Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

A Few New Ideas for the Immigration Policy Debate

[A Two-part Series]

Part 1

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

These lines above are from the poem, “The New Colossus,” written by Emma Lazarus in 1883. They appear on the Statute of Liberty.

 

Introduction

It is an historical fact that since immigrants have tried to assimilate in America, it has always been the case that the “new kid on the block” has the most trouble or difficulty trying to fit in with their old country cultural norms, names and languages. And every group had their small number of bad “apples.” Sometimes the barrel of apples was quite large.

For example, the Five Points Gang in New York at the end of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century was a large criminal organization, primarily of Irish-Americans from the sixth ward (the five points of Manhattan, New York). There were many other immigrants that came to America, formed gangs, and proceeded to organize along race/ethnicity lines among the various neighborhoods in New York.

Considering the current state of politics under the Trump administration, the notion of a hypocritical nation jumps right out at you. The irony is so thick one could slice it with a butcher knife. Given the plurality of ethic and many Caucasian gangs at the turn of the twentieth century, the government nonetheless wasn’t proposing a policy to ban the Irish, Catholics, Polish people, Germans, Scottish, Italians, or later blacks.

Today’s target appears to fall on Hispanics and those of the Muslim faith. Every generation of Americans who were originally immigrants from other nations always fears the next generation coming to America. However, by the time all of these ethnic and religious groups become second and third generation citizens, low and behold, they tend to become fully assimilated true Americans. Why? It may sound like an overly used cliché, but America is still the land of opportunity, and the world knows it.

Values versus Facts Regarding Immigration

Ultimately, the pushes and pulls of political and social forces will determine what the Country’s immigration policy will be. This in turn will be determined by the “value judgments, preferences, biases, and conceptual framework” dictated by those in positions of power.

But please, make no mistake about it—there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute right or wrong values. All values are relative, and our notions of what is truth are based on only one thing i.e., truth is only what we agree it is—nothing more, and nothing less.

But whether “agreed upon truth” has any relevance in the real world, there is but one arbiter who stands above the fray of conflicting value judgments and notions of truth. And that arbiter is not ultimate truth, but Facts.

Facts are a piece of information used as evidence, or as part of a report or news article. It is a thing that is indisputably the case. Consequently, Part I of this Blog will present facts on immigrants. I will do this by answering two questions a lot of citizens have about immigrants, and therefore, albeit, immigration policy.

In Part II, I will answer the question of how much crime is connected to immigration. I will also present a few ideas that are different from the original amnesty proposals, as well as the current White House administration that uses race and religion for purposes of supporting an extremist ideology that is the antithesis of American values as reflected in democratic institutions and the United States Constitution.

Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives can ever escape making value judgments. Values do underlie a lot of human choices. But values from any political identity that is devoid of knowledge, or are impervious to facts, does everyone a great disservice. We all need in our decision-making ability to be guided by facts, not ideology or religious extremism whether from the Left or the Right.

Questions about Immigrants

There are three questions I’d like to address in Part I and II: (1) should there be limits to immigration? (2) Why do we need more immigrants? And (3) Do immigrants (legal or illegal) commit a lot of crime? Part I will answer the first two questions; Part II will address the question of crime and immigration.

These are the types of questions that most citizens want answered. Facts may be able to dispel a lot of false assumptions made by a sizeable number of these citizens. The facts may dispel or contradict our notions of reality. This is why research rather than rhetoric should inform public policy on immigration.  

     Finally, in Part II I will present a new proposal for a humanitarian approach to Immigration policy, including the specifics on how to achieve such a policy. There will be a final comments section at the end of each blog.

Should there be Limits to Immigration?

The answer to this question is primarily a value judgment.  However, one way to create a logical and reasonable, data-driven way to address the issue of how many immigrants to allow in the United States each year is to consider how many taxpayer citizens die each year.

First, there is one birth every seven seconds in the United States, and one death every ten seconds. This amounts to approximately less than one percent (.77) increase in the population each year. However, newborns this year won’t be ready to pay taxes (generally speaking) for another 18 years.

We know that there are approximately 122,000,000 taxpayers who pay federal income taxes each year. Depending on how many die each year would give one an approximate estimate of how many taxpayers are needed for replacement. New immigrants might be able to pick up the slack as contributing taxpayers.

The increase in population due to the annual birth rate (which does exceed the number who die) won’t help the nation’s coffers. As said above, this is because, generally speaking, the newly born won’t be prepared to pay taxes until they are at least 18 years of age.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not obtain this type of data, i.e.,  (taxpayer deaths).

For the sake of argument, let’s assume this: There were 2,626,418 deaths in the United States in 2014. The United States had a total population of 317,000,000 in 2014. The percent of taxpayers represent about 317,000,000 / 122,000,000 or 39.2 percent of the total U.S. population.

Thirty-nine point two percent of the number of deaths would equal approximately 1,024,303 deaths of taxpayers. However, since 23.3 percent of the population is 18 or under, a fair guess would be that the actual number of taxpayer deaths in 2014 would be closer to 1,024,303 minus 238,662 or 785,641 taxpayers. All of this is based on assumptions. And, as we all know too well, “assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups.” However, for the sake of argument, let’s proceed further into this analysis.

One article I reviewed on this topic was titled, “Refugees and Asylees in the United States” dated October 28, 2015, by Jie Jong and Jeanne Batalova. They reported that:

“The United States is the world’s top resettlement country for refugees. For people living in repressive, autocratic, or conflict-embroiled nations, or those who are members of vulnerable social groups in countries around the world, migration is often a means of survival and—for those most at risk—resettlement is key to safety. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the United States resettled 69,933 refugees and in FY 2013 (the most recent data available) granted asylum status to 25,199 people.

By the end of 2014, as wars, conflict, and persecution worldwide continued to unfold, the number of people displaced within their country or having fled internationally reached 59.5 million, according to estimates by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)—the highest level ever recorded.

And by mid-2014 there were more than 1.2 million asylum seekers worldwide. Ongoing war in Syria alone has led more than 4.1 million people to seek refuge in neighboring countries and beyond and to the internal displacement of more than 7.6 million Syrians.

In response to this humanitarian crisis, the Obama administration proposed to significantly increase the number of refugees the United States accepts each year—from 70,000 in FY 2015 to 85,000 in FY 2016 and 110,000 in FY 2017—and scale up the number of Syrian refugees admitted to at least 10,000 for the current fiscal year, which began October 1.

The United States offers humanitarian protection to refugees through two channels: refugee resettlement and asylum status. Using the most recent data available, including 2015 refugee arrival figures from the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security’s 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and administrative data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, this spotlight examines characteristics of the U.S. refugee and asylees population including the admissions ceiling, top countries of origin, and U.S. states with the highest resettlement.

It also explores the number of refugees and asylees who have become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), followed by an explanation of the admissions process.”

Summary Viewpoint:

     Immigration involves more than refugees from war-torn countries and asylees. It involves people escaping poverty, poor governmental response to poverty, crime in the neighborhoods, social injustice involving organized crime such as terrorist acts committed by drug cartels in Mexico and several South American countries.

  Simply put, based on my earlier analysis, the multi-faceted problem of immigration is not keeping up the pace with the country’s annual death rate, thus putting the nation at risk for fewer and fewer tax dollars for future federal budgets.

     We should be admitting somewhere around 785, 641 immigrants each year into the United States at the same time we are creating Amnesty for those illegals who settled in the U.S. in prior years. If one accepts the notion of amnesty and replacement of taxpayers who die each year, I think a perfectly reasonable upper limit of immigration could be set at 1million per year.

Why do we need more Immigrants?

     The answer to this question is best represented in an Obama Administration White House blog posted on July, 12, 2012 by Jason Furman and Danielle Gray. The title of the Blog was, “Ten Ways Immigrants Help Build and Strengthen Our Economy.

“Summary: Our American journey and our success would simply not be possible without the generations of immigrants who have come to our shores from every corner of the globe.

America is a nation of immigrants. Our American journey and our success would simply not be possible without the generations of immigrants who have come to our shores from every corner of the globe. It is helpful to take a moment to reflect on the important contributions by the generations of immigrants who have helped us build our economy and made America the economic engine of the world.

How do immigrants strengthen the U.S. economy? Below is our top 10 list for ways immigrants help to grow the American economy.

Immigrants start businesses. According to the Small Business Administration, immigrants are 30 percent more likely to start a business in the United States than non-immigrants, and 18 percent of all small business owners in the United States are immigrants.

Immigrant-owned businesses create jobs for American workers. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, small businesses owned by immigrants employed an estimated 4.7 million people in 2007, and according to the latest estimates, these small businesses generated more than $776 billion annually.

Immigrants are also more likely to create their own jobs. According the U.S. Department of Labor, 7.5 percent of the foreign born are self-employed compared to 6.6 percent among the native-born.

Immigrants develop cutting-edge technologies and companies.  According to the National Venture Capital Association, immigrants have started 25 percent of public U.S. companies that were backed by venture capital investors. This list includes Google, eBay, Yahoo!, Sun Microsystems, and Intel.

Immigrants are our engineers, scientists, and innovators. According to the Census Bureau, despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists.

Additionally, according to the Partnership for a New American Economy, in 2011 foreign-born inventors were credited with contributing to more than 75 percent of patents issued to the top 10 patent-producing universities.

Immigration boosts earnings for American workers. Increased immigration to the United States has increased the earnings of Americans with more than a high school degree.

Between 1990 and 2004, increased immigration was correlated with increasing earnings of Americans by 0.7 percent and is expected to contribute to an increase of 1.8 percent over the long-term, according to a study by the University of California at Davis.

Immigrants boost demand for local consumer goods. The Immigration Policy Center estimates that the purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone will reach $1.5 trillion and $775 billion, respectively, by 2015.

Immigration reform legislation like the DREAM Act reduces the deficit.  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, under the 2010 House-passed version of the DREAM Act, the federal deficit would be reduced by $2.2 billion over ten years because of increased tax revenues.

Comprehensive immigration reform would create jobs. Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.

Comprehensive immigration reform would increase America’s GDP. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that even under low investment assumptions, comprehensive immigration reform would increase GDP by between 0.8 percent and 1.3 percent from 2012 to 2016.

As a nation of immigrants, we must remember that generations of immigrants have helped lay the railroads and build our cities, pioneer new industries and fuel our Information Age, from Google to the iPhone.  As President Obama said at naturalization ceremony held at the White House last week:

The lesson of these 236 years is clear – immigration makes America stronger.  Immigration makes us more prosperous. And immigration positions America to lead in the 21st century.  And these young men and women are testaments to that. No other nation in the world welcomes so many new arrivals.

No other nation constantly renews itself, refreshes itself with the hopes, and the drive, and the optimism, and the dynamism of each new generation of immigrants. You are all one of the reasons that America is exceptional. You’re one of the reasons why, even after two centuries, America is always young, always looking to the future, always confident that our greatest days are still to come.

We celebrate the contributions of all Americans to building our nation and its economy, including the generations of immigrants.”

Comments

Ha! So there you have it. How do we make America great again assuming this slogan has any real meaning in a country that is already great? It’s to bring in more (not fewer) immigrants each year.

Read Full Post »

Psycho in the White House

Donald Trump is a lot like P.T. Barnum, a politician, showman and businessmen of the 19th Century. With Trump supporters genuflecting and fawning all over him, and Trump Administration lackeys acting like “Bagdad Bob,” is it any wonder that Donald Trump, the Prevaricator-in Chief, would strongly believe in the quote often attributed to P.T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute?”

Background

It has been almost 50 years since Barry McGuire’s song, Eve of Destruction played on every radio station and television network nationwide. His song signaled to the young of that era a new awakening about social injustice, racism, and the scourge of the Vietnam War.

The world seemed like it was falling apart in the 1960s, yet it affirmed a new determination to stand up for one’s rights and to challenge society and change its many antiquated cultural values and socially conservative attitudes.

Barry McGuire captured and articulated the essence of that feeling of determination. Nevertheless, make no mistake about it. The non-progressive cultural backwardness is still with us in the 21st Century. After all, how do you think Donald Trump got elected? Part of the answer is sociological/ psychological in nature. Beneath the surface of misdirected, fact-free assumptions and the banality of platitudes among Trump supporters, it was an underlying, deeply felt—“White Fright/White Flight.”

Nothing reflects this socially-driven backwardness more in 2017 than the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Since January 20, 2017, Donald Trump has been leading the United States toward implosion and compromising our international reputation worldwide. His travel ban on Muslims underscores his prejudice of immigrants from other countries as well as other various racial, ethnic and religious minorities. Singling out Muslims for a ban showed his true colors as a white nationalist. His kind of behavior was not a recent phenomenon. Remember, Trump was sued in court for racial discrimination by the federal government for violation of the Fair Housing Act. In an episode early in Donald Trump’s career, his New York real estate company was sued by the federal government for discriminating against potential black renters. After a lengthy legal battle, his company ultimately agreed to wide-ranging steps to offer rentals to nonwhites. The history and details of this case are very revealing.

Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was, unlike his son, a self-made man. He made his fortune by building thousands of units of middle-class housing in Brooklyn and Queens. But in the early 1970s, Donald was made president of the family company.  One of Donald’s first challenges came in October 1973, when the Justice Department hit the Trump Organization with a major discrimination suit for violating the Fair Housing Act.

The Times reported at the time that the Government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color.” It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.

In more recent years Trump accused President Barack Obama of not being born in America. The accusation was totally false. He now accuses him of committing a felony crime by bugging Trump Tower. He made both these charges by lying. Donald Trump has never backed up his accusations with any evidence at all.

Predicting the Future

 

No one can foretell the future, but I am willing to venture an educated guess that Donald Trump will be impeached in his first year of the presidency. It will likely be for committing treason (high crimes and misdemeanors) by trying to alter the election by conspiring with the Russians to rig and compromise the election in his favor. If he gives or has already given American top secrets to the Russians, he will be the first U.S. President in history to ever be sentenced to prison as a traitor.

There is also the possibility he may violate the emolument clause of the U.S. Constitution (prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts), commit a sexual offense, or violate the Logan Act (United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States).

 

Eve of Destruction: Evidence is piling up every day

 

Just watch the major networks every day. As we all say—“The Plot Thickens.”

 

“WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time that they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.”

The journalistic investigative reporting work of Woodward and Bernstein during the 1970s Watergate Nixon Scandal asked two critical questions, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” What happened to Donald Trump and his advisors interacting with Russian operatives to conspire to rig the election? If evidence eventually reveals complicity with the Russians, I would choose to call this “Russia-Gate.”

     I just want to say that Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States. The people who voted him in, reluctantly or not, should take responsibility for their error in judgment and start a campaign for Donald Trump to be removed from office. This will help his prior supporters earn vindication and extricate themselves from the shame and dishonor they have bestowed upon themselves and this great nation of ours.

What the Trump supporters thought was that a plain-talking guy with business experience, and no prior office or governmental experience (including no military experience either), was all that was required to be President of the United States. These collective opinions about qualifications trivialized the Office of the President. It was incredibly short-sighted and naive to have thought that way.

Consequently, the nation now has to undo allowing a mentally ill conman to remain in office. If Trump supporters wanted change, they should have changed parties and voted for Bernie Sanders during the primaries. That would have been the smart move.

     I support helping the mentally ill in this country. However, decisions affecting our nation are just too important to leave it to someone without their mental faculties intact.

Psychological Profile of Donald Trump

Confidence in Donald Trump to meet the needs of the nation is at a historically low point compared to all previous presidents in the post 1900 era. Donald Trump has many deficits in his personality. Two of the most important deficits observed are his lack of integrity and honesty.

As I said earlier, before Trump ran for president, he was promoting the idea that president Obama was not born in the United States. He maintained this lie for 5 years or more.

During the campaign he said Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination, which was untrue. Upon Trump’s November election he claimed that millions voted illegally, all because his inadequate personality couldn’t handle the fact that almost 3 million more popular votes were cast for Hilary Clinton rather than him.

Following his inauguration, he claimed he had more supporters on the malls surrounding the Capital Building than Obama. The photographic evidence showed otherwise. Trump lives in a “Fact-free Bubble,” especially when he claimed that 2016 showed the highest murder rate, more so than in the previous 40 years.

As a prior criminologist and administrator in charge of a large agency statistical data center I can tell you his statistics on the highs and lows in the national murder rate are blatantly untrue.

A week ago Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of placing a wiretap in Trump Tower. Lying is a central core to Donald Trump’s personality; he is our Prevaricator-in-Chief.

Donald’s crush on Vladimir Putin is very troubling. I think the government’s investigation into Russia’s hacking and interference with the 2016 presidential election, in all its ramifications, will soon bear evidentiary fruit.

Other nations think Trump is a paper tiger. We need a president who is willing to preemptively strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities and military installations before they become an imminent threat to the United States. Most con men like Trump don’t have a backbone. He’s most likely a coward at heart. For the first time in our history we really do look weak and are an embarrassment before the world.

With his constant use of his twitter account to bully foreign leaders as well as anyone he sees fit to do so in the United States, he has proven that before, and since he has taken office that he is indeed, like a few of his supporters, unhinged, mentally disturbed and unstable. Time and time again he has shown himself to be a misogynist, racist, degenerate, thuggish, iconoclast.

     He has the mentality of a five year old; he is such a loose cannon—he has even bad-mouthed those who put him in office.      

As the late Howard Cosell used to say on Monday Night Football, “tell it….like…. it is!” People soon forget factual details, and people who voted for Trump made only value judgments rather than let facts guide them. And, to no one’s surprise Trump supporters are now beginning to experience “buyer’s remorse.” 

One of the underlying mistakes Trump voters made was to naively believe Trump represented change that would benefit them. Trump is not in favor of increasing the minimum wage that would’ve helped low income families; he is mute on helping college debt problems for many students and their families, and wants to spend unbelievably vast amounts of money for a useless wall rather than spend money to improve the lives of his supporters, or those who are elderly, or those considered below the poverty line or the working-poor.

Nowhere do you find Trump issuing executive orders to promote educational programs for youth and adults in the inner cities, as well as those troubled people found in the rust belt who desperately sought any kind of help to improve their lives. He does this keeping a straight-face while he lines his cabinet with the well-heeled and, in many cases, with people who are millionaires and billionaires. Having Trump as president is like “placing the fox in charge of the hen house.”

But thinking Donald Trump is clever as a fox gives him too much credit. The other day I heard a very insightful medical theory that might better explain all of a 70-year old Donald Trump’s very erratic behavior. I suggest that Donald Trump may be experiencing the early signs of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. What is the evidence: his paranoia, inability to remember things, not being able to remember what he has said (by making extremely contradicting statements) and his chronic self-serving tantrum-oriented 5 year old emotional out-bursts.

For Trump, in addition to forgetting he also shows an inability to recognize certain people; it has wider ramifications as well. He has not been able to recognize the true bigots in our country. They were mixed in with other Trump voters and were not troubled economically in quite the same way.

These were the white nationalists with white party affiliations whose core racist values repulsed everyone else including liberal progressives, moderate conservatives and well-meaning independents everywhere.

Conservative Legacy in America    

The legacy of the conservative movement in this country including the far right has never historically been anything to be proud of. It was progressive values, not conservative values that led the way to civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, LBGT rights, health care as a universal right, and the honest recognition today that 90% of the wealth in this country is held by the top 1-2 % of the population.

Conservatism has never been anything but an obstacle to forward-looking people everywhere. Conservatism is a moral and political stance that is anything but moral. It is a movement, much like a bowel movement, that craps all over the poor and disenfranchised with every breath they take. They are selfish, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, arrogant buffoons from every age group.

There are many reasons some people wish to live in the past. But the main reason is a fear of change, despite the fact that many who hold this view want government to change, but they ultimately cower and lack the courage to change them.

In other words, they blame everyone else for their lot in life, but never take responsibility for their own lives. They would have benefitted early in life had they read Paul Tillich’s famous work, The Courage to be.” Although these observations apply to a lot of people across the entire political spectrum, fear of change seems to have a more paralyzing and crippling effect on those citizens who consider themselves conservative.

Not everyone can become Horatio Alger but everyone can improve their own situation if they have the willingness (and courage) to do so. This is neither a liberal nor conservative idea. It is an American idea. We are in America after all— “the land of opportunity.”

Final Thoughts

It must be remembered that Donald Trump, like many of his close advisors who are his apologists in the White House, share much in common: (1) they tend to have a mind like a steel trap—nothing gets in and nothing gets out, and (2) they prove every day the alleged saying of the late P.T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

     P.T. Barnum was successful in life; Donald Trump, by comparison, is simply a flim-flam man who conned a very naïve voting public into thinking he had their interests at heart.  

Read Full Post »

The Upcoming 2016 Presidential Election:

Implications from the Primary Season Just Finished

The United States has just gone through the primary season for both Republicans and Democrats. One can think of the approximately 29,408,240 votes cast for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as an extremely large sample of voters who have already made their choice between the two candidates. More votes were cast of course in the primaries and  caucuses but favored other non-successful candidates from both parties. But Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are now the presumptive candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties.

While the turnout in the general election will hopefully be larger (in excess of 130 million votes), the primaries and caucuses data are showing a definite trend or pattern as to who might be elected in 2016.

Underlying this pattern is the knowledge that favorability ratings of the candidates have already been accounted for or factored in among those who voted during the primary season. Unless something unusual happens between now and November, choices already made during primary season may mimic what is ahead in the general election. While many independents may or may not have voted during the primaries, historically independents in general elections tend to split the vote, some leaning left and some leaning right.

One must remember that the Electoral College determines who wins. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win a presidential election.

Reality Check

The number of Electoral College votes is tied to the size of the population in each respective state based on the last census. But the awarding of Electoral College votes are themselves based on who wins the most votes by registered voters in a particular state. The candidate who will win this election in 2016 will win in the larger states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Florida. Why? Because these states have larger populations and thus a larger number of Electoral College votes.

The candidate who will win in 2016 will probably win a fair number of mid-range sized states in the South. Less populated more rural states will have little effect on the presidential outcome in 2016.

Obviously, the candidate who pulls more popular votes than his rival in each state will likely win that state in the general election. Some shifting of the vote may occur (changing party loyalties, changing candidate loyalties, higher or lower favorability ratings between now and November) but, by and large, voters are not likely to change their vote once their initial gut-level reaction takes place be it early or late in the election cycle. But since people seldom change their core values after the age of 25, it is unlikely that voter assessment of individual candidate favorability will likely change either.

Voter Composition

In the United States in 2016 there are 201.5 million people who are 18 years of age or older. I will tell you up front that there will be 169 million registered voters in the upcoming election. Of these approximately 55 million are Republicans likely to vote in the general election; however, there are 72 million Democrats likely to cast a vote in the general election. There are also approximately 42 million independents. However, not all registered voters in fact vote, i.e., some stay home on election day.

The shortfall of the Republican Party to the Democratic Party is 17,000,000 voters. What this means on average is that each state will have approximately 340,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the voting tally on Election Day.

However, candidate votes will vary by state giving rise to the previous political discussion about “red states” versus “dark blue states.” The pink, light blue states lean more toward one party than another. However, such leaning states are basically irrelevant as a predictor since primary voters in all leaning states already casted their votes for who they wanted.

What this means is that a republican candidate will succeed in some states while a democratic candidate will win in other states. This is why Electoral College votes are so important to analyze on a state-by-state basis. Taking into consideration the above information I will analyze the data as presented below.

The Approach to Analysis

I have compiled all of the raw votes in the primary/caucus states and compared the votes given to two candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I will then tally the votes and determine who had the most during the primary season overall, and by state.

I will then tally the number of Electoral College votes by state, and by a particular candidate, to determine who will win the 2016 election. Despite how close the popular vote is, the Electoral College votes may be quite different from the popular vote based on differing populations from state to state.

For example, during the 2012 presidential election President Obama garnered 51.1percent (65,915,796) of the vote compared to Romney’s 47.2 percent (60,933,500).

However, based on which state each candidate won, President Obama ended up with 332 Electoral College votes compared to Romney’s 206. President Obama received 61.1 percent more Electoral College votes than Romney but received just a 3.9 percent greater number of popular votes. Why? President Obama captured the bigger populated states. This pattern just described is the most likely scenario for the 2016 election (candidate who takes the larger states wins). You have to know that, in general, conservatives tend to capture small rural states while liberals/progressives tend to capture large liberal/progressive states. The real influence in an election is demographic; meaning population size by state really matters.

The Results

                                          Hillary Clinton                                 Donald Trump

                   Raw Votes/Elec Coll Votes   

Alabama

 309,928  0 371,735

 9

Alaska

 2,146  0  7,346

 3

Arizona

 235,697  0  249,916

 11

Arkansas

 144,580  6  133,144  0
California  1,940,580  55  1,174,829

 0

Colorado

 2,784 9  1,542  0
Connecticut  170,085 7  123,367

 0

Delaware

 55,956 3  42,472

 0

Florida

1,097,400  29  1,077,221  0

Georgia

 543,008  16  501,707  0

Hawaii

 10, 125  4  5,677

 0

Idaho  5,065  0  62,425

 4

Illinois  1,017,066  20  556,916

0

Indiana

 303,202 0 590,460

 11

Iowa  *

 *

   

Kansas

 12,593  0  17,062

6

Kentucky 212, 550  8  82,493

0

Louisiana

221,615  8  124,518 0
Maine  1,232  0  6,070

4

Maryland

533,247  11 236,623 0
Massachusetts  603,784  11  311,313

0

Michigan

 576,795  16  483,751 0
Minnesota 118,135  10  24,684

0

Mississippi

 182,447  0 192,755  6
Missouri  310,602  0 382,093

10

Montana

55,194  0 114,056 3
Nebraska 14,340  0  121,287

 5

Nevada

 6,309  0  34,531  6
New Hampshire  95,252  0  100,406

 4

New Jersey

 554,237  14  356,697  0
New Mexico  110,451    5 73,530

 0

New York

 1,054,083  29  524, 932  0
North Carolina 616,383  15 458,151

 0

North Dakota

 **  **    
Ohio 679,266  0  727,585

 18

Oklahoma

 174,054  7  130,141  0
Oregon  251,739  7  240, 804

 0

Pennsylvania

 918, 689  20  892, 702 0
Rhode Island  54,887 4 40, 020

0

South Carolina

271, 514 9 239, 851 0
South Dakota 27,046  0  44,866

 3

Tennessee

245,304  0  332,702  11
Texas  935, 080  38 757,618

 0

Utah

 15,666  0  24,864  6
Vermont 18,335  0  19,968

3

Virginia

 503,358  13 355,960  0
Washington 380,760 0 403,603

 12

West Virginia

85,351  0 156,245 5
Wisconsin  432, 767 10 386,370

 0

Wyoming

 124  3  70  0
District of Columbia***  *** ***  

 

Grand Totals  

387

 

140

*Not a valid comparison—Iowa Caucus process different for Republicans and Democrats

** Not a valid comparison—North Dakota Republicans don’t hold a presidential primary vote. All 28 delegates remain unpledged.

***Not a valid comparison. Republicans had a convention within one precinct voting (like a caucus) while the democrats had 143 precincts voting, (more like a primary).

 

Results of the Analysis

Based on the popular vote Hillary Clinton received 16,110,811 votes; by comparison, Donald Trump received 13,297,429 primary and caucus votes. Among these two presumptive nominees some 29.4 million votes were cast. It must be remembered that her actual votes were less than they might have been expected because she was running against a very strong competitor—Bernie Sanders. He took a very high percentage of the popular vote beating her, in fact, in 23 states (she won 27 states). He was very close in the vote count even in states she won.

Donald Trump, by comparison, ran much stronger all the time than his competitors, sometimes with percentages of the vote that were more than all of the others combined. Yet, despite this difference in who her competitor was, Hillary Clinton still managed to receive nearly 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump in the primaries and caucuses. People who voted during the primary season of 2016 already factored in the favorability/un-favorability of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many different factors go into an individual’s choice for president, but common sense should indicate likeability is crucial.

Importance of Electoral College

This election is shaping up to be what one might consider to be an Electoral College slaughter. I evaluated how each presumptive nominee did in the primaries and caucuses against one another as to whom will likely win in each of the 50 states. What will be important more than anything else are the Electoral College votes for each candidate who wins a particular state. I added up all the Electoral College votes in states where Hillary won in the primary over Donald Trump, and vice-versa. As we know it takes 270 Electoral College votes to win a presidential election.

People might suspect that what happens in a general election is fundamentally different from what takes place in the primaries. However, the primaries do more than simply help one candidate over another to win their party’s nomination. The voters in each party, in whatever state they reside, are expressing their personal opinion and assessment of who they like. Such mindsets and preferences seldom change from primary to the general election. What does change following the primaries are the number of voters who didn’t vote earlier. One cannot know for sure but only estimate the number of people, who will show up at the polls in November, 2016. Anecdotal evidence from the media suggests that the voter turnout this presidential year will be “huge.”

Two things remain in this Blog to answer: (1) who will win the election and (2) why.

Who Will Win the Election and Why

Based on my analysis of the 2016 primary and caucus voting just concluded I predict and estimate that Hillary Clinton will become President of the United States on Election Day November 8, 2016. The Electoral College shoot-out will result in 387 Electoral College votes for Hillary Clinton and 140 for Donald Trump.

If Hillary Clinton takes a lot of Bernie Sanders voters, I suspect she will, contrary to the primary data, take Ohio’s 18 Electoral College votes making her total on November 8 some 405 Electoral College votes. Correspondingly, Donald Trump will end the night downtrodden with only 122 Electoral College votes. Hillary Clinton will emerge on Election night as an exhilarated winner (not a loser with low energy). And, indeed, her win will be, as you guessed it—“Huge.”

There is irony here. Remember, Donald Trump engaged in Ad Hominin arguments criticizing Mitt Romney as a loser because he lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama. But if Donald Trump only garners 122 Electoral College votes on Election Day 2016, Donald Trump will be an even bigger loser. Why?  Because Mitt Romney, although losing the 2012 election, will still surpass Donald Trump by having 69% more Electoral College votes than Donald Trump is likely to have in 2016.

Final Comments

Let’s not forget the Trump voter. Their anger is real and partially justified. The Republican Party has had a facelift since the 2010 mid-term elections. That election ushered in the era of ultra-conservative Tea Party members.

In the 2014 mid-term election the Congress acquired republican majorities in both houses. The Republicans at that point became the “Do Nothing” party leaving all their own voters out in the cold to fend for own interests. Such republican voters took note of this and chose in 2016 to support an outsider like Donald Trump.  The republican politicians both before and after the 2014 mid-term elections engaged in a never-ending uncompromising, recalcitrant posture of congressional gridlock. By voting for Tea Party members back then, Trump supporters had basically shot themselves in the foot by creating the political environment in the first place which caused them to be “screwed” in the end. They created their own misfortunes in the first place by voting Tea Party members back into Congress in 2014. This was, of course, incredibly naïve.

If Trump supporters want to have their economic needs looked after in the future, they need to vote for non-Tea Party congressional and senatorial candidates during election, 2016.

Given a recent poll showing Donald Trump is beginning to lose support from white-male voters, it is not outside the realm of possibility that political history will be made in 2016. That is, zero states will go republican this fall.

 

Read Full Post »

  The Growing Conflict in America

Muslim Americans Living in a Secular Democracy and a Predominately Christian Country

 [A five-part series]

Part V

 

Introduction

 

By way of deception, thou shalt do war. Israel’s Mossad

 

The United States and much of the civilized world in 2016 is increasingly under attack from radical Islam. The purpose of this fundamentalist jihadist ideology has, as its goal, to either kill or convert all people on earth who don’t support their fundamentalist ideology. They have dreams of world conquest and domination, and a desire to make Islam the one and only religion on the planet. And, they want the entire world to be under Sharia Law, regardless of how much barbarian cruelty is involved. They also want the elimination of all civil rights and human rights worldwide.

 

The first part in understanding these attacks and what to do about them is to recognize that the threats themselves fall into two basic categories: (1) threats involving “civilization jihad” being achieved without guns and bombs. This is the rather insidious attempt to slowly infiltrate and convert the United States into an Islamic state through intimidation and the cry of Islamophobia whenever anyone questions their motives. And, (2) the second category of threats involves both violent jihad here in the United States and abroad.

 

In countering these threats, the United States needs to be fully aware of what is going on here and abroad, and no longer be willing to naively put its head in the sand. We must take decisive action now.  

 

Part IV dealt with the reality of the plot by the Muslim Brotherhood to   infiltrate American society and all its institutions in order to slowly convert the United States into an Islamic state.

    

     This Part V will describe my observations and recommendations as to what to do now. Basically, what actions should our country take? There is growing rage by most Americans that is now being directed at radical Islam worldwide.

 

But such rage is beginning to spill over to eradicate and subjugate any and all who want to internally convert the United States into an Islamic state by way of “civilization Jihad.” Unless we are able and willing to confront our enemies here and abroad, our enemies will ultimately devour us.

 

Nature of Threats

 

Threats abroad have involved more than threats themselves, but actual murder of large groups of people such as in Paris, Brussels, Syria, Iraq, and recently in Pakistan. These attacks have injured and maimed thousands of people worldwide.

 

Violence perpetrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups has resulted in the murder, torture and slaughter of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other ethnic groups. The United Nations has now recognized and spoken out and declared their acts of violence as genocide. Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory. For now, let me give my cyberspace audience a reminder of what has happened.

 

 

Jihadist Violence in America—Remembering the Slain and Injured

What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing.

George S. Patton

War as I Knew it (1947), Part One, Ch. 1

 

There appears to be quite a definite similarity or overlap between what is happening overseas in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and what has happened here in the United States going back to September 11, 2001.

2001—Terror Hits America Big Time

The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks consisted of suicide attacks used to target symbolic U.S. landmarks.

Four passenger airliners—which all departed from airports on the U.S. East Coast bound for California—were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within an hour and 42 minutes, both 110-story towers collapsed, with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures.

A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense) in Arlington County, Virginia, leading to a partial collapse in the Pentagon’s western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, initially was steered toward Washington, D.C., but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers.

In total, the attacks claimed the lives of 2,996 people (including the 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage and $3 trillion in total costs. It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.

Suspicion for the attack quickly fell on al-Qaeda. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda.

Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks. Although al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, initially denied any involvement, in 2004 he claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives. Having evaded capture for almost a decade, bin Laden was located and killed by members of the U.S. military in May, 2011.

Jihadist Attacks on America since 9/11

Today we have a similar situation with Islamic Jihadist attacks; the Boston Marathon Jihadist attack that killed 4 people and injured many others; the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood that killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 others; the July 15, 2015 attack by a Jihadist at a military recruiting facility and naval center killing four marines and one sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee; the carnage that occurred with the death of 14 citizens and many more wounded, in San Bernardino, California; and, as recently as January 7, 2016, a professed jihadist tried to murder a Philadelphia police officer shooting the officer 11 times. Fortunately, the officer chased him, and then fired back wounding the assailant.

And, internationally, all of this was preceded in 2015 by Jihadist attacks in Paris, France that killed 130 people; Beirut Lebanon where 40 were killed and 200 others injured at a university; a hotel in Mali where 20 were killed; and the downing of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai desert that murdered 224 passengers.

With all these attacks by radical jihadist Muslim extremists, fear has once again gripped the entire nation. But, so have anger and finally the willingness of our nation to put itself on a war-footing with radical Islamic jihad, whether there is a formal declaration of war or not. If there was a formal declaration of war made by the United States Congress, the country would give the President the powers to engage the enemy with all its might, including strategic nuclear weapons.

What is the Strategy to Terminate the Enemy Abroad?

 

The best way to describe the strategy abroad to defeat ISIS is to first discuss President Obama’s original plan disclosed in September, 2014. It is also important to report on the progress to prosecute the war since then.

 

The President revealed a 4- point plan described as follows:

  1. U.S. airstrikes: Obama said such attacks have already been successful against al-Qaeda in Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.
  2. Support to foreign ground forces: He vowed to send 475 more U.S. troops to Iraq to support local security forces as well as provide military equipment and training to Syrian rebels.
  3. Counterterrorism: The U.S. will work with allies on intelligence and programs to prevent foreign fighters from joining ISIS.
  4. Humanitarian assistance: Aid will go to Muslim, Christian and religious minorities in danger of being driven out of their homes by ISIS.

He stressed the strategy was different than the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The President stated in his meeting at the White House at that time, “But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists, who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Current Fight against ISIS in the Middle East

As of early February, 2016 much progress has been made since inception of President Obama’s original 4-point plan a year and a half earlier. This progress includes:

(1)  10,000 strategic air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but also ongoing for years in Yemen and Somalia.in Africa.

(2)  Because of the air campaign strikes, ISIS now has 40% less territory in Iraq and Syria than it did before the campaign. The leadership of ISIS and individual commander’s lives are, on a daily basis, being terminated by American Special Forces, precision air strikes and drones, and also because of increased intelligence gathering and information sharing among all the coalition partners.

(3)  Coalition partners are now making greater contributions to the war effort to destroy ISIS in terms of logistics, ground forces and some humanitarian aid for refugees.

(4)  The money supply for paying ISIS fighters has been cut in half by a precision strike in the city of Mosul. Also ISIS’ finance director, a long time jihadist, was killed in an air strike.

(5)  ISIS is now confronting a shortage of new recruits for ISIS forces.

(6)  New territory is reclaimed by coalition forces every day and roads are being controlled which prevent ISIS from replenishing their own needs.

(7)  Two cities are soon to be reclaimed, and ISIS fighters will be captured or killed. They include the main headquarters city of Raqqa in Syria, and Mosul in northern Iraq near the Turkey border. As soon as these cities are re-taken the others will begin to fall like dominoes.

 

     The above progress cited strongly suggests that President Obama’s plan has succeeded a great deal in the war against ISIS. I believe however that there may be some fine-tuning of his basic approach to destroying and defeating ISIS that may expedite its completion as well as deal with its long-term effects.

 

     Consequently, I’d like to suggest both a short term and a longer term approach to defeating ISIS militarily, but also crippling it from returning in the future.

 

Short-Term Approach

 

First, there is the problem that ISIS fighters are perniciously embedded with Muslim or other captives. Second, ISIS also has a total malevolent stranglehold on the cities it has captured.

 

In my opinion greater use of psychological warfare needs to be employed against ISIS since ISIS morale is at an all-time low due to the precision killing of their leaders, not getting paid as much because of air strikes in Mosul that destroyed their money supply, and knowing that 40% of their forces have been destroyed by airstrikes since 2014.

 

 

In this war, which was total in every sense of the word, we have seen many great changes in military science.  It seems to me that not the least of these was the development of psychological warfare as a specific and effective weapon.

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

In my opinion, no plan of psychological warfare is ever perfect, but credibility, even when it’s based on a lie, is the key to effective deception. The first step in taking ISIS cities, large or small, is to surround them on all sides so there is no way for ISIS fighters to escape. U.S. warplanes and coalition warplanes can assist in tracking and killing ISIS fighters who try to escape. In addition, in the case of cities like Mosul, Raqqa, Fallujah, and others, all water, food, electricity, and drug sources need to be stopped. U.S. Special Forces could be very useful in carrying out these missions. In addition, the ISIS fighters must not be allowed to sleep. PA systems need to produce very loud irritating blasts of sound 24/7.

 

Psychological drugs have been given to ISIS fighters and others in the past to make them willing to die for their cause without regard to their own safety or desire to live. In essence, when under the influence of drugs supplied by their leadership, they do not fear death. Without a source for these drugs an individual’s greatest need is to survive. Down deep they value their own life.

 

Leaflets would then be dropped on the cities to give ISIS fighters a chance to live. A timeline is made clear to these fighters by giving them 24 hours before a horrible death awaits them. They will be told in the leaflet that they must release all captives in that 24 hour period before hostilities of an unusual nature will occur. If they do, they are told their lives will be spared.

 

You don’t tell them what this horrible death will be; you leave that to their imagination. They will stew during the 24 hours (just a bit of psychological terror). At 24 hours, if they don’t surrender and release the hostages, high-flying crop dusters will go to work spraying the city below with a white powder laced with an active, yet mild form of the influenza strain.

 

In another 24-36 hours people in the city will begin to get sick.

 

ISIS Fighters will be made to think (another leaflet) that you’ve just dropped Ricin (Ricin is very toxic. Ricin can be made from the waste material left over from processing castor beans. It can be made in the form of a powder, a mist, or a pellet or it can be dissolved in water or weak acid.) to give them that horrible death. Their own imagination will create in their minds their own worst nightmare.

 

Then begins the waiting game whereby inhabitants begin to suffer the symptoms of influenza (weakness, high temperature, throwing up, diarrhea, that over-all crappy feeling). Without food and water they will soon begin to hallucinate, amplified by their own fear of impending death.

 

They are told over the blasting PA system that medical attention is there for them if they surrender. At this point deception is followed by a “grand lie.” The enemy is told what they have.

 

We broadcast a message that they have been infected with ricin. They are told that in the next few hours they will begin foaming at the mouth and convulsions will soon occur. They are told, however, that if they surrender, then medical attention will help them survive.

 

If ISIS fighters resist anyway, then snipers should be used to pick off any who resist. At this moment tank fire will begin to bombard the city on all sides. Streets will be hit by the shells, not buildings where people are hiding.

 

If all this fails to get ISIS to surrender then recapturing forces would then begin to target buildings with tank fire from every direction. If they try to use captives as shields, snipers will need to separate the “wheat from the chaff.”

 

What I’ve described is just one scenario on how to extricate an enemy from a city using psychological warfare. If ISIS fighters want to die in the end for Allah, then we can help them do that. As General Patton said during WWII, “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

 

This is not of course WWII. ISIS does not have a country; what it does have is an Islamic State trying to overtake other countries and impose their will and their own ideology. Once we kill their Caliphate, tensions in the Middle East may get much better. For now their numbers are dwindling, and it’s time to strike a fatal blow in every city that ISIS, al-Qaeda, or Boko Haram is holding.

Long Term Approach

 

When the shooting ends the war is not over. All survivors from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa need to be helped with aid. Survivors will help us and others to bring all ISIS fighters, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram enemies, and their leaders, to a war crimes tribunal. Survivors will identify and give testimony before these tribunal courts. Court judges will be appointed by the respective presidents from the United States, Iraq, Japan, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Belgium. Rather than being held in The Hague in the Netherlands, these trials should be held in Iraq.

 

Following these initial trials, there needs to be a relentless multi-national approach to track down and capture those enemy combatants or supporters, who fell through the cracks. This would be similar to the efforts made after World War II to track down and capture Nazi war criminals. This process may need to be conducted for many years to come.

 

In addition, the United States needs to end all foreign aid to any country in the Middle East or Africa (ally or not) who supports in any way Sharia Law. Nation building gets a “bad rap” these days, but we must find ways to eliminate or get rid of Islamic religious law (Sharia Law) from the face of the earth. And, in America, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights needs to be in every textbook in America from K-12. All education of Muslim American children need to have all textbooks and teaching materials approved by a secular State Board of Education. All public and private school education in the United States needs to be reviewed every year.

 

 

What is the Strategy to Terminate “Civilization Jihad” at Home?

 

I reported in Part III of this series this piece of social science research finding, i.e., “At the present time, 51% of Muslim Americans, according to the Gatestone Institute (an international policy council), want or would prefer they be governed by Sharia Law.”

 

I find this statistical evidence very troubling. Why? Because it adds fuel to the fire that slightly more than 50% of Muslim Americans prefer Islam’s political aspects of superiority to all other religions and promotes a disingenuous pretense of moderation including perhaps a disdain for America’s laws including the United States Constitution. If more than half of all Muslims in the United States feel this way—we indeed have a very serious problem.

 

There are, of course, wide differences of opinion in the Muslim American Community whereby 49% of those surveyed don’t necessarily go along with Islamic religious laws reflected in the Koran any more than Christians buy into the Old Testament as representing “real Christianity.” The idea of the Old Testament in Christianity is looked upon, even by many evangelicals, as rather quaint in today’s world. Likewise, many Muslim Americans think for themselves and reject the “fundamentalist viewpoint” of Islam or any religion for that matter.

 

I am reminded of the true distinction (See Part IV) of importance pointed out by Robert Spencer who wrote the book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. In his book he said, “Those who are working to advance the subjugation of non-Muslims are not doing it solely by violent means. The common distinction between ‘radical’ and ‘moderate’ Muslims has generally been made between those who are engaged in blowing things up or are plotting to do so, and those who are not. However, the evidence presented in this book shows that the distinction ought to be placed elsewhere: between those Muslims who believe that Islamic law is the perfect system for human society and who are working by whatever means to impose that Islamic law, and those Muslims who support Western pluralistic governments and seek to live with non-Muslims as equals, under secular law, on an indefinite basis.”

 

Plan to Terminate or Disembowel “Civilization Jihadists” in the United States.

 

Because half of Muslim Americans prefer Sharia law to the laws in America, it is clear that these citizens may need to be under close and constant surveillance. In addition, our laws on treason need to be revised and expanded under the Patriot Act to include “civilization Jihad” as Treason.

 

Anyone who plans to overthrow the United States government by whatever means, is guilty of treason and would be subject to the death penalty. Such individuals or organizations in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the United States by violent or “civilization jihad” means would all be subject to asset forfeiture and confiscation of all properties thereof. This will get the point across to those who want to promote Sharia law in the United States that they will be caught, subject to the harshest of laws, and if found guilty will be subject to very long prison sentences and, following that—deportation from the United States.

 

Where Muslim front groups are concerned, the Justice Department, FBI, and Homeland Security need to make greater use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate or require scrutiny of all funds in and out of these organizations on a regular basis.

 

The FBI should join forces with the Internal Revenue Service to track where such money is coming from and going to. Rather than wasting resources, the 160 current FBI agents dedicated to investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server account, could be more wisely, prudently, judiciously, and effectively utilized to fight against this internal threat from civilization jihad.

 

Nearly half of all Muslim Americans are pissed off that political jihadists had high-jacked their religion of Islam. Given that Sharia Law is an integral part of Islam, the time has now been reached whereby the social cement of oppression and contamination by Sharia Law should be eradicated or purged worldwide including right here in the United States. Twenty-five states already have proposals, laws or pending legislation to eliminate Sharia Law in the United States.

 

What must be promoted is a kind of “democracy jihad” in reverse. The United States needs very much to make disincentives meaningful against all countries in the world that use Sharia Law. The country can start by ending all foreign aid to all countries that use Sharia Law. As they say, “What goes around comes around.”

 

We Need Muslim American Support

 

 

It will be critical to the country’s effort to destroy our internal threat of “civilization jihad” by enlisting the help and support of the Muslim Reform Movement. Zuhdi Jasser, who has been a target of the Muslim Brotherhood, is co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.

 

Here are their declarations or what they stand for:

Origin of Muslim Reform Movement

Declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement / Signed by AIFD (December 4, 2015)

Preamble

     We are Muslims who live in the 21st century. We stand for a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam. We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate. We seek to reclaim the progressive spirit with which Islam was born in the 7th century to fast forward it into the 21st century. We support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in 1948.   

     We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three principles: peace, human rights and secular governance. We are announcing today the formation of an international initiative: the Muslim Reform Movement.

     We have courageous reformers from around the world who have written our Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living document that we will continue to enhance as our journey continues. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.

DECLARATION

 

  1. Peace: National Security, Counterterrorism and Foreign Policy
  2. We stand for universal peace, love and compassion. We reject violent jihad. We believe we must target the ideology of violent Islamist extremism, in order to liberate individuals from the scourge of oppression and terrorism both in Muslim-majority societies and the West.
  3. We stand for the protection of all people of all faiths and non-faith who seek freedom from dictatorships, theocracies and Islamist extremists.
  4. We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language, belief, religion, sexual orientation and gender expression.

 

  1. Human Rights: Women’s Rights and Minority Rights
  2. We stand for human rights and justice. We support equal rights and dignity for all people, including minorities. We support the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
  3. We reject tribalism, castes, monarchies and patriarchies and consider all people equal with no birth rights other than human rights. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Muslims don’t have an exclusive right to “heaven.”
  4. We support equal rights for women, including equal rights to inheritance, witness, work, mobility, personal law, education, and employment. Men and women have equal rights in mosques, boards, leadership and all spheres of society. We reject sexism and misogyny.

 

  1. Secular Governance: Freedom of Speech and Religion
  2. We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live. We reject the idea of the Islamic state. There is no need for an Islamic caliphate. We oppose institutionalized sharia. Sharia is manmade.
  3. We believe in life, joy, free speech and the beauty all around us. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights. We reject blasphemy laws. They are a cover for the restriction of freedom of speech and religion. We affirm every individual’s right to participate equally in ijtihad, or critical thinking, and we seek a revival of ijtihad.
  4. We believe in freedom of religion and the right of all people to express and practice their faith, or non-faith, without threat of intimidation, persecution, discrimination or violence. Apostasy is not a crime. Our ummah–our community–is not just Muslims, but all of humanity.

 

Final Comments

This entire five-part series has been to bring some clarity to the current war against radical Islam in the United States and abroad. We are at times between a “rock and a hard place.” That is, on the one hand Islamophobia is real and needs to be curtailed; less innocent Muslims may fear for their lives and are subject to unwarranted and unfair persecution. On the other hand, there are Muslim Americans who would prefer a more fundamentalist perspective on Islam, and want to turn our country into an Islamic state.

Patrick Henry, one of the founding fathers, once wrote “give me liberty or give me death.” Liberty and freedom are not free—it comes with a cost. And that cost is vigilance, tenaciousness and the willingness to take anyone on.

Whether we believe it or not, democrats and republicans both love freedom and democracy. We just have differences of opinion as to how to protect our freedoms and defend this country. The things we take for granted such as civil rights, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, often times need protection during times of war but also when there seems to be no apparent threats to the country at all.

This time in the 21st Century, in this country, there are definite threats to our way of life. Nobody can ask you to put yourself in harm’s way unnecessarily in this position. We depend on others such as law enforcement, the military, and our government to protect us. But this dependency on others all the time is what leaves us most vulnerable to harm—more than you think. It is time to get your buried head out of the sand and stand up and be tough and resilient. Never has there ever been a time for the nation to pull itself together against our enemies here and abroad.

As I said in Part I in this series, “Americans are not weaklings; Americans are tough, extremely resilient, tenacious and strong-willed. As a nation we are protective of our people, our laws, institutions, and the supreme law of the land—the United States Constitution.” I am reminded again of a famous 20th Century quote from Winston Churchill. It is also a good idea from our perspective in the 21st Century.

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

 

Winston Churchill

 

Read Full Post »

The Growing Conflict in America

Muslim Americans Living in a Secular Democracy and a Predominately Christian Country

 [A five-part series]

Part II

In Part II, I will answer the questions of what it means to be an American, and how well do Muslim Americans identify with being an American? The majority of Muslim Americans are moderates—as the Pew research data will show. However, it is also true from their survey data that a small minority of particularly younger Muslims and native-born African Muslims may put the country at risk by adopting an extremist jihadist viewpoint.

These latter groups may need to be under local, state and national surveillance in order to prevent another Paris or San Bernardino violent attack. Under normal circumstances, such surveillance might be characterized as racial, ethnic, or religious profiling.

However, we are no longer living under normal circumstances. The threats that have been perpetrated on the home front are too many. The nation cannot and will not ignore these threats. There will always be a need to balance civil or legal rights on the one hand, with the need to protect our citizens from harm on the other.

Now we move on to answering the first question above. A good starting point in answering the first question is to discuss what it means to be an American. One standard that’s been around for 109 years comes from our 26th President, Theodore Roosevelt.

What it means to be an American

In 1907, one of our greatest presidents laid out what it means for immigrants of any origin to come to America and be an American. Nothing less than that will suffice. The standard set by Teddy Roosevelt was indeed high, as it should be.

Whether most groups of immigrants coming to America today are meeting this standard has yet to be determined. So what is this high standard set by President Theodore Roosevelt? In my estimation it is all about value judgments and that translates to where one’s sincere loyalty lies.

The Standard for Being an American

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”                                                                                    Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

In one of the previous Republican debates Senator Rick Santorum made the statement that “not all Muslims are jihadist, but all jihadists are Muslim.” Because of the open-ended suspicion generated by that statement, fear of Muslims overseas and Muslims here at home is causing increased tension between the Muslim world and those of non-Muslim populations worldwide. At the same time on the Home front, Islamophobia is running rampant here in the United States. This is very similar to the reaction against Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor. That, of course, led to the round-up and incarceration of Japanese American citizens in internment camps based on nothing more than race. Individuality, loyalty, or proven disloyal conduct were never part of the equation to incarcerate American citizens who were presumably as protected by the U.S. Constitution as any other citizen. History has showed that such hypocrisy subsequently brought shame and dishonor to the country that presumably ignored what Theodore had said about immigrants coming to this country. But these were not immigrants—they were American citizens.

Muslims in America

What is needed is a fresh factual look at the Muslim community, particularly a comprehensive review of their demographic characteristics, religious beliefs and practices, education and income levels, identity, assimilation and community, political and social values, attitudes toward foreign policy, terrorism and concerns about extremism.

First up is a summary from Pew Research’s 2007 study. Here are their findings: In a 2007 survey titled Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream, the Pew Research Center found Muslim Americans to be “largely integrated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.”

However, forty-seven percent of respondents said they considered themselves Muslims first and Americans second. However, this was compared to 81% of British Muslims and 69% of German Muslims, when asked the equivalent question. A similar disparity exists in income; the percentage of American Muslims living in poverty is 2% higher than the general population, compared to an 18% disparity for French Muslims and 29% difference for Spanish Muslims.

Interestingly, Pew Research in 2007 found that 42% of Christians see themselves as Christians first, and as Americans second. An additional 7% of Christians see themselves as both equally.

Politically, American Muslims were both pro-larger government and socially conservative. For example, 70% of respondents preferred a bigger government providing more services, while 61% stated that homosexuality should be discouraged by society. Despite their social conservatism, 71% of American Muslims expressed a preference for the Democratic Party. The Pew Research survey also showed that nearly three quarters of respondents believed that American society rewards them for hard work regardless of their religious background.

The same poll also reported that 40% of U.S. Muslims believe that Arab Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks. Another 28% didn’t believe it, and 32% said they had no opinion. Among 28% who doubted that Arab Muslims were behind the conspiracy, one-fourth of that claim the U.S. government or President George W. Bush was responsible. Only 26% of American Muslims believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to root out international terrorism. Only 5% of those surveyed had a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Only 35% of American Muslims stated that the decision for military action in Afghanistan was the right one and just 12% supported the use of military force in Iraq.

In 2011, a Gallop poll found that 93% of Muslim Americans considered themselves loyal to the United States.

The 2011 Pew Research Survey

Like Christians and non-Christians alike, religious and secular populations are very diverse. Between groups and within groups people are quite different. The Pew research below demonstrates such diversity among American Muslims. The following (It was written by Michael Lipka) is a precise and detailed summary of the Pew Research from 2011. Below are its major findings:

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the World

By Michael Lipka

“Muslims are the fastest-growing religious group in the world. The growth and regional migration of Muslims combined with the ongoing impact of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other extremist groups that commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, have brought Muslims and the Islamic faith to the forefront of the political debate in many countries.

Yet many facts about Muslims are not well known in some of these places, and most Americans – who live in a country with a relatively small Muslim population – say they know little or nothing about Islam.

Here are answers to some key questions about Muslims, compiled from several Pew Research Center reports published in recent years:

How many Muslims are there? Where do they live?

There were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world as of 2010 – roughly 23% of the global population – according to a Pew Research Center estimate. But while Islam is currently the world’s second-largest religion (after Christianity), it is the fastest-growing major religion. Indeed, if current demographic trends continue, the number of Muslims is expected to exceed the number of Christians by the end of this century.

Although many countries in the Middle East-North Africa region where the religion originated in the seventh century are heavily Muslim, the region is home to only about 20% of the world’s Muslims. A majority of the Muslims globally (62%) live in the Asia-Pacific region, including large populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey.

Indonesia is currently the country with the world’s single largest Muslim population. With more than 300 million Muslims, Indonesia is currently the country with the world’s single largest Muslim population, but Pew Research Center projects that India will have that distinction by the year 2050.

The Muslim population in Europe also is growing; it is projected that 10% of all Europeans will be Muslims by 2050.

How many Muslims are there in the United States?

According to estimates, Muslims make up just less than 1% of the U.S. adult population. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study (conducted in English and Spanish) found that 0.9% of U.S. adults identifies as Muslims. A 2011 survey of Muslim Americans, which was conducted in English as well as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, estimated that there were 1.8 million Muslim adults (and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages) in the country. That survey also found that a majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants.

Pew research estimates that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish, on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).

A recent Pew Research Center report estimated that the Muslim share of immigrants granted permanent residency status (green cards) increased from about 5% in 1992 to roughly 10% in 2012, representing about 100,000 immigrants in that year.

Why is the global Muslim population growing?

There are two major factors behind the rapid projected growth of Islam, and both involve simple demographics. For one, Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups. Around the world, each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, compared with 2.3 for all other groups combined.

Muslims are also the youngest (median age of 23 years old in 2010) of all major religious groups, seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims. As a result, a larger share of Muslims already is, or will soon be, at the point in their lives when they begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will fuel Muslim population growth.

While it does not change the global population, migration is helping to increase the Muslim population in some regions, including North America and Europe.

What do Muslims around the world believe?

Like any religious group, the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims vary depending on many factors, including where in the world they live. But Muslims around the world are almost universally united by a belief in one God and the Prophet Muhammad, and the practice of certain religious rituals such as fasting during Ramadan, is widespread.

In other areas, however, there is less unity. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely.

Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support Sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of Sharia law.

How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?

Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq.

In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% says suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% says they are often justified in these circumstances.

In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.

What do American Muslims believe?

Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.

Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.

Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (69%) say religion is very important in their lives. Virtually all (96%) say they believe in God, nearly two-thirds (65%) report praying at least daily and nearly half (47%) say they attend religious services at least weekly. By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.

When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%).

As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.

What is the difference between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims?

Sunnis and Shias are two subgroups of Islam, just as Catholics and Protestants are two subgroups within Christianity. The Sunni-Shia divide is nearly 1,400 years old, dating back to a dispute over the succession of leadership in the Muslim community following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. While the two groups agree on some core tenets of Islam, there are differences in belief or practices, and in some cases Sunnis do not consider Shias to be Muslims.

With the exception of a few countries, including Iran (which is majority Shia) as well as Iraq and Lebanon (which are split), most nations with a large number of Muslims have more Sunnis than Shias. In the U.S., 65% identify as Sunnis and 11% as Shias (with the rest identifying with neither group, including some who say they are “just a Muslim”).

How do Americans and Europeans perceive Muslims?

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2014 asked Americans to rate members of eight religious groups on a “feeling thermometer” from 0 to 100, where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating. Overall, Americans rated Muslims rather coolly – an average of 40, which was comparable to the average rating they gave atheists (41). Americans view the six other religious groups mentioned in the survey (Jews, Catholics, evangelical Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons) more warmly.

Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party gave Muslims an average rating of 33, considerably cooler than Democrats’ rating toward Muslims (47).

Republicans also are more likely than Democrats to say they are very concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the world (83% vs. 53%) and in the U.S. (65% vs. 38%), according to a December 2015 survey. That survey also found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers (68% vs. 30% of Democrats) and that Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny than people of other religions (49% vs. 20%). Overall, most Americans (61%) say Muslims should not be subject to additional scrutiny solely because of their religion, while U.S. adults are closely divided on the question of whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence. (Note: This paragraph was updated Dec. 17 to reflect a new survey.)

In spring 2015, we asked residents of some European countries a different question– whether they view Muslims favorably or unfavorably. Perceptions at that time varied across European nations, from a largely favorable view in France (76%) and the United Kingdom (72%) to a less favorable view in Italy (31%) and Poland (30%).

How do Muslims and Westerners perceive each other?

In a 2011 survey, majorities of respondents in a few Western European countries, including 62% in France and 61% in Germany, said that relations between Muslims and Westerners were bad, while about half of Americans (48%) agreed. Similarly, most Muslims in several Muslim-majority nations – including Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan – agreed that relations were bad, although fewer Muslims in Pakistan (45%) and Indonesia (41%) had this view.

The same survey also asked about characteristics the two groups may associate with one another. Across the seven Muslim-majority countries and territories surveyed, a median of 68% of Muslims said they view Westerners as selfish. Considerable shares also called Westerners other negative adjectives, including violent (median of 66%), greedy (64%) and immoral (61%), while fewer attributed positive characteristics like “respectful of women” (44%), honest (33%) and tolerant (31%) to Westerners.

Westerners’ views of Muslims were more mixed. A median of 50% across four Western European countries, the U.S. and Russia called Muslims violent and a median of 58% called them “fanatical,” but fewer used negative words like greedy, immoral or selfish. A median of just 22% of Westerners said Muslims are respectful of women, but far more said Muslims are honest (median of 51%) and generous (41%).

Do American Muslims meet the Standard for American Citizenship?

This actually is a complicated question. If one uses the standard set in 1907 by Theodore Roosevelt, then it’s very clear American Muslims do not meet the American standard for citizenship. Forty-seven percent of Muslims surveyed see themselves as a Muslim first before identifying themselves as an American. However, the Pew Research Center found that in 2011 that 93% of Muslims considered themselves loyal to the United States. It appears from the Pew data that the lion’s shares of American Muslims (approximately 93% if we extrapolate from a sample to the entire population of Muslims) is not a threat to the country, and are supportive of the United States.

The data also showed that Muslim Americans by and large are no friend of either al-Qaeda or ISIS. People who target Muslims in general are engaging in Islamophobia of the worst kind, actual discrimination. The picture that emerges from the Pew data is that, by and large, Muslim Americans are a diverse group within the religion of Islam and identify with being an American reasonably well considering acts of mistreatment by the general public. The most poignant findings of the 2011 Pew research data are as follows.

Muslim Americans appear to be highly assimilated into American society and they are largely content with their lives. More than six-in-ten do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society, and a similar number say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. today want to adopt an American way of life rather than remain distinctive from the larger society.

By overwhelming margins, Muslim Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their own lives and rate their local communities as good places to live. And Muslim Americans are far more likely than the general public to express satisfaction with national conditions.

Assimilation and Identity

     A majority of Muslim Americans (56%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. today want to adopt American customs and ways of life. Far fewer (20%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. want to be distinct from the larger American society, with a similar number (16%) volunteering that Muslim immigrants want to do both. Native-born and foreign-born Muslims give similar answers to this question.

The U.S. public as a whole is less convinced that immigrant Muslims seek to assimilate. An April 2011 Pew research survey finds that just a third of American adults (33%) think that most Muslim immigrants want to adopt American ways, while about half (51%) think that Muslim immigrants mostly want to remain distinct from the larger culture.

National Identity

     When asked whether they think of themselves first as an American or first as a Muslim, about half of Muslims (49%) say they think of themselves first as a Muslim, compared with 26% who think of themselves first as American. Nearly one-in-five (18%) volunteer that they think of themselves as both Muslim and American.

A May survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that 46% of Christians in the United States think of themselves first as a Christian, while the same percentage says they consider them first as an American.

Among both Muslims and Christians, people who say religion is very important in their lives are far more likely to view themselves primarily as a member of their religion.

     Among Muslims who say that religion is very important in their lives, 59% say they think of themselves first as Muslims. Among those for whom religion is less important, only 28% identify first as Muslim. Similarly, among Christians who place great personal importance on religion, 62% say they are Christians first, compared with 19% among those who view religion as less important.

Pew Global Attitudes Project surveys conducted this year found substantial differences in views of national identity across Muslim communities. Nearly all Pakistanis (94%) consider themselves first as Muslims rather than as Pakistanis. By contrast, just 28% of Muslims in Lebanon say they consider themselves Muslim first – far fewer than the number of U.S. Muslims expressing this view (49%).

Many Muslims report having friendship networks that extends beyond the Muslim community. About half of U.S. Muslims say that all (7%) or most (41%) of their close friends are Muslim; about as many say that some (36%), hardly any (14%) or none (1%) of their close friends are Muslim.

More women than men have a close circle of friends consisting mostly or entirely of other Muslims. And Muslim Americans who are highly committed to their religion are much more likely than those with medium or low commitment to say that all or most of their close friends are Muslims.

More than six-in-ten American Muslims (63%) see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society, twice the number who do see such a conflict (31%).

A 2006 Pew Research survey found a nearly identical pattern among American Christians who were asked about a possible conflict between modernity and their own faith. Nearly two-thirds of Christians (64%) said there is no conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society, compared with 31% who did perceive a conflict.

Muslims of all ages express similar views on this question. Similarly, there are only small differences between native-born Muslims and immigrants, as well as between those who are personally religiously observant and those who are less religious.

There are, however, sizable differences between men and women in views on this question. More than seven-in-ten men (71%) say there is no conflict between Islam and modernity, but fewer women (54%) agree. The view that there is no conflict between Islam and modernity is also much more common among college graduates than among those with less education.

 

Final Comments

The Pew Research organization has provided a valuable service to everyone in terms of good social research. There was lots of interesting data on Muslims living abroad and those living here in the United States.

Nevertheless, I detected many unanswered questions from the data they presented from their 2011 study that should be looked into. Such questions relate to degree of assimilation, legal questions regarding religious belief from religious practice, and finally, prejudice and discrimination among Muslim Americans.

Questions about Assimilation

The first question is what percentage of Muslim Americans wants Sharia Law in the United States rather than following our legal system of a U.S. Constitution as well as state constitutions and all other federal, state and local laws and regulations?

Related to this is the question of whether Muslim Americans prefer sending their children to Muslim schools instead of integrating them into the general educational system in the United States? While those who follow Catholicism have church schools in the U.S., by and large, the children from these schools are nonetheless highly integrated into a secular society. To what extent is this true for the Muslim American child population?

Another unanswered question not asked in the Pew data relates to inter-faith marriages and marriage itself. What proportion of Muslim Americans marries non-Muslims? Are such marriages forbidden by Islamic law, culture, or the scriptures of Islam as well? It has been reported that anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 of the American Muslim population (2008 estimate) engage in polygamy. Women under Islamic law are forbidden to have multiple husbands, but men are permitted to have two, three or four wives.

Questions about Religious Belief versus Religious Practice    

Another area for questions has to do with general differences between religious belief and religious practice. In the future will a legal brief dealing with Sharia Law be brought before United States Supreme Court as a violation of separation of church from state? Since Sharia Law is an integral part of Islam’s scriptures, will there be a separation of religious belief from its practice?

For example, the Mormon practice of having more than one spouse did separate belief from practice. Today, neither in Utah nor elsewhere in the United States is bigamy or polygamy allowed under the law. Was religious practice separated from religious belief in this case? Another example is where religious cults engage in human sacrifice. There is no doubt that belief is separated from practice in that case. Anyone can believe whatever they want; however, once belief crosses the line into actual behavior, American Law has something to say about that. Human sacrifice is viewed as murder, and is prohibited under all U.S. law.

The acceptability of foreign law (religious or otherwise) in the United States has yet to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. To my knowledge the U.S. Congress has yet to act against Sharia Law. Less clear is why?  Sixteen states have already passed state laws to forbid Sharia Law or foreign law. The legal issue, whether Muslims can be allowed to impose Sharia Law within the United States, a law that violates provisions of the U.S. Constitution that are concerned with the separation of church and State, is one the high court needs to address.

Questions about Prejudice and Discrimination

Islamophobia is real and has caused many Muslim Americans to complain about it. But what isn’t known are the racial, ethnic and religious prejudices held by Muslim Americans.

No group in society is immune from this aspect of life. Sociologists back in the 1950s found that there was as much prejudice and discrimination caused by minorities as there was among majorities in U.S. society. Its character was sometimes different, such as minorities’ prejudice and discrimination against other members of minorities. As then as it is now—nobody wants to confront this type of social phenomena.

Given that Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East have never been fond of the citizens of Israel, would such attitudes be prevalent among Muslim Americans living in the United States? Are there attitudes among the Muslim population that promote anti-Semitism and discriminatory behavior against people of the Jewish faith, or directed against Jews living here or abroad?

What’s needed is a comprehensive sociological study of racial, ethnic and religious attitudes (prejudices and discrimination) by Muslim Americans.

As one can see, many questions remain unanswered.

In Part III, I will discuss Sharia Law in more detail, and discuss if there is a plot underway to replace American Law with Sharia Law.

The most troubling aspect of all is that Sharia Law, as a religious practice, is a 7th Century set of religious rules that are barbaric, discriminatory, homophobic, misogynist, and intolerant of all non-believers, as well as those from other religions.

Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan had the dream of world domination. World domination by any group in the past failed, and will fail in the future. Any group that intends, surreptitiously or otherwise, to dominate the United States and convert it to a non-democratic country will ultimately experience the wrath of the American people. Any real threats from abroad will also experience the wrath of the most awesome military power on the face of the earth. We will be all over such threats “like a fly on you know what.”

Our values here in the United States reject Sharia Law as it is a serious threat to all civil and human rights. It is an extremist set of religious laws that are currently practiced in many (but not all) Muslim countries around the world. Stay tuned for Part III.

Read Full Post »

The 2014 Midterm Elections

The Future of the Republican Party

In America

Introduction

The upcoming 2014 Midterm elections will be one of the most important in American political history. This is because we, as Americans, are coming to a crossroads as far as where we want the country to go in the future. After six years of gridlock, the country as a whole is fed-up with politicians. This anger the public feels might be translated into a larger voter turnout in November or not (people staying home on election day).

At the moment I can’t predict which way that might go. Efforts to get people to vote will be critical in this midterm election. Traditionally, weak voter turnout occurs in midterm elections more than in years where both parties are running candidates for President.

However, the country has placed more blame on the Republican Party and their Tea Party sidekicks for the debilitating government shutdown that occurred in late 2013. Consequently, the probability that many Republicans and Tea Party members will be re-elected to the House or Senate in 2014 is slim to none. I base this prediction on four major factors:

  • Changing Ethnic and Racial Demographics
  • The Tea Party in America: Gridlock and the Legacy of Conservatism
  • Age-Related Generational Perspectives
  • Hypocrisy of Republican Political Values (smaller government and lower taxes)

Changing Ethnic and Racial Demographics

One reason it is difficult to predict elections is something called changing demographics.

Early evidence suggests that, based on changing demographics, The Republican Party is fast on the track to becoming a defunct political party in the United States. It is conceivable that one day soon there may be just two major parties in the United States: The Democratic Party and perhaps an Independent Party. The more ethnically and racially diverse a political party is, the more likely they will receive a greater number of votes during election time.

     The following information was obtained on the Internet by writer Frank Newport. Please notice the lack of diversity in the Republican Party.

PRINCETON, NJ — Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012, while accounting for 70% of independents and 60% of Democrats. Over one-fifth of Democrats (22%) were black, while 16% of independents were Hispanic.

These results are based on more than 338,000 interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking in 2012, and clearly underscore the distinct racial profiles of partisan groups in today’s political landscape.

  • Republicans are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, at a level that is significantly higher than the self-identified white percentage of the national adult population. Just 2% of Republicans are black, and 6% are Hispanic.
  • Seventy percent of Americans who identify as independents are white, but independents have the highest representation of Hispanics (16%) of the three groups. Eight percent of independents are blacks.
  • Democrats remain a majority white party, but four in 10 Democrats are something other than non-Hispanic white. More than one in five Democrats is black, roughly twice the black representation in the adult population.

Racial and Ethnic Groups Gravitate Toward Different Parties

Looked at differently, these party composition patterns reflect major differences in the way Americans in various racial and ethnic groups identify their political affiliation.

  • Almost two-thirds of blacks identify as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents. Only 5% of blacks nationwide identify as Republicans.
  • Half of Hispanics identify as independents, although the majority of the rest identify as Democrats. This is despite their high level of approval and strong majority voting support for Democratic President Barack Obama. Relatively few Hispanics (6%) identify as Republicans.
  • Whites are the most politically diverse of the three major racial and ethnic segments, with between 26% and 38% identifying with one of the three partisan groups. Whites tilt slightly toward being independents or Republicans rather than Democrats. The large white concentration of Republican identifiers, in short, is caused by a dearth of nonwhites self-identifying with the GOP, rather than a monolithic Republican orientation among whites.

Although Asians and other races make up a small proportion of the U.S. population, the data show that the political pattern they follow is quite similar to that of Hispanics: they are most likely to identify as independents, second-most likely to identify as Democrats, and least likely to identify as Republicans.

Racial Breakdown of Independents and Democrats Has Shifted Most Since 2008

The racial and ethnic composition of the Republican Party today is similar to what it was in 2008, the year when Gallup began its daily tracking. There have been essentially no changes in the percentage of GOP identifiers who are white, black, and Hispanic.

Independents have become more Hispanic since 2008 (and slightly more black), while Democrats have become more black and more Hispanic. Phrased differently, the independent and Democratic segments of the U.S. population are now less white than they were in 2008, reflecting the uptick in the U.S. nonwhite population over these five years.

Implications

One of the more important realities in American politics today is the substantial divergence in the racial and ethnic composition of the major political parties. Almost nine in 10 Republicans are white, in stark contrast to the racial and ethnic composition of the overall adult population. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is disproportionately nonwhite.

The future of the two major political parties depends on two factors. The first is whether these patterns of party identification change in the years ahead. The ability of the Republican Party to make inroads among nonwhites has been much discussed in recent months, particularly the GOP’s efforts to improve on the 13% allegiance that Gallup data show it obtains from Hispanics. Another path to growth for the Republican Party would be an increase in its penetration into the white sector of the population, only 35% of which now identifies as Republican. On the other hand, the Democratic Party will grow if it too can extend its identification among whites, and maintain or strengthen its position among nonwhites.

     A second factor that will affect the future of the political parties in the U.S. is straightforward demographics. Projections show that the nonwhite proportion of the American adult population will grow in the years ahead. This means that if current partisan allegiance patterns prevail, the size of the Democratic base will be in a better position to grow than will the Republican base.

The Tea Party in America: Gridlock and the Legacy of Conservatism

Many organizations in society, including political organizations, engage in what is called sub-optimizing behavior. That’s when stated goals are not the real goals.

The real goals of organizations, political groups, or individuals are often hidden and not stated publicly. Words from politicians often disguise their real motives. The Tea Party is no exception, especially when backed by Big Business and the Billionaire Koch Brothers and Koch Industries.

Based on the behavior of Tea Party members in Congress, my assumption is that the Tea Party in America is a lunatic fringe and, at the same time, is the new face of the Republican Party.

Currently only 8% of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party members. Nevertheless, the Tea Party in Congress has a stranglehold on all other Republicans. It’s okay for people to cling to their values and beliefs. But when such values and beliefs threaten the United States with financial disaster and ruin, then it’s time for other stronger forces to counter such attacks on the integrity of the United States and its people.

As much as I’d like to see it, it’s unlikely these congressional reprobates will ever be tried for treason or brought up on criminal charges by the U.S. Department of Justice. The best thing the people can do is toss the Tea Party members out of Congress in the next mid-term election. Another option is to petition their immediate recall from office.

The Ongoing Problem of Gridlock     

The vast majority of Americans are moderate “Middle-of-the-Road” independents, Democrats and Republicans. When one has different values from their fellow citizens, it naturally creates tension, suspicion, distrust, and polarization. Since 2008 we’ve witnessed the worst of these political differences acting out as irreconcilable gridlock when it comes to carrying out the various duties of the government (passing a budget on time, passing legislation to help our citizens, properly defending the country, etc.). For several years now, gridlock has created and prevented very little from being accomplished.

Politics has always been called, “the Art of Compromise.” This is an old saying that no longer appears applicable in modern day politics.

The primary function of politicians should be to honestly represent their constituency. But at the same time politicians need to make prudent, critical choices in the handling of scarce resources (taxpayer dollars). That latter function is an awesome responsibility that needs careful attention to detail. But the overriding responsibility of those in Congress today should be to help their fellow citizens live better, more prosperous lives. With the exception of President Barack Obama, that does not seem to be the case.

The Legacy of Conservatism

Unfortunately, the legacy of conservatism has never aligned itself with helping people.

During the last 160 years conservatives were opposed to the abolition of slavery, and were responsible for promoting racism and Jim Crow, particularly in the old South. They fought against giving women the right to vote, opposed the New Deal during the Depression of the 1930s, and opposed the Social Security Act in 1935 and later, minimum wage laws. In the 1950s they fought against integration, desegregation and later busing. Conservatives were a major voice against the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s; During the 1970s conservatives opposed affirmative action and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.

In more recent years, conservatives have opposed amnesty for illegal aliens, and they want to cut entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Now, with strong Tea Party support and a strident attitude, they oppose the President’s Affordable Care Act that promotes universal healthcare.

One way of characterizing all this political history is that, if legislation was going to help a lot of people and improve their lives, conservatives were “hell-bent” to oppose it. That collectively is their ugly legacy.

At this point in history the Tea Party has been at the center of Washington’s gridlock. The only real option for Americans in the 2014 and 2016 national elections is to totally limit their access to power. This also applies to all Republicans seeking public office in the mid-term elections, and in 2016 as well.

This doesn’t mean that creating jobs, cutting spending or raising or lowering taxes aren’t important issues; they certainly are. But Tea Party members who take a simplistic ideological viewpoint of how the economy works lack insight into the complexities of the economy and its basic business cycles.

 Come the Next Election Just Remember These Statistics

Since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures. Though they occupied the oval office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, Democrats hold the edge, compared to 28 years for Republicans. In addition, over the past 50 years, Republican administrations oversaw the largest decline in wages as measured as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Age-Related Generational Issues

It has long been said that “our children are our future.” And, given the fact that political perspectives vary by generation, it is incumbent upon society in general to recognize that voting patterns among the various generations will be very important to the future of politics in America and the 2014 mid-term elections. Nowhere is this truer than with the Millennial Generation. So what can we expect to happen in November 2014? The following is a fine article written by Jonathan Chait. He refers to the Millennials as “those kids with Obama posters on the wall.”

The Millennial Generation: Our Liberal Future

How doomed are conservatives? Pretty doomed, if you look carefully at the Pew Research Survey’s close analysis of the youth vote in the 2012 elections. The Republicans’ long-term dilemma has generally been framed in racial terms, but it’s mainly a generational one.

The youngest generation of voters contains a much smaller proportion of white voters than previous generations, and those whites in that generation vote Republican by a much smaller margin than their elders. What’s more, younger voters supported President Obama during the last two election cycles for reasons that seem to go beyond the usual reasons — social issues like gay marriage and feminism, immigration policy, or Obama’s personal appeal — and suggest a deeper attachment to liberalism. The proclivities of younger voters may actually portend a full-scale sea change in American politics.

More than four decades ago, Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril identified the core of Americans’ political thinking as a blend of symbolic conservatism and operational liberalism. Most Americans, that is, oppose big government in the abstract but favor it in the particular. They oppose “regulation” and “spending,” but favor, say, enforcement of clean-air laws and Social Security. The push and pull between these contradictory beliefs has defined most of the political conflicts over the last century. Public support for most of the particulars of government has stopped Republicans from rolling back the advances of the New Deal, but suspicion with “big government” has made Democratic attempts to advance the role of the state rare and politically painful.

This tension continues to define the beliefs of American voters. Among the 2012 electorate, more voters identified themselves as conservative (35 percent) than liberal (25 percent), and more said the government is already doing too much that should be left to the private sector (51 percent) than asserted that the government ought to be doing more to solve problems (44 percent). But this is not the case with younger voters. By a 59 percent to 37 percent margin, voters under 30 say the government should do more to solve problems. More remarkably, 33 percent of voters under 30 identified themselves as liberal, as against 26 percent who called themselves conservative.

What all this suggests is that we may soon see a political landscape that will appear from the perspective of today and virtually all of American history as unrecognizably liberal. Democrats today must amass huge majorities of moderate voters in order to overcome conservatives’ numerical advantage over liberals. They must carefully wrap any proposal for activist government within the strictures of limited government, which is why Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, and Obama has promised not to raise taxes for 99 percent of Americans. It’s entirely possible that, by the time today’s twenty something’s have reached middle age, these sorts of limits will cease to apply.

Obviously, such a future hinges on the generational patterns of the last two election cycles persisting. But, as another Pew survey showed, generational patterns do tend to be sticky. It’s not the case that voters start out liberal and move rightward. Americans form a voting pattern early in their life and tend to hold to it. That isn’t to say something couldn’t shake these voters loose from their attachment to the liberal worldview. Republicans fervently (and plausibly) hoped the Great Recession would be that thing; having voted for Obama and borne the brunt of mass unemployment, once-idealistic voters would stare at the faded Obama posters on their wall and accept the Republican analysis that failed Big Government policies have brought about their misery.

But young voters haven’t drawn this conclusion — or not many of them have, at any rate. So either something else is going to have to happen to disrupt the liberalism of the rising youth cohort, or else the Republican Party itself will have to change in ways far more dramatic than any of its leading lights seem prepared to contemplate.

Hypocrisy of Republican Political Values (smaller government and lower taxes)

The following is an interesting article that was posted on AlterNet on September 20, 2014 by Alex Henderson.

 

10 Red States that Mooch off the Federal Government

Republicans claim they’ve had it with American socialism. Maybe they should return the tax dollars subsidizing them

One of the most hilarious talking points coming from far-right Republicans and the Tea Party is that when “red states” like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are asked to bail out California or Massachusetts, that’s when they will finally become “fed up with socialism” and secede from the Union once and for all.

The problem with that meme is that it has no basis in reality: the more prosperous and Democrat-leaning areas of the United States are likely to be subsidizing dysfunctional “red states,” many of which are suffering from insufficient tax revenue and an abundance of low-wage workers who don’t have much to tax.

Tea Party Republicans like to point out that poor cities like Detroit, Baltimore and Camden, New Jersey are run by Democrats, but they neglect to mention that some of the most affluent parts of the United States—from Manhattan to the Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area to Cambridge, MA to Seattle to Chicago’s North Shore suburbs—are dominated by the Democratic Party. People in those heavily Democratic areas pay a lot of federal income taxes, and quite often, their tax dollars go to red states.

Earlier this year, the personal finance website WalletHub.com conducted an in-depth study of the amounts individual states are paying in federal taxes compared to the amounts they are receiving. WalletHub analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Commerce Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. WalletHub’s research demonstrates that, as a rule, the states that are the most likely to rail against “big government” are the most likely to be benefiting from it.

A few of the states in WalletHub’s study that were receiving the most tax revenue from the federal government are states that President Barack Obama won in 2012 (most notably, New Mexico and Hawaii), but most were hardcore “red states.” And most of the states that, according to WalletHub, are taking less from the federal government than they are paying in are “blue states” that Obama won in both 2008 and 2012, including California, Massachusetts, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Minnesota. WalletHub’s research bears out comparable figures released by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation in the past: analyzing IRS data, Tax Foundation has found, more than once, that red states are likely to be the biggest recipients of federal tax money.

Summary and Conclusions

Back in the late 1960s I used to vote for liberal democrats and sometimes well-meaning moderate republicans, particularly in local elections. Moderate republicans today, unfortunately, are only a thing of the past. In 2000 when Al Gore was cheated out of becoming President of the United States, I knew it was time to close the chapter on ever voting for a republican again. Today, politics seems to be more about ideology than doing what’s right for the country.

The Republican Party, along with its bastardized Tea Party, is a national disgrace to the people of the United States. With changing racial and ethnic demographics they are fast becoming defunct as a political party. Many factors have and will contribute to their demise:

  • gridlock and the shutting down of the government in 2013 caused by a recalcitrant and belligerent Republican Party and their Tea Party affiliates in Congress
  •  a legacy of conservatism that has shamed the people of the United States in the eyes of the world
  • the hypocrisy of their own values regarding the size of government and lowering taxes
  • changing racial and ethnic demographics
  • Generational changes in voting patterns

     Republican and Tea Party members everywhere have no business representing anyone, anywhere, anytime. It’s time to get the country moving forward again. Please remember to vote this November in the Midterm elections. It is critical that you do.    

Read Full Post »

President Obama’s Real Accomplishments in Office   Introduction Where politics is concerned there always seems to be a real disconnect between facts on the one hand, and political rhetoric espoused by the media and the various political parties on the other. Citizens expect the media to decipher fact from fiction. But since the media is often biased in favor of one political party over another, the voting public is actually left to their own devices to determine fact from fiction. As a consequence, the average citizen is left out in the cold where unbiased evaluation of a candidate for political office is concerned. As we all know, politicians talk more about values, not facts. Facts are often used to measure results of a politician’s programs, while values are used to make promises and to encourage the public to vote for a particular candidate. Facts are too dangerous for politicians while values are safer when interacting with the public.   Purpose of Blog The purpose of this Blog is to present to my cyberspace public a factual review of the real accomplishments of the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I will review his accomplishments in two ways: Review the two most important promises the President made back in 2008 which were to lower the unemployment rate and create middle class jobs for Americans. The second way is to list the accomplishments of Barack Obama. When it came to the President’s promises, both related to economics. This was important since the country came close to a financial disaster and collapse during President Bush’s last term in office. At the time he made his promises, little did he know that his vision for America would be met by a recalcitrant and often times obstreperous Congress, particularly the House of Representatives. Despite the juggernaut of destructive gridlock offered up by the Republican Party and its Tea Party members, achievements were made in the last 6 years by the President. The Promises of President Obama The first promise was to lower the unemployment rate, and the second was to create jobs for middle-class Americans. I will present data that supports these promises, and I will carefully review actual achievements. The Unemployment Rate The President took office in January 2009. At that time the unemployment rate had been climbing during the previous year under the Bush Administration from 5.0 percent in January 2008 to 7.8 percent in January, 2009. The rate of unemployment continued to rise to a high of 10 percent in October 2009 as a lagging effect of the recession and near financial collapse in 2008. It continued to drift from 9.9 down to 9.4 percent during the rest of 2009, and continued through to the end of 2010. By this time the policies of the President and the Federal Reserve Board (primarily the economic stimulus packages) were starting to have an effect on the unemployment rate. In January 2011 the unemployment rate dropped to 9.1 percent. A year later it was 8.2 percent. By January 2013 it was 7.9 percent. In January 2014 the unemployment rate had dropped to 6.6 percent. In June 2014 the unemployment rate dropped again to 6.1 percent. During the President’s watch, the unemployment rate declined 39 percent. As of August 2014 the unemployment rate still stayed at 6.1 percent. It would, of course, be simplistic and rather naïve to either ascribe total credit or total blame to the person holding office of the presidency for the lion’s share of any economic change. The reality is economic cycles and the economy itself each have a life of its own (see my previous Blogs on economics and economic theories).  Nevertheless, fiscal and economic policies of any President do matter.  So from a policy standpoint, President Barack Obama has very much helped impact the unemployment rate in a positive way, thus achieving his first promise. Unemployment Rate (January 2004 – June 2014)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004  5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005  5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006  4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007  4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008  5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009  7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010  9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011  9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012  8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013  7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014  6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1

  Source: Department of Labor Statistics     Job Creation and Growth   It is a fact that, since President Roosevelt, the average amount of private sector jobs created during Democratic Presidential terms is 1,463,220 and the average amount during Republican Presidential terms is a paltry 642,000 jobs.     Obama’s Second Promise

52 Straight Months of Private Sector Job Growth

July 3, 2014 Under President Obama’s leadership, the economy has added private sector jobs for 52 straight months. During this span, 9.7 million private sector jobs have been created. In the Senate,    Democrats are fighting to continue this positive trend and help speed along the economic recovery.   President Obama’s Major Accomplishments What follows is a PARTIAL list of Obama’s accomplishments so far.

 

Despite the characterizations of some Republicans, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%.

Fiscal Responsibility

Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. The President created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression

Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years.  He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. He increased infrastructure spending after years of neglect.  Obama signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures. The bill also provided $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness, and to stabilize the housing market. Through the Worker, Home Ownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Obama and Congressional Democrats provided tax credits to first-time home buyers, which helped the U.S. housing market recovery. He initiated a $15 billion plan designed to encourage increased lending to small businesses. Obama created business.gov, which allows for online collaboration between small businesses and experts remanaging a business. (The program has since merged with SBA.gov.) He played a lead role in getting the G-20 Summit to commit to a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis.  Obama took steps to improve minority access to capital.  He created a $60 billion bank to fund infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges. He implemented an auto industry rescue plan, and saved as many as 1 million jobs.  Many are of the opinion that he saved the entire auto industry, and even the economy of the entire Midwest. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama saved at least 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors that would have otherwise been lost. Obama dismantled the Minerals Management Service, thereby moving forward to cut ties between energy companies and the government. He provided funding to states and the Department of Homeland Security to save thousands of police and firefighter jobs from being cut during the recession. He used recovered TARP money to fund programs at local housing finance agencies in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and Michigan. Obama crafted an Executive order establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability to assist in financial education for all Americans.

Wall Street Reforms and Consumer Protection

Obama ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money. He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression.  Dodd-Frank also included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama made it so that banks could no longer use YOUR money to invest in high-risk financial instruments that work against their own customers’ interests. He supported the concept of allowing stockholders to vote on executive compensation.  Obama wholly endorsed and supported the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 that would close offshore tax avoidance loopholes. He made a deal with Swiss banks that permit the US government to gain access to the records of criminals and tax evaders. He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses. Obama oversaw and then signed the most sweeping food safety legislation since the Great Depression.

Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination

Obama advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. Obama appointed Kareem Dale as the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy. Helped Congress pass and signed the Civil Rights History Act.  He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Obama has appointed more openly gay officials than anyone in history.  He issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other. He established a White House Council on Women and Girls. He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill.    Obama wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families. He expanded funding for the Violence against Women Act. Under Obama’s watch, National Labor Relations Board has issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees’ rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011.

Fighting Poverty

Obama provided a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps). He signed an Executive Order that established the White House Office of Urban Affairs.

Improved Foreign Relations and American Status Abroad

Obama visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office. As he promised, he gave a speech at a major Islamic forum in Cairo early in his administration. He did much to restore America’s reputation around the world as a global leader that does the “right thing” in world affairs, at least according to the rest of the planet. He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. Closed a number of secret detention facilities. Obama improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys. He pushed for military to emphasize development of foreign language skills. Offered $400 million to the people living in Gaza, called on both Israel and the Palestinians to stop inciting violence. He refused to give Israel the green light to attack Iran over their possible nuclear program. He worked to make donations to Haiti tax-deductible in 2009. He established a new U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Issued an Executive Order blocking interference with and helped to stabilize Somalia. He established new, more reasonable policies in our relations with Cuba, such as allowing Cuban-Americans to visit their families and send money to support them. He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through. Obama ordered a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture, or what Bush called “enhanced interrogation.” He ordered interrogators to limit their actions to the Army Field manual. He ordered all secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere to be closed.  He released the Bush torture memos.   On his second day in office, he signed a detailed Executive Order that banned torture, reversed all Bush torture policies, and put the United States in compliance with the Geneva Convention. In response to the emerging “Arab Spring,” he created a Rapid Response fund, to assist emerging democracies with foreign aid, debt relief, technical assistance and investment packages in order to show that the United States stands with them. Obama passed the Iran Sanctions Act, to prevent war, and to encourage Iran to give up their nuclear program.  Obama ended the Iraq War. In response to current events with an ISIS invasion in Iraq President Obama ordered air strikes and offered humanitarian assistance to Iraq religious minorities under threat of death from ISIS. He has now created an international coalition through NATO to annihilate ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He authorized and oversaw a secret mission by SEAL Team Six to rescue two hostages held by Somali pirates. The importance of this international act of terrorism was later made into a movie with Tom Hanks.

Better Approach to Defense

Obama created a comprehensive new strategy for dealing with the international nuclear threat. He authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010. He restarted nuclear nonproliferation talks and built up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols to where they had been before Bush. He signed and pushed to ratification a new SALT Treaty. Negotiated and signed a new START Treaty that will last until at least 2021. Through the Defense Authorization Act, he reversed the Bush Administration and committed to no permanent military bases in Iraq. He developed the first comprehensive strategy with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan designed to facilitate the defeat of al Qaeda and the withdrawal of most troops, as well as the rebuilding of Afghanistan. He returned our focus to Afghanistan, stabilized the country, and began the process of withdrawing our troops. Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and ended our involvement in Iraq in 2011. However, current events have altered a total and complete withdrawal from Iraq. Despite the current problems in Iraq the president, during his administration, has taken steps to severely weaken al Qaeda and limit their ability to terrorize the world. Many of the top al Qaeda leaders have been killed or otherwise neutralized. He negotiated and signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty with India. He took decisive action to use NATO to limit the slaughter of innocents in Libya, so that the Libyan people could topple a despotic government and determine their own fate.   Veterans He made sure that families of fallen soldiers could be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB by providing funding for it.  He also ended the media blackout on coverage of the return of fallen soldiers. He funded Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with an extra $1.4 billion to improve veterans’ services. He provided the troops with better body armor. He created the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record program for military personnel in order to improve the quality of their medical care. He put an end to the Bush-era stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan beyond their enlistment date. He supported and signed the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, which made more money available to enable better medical care for veterans. He ushered through the largest spending increase in 30 years for the Department of Veterans Affairs for improved medical facilities, and to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities. He created the Green Vet Initiative, which provided special funding to the Labor Department to provide veterans with training in green jobs. He oversaw a $4.6 billion expansion of the Veterans Administration budget to pay for more mental health professionals.

Education

He has repeatedly increased funding for student financial aid, and at the same time cut the banks completely out of the process. He completely reformed the student loan program to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. This includes a major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide as well as an expansion in school construction. Also, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he put $5 billion into early education, including Head Start. He signed the Post-9/11 GI Bill, also known as GI Bill 2.0 He oversaw expansion of the Pell Grants program to expand opportunity for low-income students to go to college. He passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provided an extra $12.2 billion in funds.

Greater Transparency and Better Government

He signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch. He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House. He held the first-ever online town hall from the White House, and took questions from the public. The Obama White House became the first to stream every White House event, live. He established a central portal for Americans to find service opportunities. He provided the first voluntary disclosure of the White House Visitors Log in history.  He crafted an Executive Order on Presidential Records, which restored the 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records, and eliminated the right for the vice president or family members of former presidents to do the reviews. This will provide the public with greater access to historic White House documents, and severely curtails the ability to use executive privilege to shield them. He improved aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, and issued new guidelines to make FOIA more open and transparent in the processing of FOIA requests.

National Safety and Security

He’s restored federal agencies such as FEMA to the point that they have been able to manage a huge number of natural disasters successfully. He authorized Navy SEALS to successfully secure the release of a US captain held by Somali pirates and increased patrols off the Somali coast. Obama has repeatedly beefed up border security. He ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

Science, Technology and Health Care

He created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making. Obama opened up the process for fast-tracking patent approval for green energy projects. He eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He also provided increased federal support for biomedical and stem cell research. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he committed more federal funding, about $18 billion, to support non-defense science and research labs. He signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first comprehensive attempt to improve the lives of Americans living with paralysis. He expanded the Nurse-Family Partnership program, which provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families, to cover more first-time mothers.  His EPA reversed research ethics standards which allowed humans to be used as “guinea pigs” in tests of the effects of chemicals to comply with numerous codes of medical ethics. Obama conducted a cyberspace policy review. Obama provided financial support for private sector space programs. He oversaw enhanced earth mapping to provide valuable data for agricultural, educational, scientific, and government use. He ushered through a bill that authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products.  As a result, the FDA has ordered tobacco companies to disclose cigarette ingredients and to ban sale of cigarettes falsely labeled as “light.” Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he provided $500 million for Health Professions Training Programs. He also increased funding for community-based prevention programs. He oversaw a 50% decrease in cost of prescription drugs for seniors. He eliminated the Bush-era practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug companies on price. Two weeks after taking office, he signed the Children’s Health Insurance Re-authorization Act, which increased the number of children covered by health insurance by 4 million. He held a quick press conference, and urged Congress to investigate Anthem Blue Cross for raising premiums 39% without explanation. Rep. Waxman responded by launching a probe, and Anthem Blue Cross put the increase on hold for two months. He ushered through and signed the Affordable Health Care Act, which expanded health insurance coverage to 30 million more people, and ended many common insurance company practices that are often detrimental to those with coverage. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he allowed children to be covered under their parents’ policy until they turned 26. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he provided tax breaks to allow 3.5 million small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees; thereby 29 million people will receive tax breaks to help them afford health insurance. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he expanded Medicaid to those making up to 133% of the federal poverty level. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, health insurance companies now have to disclose how much of your premium actually goes to pay for patient care. Provisions in Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act have already resulted in Medicare costs actually declining slightly this fiscal year, for the first time in many years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Last year’s increase was 4%. Compare that to the average 12% annual inflation rate during the previous 40 years. Strengthening the Middle Class and Families Obama worked to provide affordable, high-quality child care to working families. He cracked down on companies that were previously denying sick pay, vacation and health insurance, and Social Security and Medicare tax payments through abuse of the employee classification of independent contractor. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he cut taxes for 95% of America’s working families. Under Obama, tax rates for average working families are the lowest they’ve been since 1950. He extended and fully funded the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax for 10 years. He extended discounted COBRA health coverage for the unemployed from 9 months to 15 months, and he’s extended unemployment benefits several times.

Environment and Energy

Obama fast-tracked regulations to allow states to enact federal fuel efficiency standards that were above federal standards. His fast-tracked regulation increased fuel economy standards for vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. It was the first time such standards had been increased in a decade. He oversaw the establishment of an Energy Partnership for the Americas, which creates more markets for American-made biofuels and green energy technologies. His EPA reversed a Bush-era decision to allow the largest mountaintop removal project in US history. He ordered the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances. He ordered energy plants to prepare to produce at least 15% of all energy through renewable resources like wind and solar, by 2021. (As you can see, Republicans are trying hard to kill it.) He oversaw the creation of an initiative that converts old factories and manufacturing centers into new clean technology centers. Obama bypassed Republican opposition in Congress, and ordered EPA to begin regulating and measuring carbon emissions. His EPA ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. He doubled federal spending on clean energy research. He pushed through a tax credit to help people buy plug-in hybrid cars. He created a program to develop renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that will produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. Obama reengaged in the climate change and greenhouse gas emissions agreements talks, and even proposed one himself. He also addressed the U.N. Climate Change Conference, officially reversing the Bush-era stance that climate change was a “hoax.” He fully supported the initial phase of the creation of a legally binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide. He required states to provide incentives to utilities to reduce their energy consumption. Following Bush’s eight year reign, he reengaged in a number of treaties and agreements designed to protect the Antarctic. He created tax write-offs for purchases of hybrid automobiles, and later he and Democrats morphed that program into one that includes electric cars. Mandated that federal government fleet purchases be for fuel-efficient American vehicles, and encouraged that federal agencies support experimental, fuel-efficient vehicles. Obama oversaw and pushed through an amendment to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorizing advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  He also actively tried to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to eliminate the liability limits for those companies responsible for large oil spills. He initiated Criminal and Civil inquiries into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Through Obama’s EPA, he asserted federal legal supremacy, and barred Texas from authorizing new refinery permits on its own.  He strengthened the Endangered Species Act. His EPA improved boiler safety standards to improve air quality and save 6500 lives per year. Through the EPA, he took steps to severely limit the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, and to increase their efficacy in humans.  Obama increased funding for National Parks and Forests by 10%. He announced greatly improved commercial fuel efficiency standards. He announced the development of a huge increase in average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg to 35.5mpg starting in 2016 and 54.5 starting in 2025.

Other Accomplishments

Obama has expanded trade agreements to include stricter labor and environmental agreements such as NAFTA. He oversaw funding of the design of a new Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History, which is scheduled to open on the National Mall in 2015.  He protected the funding during the recent budget negotiations. He oversaw and passed increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice in the Court’s history, and these women represent only the third and fourth women to serve on the court, out of a total of 112 justices. He appointed the most diverse Cabinet in history, including more women than any other incoming president.  He eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education, and he rescinded the global gag rule. Obama loosened the rules, and allowed the 14 states that legalized medical marijuana to regulate themselves without federal interference.  His FDA banned the use of antibiotics in livestock production.  Obama ushered through and signed national service legislation, increasing funding for national service groups, including tripling the size of the AmeriCorps program.     The material used for the list of accomplishments was obtained from the article below. It has been altered somewhat due to many of the current events that have taken place globally in last few weeks and months. Read the original article at http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html     Post Script It is clear that President Obama is one of the most successful presidents of all time. Despite a much fractured Congress and a very disruptive Republican/Tea Party, President Barack Obama has exceeded all expectations as a president. Whoever the next president in 2016 is—one thing is for sure—she/he will definitely follow in the footstep of a presidential giant. As an aside, I hope the voting public will evaluate the Republican/Tea Party in a fair and balanced manner. It should be based on the number of their accomplishments for the American people since President Bush left office. That evaluation should be very easy based on the overwhelming number of their accomplishments. At the last count Republicans/Tea Party have ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS. If you really want to know which party to support in the upcoming mid-term elections this fall, just ask yourself one important question based on the following. Twenty years ago the Republicans swept into office with their promise in 1994 of a Contract with America. A November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “…the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” President Bill Clinton often remarked that the Republicans had actually put forth a “Contract on America.” The question you need to ask yourself and answer is—What part of Contract with America, if any, was ever accomplished by the Republican Party? If the answer is none of it, then you should clearly know which party or candidates to support in the upcoming mid-term elections. Why, you ask? — Because history, including political history, has a habit of repeating itself. The government shutdown, and economic harm that was subsequently felt by the American people a year ago, was caused by Republican/Tea Party members in Congress. I think it is fair to say that any Republican/Tea Party members running in the mid-term elections in 2014 (who supported the government shutdown) should have no subsequent role in that government since they tried to “deep six” it in 2013.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »