday prayers has dropped from over 50% to something like 3% or 5%. Some populations have figured out the problems with an ancient religion in a modern state, but the Islamic despots controlling the country have an iron-fist control.

  47. Why does the right wing and its minions enjoy killing women and then claim they are for the unborn? They rally their base with these kinds of pictures and other crap to take your mind away from the hate they are forcing on women. Here is our sad truth, we are at the bottom of how we take care of our expectant mothers, while blathering about the unborn. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/maternal-death-rate-in-the-us_n_7460822.html Proud accomplishment Mr. Hickey, job well done.

  48. Don Coyote

    @Jerry: “Don, the code would not have allowed many of your family in. What makes you all so special? Remember, many Muslims are whiter than you.”

    You don’t know anything about my family just as you don’t know much about anything considering your posts.

    Whiter than me? Hardly. I’m white as white bread considering my English and Scot colonist genes dating to the 1400s blended with my immigrant Norwegian genes going back to 400 AD (maybe even later as the record keeping gets kind of sketchy). I’m more colonist than immigrant. There is a difference.

  49. You may be that bread Mr. Don, but that does not make “all” of your tree that way. Remember, we are all diverse. As you note, the records get kind of sketchy as they are with all families. Are you sure about all the family that married other family members who have a family tree as well? In South Dakota, there are a lot of questionable German heritage, as an example, that may or may not have been from Jewish heritage or Muslim heritage from the same areas. Some of these good folk are now Catholic or some other denomination other than what they once were from whatever corner of the world they came from. The Nordic tribes were traders and travelers that sailed the seas to all points, even to these shores, hundreds of years before the Spanish. No, I think I know your family very well as they are all part of the great human quilt we all should be proud of. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity all have much in common. So much so that we should never make hate with any. BTW, all of these have very white members who are just as religious as the immigrant you are and they were.

  50. At least they are not handing out “little fetuses” like ND state fair did in 2013……

  51. Of the 3.806 million square miles that comprise the United States of America, can somebody tell me which square mile is ruled, or threatened to be ruled, by Sharia Law?

    The Republican fixation with a threat that could not possibly exist in the USA ranks right up there with dogs chasing cars in terms of intellect and insight.

  52. Apparently, all of it 96 Tears, at least in the republican DNA. This hate goes back to when Saint Ronnie was shafting us to begin our downhill race to the bottom. Spooky stuff http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/secret-plans-detention-internment-camps-1980s-deportation-arab-muslim-immigrants-214177?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange

  53. Don said: @Dicta: “I do not believe anyone should be prevented from legally establishing themselves in our nation on the basis of their religion or country of origin.”

    And yet US Code 1158…

    You’re playing a little fast and loose with my statement and the quotes you used to attack it. Granting asylum and refugee status required persecution first and foremost for GRANTING refugee status in the country, and religion was one of several options. Nowhere in the quoted language does it state religion is a grounds for DENYING status. Your response is not really on point, Don.