Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Friday, February 28, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 742)
Politics

Jeb-Bush-announcement-Miami

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush waves to the crowd as he takes the stage at a rally in Miami Monday June 15, 2015, to announce he is running for president in 2016. (Photo: Getty)

Three major fundraising consultants have left Team Jeb Bush following a persistent and consistent drop in polling numbers over the Trump-dominated summer. Politico named multiple sources in a report claiming Kris Money, Trey McCarley and Debbie Alexander, all voluntarily left the campaign Friday. Campaign spokesman Tim Miller tried to downplay the development in the former Florida governor’s campaign.

“Governor Bush has the widest and deepest fundraising operation of any candidate in the field.”

To be sure, the Bush campaign and the super-PAC Right to Rise raised a combined $114 million in the first quarter of this year, according to federal records. Bush chose not to declare his candidacy until June 15 in order to take advantage of robust fundraising allowances to PACs that are restricted under law for campaigns. However, unlike fellow-Floridian Marco Rubio, who had an impressively low burn rate of just 19%, Bush’s burn rate was a significantly-high 27%. Because the vast majority of the once-presumptive frontrunner’s donations came from big, wealthy GOP donors, who are limited as to how much they can give directly to the campaign, any loss in fundraising staff with connection to names in the rolodex is bad news.

Bush will need a large war chest for what most have known to be an upcoming ad bomb in the early voting states to help him stand out in a crowded field he has lost traction against. In July, the former Florida governor was clinging on to a small lead against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, but both have fallen dramatically amid a surge by non-politician candidates, including billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump, child neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. The latter three all had debate performances far more noteworthy than Bush, who gave a lackluster performance at best.

According to the Post GOP Debate Poll conducted by Gravis Marketing, which asked voters who won the Republican debate, Dr. Ben Carson edged out Donald Trump 22% – 19%. Only 10% said they believed Jeb Bush won the debate, while nearly as many (7%) said they thought he lost. In the latest Gravis Marketing Poll (PPD Pollster Scorecard Grade: A-), Trump hit the 40% mark while Bush dropped just over 3% to 10%. Carson increased 7 points and moved into second with 13.0, while Fiorina experienced the biggest jump, moving from a previous 12th place, non-main stage debate position, into the top five. Trump, Carson, and Fiorina, accounted for 75.3% of the vote in the latest survey, compared to 68.3% on July 31.

Trump, who has slammed Bush as “low energy,” is currently leading the pack in the PPD average of national nomination polls with 26.8% of the vote, with Carson slightly ahead of Bush with 10.8% percent. Behind closed doors donors have begun to express frustration that the governor has not shown enough fire and fight against The Donald, who says he doesn’t have the energy to take on the inevitable Democratic nominee or “make America great again.” Bush has referred to himself as a “joyful tortoise.”

Three major fundraising consultants have left Team

Opinion

Jihad is not a Perversion of Islam, it IS Islam

Oreilly-Ruskin-Ablow

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, left, interviews Dr. Karen Ruskin, middle, and Dr. Keith Ablow, right, following the shooting in Virginia to discuss the lack of respect for life in secular America.

Bill O’Reilly, Fox Superstar could not express more ignorance than when he was so insistent that he was right he shut down a psychiatrist disagreeing with him and stated: “Spiritualism falls a part in the face of the jihad. OK. Which is a perversion of Islam. We all know that.”

O’Reilly needs to put his thinking cap on and take his foot out of his mouth. The term Jihad according to Webster-dictionary.net means:

Webster-Dictionary-Jihad-Definition

Calling jihad a perversion of Islam is nothing but a demonstrative show that Bill O’Reilly is incredibly ignorant of Islam, or has succumbed to Civilization Jihad. Jihadists claim they are dying for Islam. They have the exact same beliefs as those Muslims who attend Jumma prayers each Friday at their local mosques.

How do we know this to be true versus Bill O’Reilly’s foolish belief that Jihad is a perversion of Islam?

Tarek Fatah pointed out on January 10, 2015 that “[there] is a specific ritual prayer uttered by most Mosque Imams just prior to the formal Friday prayer we Muslims refer to as the Juma’a. In the prayer, the clerics ask Allah among other things to give victory to Muslims over the ‘Qawm al-Kafirun,’ the Arabic phrase that lumps all non-Muslims, that is Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs into one.”

“I was hoping this particular prayer would not be uttered on the day Islamist Jihadi Terrorists killed four Jews in Paris in the name of Islam and just two days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre,” Fatah added. “To my disappointment, there was no such thoughtful omission at the downtown Toronto Masjid run by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim Association of Canada. Far from being solemn and condemn the acts of terror, Imam Abdool Hamid showed no sense of humility or humbleness, remarking in English how he wished Islam “will become established in the land over all other religions, although the ‘Disbelievers’ (Jews, Christians, Hindus and Atheists) hate that.”

“I bear witness that there is no God worthy of worship but Allah. He is one and has no partner, and I also bear witness that Muhammad (PBUH) is the Servant and Messenger of Allah, whom Allah sent with the ‘Religion of Truth’ [Islam] and with Guidance so that this Truth and this Guidance [Islam] will become established in the land over all other religions, although the ‘Disbelievers’ (Jews, Christians, Hindus and Atheists) hate that.”

“Later on he would repeat the ritual praying to Allah to grant Muslims victory over Non-Muslims.”

Tarek Fatah even translated a part of Iman Abdool Hamid’s Arabic sermon into English:

O Allah give victory to our Brothers. The Muslims, the oppressed, the tyrannized and the ‘Mujahideen’ [those who fight the Jihad] around the world.

O Allah, pour patience, upon Muslims strengthen their feet and give them victory over Non-Muslims (qawm el Kafirooon).

O’Reilly’s ignorance on jihad being a part of Islam is confounded further by textbooks used in Islamic schools in America. What Islam is All About by Yahiya Emerick, is an Islamic textbook written for grade 7. This text explains the justification for jihad and who it is required of.

…the goal of a physical Jihad is not to have a big war, gain riches or kill people, it is to further the cause of Allah and to create justice on Earth. Then when the evil is removed, or the other side wants peace, we are to make peace as well…

A physical Jihad may oly be initiated for three reasons: 1) To defend the Muslim community against aggression. 2) To eliminate an evil force which is oppressing people. And 3) To remove any barrier to the free flow of Islamic da’wah….

A person who is engaged in Jihad is called a Mujahid, or Struggler for Allah… (page 164)

So, Bill O’Reilly if they teach this in Islamic private schools across the country, do you need to stand up be a man and say those all important 3 words that respectable honorable men say when they make a mistake? I was wrong.

Own up to it O’Reilly, that you said something wrong or you become a major media assentor to misinformation on Islam!

[mybooktable book=”civilization-jihad-and-the-myth-of-moderate-islam” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Bill O’Reilly, Fox Superstar could not express

Politics

Fact-Checking GOP Governors in Four Graphics

2016-Republican-candidates

2016 Republican presidential candidates.

There are eight current or former governors running for the Republican nomination in 2016. In alphabetical order, we have Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker.

So who’s the best of that bunch? That’s a subjective judgement, of course, but one valuable piece of information is to see what grades they earned from the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors. This superb publication provides a comprehensive analysis of the overall fiscal policy record of each state executive. The latest version is here, and that will give you the scores of current governors, as well as the score of Rick Perry (who just left office).

For former governors, you can dig through the Cato website to find earlier versions of the Report Card. Or if you want to be lazy and don’t care about the nuances, this post by my colleague Nicole Kaeding is a nice summary.

For today, though, let’s focus solely on their spending records.

Here’s some of what Nicole wrote in a separate article on the fiscal record of the governors.

A governor who promises to cut federal spending is more believable if he held spending in check when he was governor. …Using data from the National Association of State Budget Officers, I wanted to see just how much each governor increased spending on an annual basis. …The graph below shows the average annual increase in spending during each candidate’s time as governor. Jeb Bush has the highest spending with a 6.08 percent average annual increase. John Kasich is second. He increased spending by 4.95 percent. Rick Perry finishes third with an average annual increase of 4.01 percent. Bobby Jindal shows the most fiscal restraint. He cut spending by 1.76 percent a year on average.

And here’s her chart.

GOP-Governors-average-annual-spending

But Nicole then explains that you don’t get a full picture when you simply look at spending increases.

…this comparison is somewhat biased because population grows at different rates in the states. …The graph below presents annual average spending growth on a per capita basis. The spending increases of Jeb Bush and Rick Perry now look much smaller. Jeb Bush’s increases are still above the average, but Rick Perry falls below it. …This further confirms Kasich’s lack of fiscal restraint. Bobby Jindal actually cut spending on a per capita basis by an average of 2.41 percent a year.

And here’s her second graph.

GOP-Governors-per-capita-annual-spending

The bottom line is that Bush and Kasich don’t look very good, whereas Bobby Jindal is easily the most frugal. But don’t make a decision just on this basis. We have some more data to investigate. John Stossel and Maxim Lott analyze the same group of governors (other than Pataki) in a column for Fox News.

Every Republican presidential candidate has promised to keep government spending in check — but which ones actually have a track record of doing that? …The “Stossel” show crunched the numbers on that — adjusting them for inflation and population growth. …Bush cut spending the most. Though he’s criticized by conservatives as “too moderate,” the former Florida governor cut spending by an average of 1.39 percent each year he was in office.

On this basis, Bush goes from last place to first place!

GOP-Governors-spending-chart-per-year

Stossel and Lott then re-slice the numbers based on how frugal governors were compared to their counterparts in other states.

But the above chart isn’t perfect for comparing candidates, because governors serve terms in very different time periods. Some served during recessions, when most states must cut spending. We adjusted for that by doing another comparison — how much each governor spent compared with other governors in office at that same time… Bush was indeed the biggest budget cutter. During his tenure, Florida’s spending shrunk by 3.6 percentage points more than the average. He cut spending by 1.39 percent per year in his state, while other states increased theirs by 2.3 percent during that same period. Kasich was also conservative by this measure, cutting spending 1.76 percentage points more than other states did. But both charts show spending grew by the most under New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee.

This next chart show Bush and Kasich doing better than their political rivals.

GOP-Governors-spending-chart-vs-average

So, how can Bush and Kasich do better in one set of calculations but do the worst in another set of calculations?!? Does adjusting for inflation really make that much difference? Or perhaps they used different measures of spending, with one including outlays financed by federal transfers?




Nicole walks through some of these methodological challenges in a post reviewing Kasich’s record (i.e., how much should he be blamed for expanding Medicaid/ObamaCare in Ohio when all the initial cost is shifted to federal taxpayers?). For what it’s worth, Jindal probably comes in first place if you average all the above numbers. And he also has tried to abolish Louisiana’s income tax, so that’s another point in his favor.

CATO economist Dan Mitchell fact-checks which of

Politics

Chelsea-Hillary-Bill-Clinton-money

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton at the Clinton Foundation with money imposed over the photo. (Original Photo: AP)

Newly obtained emails show the Clinton Foundation asked the State Department about proceeding for two paid speeches for former President Bill Clinton in North Korea and the Republic of the Congo. The emails, which surfaced as part of a records request by the group Citizens United, date back to 2012 when the former president ran the foundation and his wife and current Democratic frontrunner was at the helm at the State Department.

ABC News first reported on the emails between the foundation and the State Department, in which the former president’s team even acknowledged the invitations could raise concerns. Yet, they asked the State Department, which screened all such speeches by the ex-president, about them regardless.

In an email dated May 14, 2012, Clinton Foundation staffer Amitabh Desai forwarded an email with the subject line “North Korea invitation” to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff at the State Department.

“Dear Cheryl, we’d welcome your feedback on the attached invitation – would USG have concerns?” Desai wrote. Four days later, Desai sent Mills another email.

“Is it safe to assume USG would have concerns about WJC accepting the attached invitation related to North Korea? Thanks, Ami.”

Mills finally responded, simply writing “Decline it.”

Hillary Clinton, speaking on the sidelines of the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis Friday, admitted to receiving “some unusual requests” but said “they all went through the process” and were declined in the end. However, she did strangely mention a past trip Bill made to North Korea in 2009, which was supposed to and reported to be a mission to “rescue” reporters.

“You might not recall but [President] Obama sent Bill to North Korea to rescue journalists who were captured,” Clinton told reporters. “Every offer we made was rebuffed and we offered many people to go and finally North Koreans said if Bill comes, we will give him two journalists.”

Read More on FoxNews.com

 

Newly obtained emails show the Clinton Foundation

US

National Hurricane-Center-Miami

National Hurricane Center sign in Miami, Florida.

Tropical Storm Erika lost much of its power as it pounded Haiti and the Dominican Republic early Saturday, but it left devastation in its path. Authorities said the storm killed at least 20 people and leaving another 31 missing on the Caribbean island of Dominica, authorities said.

Though the exact path of Tropical Storm Erika remains unclear, Florida Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency for the entire state Friday and urged residents to fill their gas tanks and stockpile food and water. Experts say Erika is a particularly wet storm and is moving across a region that has been struggling with drought. Forecasters said Erika could quite possibly fizzle over Hispaniola, but if the storm weakens as it passes over it could leave it susceptible to trade winds that would push Erika directly in line with South Florida.

The U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami said that mountains and an unfavorable environment would likely knock Erika below a tropical storm force, though there was a 30% chance it could recover as it moves along Cuba and then approaches Florida late Sunday. John Cagialosi, a hurricane specialist at the center, warned that people in Florida should still brace for heavy rain.

“This is a potentially heavy rain event for a large part of the state.”

Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit spoke during a televised address late Friday, declaring damage inflicted by the storm set the island back 20 years. About 15 inches of rain fell on the mountainous island.

“The extent of the devastation is monumental. It is far worse than expected,” Skerrit said, adding that hundreds of homes, bridges and roads have been destroyed. “We have, in essence, to rebuild Dominica.”

According to officials with the Barbados-based Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency, at least 31 people have been reported missing and the island’s airports remain closed. Some communities remained isolated by flooding and landslides. Skerrit asked people to share their resources with each other as foreign aid begins to arrive in the region.

“This is a period of national tragedy,” he said. “Floods swamped villages, destroyed homes and wiped out roads. Some communities are no longer recognizable.”

Though it weakened, Erika still carried enough force to knock out power to more than 200,000 people in Puerto Rico and cause more than $16 million in damage to crops there, including plantains, bananas and coffee.

Meanwhile in the Pacific, Jimena turned into a powerful Category 3 hurricane with maximum sustained winds near 125 mph, and the Hurricane Center said it was likely to be near Category 5 status soon, though it did not pose an immediate threat to land.

Tropical Storm Erika lost much of its

Video

Even MSNBC Thinks Hillary Pro Life Terrorist Comments Are “Gutter Politics”

[brid video=”14179″ player=”1929″ title=”Morning Joe Hillary Comparing ProLifers to Terrorists “Absolutely Disgusting””]

The Morning Joe panel on MSNBC ripped Hillary Clinton for comparing pro-life Americans with Islamic terrorists during a campaign event in Cleveland, Ohio. Host Joe Scarborough called the comparison “absolutely disgusting” and “gutter politics at its worst.”

“Hillary Clinton saying that somebody who is pro-life — I mean, let’s tell the truth,” Scarborough said. “She wanted us to talk about this. She wanted to throw a bright shiny object out there, so they don’t talk about the email scandal…it’s gutter politics at its worst to compare people to radical terrorists that cut off people’s heads and blow up grandmoms.”

Scarborough also charged Clinton with making the over-the-top comments in an effort to distract voters away from the ongoing email scandal involving the former secretary of state using a private email server, which she decided to wipe after multiple investigations were opened. The FBI, as well as Congress, are investigation Clinton’s use of a home-brew server, misleading Congress and mishandling classified documents.

“It’s not all right,” Scarborough added. “And what Hillary Clinton did is compare somebody who is pro-life–which is close to 50% of Americans–to radical terrorists.”

Mark Halperin, not known for being particularly hard on Clinton or other liberals, agreed with Scarborough.

“If a Republican did this, the world would come to a halt,” Halperin said, adding her comments “should be condemned in strong terms.”

The Morning Joe panel on MSNBC ripped

Elections

hispanic-vote-ballot-graphic

Hispanic Vote at the Ballot Graphic Image.

Wednesday night, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly claimed Mitt Romney could’ve won the 2012 presidential election if he had won 40% of the Hispanic vote. Though the percentages may change, the general argument remains the same. The Republican National Committee’s (RNC) post-election “autopsy” heavily weighted the significance of the Hispanic vote. The brain trust in the GOP Establishment has bought in to this claim to the point that most have supported policy proposals that violate the foundational planks of the party platform, including championing the rule of law, equality under the law and enforcement.

Unfortunately, the premise of the entire argument, which is not only repeated by anchors and pundits on Fox News but on just about every news network, is patently false. Watered down Democratic policy proposals foolishly aimed at “Hispanding” for votes, will not lead to electoral success for Republican candidates. Let’s look inside the 2012 Hispanic vote numbers, and put the Hispanic vote myth to bed, once and for all.

When the U.S. Census Bureau released their numbers following the 2012 elections it quickly became clear that–as usual–knee-jerk reactions to exit polls were wrong. Yet, despite what the data sets revealed about the Hispanic vote, the myth persisted and still persists to this very day. Hispanics did increase their raw vote numbers from 9.7 million in 2008 to 11.1 million in 2012, which is a net increase of 1.4 million voters. Howover, the voter turnout rate among Hispanic registered voters, as well as the demographic’s share of the overall electorate, actually decreased from 49.9% in 2008 to 48.0% in 2012.

voting rates in presidential elections by race and hispanic origin

Source: U.S. Census

If anything can be ascertained from the data in Fig. 1 it is that the short-term trend supports the observation that there is a decrease in the Hispanic share of the overall electorate. For now, at least, this is due to a number of factors. First, the number of younger voters who make up the increased raw number of new eligible Hispanic voters is disproportional, and younger voter turnout is relatively low juxtaposed to older voter turnout.

So, how did President Barack Obama get re-elected if there was no proportional increase in the Hispanic electorate, as we have been led to believe since Election Day? The answer is black voters–more specifically, older black voters–and even more specifically, older black women. Compared to the 2008 presidential election, roughly 1.7 million additional black voters went to the polls in 2012. Further, about 550,000 additional Asians went to the polls, a now-swing bloc that previously voted Republican by majority. The number of non-Hispanic white voters decreased by about 2 million between 2008 and 2012, but the increased share of black voter turnout helped to reduce their overall share of the electorate in 2012.

Since 1996, this is the one and only example of a race group showing a decrease in net voting from one presidential election to the next. In addition, in 2012, blacks voted at a higher rate (66.2%) than non-Hispanic whites, who voted at a historically low 64.1%. It was the first time since the Census Bureau started publishing voting rates by eligible citizenship population in 1996 that black voters out-voted Whites.

Still, both blacks and whites had voting rates higher than Hispanic and Asian voters, which saw rates of 48% and 47.3% in 2012, respectively. Voting rates for blacks were higher in 2012 than in any recent presidential election, the result of a consistent increase in black voting rates since 1996. While voting rates also increased among Hispanics and Asians across some of the elections addressed in this analysis, these increases were not nearly as consistent as for blacks.

Non-Hispanic white voting rates dropped in both 2008 and 2012, after reaching a high of 67.2% in 2004 when white voters came out en masse to re-elect President George W. Bush. If we remember correctly, the day after his re-election we heard much the same “doomed by demographics” rhetoric from Democrats, lamenting over their losses in the nation’s fasting growing exurbs. That said, though the hype over the 2012 Hispanic vote share has proven to be overblown and conventional wisdom proven to be false, the GOP cannot simply ignore a clear trend. By approximately 2040, if current trends continue, whites will be a minority in America.

If, as usual, is a big word. Current trends may very well not continue, as is often the case. Further, whether Hispanic voter participation rates increase enough to make whites a voting minority is another question, altogether. These are uncertainties that parties and pundits often focus far too much on, sadly. The only thing consistent about American political coalitions is that they are consistently temporary and ever-changing.

If the GOP truly wants to construct a solid, winning political coalition on the national level, then they only need to modestly improve their share of the minority vote over time. The tricky part is to do so with a message that doesn’t risk alienating crucial voting groups and reversing trends that are 1) too often ignored by the consulting class in the media and, 2) pose a grave and serious threat to the alleged “emerging” and subsequently “enduring” Democratic majority.

Despite their supposed built-in advantage, Democrats nationwide still need roughly 36% to 40% of the white working-class vote to win. In 2014, Democrats won an insufficient 34%, a devastating development under President Obama, who initially enjoyed 40% support in the 2008 presidential election. If Republicans can hold their margins among these voters–forget about increasing it, which is entirely possible–and continue to make gains among middle class voters, then they need only a modest increase in support among minority voters in order to lock up the Electoral College.

When I say middle class voters, we are talking about those who have a college but not postgraduate—degree and have a household income between $50,000 and $100,000. Because there is significant overlap, increased gains among this group are likely to translate into increased gains among minorities, at least to some degree. In my post-2014 Midterm Election analysis, I pointed to the Colorado Senate race to underscore the importance of this voting bloc to the Republican coalition. It is not an accident that I am using Colorado as a repeated reference. Among all the states with a competitive Senate race in 2014, it was the only state where the Hispanic vote share of the electorate was and will remain in 2016 greater than the national average.

Against now-Sen. Cory Gardner, defeated Democrat incumbent Mark Udall bled 7 percentage points among white working-class voters from his 2008 win over Robert Schaffer. Udall lost 8 points among college-educated voters and 11 points among voters making between $50,000 and $100,000. We repeatedly heard the low turnout excuse in the media and from Democrats, but it is just as untrue as the Hispanic myth. Not only did Obama lose 8 points in Colorado among college-educated voters from 2008 to 2012, but Gardner enhanced those gains to the point that he still would’ve won if he faced the exact same electorate composition. If we apply the 2014 demographic margins in an electorate that mirrors 2012, exactly, then Cory Gardner’s margin of victory shrinks by less than a half of point. For comparison, even if Mitt Romney won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote yet did not perform in 2012 as Republicans performed nationwide in 2014, then Obama still would’ve won the Electoral College, 270 to 268.

Worth noting, Gardner DID NOT run on the promise of amnesty, or even an outwardly pro-immigration reform platform.

Why Team Fox News insists on echoing the false narrative their viewers expect to hear from CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS, is a minor mystery. It could only be for two potential reasons. Either they are impervious to empirical data, or Rupert Murdock and Co. are on the cheap labor train. Viewers should really demand an answer, and consider whether they are really “looking out for the folks.”

Regardless, an honest analysis of the data shows demographics alone with not save the Democratic Party, nor will abandoning party principles in favor of “Hispandering” save the Republican Party.

Examining the Republican Party's flawed response to

Video

Hillary Learns You Can’t Appease Black Lives Matter

[brid video=”14158″ player=”1929″ title=”Hillary Tosses Black Lives Matter Activists after Interrupting Campaign Event”]

Democratic frontrunner and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton tossed a group of activists affiliated with Black Lives Matter at a campaign event in Cleveland, Ohio. In the video, security can be seen escorting the activists out of the event as they continue to yell their demands at Clinton.

“Senator Clinton! Five black trans women were found murdered in this country!” one woman shouted. “Senator Clinton! It is a state of emergency!”

As was the case at an event for Bernie Sanders earlier this month, the Democratic candidate unsuccessfully attempted to pacify the group, meeting with activists back stage earlier this month. Yet, the group was having it even as Clinton offered to speak with these particular activists after the event.

“I will certainly be happy to meet with you later, but I’m going to keep talking,” she said from the stage.

In a statement posted to Facebook, GetEQUAL again called on Clinton to return donations.

“As background, ‘bundlers’ for the Clinton campaign are the ones who are connected to private, for-profit prisons,” the group posted. “Bundlers often raise money with the expectation of political favors later on – and we can’t have a serious conversation about ending mass incarceration until Clinton divests her campaign of the influence of these lobbyists and lawyers for the for-profit, private prison industry…”

The groups also shared a video from the event on Twitter prior to their Facebook post.

Democratic frontrunner and former secretary of state

News, Politics

Asst-Secretary-of-State-Anne Richards

Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richards for Population, Refugees and Migration. (PHOTO: AFP)

The following questions were developed for an attorney with the task of questioning Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richards on August 24, 2015, regarding South Carolina possibly taking in Syrian Refugees. Please use any and all of these questions when interviewing persons in favor of accepting Syrian Refugees into your community. I only request that you video tape both the question and response and share the video with me.

(Editor’s Note: Paul’s contact information can be found below.)

Question #1: Will the Syrian refugees be vetted and how? Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism unit was asked this same question before Congress in February 2015. His response was:

I just don’t think you can go and get it. You’re talking about a country that’s a failed state, does not have any infrastructure so to speak. So all the data sets, the police, the intel services, that you would normally go to and seek that information, don’t exist.

Follow-Up Question: Are you lying to us, or is Asst. Director Michael Steinbach accurate?

Question #2: You are here as an expert on Syrian refugees as your purpose is to enlist this state to receive thousands of Syrian refugees. Are you familiar with the Muslim term “Hijrah?” Are you aware of the two purposes of hijrah for Muslims? Please state them to prove your knowledge in this area.  JUSTIFICATION: IF the public is uninformed of this term and its reasoning they can not make an informed decision!

Follow-Up Questions:

  1. If yes, Then inform her if she is correct or purposefully misleading the public on what she says she knows.
  2. If No: Please explain how we can trust your word about these people when you are not even familiar with the Islamic term for migration and are unfamiliar with public statements on Islamic sites that explain the two reasons for hijrah?

Hijrah Reasons

Reason #1: To Islamic Lands

  • Islam Q and A recently answered: Can Muslims settle in kaafir countries for the sake of a better life? Part of the answer stated that: “In the Sunnah, the Prophet (PBUH) said: “I disown every Muslim who settles among the mushrikeen” [non-Muslims].” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2645; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.)
  • Zakariya al-Ansaari al-Shaafa’i said in his book Asna al-Mataalib (4/207): “It is obligatory to migrate from the kaafir lands to the Muslim lands for those who are able to do that, if they are unable to practise their religion openly.”

Reason #2: To Non-Islamic

  • According to Hadith no. 2863 Kitab al Amthael reported by Timri, also reported by Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbel as Hadith no 17344 Mohammad said: “I charge you five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage jihad for the sake Allah.”
  • Sura 2:218: “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad.”
  • Sura 8:72: “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad with their money and their lives for the sake Allah, and those who gave asylum…”
  • Sura 8:74: “And those who believed and emigrated and performed jihad for the sake of Allah, and those who gave asylum and help [gave you victory], those are the true believers, they will receive forgiveness and generous provisions.”
  • Sura 8:75 ““And those who believed afterward and emigrated and performed jihad with you, so those are of you.

Question #3: According to the State Department, a “refugee” is eligible for work and is expected to do so almost immediately upon arrival. The current real unemployment is around 10%. However, government statistics on BLS lower these stats to 5% due to dropping millions of Americans from those seeking employment from the equation. How will this help the current unemployment levels of American citizens?

Question #4: Considering you use the term “integrate” in refugee resettlement policy, please tell us what you mean by this term and explain why that term was changed from “assimilate”?

Definitions

1) Integrate: Integration is a two way process where there are cross influences from both the cultures and both change a small bit to accept the minority culture into the majority culture. This is a process that requires acceptance of the laws and ways of the host country by the people of the minority culture without giving up on their own laws and ways.

2) Assimilate: Assimilation is a process of absorbing minority communities into the ways and views of the majority community in a multicultural society. This is absorption that takes place in a one way direction as the minority communities are required to learn the customs and traditions of the majority community giving up their own or modifying them to become acceptable to the majority community. Assimilation has become a dirty word in some ways as it asks people belonging to a minority culture to give up on some aspects of their culture to adopt the ways of the majority culture to be accepted by the majority community.

(SEE: Difference between integration and assimilation.)

Question #5: Considering that the vast majority are Muslim, by using the term “integrate,” will you ask each Syrian refugee if they prefer sharia over the Constitution?

Follow-Up Question: State Department policy uses the term “integrate.” So, if Muslims come here and integrate do you expect us to accept some of their laws? You do know that pedophilia and killing non-Muslims are legal under sharia?

Question #6: What are the names of the top 20 organizations slated to receive funds for bringing in non-vetted Syrian refugees, who may create an unsafe environment for Americans?

Follow-Up Question: Regarding Catholic institutions involved, have you informed these groups that you will be using their connection to refugee resettlement initiatives to revoke their faith-based objection to paying for abortions?

Question #7: UNHR is lobbying for America to take 65,000 more by the end of 2016. Will there be an increase in Syrian refugees from the amount originally intended?

Question #8: What happens to refugees who are not “self-sufficient” after a 1-year period? Would they not be eligible for government assistance programs as they obtain citizenship? Do they become an additional burden to the taxpayers of the state?

Question #9: What is the difference between “self-sustaining” and “self-sufficient?”

Question #10: Will refugees be placed in a mandatory English language course? Why not? How do you expect them to adapt to American life if they will not or cannot learn the English language?

Question #11: Somalian refugees are moving from state-to-state to find the best and easiest accessed welfare. Many are not assimilating to the American culture. How will accepting more refugees then be a good thing for the local community and the American people as a whole?

Question #12: Will refugees who become citizens have to swear to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States?”

Follow-Up Question: If not, then we are not asking the Syrian refugees to do anything to earn U.S. citizenship? That is after a minimum of being here in the country for 1 year? They simply sit back and reap the benefits but do not have to swear to defend our government?

Question #13: The government in accepting these refugees provides a guide to communities to help refugees access information on federal funding streams. If the state accepts thousands of refugees what does this mean regarding welfare costs and Medicare costs per person? For 1 year? For 3 years? For 5 years?

Question #14: Has the Government planned for the expansion of refugee services as Muslims tend to have much larger families than the current American population? Please explain. How will this effect our taxation federal and state?

Question #15: Are you engaged in tracking and targeting anti-refugee resettlement legislation in counties and states? If so, please explain how this is a legal task of a federal agency.

Question #16: Are you aware of Commissioner Peter Kirsanov’s letter to President Obama on how a large influx of unskilled laborers will effect the job market, particularly for black and other minority Americans? Or, any low or unskilled American in need of a job? His letter was written regarding granting illegals green cards to work in America. Refugees get green cards to work in America and will generally fill unskilled labor positions, negatively impacting the urban black population. How is this push to accept refugees in such large amounts NOT going to effect Americans seeking low skill jobs?

Question #17: What percentage of those labeled as Syrian refugees will actually claim Syria as their home country? Refugee camps take in people from many countries, how can you verify that these people are who they say are?

Follow-Up Question: If via the United Nations, why trust the same UN that allowed HAMAS to store and launch rockets from UNRWA schools from Gaza, and allowed HAMAS to establish a military base in the basement of a hospital in Gaza without making a public outcry defying their usage?

Question #18: Are you familiar with Kenya wanting to UN to remove their Refugee camps because of the Islamic terrorist attacks on the Westgate Mall and the Christian College in Kenya originating in the camps? Will any the refugees claiming Syria as a home come from Kenyan camps?

Question #19: A large percentage of those supporting the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) in the USA are Somalians who have or had a refugee status here. How will taking in new refugees who want their lives ruled by sharia like the Somalian refugees make us (the American people) safe versus increasing the threat of terrorism?

Question #20: Why are we not receiving a majority of Christians versus Muslims when Christians are at risk of slaughter and slavery in territories ruled by the Islamic State versus Muslims who then get to live in a sharia based country?

Question #21: Please name three Muslim countries accepting thousands of Syrians refugees?

Follow-Up Question: Why are there NO Muslim countries accepting thousands of Syrian refugees? Wouldn’t this be a more culturally acceptable solution?

[mybooktable book=”civilization-jihad-and-the-myth-of-moderate-islam” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The following questions were developed for an

Politics

Jeb-Bush-Miami

Jeb Bush formally enters the 2016 Republican presidential race with a kickoff rally in Miami, Monday, June 15, 2015. (Photo: Reuters/Joe Skipper)

In a move that has pundits scratching their heads, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., endorsed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday. Cantor, of course, was defeated by political outsider and economist David Brat, who won 56 percent of the vote compared to 44 percent for Cantor. The how and why a little-known political newcomer defeated a House majority leader for the first time in the history of the American republic, was completely lost on Beltway pundits, and so is Cantor’s endorsement of Bush.

“Governor Bush is a true conservative leader with a long-term vision for this country and the practical know-how to implement it,” Cantor said in a statement. “After eight years of anemic growth and declining international relevance, America needs a president that can re-energize our nation and recapture our greatness — Jeb Bush is that man. I look forward to working closely with the governor and his team as they chart a course to the White House.”

Cantor also tweeted his support, using the hashtag #AllInForJeb.

Cantor, 52, was also named a Virginia state co-chair of Bush’s 2016 campaign. The endorsement was first reported by Politico. When the former Virginia congressman left Congress more than a year ago he became the vice chairman of Moelis & Company, a global investment bank. While he no longer holds office, Cantor is still a power player in the Republican Party. But for a candidate who is struggling in the polls and has an undeniable base problem, the very public announcement was political amateur hour and more likely to further hurt Bush with base voters.

The donor class and notoriously inaccurate pollsters may be excited over another Bush running for the White House, but Republican voters aren’t. Frontrunner Donald Trump, who cracked 40% in the most recent Gravis Marketing Poll (PPD Pollster Scorecard Grade: A-), has repeatedly called Bush “low energy” at his rallies across the nation. And, at least for now, he’s right.

Since December 2014, PPD has been tracking GOP enthusiasm as a whole and for individual candidates. On average, 51% of Republican and Republican-leaning independents have said say they are less likely to vote in 2016 if Jeb Bush is the nominee, and 48% of all registered voters say they definitely will not vote for another Bush. Further, just 29% of Republicans say the former Florida governor should’ve run for president in 2016. But even among these voters, just 14% say they would definitely vote for Bush in their state primary or caucus.

Bush, who is widely known to be the establishment choice in 2016, has disputed our research. In an interview with FOX News’ Bret Baier in July, Gov. Bush said he is going to run a general election campaign that will inspire and drive voter turnout, “particularly among people who are conservative and just don’t know it yet.”

“I’m going to win the nomination and I’m going to run a campaign that will inspire people that their lives can get better,” Gov. Bush said. “That will drive turnout, particularly among people who are conservative and just don’t know it yet.”

However, despite Mr. Bush’s claims, PPD’s research is crystal clear. Republican donors are the only bloc excited about him taking on Hillary Clinton or the inevitable Democratic nominee. While a lifetime separates now from the first caucus and primary, until the former Florida governor gets out of the Beltway echo chamber he is unlike to gain the needed traction in the Republican primary. Trump and retired neurosugeon Ben Carson have now monopolized the top spots on the PPD average of national Republican nomination polls, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich is pulling much-needed support away from Bush.

Insisting on touting endorsements from the establishment likes of Cantor will do little more than help Bush in sharing his fate. Roughly 18,000 more votes were cast in Cantor’s primary defeat than in 2012, when Cantor easily fended off a candidate who was actually backed by the Tea Party, Floyd Bayne. If Bush believes associating himself with Cantor will fend off the efforts by Trump, Carson and others to bring new voters into the GOP primary fold, he and the establishment will suffer a painfully embarrassing defeat.

In a move that has pundits scratching

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe