Polls can so easily be manipulated I can't see how they have any credibility or usefulness. On Jun 26, 2016 2:37 PM, "Travis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > June 26, 2016 > > *Closing the potential loopholes on the Muslim immigration ban* > > By Sierra Rayne <http://www.americanthinker.com/author/sierra_rayne/> > > Reuters, whose polling data is so biased in favor of liberal viewpoints as > to be an affront to any real standards in this "profession" -- assuming > there are any, has conveniently updated its ongoing survey > <http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM923Y16_4/type/smallest/dates/20160501-20160624/collapsed/true/spotlight/1> > of whether or not Americans want to "temporarily stop all Muslims from > entering the United States." > > Before looking at the data, and adding some other considerations, it is > now safe to say that any media outlet from here on that reports Reuters > data without acknowledging the existence of, and at least trying to correct > for, the massive bias is simply not a credible outlet exercising due > diligence in journalism. That applies whether the outlet is a polling > aggregrator such as RealClearPolitics or HuffPost Pollster, or any site > across the spectrum. > > In its latest five-day rolling average released June 24, Reuters wants us > to believe that 47.2% of all Americans disagree with a Muslim ban, whereas > just 44.2% agree. Some might argue that it is impressive -- from the > conservative perspective -- that the survey results are so close. One might > expect that after decades of political correctness indoctrination, even the > most diehard conservatives would be so intellectually neutered as to oppose > the ban. > > But when we drill into the data, and unravel the ridiculously large > liberal bias, reality emerges. And that reality shows a large majority of > the public supports the ban, with just a small minority in opposition. > > Of the 1,638 respondents, 780 (48%) are Democrats while only 526 (32%) are > Republicans. Of those surveyed, 41% voted Obama in 2012 compared to just > 24% who chose Romney. Consequently, we are looking at a liberal bias of, at > least, 13-15% in the data. Remove that bias, and the corrected polling data > -- since Republicans and Romney 2012 supporters overwhelmingly support the > ban, whereas Democrats and Obama 2012 voters do not -- suggests that those > in favor of the ban probably hold a minimum 10-12% lead over the opponents. > > In an article published Saturday, > <http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/25/muslim-profiling-isnt-illegal-unconstitutional-un-american/> > John F. Banzhaf III -- a law professor at George Washington University -- > confirmed the position I took last Sunday > <http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/scotus_has_unequivocally_held_that_any_grounds_may_be_used_for_immigration_bans.html> > in stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that any and all grounds > for immigration bans are constitutional, including and especially a ban on > Muslim immigration. This is settled science among the legal profession. > > But one of the core problems is how to avoid a porous national security > net when it comes to imposing a Muslim entry ban, either for immigration > alone or for both immigration and temporary visits. Word has obviously > leaked out that many in the West may want to restrict entry to Muslims > and/or deport them if they are already present. This has led, > predictability, to mass purported conversions of Muslims to Christianity > <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/05/european-churches-growing-flock-muslim-refugees-converting-christianity> > in Europe, to which a few have at least raised some concerns > <http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/muslim-conversions-to-christianity-on-the-rise-in-europe-65543/>, > albeit far too weak. > > This supposed mass conversion is a fraud (taqiyya) designed to fool the > public and circumvent any future national security policies targeting those > of the Islamic faith. > > Senator Ted Cruz's proposal to accept Christian refugees, but not Muslims, > demonstrates a surprising level of naivety by an otherwise skeptical > politician. How exactly are we to reliably differentiate between Muslims > and Christians coming from the same region? What sort of specific test > would we be able to accurately give, and how onerous in terms of > administrative time and costs would this be? Any conceivable test of faith > could be easily gamed, particularly given the corrupt nature of the > homelands from which these refugees are arriving, what with no reliable > church or government records, etc., not to mention the historical > commonalities in the two faiths which can facilitate a false conversion > from Islam to Christianity. > > In addition to the Muslim faith ban, Donald Trump has suggested > <https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security> > that > he "will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven > history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until > we understand how to end these threats." > > If we interpret Trump's statement in the broadest sense possible, he has > wisely closed the loophole that Cruz and others had left open. Trump's > policy could be construed to apply not only to those emigrating directly > from Middle Eastern and similarly dominant Muslim areas, but also those > individuals whose heritage derives from such regions. Otherwise, we are > left with a flawed policy whereby a Muslim from, say, the Middle East could > emigrate to Europe, fake a conversion to Christianity, and thereby escape > the national security wall by claiming to be a European Christian. > > Based on the views of credible legal commentators, this type of broadly > restrictive immigration policy is not only constitutional, but has > widespread bipartisan support among the voters. > > > > Read more: > http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/closing_the_potential_loopholes_on_the_muslim_immigration_ban.html#ixzz4ChlcBzgQ > Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter > <http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker> | > AmericanThinker > on Facebook > <http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker> > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcWw5ODJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjY5NTk3Mzc-> > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZjRqOTdiBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2Njk1OTczNw--> > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe > <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms > of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
