They don't......The latest ABC poll is proof positive.....Plain Ol' is proof positive, but I digress....
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- -- 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.
