Rasmussen Reports Poll: Real People Are Polled

In case you wonder if real people are polled by polling companies like Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen, the answer is "yes." I was polled by Rasmussen Reports on Thursday, August 9th. It was an automated telephone poll of "likely voters" that was quite lengthy. The questions ranged from my opinion of President George Bush to the presidential primary candidates to my political ideological bent to homeland security issues. It was fun to participate.

This is the second time I have been polled in a national political poll. Gallup called me a number of years ago. so, real people do answer these polls that the news media thrive on during political season.

Rasmussen Reports is one of the more reliable polls because of their methodology. They came closest to accurately predicting the outcome of the 2006 presidential race between Bush and Kerry. They survey "likely voters" with a balanced weighting to reflect the population. (See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology for details of their poll design )

The results of the Rasmussen poll I participated in were reported on Friday, August 10th. According to Yahoo! News, "this national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 8-9, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070810/pl_rasmussen/wiretapping20070810_1 )

Here are the results of some of the questions I remember and how I answered them. Then, I note the results reported by Rasmussen. (Caution: The questions may not be the exact wording used in the poll; they are how I recall them. Nearly all the possible answers included the option "unsure," which I have not noted below since I did not select that for any of mine. When it comes to politics, I always have an opinion!)

• What is your opinion of the job President Bush is doing? Excellent? Good? Fair? Poor? I answered "Good" as did 21% of respondents. Overall, 39% approve of the President's job performance and 58% disapprove. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval )

• If the Republican primary were held today, who would you vote for? Thompson? Guiliani? Romney? McCain? Other? I answered "other." Then, I was given the names of the "second-tier" candidates. I voted for "Tom Tancredo." The results were Thompson, 19%; Guiliani, 28%; Romney, 12%, McCain, 10%, and 31% either Other or Unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history )

• Do you believe Rudy Guiliani is Conservative? Moderate? Liberal? I answered "Liberal." The poll's results were 30% Conservative, 46% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rudy Guiliani? I hold an "unfavorable" opinion as do 42% of other likely Republican voters. Fifty percent are "favorable." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: John Edwards? Rudy Guiliani? Other? I answered "other" because I would vote third party if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination. I will never, ever vote for a pro-choice Republican. In that match-up, Edwards would win 49% to 42%, according to the poll. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: Fred Thompson? John Edwards? Other? I answered "Thompson" as did 39% of all polled. Edwards won 50% of likely voters. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you believe allowing the government to intercept phone calls from foreign suspected terrorists makes America safer? I was included in the 59% of all voters and 79% of Republicans who answered "Yes." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Did Congress vote recently to allow the government to expand its ability to intercept phone calls of foreign terrorist suspects and other electronic communications without warrants? I was also among the 34% who were aware that Congress had approved the legislation allowing this without warrants. Thirty percent incorrectly said Congress rejected it and 36% were unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Does the government worry too much about individual rights or national security too much or is the balance about right? I answered "about right" as did 29% of those polled. Thirty-four percent said it worries too much about individual rights and 27% said it is too concerned about national security. There is marked differences between Republicans and Democrats on this question. Democrats line up 39% that the government is too worried about national security whereas only 12% Republicans said that. Fifty-two percent of Republicans believe that concern for individual rights is excessive versus 12% who say national security concerns are excessive. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Who do you trust more to keep the balance between concerns regarding individual rights and national security needs? Democrats or the President? I said "the President" along with 41% of pollees. Forty-eight percent trust Democrats more. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

Sneak Some Zucchini Onto Your Neighbor's Porch Night

August 8th is National Sneak Some Zucchini Onto Your Neighbor's Porch Night, according to allrecipes.com . The holiday was established by Pennsylvanian Tom Roy to encourage sharing of this prolific vegetable. Any hobby farmer or home gardener who has grown zucchini understands why this holiday was established.

The website http://allrecipes.com/HowTo/Sneak-Some-Zucchini-Onto-Your-Neighbors-Porch-Night/Detail.aspx?ARBMID=1174&ARFMTID=1 has a tongue-in-cheek list of unendorsed activities to engage in if you wish to celebrate this day.

By the way, allrecipes.com is an excellent website for food fans and cooking enthusiasts. Their email newsletter is an excellent source of food news and recipes. That's how I found out about this important food holiday.

Conversion on the Road to Des Moines: McCain Sponsors Border Security Only Bill

According to the Associated Press, Sen. McCain has converted. He is sponsoring new legislation that provides stronger border security without any path to citizenship for illegal aliens. The bill also includes "an electronic system for employers to check workers' citizenship status and requires illegal immigrants who commit a crime to be held in jail until they are deported."

Obviously, this is a political move on the part of Senator McCain. After years of sponsoring bills that included various amnesty schemes for illegals, no Republican should be fooled by McCain's sudden conversion on the road to Iowa's straw poll. Most anti-illegal immigration groups are dismissing it. I certainly hope no Iowa Republicans will switch their vote to McCain because of this.

However, as an opponent to illegal immigration, I urge all of us to get behind this bill. It contains the kind of provisions that are needed for our country to stop the invasion of illegal aliens. Yes, throw McCain overboard as far as his presidential aspirations, but keep this legislation.

More Global Warming Silliness: Chuck Those Neckties

Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, in 2005, asked his "ministers to wear no ties and jackets this coming summer, as it will help save energy." Recently, the European Union's Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy recommended that his fellow E.U. Commissioners chuck their neckties after he returned from a trip to Japan. He told them, "I noted in Japan that Prime Minister [Shinzo] Abe has given the lead in telling his ministers and civil servants not to wear ties in summertime. This allows office temperatures to be set higher and so cut down on energy use for cooling of offices." McCreevey added that taking this step would be "a potential contribution from the Commission to reduce global warming."

Many men I know would cheer this idea. Instead of just "casual Fridays," we should have "casual Monday through Friday." Chucking neckties will save the Earth. Who knew?

Garbage Dumping in Space

The Today Show had a news item this morning that the space station is "taking out the trash." That means they dump their garbage into space. One of the items mentioned was an ammonia tank.

Who do we think we are to be dumping our trash into space? Have we learned no respect for God's creation? Why would we not bring our space garbage back to earth for disposal? The space shuttle hauls equipment up to space. Why could it not bring the trash back?

Every once in awhile, I read reports from N.A.S.A. that they are concerned about space junk. Even small items can orbit for years and pose a hazard to our satellites and shuttles. Why then would the same agency allow garbage dumping in space?

In many national parks and forests, hikers and campers are expected to carry out their trash. Is it too much to expect the federal government to practice what it preaches? Environmentalists, where are you on this issue?

Denver Traffic Court Outrage Confirmed

On Saturday, June 30, 2007, I posted a blog about an incident of ethnic discrimination in Denver's Traffic Court. The report came via email. It claimed that a man's Anglo wife was told that "all non-English speaking persons with traffic violations would be taken care of first" because their interpreter "does not stay late." "They were also given payment terms" for their $35 fines for driving without a license or insurance, which were not offered to his wife who received a fine of $249 for speeding.

Besides what seemed to be unbelievable discrimination on the part of Denver's Traffic Court, there was another reason to be suspicious of the email's veracity. The email said this occurred on April 1, 2007. A check of a calendar showed this to be on a Sunday, when courts are not usually in session. I almost dismissed the email as an urban legend and sick April Fool's joke, except the email ended with the name and address of the man making the claim. That is rare in urban legend emails.

The address was the mailing address of a Denver country club. So, I decided to write a letter and send it via snail mail to verify the email. I promised to post the reply if one was received. Frankly, I didn't expect to receive one, but I did. Here it is, dated July 9, 2007, and it confirms the incident:

I received you (sic) letter over this past weekend and I thank you for your response.

Yes, the incident is true. I did, however, make a mistake on the date. The traffic court hearing was Thursday, March 29, 2007. I wrote the e mail on Sunday, April 1st. Thank your friend for catching the error in the date.

It is interesting that this letter I wrote has almost taken on a life of its own. I have received letters from individuals such as yours from all over the country.

This is a marvelous country and everyone is welcome. All that is asked is those coming to the United States do their respective parts as our ancestors did. Be accountable and responsible for your actions and participate by giving into the system that so graciously provides the freedoms we enjoy.

Best regards,
John DiNardo
14476 East Caley Ave
Aurora, CO 80016

So, there you have it. Blatant discrimination against native-born Americans is alive and well in the courts of Denver, Colorado. Are you as outraged as I am?

Solving the Illegal Immigration Problem: A Start

City by city, state by state, citizens are taking action to stop illegal immigration. They know that the solution is not any type of amnesty. Rather, we must make it untenable to remain in this country illegally. If we do this with consistency, those who are here illegally will decide to voluntarily return to their home countries.

How can we do this? Cities and states across this country are passing legislation that does things like:

• Allow police to check on legal status during routine stops and arrest those they find who are here illegally.
• Require legal status to register students in schools
• Require proof of legal status to apply or enroll in universities and colleges
• Check legal status at admission to hospitals. (Give service in true emergencies but notify law enforcement for arrest upon discharge.)
• Require proof of legal status before receiving any social services.
• Require legal status to receive any form of official identification, including driver's licenses.
• Refuse to grant city or state contracts to employers who do not do background checks that include proof of legal status of their employees.
• Establish laws that allow landlords to refuse to rent to illegal aliens.
• Require proof of legal status to buy a house, apply for a mortgage, buy insurance, or open bank accounts.
  

These are just some of the things that cities like Jacksonville and states like Florida can and should be doing. It should be done at the federal level, but until then, local entities can and should do it. Our immigration laws must be enforced. We must make it so difficult or impossible for illegal aliens to live here that they will choose to return or not come here in the first place.