Voters oppose Biden pipeline order. 60% expect energy prices to rise.

By Rubashov

On his first day in the White House, President Joe Biden signed an executive order blocking further construction on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Rasmussen polling organization reports that most voters disagree with Biden’s decision.

According to Rasmussen, only 36 percent of Likely U.S. Voters think it is a good idea to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport oil from Canada to the United States. 51 percent say canceling the pipeline is a bad idea, and 13 percent are not sure.

60 percent of voters expect energy prices to increase because of President Biden’s energy policies. Only 8 percent think Biden’s energy policies will lead to lower prices, while 25 percent expect prices to stay about the same.

77 percent of Republican voters oppose Biden’s Keystone XL Pipeline decision, but so do 20 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Expectations that President Biden’s energy policies will lead to higher energy prices are broadly shared, with 83 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of unaffiliated voters and even 37 percent of Democrats saying they expect to pay more because of Biden. Only 10 percent of Democrats expect Biden’s policies will lead to lower energy prices.

New Jersey residents face a double threat, with the administration of Governor Phil Murphy pushing a Wall Street backed $100 billion Energy Master Plan that will raise costs across the state. The Murphy energy plan pushes a new taxpayer-subsidized, government-mandated solar program like the one pushed on the residents of Sussex, Morris, and Somerset Counties a few years ago – the program that became known, infamously, as “the solar scam”.

The solar scam left taxpayers on the hook for millions, while generating lucrative fees for politically-connected law firms, government vendors, and Wall Street bankers. The taxpayers got nothing but the bill. The children and grandchildren of the taxpayers who were promised the benefits of this solar program will be paying for its corrupt broken promises.

We are concerned that the same kind of scam is going on now – only on a vastly larger and ultimately more disastrous scale – with Governor Murphy’s energy plan. Like the scam that so damaged the fiscal stability of northwest New Jersey, the first sign that something is up (something that they don’t want you to see, let alone comment on) is the lack of transparency.

According to Ron Morano, Executive Director of Affordable Energy New Jersey, the Murphy administration’s failure to provide transparency has revealed Murphy’s own concerns about his plan. In a backhanded compliment, aimed at administration officials who clearly recognize the flaws in Murphy’s plan, in December, Morano wrote:

“We applaud state government officials for finally recognizing that releasing the details of their $100 billion green fantasy will show that it is far too expensive for New Jersey taxpayers to stomach.”

“The fact is, when times were good before the COVID pandemic, the state failed to release this information for the public to see the true costs of Phil Murphy’s Energy plan. Now they are attempting to use the pandemic to distract from the fact that they continue to keep the public in the dark about their flawed plans.

While the Murphy Administration says they need to go back to the drawing board before releasing any analysis of costs, the fact is they need to go back to the drawing board on Phil Murphy’s Energy Plan itself.”

In response to Murphy’s lack of transparency, Affordable Energy for New Jersey submitted an OPRA request to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, asking for a copy of a report outlining the cost of NJ’s energy goals. Murphy has repeatedly delayed the release of this analysis, which details what the state’s energy policies will cost consumers and businesses to transition to a clean-energy economy.

AENJ's own analysis has totaled just the electrification costs at a minimum of $65 billion. This is only a portion of what is calculable, as the state refused to release additional cost analyses. The overall total is significantly higher.

Government works better when it is open and transparent. That’s not only our opinion – it is the opinion of the civilized world. Governments around the globe have signed-up to the United Nation’s Open Government Partnership. So, why is New Jersey under Phil Murphy lagging behind? Why isn’t New Jersey living up to international standards and universally recognized norms?

On transparency and open government, New Jersey needs to pull itself out of the gutter and up to the level of international norms. The Legislature, the Counties, and local governments should demand a financial impact statement from the Murphy administration. Make Murphy detail how his Energy Master Plan will affect the lives of the state’s residents, as they struggle through a pandemic – the government reactions to which have left people without the means to afford basics like health care.

“A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.”

— President James Madison

N.B. We welcome a conversation on this and all topics raised on this website. Jersey Conservative is entirely open to your ideas and opinions. To submit a column for publication, please contact Marianna at Marianna@JerseyConservative.org.

Poll: Democrats in denial on illegal immigration

A new Rasmussen poll just out shows voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats care enough to stop it.  Data also shows that voters are willing to consider cutting foreign aid as a means to stop the flow of illegals into the United States.

Rasmussen reports that 67 percent of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47 percent who say it’s a Very Serious one. 32 percent say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only 8 percent who rate it as Not At All Serious.

That’s 47 percent to 8 percent in terms of voter intensity.  Here are the toplines…

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted April 2-3, 2019
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How serious a problem is illegal immigration in America today? 

47% Very serious
20% Somewhat serious
24% Not very serious
8% Not at all serious
1% Not sure

2* Do most Democrats in Congress want to slow or stop illegal immigration?

31% Yes
45% No
24% Not sure

3* Do most Republicans in Congress want to slow or stop illegal immigration?

70% Yes
14% No
16% Not sure

4* Should the United States halt foreign aid to Mexico and governments in Central America that refuse to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country?

48% Yes
37% No
14% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

New Jersey Democrats continue to kid themselves into believing their tired mantra that “New Jersey is different” – in the process ignoring the fact that nobody is running in “New Jersey” this year.  That’s New Jersey… as in the whole state.  The electoral battles this year are being fought in little pieces of New Jersey – pieces that in no way reflect the state as a whole. 

Take one of those statewide polls the Establishment is so fond of pointing to and then pull out Montclair, Newark, Paterson, Hoboken, Jersey City, Trenton, Camden, and most of the Abbott Districts… and then tell us what Phil “Sanctuary State” Murphy’s numbers look like.  Because none of those places are in contention this year.  Not a damned one of those votes matter.

Of particular concern to the Goldman-Sucks wing of the Democrat Party, is data that shows the $30,000 to $50,000 income group is most concerned about illegal immigration, with 73 percent saying illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today – 51 percent who say it’s a Very Serious one. Just 25 percent say it’s not a serious problem – that includes only 6 percent who rate it as Not At All Serious.

70 percent of the working poor (earning under $30,000); 65 percent of those earning $50,000 to $100,000; and 59 percent of those earning $100,000 to $200,000 say illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today.  Even economic elites (those pocketing over $200,000) say illegal immigration is a serious problem, albeit by margins of 60% to 40%.  39 percent of these say it is a “very serious” problem, with 11 percent saying it is “not at all serious”.

The Democrats’ former blue-collar base appears to understand market economics and the policy of using illegal wage-slaves in the gray economy to undercut the public relations gimmick of raising the minimum wage.  Every duplicitous Democrat on the ballot needs to have this cranked up their bunghole.

Stand against the gray economy and the exploitation of undocumented immigrants… stand with organized labor. 

Voters want strong borders/ Just 10% affected by shutdown

Two fresh national polls provide an insight into the border wall/ government shutdown “crisis” being reported by the media.  On Monday, Rasmussen Reports released a national survey that found 53 percent of Likely U.S. voters think it is better for the United States to tightly control who comes into the country.  39 percent disagreed and say it is better to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal.

According to Rasmussen:  “Most voters continue to favor strongly controlled borders and reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s charge that it is immoral for the United States to build a border wall.”  The survey was conducted on January 10 and 13, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports.  The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

Today, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a national survey that finds just 10 percent of Likely U.S. Voters say they have been personally affected by the shutdown in a major way.  Another 35 percent say that in terms of their own personal life, they have felt a minor impact, while 54 percent say the shutdown has had no impact at all on them.

According to Rasmussen:  “Voters don’t care too much for the federal government, and the number who say they have been badly hurt by the continuing government shutdown remains small.”  This survey was conducted on January 14-15, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports.  The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

For more information, visit www.rasmussenreports.com

Rasmussen: 56% See Media Witch Hunt of Public Figures Accused of Sexual Wrongdoing

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey finds that just 28% of Likely U.S. Voters say, when a public figure is accused of sexual wrongdoing, it is more likely that the media will regard him as innocent until proven guilty. Fifty-six percent (56%) believe it’s more likely the media will regard the public figure as guilty until proven innocent. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.

There is little disagreement on this question between men and women. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of men think it’s more likely the media will regard a public figure accused of sexual wrongdoing as guilty until proven innocent, a view shared by 54% of women.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is accused of attempting to sexually assault a girl when he was in high school, but only 33% of all voters believe the California woman who made those allegations. Slightly more (38%) believe Kavanaugh, who has denied those claims.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on September 19-20, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

Most Republicans (74%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (55%) think the media is more likely to regard a public figure accused of sexual wrongdoing as guilty until proven innocent. Democrats are evenly divided on this question.

Eighty percent (80%) of voters who Strongly Approve of the job President Trump is doing think the media is more likely to regard him as guilty until proven innocent. A plurality (43%) of voters who Strongly Disapprove of Trump’s job performance think the media is more likely to regard that person as innocent until proven guilty.

Voters who view media coverage of the Kavanaugh nomination positively are more likely to believe the media will give public figures accused of sexual wrongdoing a fair shake. Most voters who rate the Kavanaugh coverage as poor disagree.  

The wording of the question is here…

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted September 19-20, 2018
By Rasmussen Reports

1* When a public figure is accused of sexual wrongdoing, which is more likely – that the media will regard him as innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Voters don’t buy media hysteria over Manafort & Cohen

Two important polls are out this week from Rasmussen. 

One, released today, notes that voters still think the highly publicized cases of Trump associates Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen will not cause criminal problems for President Donald Trump.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the conviction of Manafort and the guilty pleas of Cohen are likely to lead to criminal charges against Trump. Fifty percent (50%) consider that unlikely. This includes 20% who say it’s Very Likely and 24% who see it as Not At All Likely. The question wording is below:

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted August 22-23, 2018
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed recent news reports about the criminal cases of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen – very closely, somewhat closely, not very closely or not at all?

2* How likely is it that that the conviction of Paul Manafort and the guilty pleas of Michael Cohen will lead to criminal charges against President Trump – very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Another poll, also release today, reports most voters agree with President Trump that America should come first on the world stage but don't think the Democrat Party's next presidential nominee is likely to follow that path.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, when thinking about problems in the world, 52% of Likely U.S. Voters are more interesting in finding a solution that most benefits the United States. Forty-one percent (41%) would rather find a solution that is better for the whole world.

For more information, visit Rasmussen Reports at www.rasmussenreports.com.

Rasmussen Reports invites you to be a part of our first-ever Citizen-Sourced National Midterm Election Polling Project. Learn more about how you can contribute.

Rasmussen poll: Voters Don’t Like ‘Antifa’ Protesters.

Memo to Cory Booker, Bob Menendez, Phil Murphy, Madame de La Murphy, Mikie Sherrill, Tommy Malinowski, and Andy Kim… all that hanging with the Linda Sarsour crowd and the bourgeois suburban offspring who make-up Antifa ‘aint helping your image. 

Rasmussen polling reported today that most normal people think Antifa is right up there with dogshit… and their numbers have got worse since September 2017. 

Rasmussen reports:  “Voters are even more critical of the so-called “antifa” protesters who surfaced again this past weekend in Charlottesville and Washington, DC and continue to think they’re chiefly interested in causing trouble.”

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 18% of Likely U.S. Voters share a favorable opinion of the Antifa protesters, with six percent (6%) who view them Very Favorably.  That compares to 24% and eight percent (8%) respectively last September.

Fifty-four percent (54%) have an unfavorable opinion of these protesters, including 39% with a Very Unfavorable one.  Twenty-eight percent (28%) are undecided.  See the survey question wording below:

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted August 14-15, 2018
By Rasmussen Reports

1* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of the so-called “antifa” protestors?

2* Which is closer to your point of view – The antifa protestors are primarily a valid protest movement representing the concerns of many Americans, or the antifa protestors are primarily troublemakers looking to cause a public disturbance?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

You can access more from Rasmussen here:  www.rasmussenreports.com

Rasmussen Reports invites you to be a part of our first-ever Citizen-Sourced National Midterm Election Polling Project. Learn more about how you can contribute

Rasmussen Poll: 67% say NO to the NFL

Americans appear to have had enough.  A new poll by Rasmussen shows 67 percent of Americans in opposition to tax breaks for NFL teams and their owners. 

Rasmussen polled this question nationally: "Do you favor or oppose giving tax breaks to NFL teams?"

In response, 67 percent answered "NO", just 18 percent answered "YES", with 15 percent undecided or not sure.  More women opposed tax breaks than men: 68% NO, 13% YES, 19% Not Sure. 

Non-white/non-African-American voters were strongest in opposition.  They answered 70% NO, 16% YES, 14% Not Sure.  African-Americans were strongly opposed however: 62%, 22%, 16%. 

BLM.jpg

There was very little difference between the parties, with Republicans and Democrats in opposition to tax breaks at 71% and 69%, respectively. 

Ann Pompelio knee to resist hate.2 (1).jpg
trish_hat_cropped.jpg

Looks like the wheels are coming off all those efforts by rich, suburban, pseudo-leftists -- who have troubled so many of our public spaces with their attempts at becoming local B-list celebrities.  Your attempt at making a fashion statement has suffered a backlash.  Congratulations!

Jennifer Hamilton Black Lives Matter.jpg

Do NJ Senate Dems think America is worse than Iran?

Yesterday, Senate Democrats in New Jersey voted to "strongly condemn" President Donald Trump's executive orders on immigration.  Democrats made up every one of the 22 votes (they needed 21) to pass SCR-143 and Republican Jennifer Beck (who EVERY Tea Partier was calling a "conservative" last year) joined them in voting for SCR-134.  Taken together, the Senate resolutions served as "symbolic acts of resistance" to President Trump's efforts to secure the borders of the United States from terrorism. 

Some would call it a "fashion statement" or an act of "virtue signaling."  Wikipedia defines virtue signaling as "the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily to enhance their standing within a social group.”  The term was first used in signaling theory "to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue – especially piety among the religious faithful" and has become more commonly used "as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as the platitudinous, empty, or superficial support of socially progressive views on social media."

SCR-143 specifically condemns the federal government's efforts to secure America's porous southern border against terrorism, human trafficking, and heroin.  The Senators who voted for this must be keeping their fingers crossed that no act of terrorism gets through that border between now and November.

Yes, we understand that many liberals don't like the "feel" of a border wall and look on it as an "extreme" measure.  But in the fight against the modern misery of slavery -- which is what "human trafficking" is a polite phrase for --is it any less "extreme" than the Royal Navy's measure of blasting slave ships out of the water?  If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that for the abolition of slavery (which continues to elude us 152 years after the end of the civil war we fought to abolish it) in all its forms to be won, it will be done so piece by piece, and only through the application of "extreme" measures.

SCR-134 directs taxpayer-funded units of government (specifically school districts, along with colleges and universities) to violate federal law and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities -- as if no terrorism suspect has ever held a student visa.  Actually, when you think about this little piece of anarchy it is kind of interesting -- especially for the precedent it sets for disobeying federal authority and federal law enforcement.  Perhaps years hence, when some latter day George Corley Wallace references it and a hundred other similar precedents for defying the federal government, we will know the harvest of what we are today sowing. 

These Democrats are trapped in the bubble of their own perspective.  A frequent situation these days that affects not just Democrats. 

A Rasmussen poll released today shows us that the more Democrat, liberal, and rich you are, the more likely you are to believe that America treats its Muslims worse than Christians living in Muslim nations are treated.  Yep, no kidding.

Everybody but the New Jersey Senate Democrats and their like understand that practicing a Christian faith in a Muslim dominated nation is an often daunting and frequently dangerous, even fatal vocation.  Many of these countries are theocratic states, which places various forms of Christian expression (not to mention Jewish) in direct conflict with the law.  And by "everybody" we are of course referring to the written work of such "far-right" sources as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Guardian newspaper.

As Rasmussen reports:  "Most voters agree that Christians living in Muslim-majority countries are mistreated for their religion.  But Democrats are more likely to think Muslims are mistreated in America than to think Christians are persecuted in the Islamic world."

Rasmussen finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters believe most Christians living in the Islamic world are treated unfairly because of their religion.   Just 17% disagree, while 21% more are undecided. The poll was conducted February 2-5, 2017.

And while 47% of Democrats think most Christians are mistreated in the Islamic world, 56% of Democrats believe most Muslims in America are mistreated.  For those who identify themselves as "liberal" those numbers are 45% and 60%, respectively.

And the richer you are, the more you believe this crap.  Only 12% of those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 say that Christians are not mistreated in the Islamic world, which rises with each income group, until we reach 23% among those earning more than $200,000.  As for Muslims being mistreated in America it rises from 39% to 49%, respectively.

The New Jersey Senate Democrats are very much captives of the perspective of their donor class.  Not their voters, their donors.

81% believe government is corrupt

Fresh polling today adds to the mounting data that voters are turned-off on government, politicians, and our post-democratic process in general.  Rasmussen reported today that a new survey shows that 81 percent of likely voters in the United States describe the federal government as "corrupt," with 33 percent describing it as "very corrupt."  Just 16 percent disagree, including the 2 percent (yes, only 2 percent) who describe government as "not at all corrupt."  Here is the survey question:

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted January 28 and 31, 2016
By Rasmussen Reports

Would you describe the federal government today as very corrupt, somewhat corrupt, not very corrupt or not at all corrupt?

33% Very corrupt
48% Somewhat corrupt
14% Not very corrupt
  2% Not at all corrupt
  3% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Now pay attention to these numbers:  Women view government as "corrupt" more than men (84 percent to 79 percent), as do young voters more than seniors (81 percent to 75 percent).

89 percent of Republicans, 85 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Democrats view government as "corrupt."  75 percent of black voters view government as "corrupt."

69 percent of voters believe "most government contracts are awarded to the company with the most political connections" rather than one that can "provide the best service for the best price." 

Do most government contracts get awarded to the company that can provide the best service for the best price or to the company with the most political connections?

21% Awarded to the company that can provide the best service for the best price
69% Awarded to the company with the most political connections

11% Not sure

To understand why voters feel the way they do, you need only look at what is going to take place tomorrow in the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee. 

While Democrats like Assembly Speaker Vinnie Prieto (D-Sacco) are promising to make New Jersey's historically high child poverty the Legislature's top concern, critters like Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Norcross) have pushed poor children aside in favor of the top issue of the swingers' lobby -- women with penises.  You know how it is, poor children can't afford a lobbyist.  Rich and influential sexual swingers can buy whatever strikes their fancy.

The swingers want to see legislation (S-283) passed so that a man, with a penis, can become a legal "woman", simply by saying that he is seeing a therapist and then re-submitting his birth certificate to reflect his "new sex".  No surgery required. 

And it won't be recorded as an "amended" birth certificate.  It will be filed as the original.  The government will pretend that it can go back in time to correct the "perception" of the doctors and nurses who saw a child with a penis and checked "male".  The government will, in fact, lie and pretend that the attending physician checked "female" when, of course, he did not.    

On Thursday, February 4, 2016, the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will be holding a hearing on S-283.   The public hearing will be held at 11AM in Committee Room 4, on the First Floor of the State House Annex in Trenton, New Jersey.

Senator Joseph Vitale (D-McGreevey), a man with no medical or psychological training and therefore totally unqualified to preside over this subject matter, is chairman of the committee.  Both he and Senator Sweeney, another of our elected "leaders" who managed to make it through the twelfth grade, will no doubt give excuses for why they support S-283.  But as they do, think of how much money the swingers' lobby has stuffed down their trousers.

Polling: Politicians govern without our consent

You might have heard that the electorate is angry this year... but angry about what?  Well, it seems that it is beginning to dawn on voters that they don't matter and that politicians govern without their consent. 

First, take the Princeton University study released in April 2014 that confirmed what many suspected already...

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

To understand this better, take a look at the resumes of the folks who run the party organizations in New Jersey.  It will quickly become clear that party politics in New Jersey isn't an altruistic or even an ideological occupation -- it is a business venture controlled by people who serve as conduits between those who seek to influence government and the elected officials who exercise power over government.  Lots of money changes hands in direct payments to the conduits who, as party leaders, exercise power over elected officials who want to stay elected; and in contributions made directly to candidates or political committees.

Read these headlines and weep:

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

New Princeton Study Confirms US Is No Longer A Democracy

Princeton makes it official — USA Has Become Oligarchy

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic

US is No Longer a Democracy – Princeton Study

How the US Became an Oligarchy - Truthout

Princeton study: US is no longer a democracy

Now new polling from Rasmussen suggests that voters are beginning to understand this, with just 12 percent of Republicans, 20 percent of Independents, and 30 percent of Democrats believing that "the federal government has the consent of the governed."  Black voters are less likely than white voters to believe that they are governed with their consent.

Voters also question the election process itself, with just 24 percent of black voters, 44 percent of white voters, and 40 percent of other minority voters believing it to be "fair."

Only 27 percent of voters now believe that "the government does the right thing almost always or most of the time."  67 percent of all voters describe themselves as "angry" towards the current policies of their government.

It is no wonder that groups like RepresentUS are growing by leaps and bounds:

Poll: Voters Support Trumps' Muslim Ban

How tone-deaf is the American political establishment?

If his candidacy does nothing else, it will vividly illustrate for the public just how cowed by establishment opinion the Republican Party has become.  It seems that Mr. Trump has once again, albeit clumsily, said what was on everyone's mind but nobody dared say.

Rasmussen released a poll today of 1,000 likely voters.  The poll was conducted on Tuesday evening and through Wednesday of this week (December 8-9, 2015).  It asked this question: "Do you favor or oppose a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?"

Rasmussen's polling memo states: "Despite an international uproar and condemnation by President Obama and nearly all of those running for the presidency, Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims coming to the United States has the support of a sizable majority of Republicans – and a plurality of all voters.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 66% of Likely Republican Voters favor a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Just 24% oppose the plan, with 10% undecided.

Among all voters, 46% favor a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, while 40% are opposed. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided."

The poll also found that "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters believe it is too easy for foreigners to legally enter the United States. Only 10% believe it is too hard, while 23% say the level of difficulty is about right."

And get this...

Back in April 1980, then President Jimmy Carter issued a blanket ban on visas from Iran, in an effort to secure America's borders from Islamic terrorists.  The Washington Post reported (April 9, 1980):

Iranians holding visas to enter the United States were turned away from planes at London airports yesterday, following President Carter's latest crackdown in response to the hostage crisis...

Carter announced Monday he was canceling all visas issued to Iranians for entry into the United States and warned that they would be revalidated only for "compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest requires."

...Since the 50 American hostages were seized Nov. 4, more than 14,000 Iranians have been admitted to the United States -- about half of them religious minorities who fear persecution under the regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, officials have said. About 14,700 Iranians have left the United States in the same period, according to figures from the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

More than 200 students have left the country since their visas were found invalid last fall.

Some 2,500 more have been ordered out and 7,700 face deportation hearings, an INS spokesman said.

State Department spokesman Hodding Carter said in a separate briefing that the administration would take a close look at Iranian students trying to renew visas, with the view that "we're not interested in prolonging essentially frivolous stays in the United States."

While the administration's public posture has been a hard line against Iranian visa holders, its unstated policy has aimed at trying to help the religious minorities who have fled Iran, several officials said.

So shouldn't former President Carter have some sympathy with Trump's position?   

Recent Polling: Support for Gun Rights Surges

For better or worse, the New Jersey system of having three legislators from two different chambers is what we have to work with.  And because resources are scarce, legislators tend to run as teams each election cycle.  That can complicate candidates' chances especially when they don't match up with their team mates.

A case in point is Legislative District 16, where conservative Assemblywoman Donna Simon was defeated for re-election by 70 votes -- simply because Republican turnout was anemic. District 16 would be a dream district for Republicans in most states, where the GOP has captured and held solidly Democrat, union-dominated, and gritty urban districts by generating a high turnout among Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-Life, and Traditional Values conservatives.  A solo Donna Simon would have crushed a far-left candidate like Andrew Zwicker, who would be an anomaly in most of America.

This will be a problem again in 2017, when consultants and strategists get down to fashioning a campaign plan into which 3 different candidates can fit.  They often have to knock all the hard edges off some candidates to make them match the smoothest of their running mates -- but what they are often left with fails to motivate Republican issue voters.

That's a pity, because support for core Republican issues is hardening.  Take the gun issue as an example.  Fresh data from the Rasmussen Polling organization finds that 75% of likely voters in America now say the right to bear arms is important, with 54% who say it is "Very important."  That up from 68% who said it was important three years ago, including 49% who said it was "Very important."

And for those NJ GOP aficionados who still believe that they can get through a contested primary being on the wrong side of this issue, check this out:  76% of Republicans believe the "Right to Bear Arms" is "Very important" -- with another 18% thinking it "Somewhat important."  Independents break 63% (Very Important) to 19% (Somewhat important).  Even a majority of Democrats believe that the "Right to Bear Arms" is important -- 26% (Very important) and 25% (Somewhat important).

68% of voters say they would feel safer living in a neighborhood where they can own a gun rather than one where no one could have a gun for their own protection.  This breaks out for Republicans as 81% (own guns) to 16% (no guns), Independents 71% (own guns) to 14% (no guns), and Democrats 53% (own guns) to 37% (no guns).

A New York Daily News/Rasmussen poll released yesterday finds that 61% of American Adults agree with the statement, "The NRA supports gun policies that make all Americans safer." This includes 35% who Strongly Agree.  In  the same poll, by 51% to 38% Americans say that "more gun control is more likely to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase a gun rather than keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with mental illness and suspected terrorists."

And despite the efforts of Democrat critters like Vinnie Prieto and Steve Sweeney, 69% of likely voters believe the shooting incident in California last week is a terrorism issue, vs. 20% who think it a gun issue.  GOP PRIMARY WARNING:  Among GOP voters those numbers are 86% to 7%.

Political Correctness goes down big too.  83% of Americans say it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech than it is to make sure nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures.  Similarly, 82% think it is more important to give people the right to free speech than it is to make sure no one is offended by what others say.  71% of Americans see political correctness as "a problem" -- for Republicans that rises to 85%, Independents are a strong 74%, and even Democrats post a healthy 58% who believe that P.C. is a problem.

Use the data and begin now to fashion bold campaigns for 2017. 

Rasmussen: 77% believe Syrians pose risk

Democrat President Barack Obama has a plan to resettle thousands of Syrian immigrants in the United States.  Republican Governor Chris Christie opposes it.  So do many other Republican Governors.  But Democrat Speaker Vincent Prieto supports Obama's resettlement plan and Republican Leader Jon Bramnick says it is too soon to say one way or the other. 

The Rasmussen Polling organization conducted a survey of 1,000 likely voters on this subject.  The survey was conducted November 17-18, 2015.  The results indicate that there is a high level of concern among American voters, with 77% reporting that they are very or somewhat concerned when asked the question:  How concerned are you that giving thousands of Syrians asylum poses a national security risk to the United States? 

52% reported that they were very concerned, 25% somewhat concerned, 14% not very concerned, 7% not at all concerned, 2% not sure.  Women are more concerned than men:  53% to 52% very concerned and 5% to 9% not at all concerned.

Along ethnic lines concerned vs. unconcerned breaks down this way:  80% to 19% for white voters, 74% to 19% for black voters, and 70% to 28% for other voters.

Along party lines concerned vs. unconcerned breaks down accordingly: 93% to 6% for Republicans, 64% to 33% for Democrats, 77% to 21% for Independents.

Poor and working class Americans are more concerned, with the very rich being the least concerned.  Those earning under $30,000 expressed the most concern, at 80% to 19%; with those earning over $200,000 at 74% to 18%.

For more information, visit Rasmussen at www.rasmussenreports.com/

These figures could change should ISIS and the other arms of Islamic terrorism decide to change tactics (as the IRA did in the 1990's), but there is presently no indication that they will.  In the meantime, ISIS seems as determined to rid the Middle East of Western influence as the Rutgers SuperPAC appears determined to rid the Legislature of Republican influence.

It looks as though our political landscape will continue to be moved by the threats posed by unsecured borders, the resettlement of people from frontline zones in the war on terror, and by government policy that makes it extraordinarily difficult to enter American legally but easy to enter and stay illegally.  We live in interesting times that will complicate the lives of legislators.