Tuesday, February 28, 2017

A Nation of Immigrants — Only If They Assimilate, No We Are Not A Nation of Immigrants, We Are A Nation OF Settler


by DENNIS PRAGER, National Review
I am writing this column in Japan, a country whose crime rate is the lowest among countries with large populations. I asked my Japanese translator, a middle-aged woman, what she thought. “Why is there is so little crime in Japan?” I asked.
Image result for nation of settlers covered wagon

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Poll: Majority Want Fewer Refugees, Support Donald Trump’s Migration Cuts

Another poll shows a majority of voters support President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing travelers from seven terror-exporting countries, and shows that a majority want fewer refugees imported into American communities overall.

Pollsters found that 51 percent of respondents want the U.S. to accept fewer refugees than the 100,000 per year President Barack Obama wanted to import. Trump’s new White House plan trims that number to 50,000 per year.
Fifty-three percent of respondents also support the Trump’s Executive Order banning all refugee resettlement from Syria and freezing refugee resettlement for 120 days, according to the poll, which was conducted for the Harvard Center for American Political Studies by the Harris Poll company. The company is co-managed by Democratic pollster Mark Penn. Forty-seven percent of respondents oppose the new curbs, according to Harris, which did not release details showing the percentage of people who strong support or oppose the curbs.
Forty-seven percent of respondents oppose the new curbs on refugee inflow, according to Harris, which did not release details about the percentage of people who strong support or oppose the curbs. In many polls, the percentage of people who strongly support large-scale immigration is below 20 percent.

harvard-harris-poll

A regional judge’s order halting President Trump’s refugee resettlement freeze on Feb. 3 did not affect Trump’s halving of total refugee resettlement numbers. It did, however, lead to a rush of refugees from five of the seven unstable, terror-exporting countries into the U.S. Thanks in part to one regional judge, 60.1 percent of refugees arriving since the ruling are from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Sudan. Over half, or 55 percent, of the 2,576 refugee arrivals are Muslims, including 99.6 percent of Syrian refugees.

The half-million refugees imported since 2009 will cost taxpayers $4.1 billion in FY2017 alone. As Breitbart News previously reported: “$4.1 billion can buy 10,677 new homes for $384,000 each, which is the average price of a new home sold in the United States in December 2016. Or it could buy 170,124 new autos for $24,100 each, which is the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a 2017 Chevrolet Malibu.”

A total and complete shutdown of all refugee resettlement would save billions, but most of the refugees already living in the U.S. are an economic weight because they are only capable of low-skilled work. They will continue to cost more in welfare and aid than they generate in taxes, so costing American taxpayers at least $3 billion every year. These costs do not include any costs racked up in the U.S. criminal justice system when refugees commit crimes and plot terrorism.

Trump’s popular refugee resettlement freeze has broad support. A Feb. 8 Morning Consult poll found 55 percent of voters supported Trump’s executive order, including 82 percent of Republicans.
Another McLaughlin & Associates poll release Feb. 8 found 57 percent support for a halt of refugee settlement to implement better screening procedures.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released on Feb. 2 found 52 percent of voters favored a freeze on all refugee resettlement until the government could better screen out terrorists, including 57 percent of young voters.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22/poll-voters-want-fewer-refugees/

Friday, February 17, 2017

83% Say It’s Important to Buy American

Americans strongly believe in buying things made in the U.S.A., and most don't think the government protects domestic businesses enough. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2017/83_say_it_s_important_to_buy_american

Trump Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

he Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 39% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 37% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2.  (see trends).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb17

Most Still Say U.S. At War With Radical Islamic Terrorism

Obama and Hillary Clinton still won't say it, but most voters continue to believe the United States is at war with radical Islamic terrorism. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

he survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 1-2, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2016/most_still_say_u_s_at_war_with_radical_islamic_terrorism

Most Support Trump’s Call for Immigration Restrictions, Screening Test

Most voters support Donald Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values. Most also agree that such a test is likely to reduce the number of terrorists entering the United States.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey find that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on 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. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose such a ban, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

Seventy-three percent (73%) agree with the Republican presidential nominee’s call for a government screening test for those looking to enter the country that determines whether they have hostile attitudes towards the United States and its constitutional freedoms. Only 18% are opposed to this kind of test.
While Democrats by a 52% to 38% margin oppose the temporary ban on immigrants from countries with a history of terrorism, most voters in Hillary Clinton’s party (57%) agree with the use of a government screening test. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans and 74% of voters not affiliated with either major party support such a test. But 81% of GOP voters and 59% of unaffiliateds also agree with a temporary ban on those coming from countries with a history of terrorism.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of all voters believe an ideological screening test for immigrants to the United States would decrease the number of potential terrorists entering this country, but that includes only 27% who say it is Very Likely to do so. Thirty-four percent (34%) think the screening test is unlikely to reduce the number of potential terrorists getting into America, although just 10% say it’s Not At All Likely to work.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/august_2016/most_support_trump_s_call_for_immigration_restrictions_screening_test

War on Terror Update Only 32% Say America Safer After Obama Years

Confidence that the War on Terror is going America’s way has jumped to its highest level in over four years, but most voters don’t think this country is a safer place than it was eight years ago when President Obama took office.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 32% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States is safer now after eight years of the Obama presidency. Thirty-nine percent (39%) believe the country is a more dangerous place after the Obama years, while 26% rate the level of safety about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update

Most Still See Radical Islamic Terrorism As Serious Threat

President Trump's belief that radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to America is one of the primary reasons behind his temporary freeze on refugees and visas. Most voters continue to recognize that threat and believe the United States is still at war with radical Islam.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 80% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Islamic terrorism a serious threat to the United States, including 54% who consider it a Very Serious one. Nineteen percent (19%) feel radical Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but that includes just three percent (3%) who say it is Not At All Serious. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2017/most_still_see_radical_islamic_terrorism_as_serious_threat

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Tony Perkins: Wash. State Supreme Court Tramples First Amendment in Ruling Against Stutzman.

The Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling today that puts at risk the home and personal assets of Barronelle Stutzman, a florist shop owner who told two men that she'd be happy to sell them flowers but couldn't – in good conscience – arrange them for a wedding ceremony that violated her faith.

The Washington State Supreme Court's ruling tramples on our nation's long held tradition of respecting the freedom of Americans to follow their deeply held beliefs, especially when it comes to participating in activities and ceremonies that so many Americans consider sacred.
The court also ignored an opportunity to reaffirm the basic principle that the government may not trample on the constitutional rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion. These rights do not stop at the door of your local church, and instead extend to every area of a religious person's life.
The government has no authority to force Americans like Barronelle Stutzman to engage in speech and events with which they morally disagree.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/tony-perkins/tony-perkins-wash-state-supreme-court-tramples-first-amendment-ruling

Trump Blasts Media, Says He 'Inherited A Mess' From Obama? And Obama Say He 'Inherited Mess For Bush? This Old, We fought Obama Supporter For 2008 To 2012, Over This, Trump You Were Not Put In Office To Blame Obama, Then Please Don't

Image result for Obama blame bush

Trump Blasts Media, Says he 'Inherited A Mess' From Obama? And Obama Say He 'Inherited Mess For Bush? This Old, We fought Obama Supporter For 2008 To 2012, Over This, Trump Try To Find Better Wording?


Image result for Obama inherited a mess for bush

Trump is holding a news conference in the East Room of the White House Thursday, where he has announced Alexander Acosta as his choice for Labor Secretary, and is attacking the media and what he calls "a mess" that he inherited.. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/16/watch-live-president-trump-to-name-labor-secretary-pick-after-puzder-withdraws.html

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Purging the Marriage Penalty

 Image result for man and woman getting married


A Valentine’s Day present from the federal government? It could happen. No, I’m not talking about flowers or candy. I’m talking about getting rid of the “marriage penalty” that’s built into one of our biggest welfare programs.

That program is the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is the nation’s second largest means-tested cash welfare program. EITC, unlike other welfare programs, is structured to give incentives to work. But reforms are needed to help it better achieve that purpose — and to ensure that it doesn’t discourage marriage.

EITC provides “refundable” tax credits to low-income individuals. What’s a “refundable tax credit,” you may ask? It’s simply a cash welfare grant to individuals who have no federal income tax liability.
 Historically, around two-thirds of the families with children receiving the EITC are single parents, and one-third are married couples, according to welfare expert Robert Rector. The average value of an EITC payment to a family with children was $2,919.

Now, there are several problems with the EITC program that need to be addressed. Fraud is rampant, for one thing. Erroneous overclaims account for at least a quarter of the $59 billion in annual EITC spending.

Another problem is how EITC benefits can go to non-parents. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and older siblings and stepsiblings can often claim EITC cash bonuses for children. As Rector points out, this leads to “benefit shopping,” arbitrarily assigning children for EITC purposes to relatives whose earnings will elicit the highest EITC payment. Taxpayers wind up paying more, and the EITC work incentive is dodged.

But let’s focus for now on how the EITC discriminates against married couples. In most cases, the EITC benefits received by unmarried parents who cohabit are significantly higher than those received by similar couples who are married.

To understand why, consider a father and mother who each earn $20,000 per year and have two children. If they simply live together, each parent will file a separate income tax return, and their income will be maximized if each parent claims one child for tax purposes. They won’t pay any income tax, but will receive a combined $7,269 in refundable tax credits through the EITC and the Additional Child Tax Credit, or ACTC.

But if they marry, it’s a different story. They still pay no federal income tax, but their refundable tax credits are cut from $7,269 to $2,960, a loss of $4,308. Just getting married forces this couple to give up about one-tenth of their income. And let’s not forget that the cohabiting couple is likely getting other benefits as well, such as food stamps, which aren’t available to the married couple.
This disincentive to marriage is not only unwise, but perverse. “Research consistently demonstrates that married adults are physically and emotionally healthier than non-married adults; they are also more economically secure,” Rector writes. “Family structure is also the most important factor in predicting upward social mobility of children, and children with two parents do best.”
How much better do they do? When looking at families with the same race and same parental education, we find that, compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:
  • More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime.
  • Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems.
  • Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school.
  • A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.
There’s a lot to fix in the EITC program, and one of the most important is eliminating its marriage penalty. It may not seem very romantic, but increasing EITC benefits for married couples with children is one of the best Valentine Day’s presents Uncle Sam could give.
Ed Feulner is founder of The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org).

A Militant Abortion and Homosexuality, Secular Agenda Is Being Imposed on Americans

 Image result for Homosexual meaning




On February 16, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice will hold a hearing on "The State of Religious Liberty in America." Hopefully, it will accelerate the push to secure this most fundamental of freedoms.

President Trump is considering an executive order on religious liberty, the draft of which holds much promise. But legislation is also needed: religious liberty is currently imperiled on several fronts.
The war on religion—and that is exactly what it is—is being led by agents of government and activist groups seeking to impose a militant secular agenda on Americans. What drives them more than any other issue is an irresponsible interpretation of sexual freedom.

The activists and lawmakers pushing this cause accuse many religious institutions of resisting their agenda. They are correct. Traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Muslims, reject abortion and homosexuality, and they find attempts by the government to encroach on their beliefs and practices objectionable. There is much to object to, especially at the state level.

Many states are considering pro-abortion legislation. In Connecticut, they are weighing a bill that takes aim at a familiar target: crisis pregnancy centers. These centers are the epitome of choice—they give young pregnant girls the choice of giving their baby up for adoption—yet the pro-choice lobby works to deny them this choice.

In Illinois and Maryland lawmakers are considering bills that would allow Medicaid and state employee health insurance to cover abortions.

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo is pushing the legislature to consider a bill that makes abortion legal for any reason, and at any time during pregnancy, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned; he wants Roe codified in the New York State Constitution. Rhode Island lawmakers are studying similar legislation.

New Mexico is considering a bill that would force Catholic hospitals to pay for and perform abortions. The ACLU and other anti-Catholic organizations are lobbying for it.

Most outrageous, there is a coordinated effort going on in 18 states to expand abortion rights. They want abortion to be covered in both public and private insurance plans, including Catholic ones.
This fight is being led by pro-abortion lawmakers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In St. Louis, city lawmakers passed a bill last week that threatens to do the same.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/militant-secular-agenda-being-imposed-americas

Ron Paul: Will Trump And Congress Stop Forcing Pro-Life Americans to Subsidize Abortion?

Image result for trump and ron paul



Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.
Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism. Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.
While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.
Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacare’s abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “sinful and tyrannical.” That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.
http://eaglerising.com/40956/will-congress-stop-forcing-pro-life-americans-to-subsidize-abortion/

Ted Cruz Wants to Revoke Citizenship of Americans Who Turn to Terrorism — Why Aren’t We Already Doing This?

Image result for ted cruz Muslim

Ted Cruz Wants to Revoke Citizenship of Americans Who Turn to Terrorism — Why Aren’t We Already Doing This?

Image result for ted cruz Muslim

One has to wonder why, exactly, it is that we haven’t already made this idea into law, but apparently we haven’t.

Cruz is talking about the soon to be introduced Expatriate Terrorist Act (ETA) of 2017, which would allow the U.S. government under certain circumstances to revoke the citizenship of Americans who knowingly join or provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations.
Of course, the idea isn’t new. Not only has such a bill been floating around Washington for some time, for over a year President Donald Trump has been talking about better vetting to prevent terrorists from getting into the country in the first place.
But the Texas Senator says that working to prevent Muslim terrorists from getting into the U.S. is only part of the equation of combating terrorism in at home. The other half of the problem is composed of home-grown terrorists — those the media often erroneously call “lone wolf terrorists — who turn to terror right here inside our own borders.
“If an American citizen travels abroad and joins a terrorist group waging jihad on America, attempting to murder innocent Americans, this legislation would strip that individual of their U.S. citizenship, so that we would not have terrorists returning to America using U.S. passports,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner this week.
Not only have hundreds of Americans joined the Islamic State (or ISIS) at least 124 citizens and/or green card holders have traveled to terrorist-controlled areas in the Middle East and Africa to join the jihad.

Cruz pointedly noted that even Hillary Clinton supported similar legislation back when she was still a Senator and posited that it is a common sense law that both Democrats and Republicans should be able to support.
“This legislation is a common sense step to recognize that people can [wage] war against America in more ways than one,” Cruz insisted. “You don’t need to be a member of a nation-state military to be a terrorist at war with America.”
In a statement, Cruz explained further:
“We know that Islamic radicalization is happening right here in the United States. Indeed, we’ve seen Americans like Anwar al-Awlaki, Faisal Shazad, and most recently, Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, engage in hostilities against our country, and materially support terrorists who are waging war against us and our way of life. This is a threat that must be taken seriously.” Sen. Cruz said. “The Expatriate Terrorist Act will ensure that any American who forfeits their country to intentionally join ISIS will have their citizenship stripped and won’t be able to use a U.S. passport to come back and murder American citizens. I’m glad to join with my House colleague, Rep. Steve King on this important effort and I hope that Congress will come together to pass this bill as we work to once and for all acknowledge the real threat of radical Islamic terror and take the steps necessary to keep our country safe.”
“Over past years, many vulnerabilities to American security have emerged,” said King. “Some American citizens have sworn allegiance to foreign terrorist organizations (FTO’s), and that is why Senator Ted Cruz and I have re-introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act. Upon taking an oath to a FTO, American terrorists have voluntarily renounced their citizenship. Such individuals who commit acts of terror against the United States are demonstrating they no longer uphold their pledge to our country. Regardless of prior citizenship, by birth or naturalization, ETA will make it clear that if a national of the U.S. chooses to take an oath or pledge allegiance to a FTO, that individual has affirmatively renounced American citizenship and relinquished all protection under the law.”
Sadly, this proposal has been introduced in Congress repeatedly for several years but past bills have run afoul of those skeptical of giving the government the power to summarily cancel citizenship. To address that Cruz’ latest bill adds a 60-day window to request a due process hearing to challenge the implementation.
Cruz also notes that the bill about to be introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Congressman Steven King of Iowa utilizes the same process the federal government has used since 1926 to revoke citizenship of Americans who join foreign armies at war with the U.S.A. So, he says, this latest effort is not an all new process but builds on precedent.
Speaking of Rep. King, he has been worried about the failed vetting process for a long time.
In a discussion about that failed process last year, Rep. King told The Daily Caller’s Kerry Picket that the Obama administration granted citizenship to up to 850 foreigners who should never have received the honor.
“It seems that number might be doubled even. I want to get into that and see what it takes to revoke that citizenship. Legally, we can revoke citizenship of almost anyone if they make the violations that are clear and many of them, as I understand it, committed fraud to get the path to citizenship,” King said last September.
The move will likely gain the easy support of the White House, especially since President Trump campaigned on implementing a stricter vetting process for foreigners wishing to come to the U.S.
The U.S. is far from the only nation that has moved or is moving to revoke the citizenship of homegrown jihadis.
Australia, for instance, passed a law to revoke the citizenship of home grown jihadis back in 2015.
Australia’s legislation, an anti-terror law entitled the “Allegiance to Australia Act,” allows the country’s federal government to strip the citizenship of dual-citizens from Australia who are suspected or convicted of perpetrating terror or joining groups designated as terror outfits, Daily Caller reported.
Most recently the law was cited to revoke the citizenship of Islamic State fighter Khaled Sharrouf who abandoned Australia to join ISIS in Syria.
Sharrouf has a long record of terrorist activities and so does his now deceased wife, Tara Nettleton.
Australia isn’t alone with its move to end citizenship of convicted terrorists. In addition to Australia, Belgium, Norway, Britain, and Israel have also begun the process of adding such a law to their books.
In Israel, for instance, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked his attorney general to look into giving him power to revoke a terrorist’s citizenship.
“Whoever joins ISIS will not be an Israeli citizen. And if he leaves the borders of the state, he will not return,” Netanyahu said in 2015. “I think this lesson is becoming increasingly clear throughout the international arena.”
France also moved to institute a similar plan, but the move fell apart spectacularly. As a result of the controversy, the country dropped its plan to add to its constitution a provision to revoke dual-citizenship of terrorists.
Indeed, the resistance to the change in France was so stiff that the country’s justice minister quit her position over the discussion of the law.
A year ago, extreme liberal Christiane Taubira, resigned in a snit as the country began debating President Hollande’s desire to have the power to revoke citizenship.
“Sometimes resisting means staying, sometimes resisting means leaving,” Taubira claimed after she resigned over the proposal.
Despite last year’s failure to get the law passed,  the idea is likely still kicking around in Paris especially since the country has withstood several waves of terror attacks.
http://constitution.com/ted-cruz-wants-revoke-citizenship-americans-turn-terrorism-arent-already/

Trump Needs to Get Moving on Religious Liberty

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
Marriage Supporter,
The issue of religious liberty is one of the most important for people of faith, who happen to be the key voting block most responsible for electing Donald Trump as president. Evangelicals voted over 80% for Mr. Trump, and Catholics went for him by 52%. Now it's time for the administration to act to protect people of faith from being discriminated against because of their faith.
President Trump's aides have prepared an important Executive Order for the president to sign that will prevent the federal government from discriminating against people of faith. Under former President Obama, people of faith were denied access to government contracts, Christian colleges were threatened with having their accreditation stripped over things like student housing policies, and nonprofit groups were threatened with loss of tax exempt status for failure to endorse the agenda of LGBT extremists, among other forms of discrimination. Presidential spokesman Sean Spicer said the other day that protecting religious liberty is an important priority, which we commend him for saying, but so far President Trump has not acted by signing the pending Executive Order.
National Organization for Marriage
2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans approve; 72% of Democrats disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 51% approve, while 49% disapprove.

The latest figures include 36% of all likely voters who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -3. (see trends).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb14

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Most Still Favor Refugee Freeze

Despite continuing protests and legal challenges, just over half of voters favor President Trump's temporary refugee ban, although there's a lot less concern about the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a ban that keeps refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats. Forty-three percent (43%) are opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/most_still_favor_refugee_freeze

Most Voters Think Trump, Unlike Obama, Puts U.S. Interests First

Most voters think President Trump agrees with them and will put America first on the world stage unlike his predecessor. (To see survey question wording, click here.)


The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 31 and February 1, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/most_voters_think_trump_unlike_obama_puts_u_s_interests_first

Friday, February 10, 2017

Trump promises religious liberty

Trump promises Christians can 'trust' him to defend 'traditional marriage'

Most Oppose Trump Going It Alone Without Congress, But How Many Oppose Obama With His Pen And A Phone?

Related image

Most Oppose Trump Going It Alone Without Congress, But How Many Oppose Obama With His Pen And A Phone?


Image result for obama pen and phone meme






Most voters still agree the federal government should only do the things Congress and the president agree on. But Democrats and Republicans have reversed their positions on executive actions by the president now that a Republican sits in the White House.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 32% of all Likely U.S Voters believe when it comes to dealing with the issues that he considers important to the nation, President Trump should take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and think the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/february_2017/most_oppose_trump_going_it_alone_without_congress

Most Still Favor Refugee Freeze

Despite continuing protests and legal challenges, just over half of voters favor President Trump's temporary refugee ban, although there's a lot less concern about the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a ban that keeps refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats. Forty-three percent (43%) are opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/most_still_favor_refugee_freeze

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.
The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. (see trends).

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Democratic Congressman:Rep. Joaquin Castro Liberal Mexicocan, If Trump Ignores Judges’ Stays On Executive Order, We Should Consider Impeachment






 Image result for impeachment obama


Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) said that Congress should consider impeaching President Trump if he instructs members of federal law enforcement to ignore two stays that were issued by federal judges concerning his executive order on immigration, specifically the 120-day ban on anyone entering the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries, three of which are designated by the State Department to be sponsors of terrorism. Almost all of them are considered to be failed states. Castro added that if Trump ignores these orders, it would be like living in a military junta. Okay—let’s dial down the hyperbole. First, the executive order is lawful and constitutional. Second, a Republican Congress is not going to impeach Trump for trying to enact national security measures, like border security. Third, you’re really stoking the liberal base for your possible 2018 run against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) aren’t you, Joaquin?
Via The Hill:
If Trump orders U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to ignore a federal judge’s emergency stay, Castro told BuzzFeed that lawmakers should begin the process of censuring and potentially impeaching Trump. "There should be a resolution of censure," he said. "And if he does it again, there should be articles of impeachment.”

Castro and other Democrats are calling on Congress to investigate “whether President Trump intentionally exceeded his constitutional authority,” according to BuzzFeed.
Castro said that if Trump ignores the judge’s orders, it would be like “living in a military junta.”

“There’s no longer any checks and balances,” Castro said.
Dude, where have you been for the past eight years when Obama unconstitutionally extended the deadline for the employer-based mandate for Obamacare, violated separation of powers by legislating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) from the Oval Office, and signed off on the extrajudicial killing of American citizen and al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011? Al-Alawki was an awful human being, who reportedly inspired Major Nidal Hassan to kill 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. Yet, before the state can kill an American, he must undergo due process of law, which didn’t happen, even in absentia.
Trump’s executive order isn’t unconstitutional, nor is this a constitutional crisis. But I’m sure this was a successful signal to donors to get their checks ready to fill the congressman's war chest. We'll know his decision by the spring.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/02/dem-congressman-if-trump-ignores-judges-stays-on-executive-order-we-should-consider-impeachment-were-not-living-in-a-military-junta-n2280200?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=