No matter what your current opinion of Donald Trump is, it is my best guess that you will find this video fascinating!
Maybe Donald Trump should be taken more seriously? Interesting that this interview with Oprah was done 25 years ago. Has he changed his views?
Watch the video and you decide.
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim Brotherhood linked organization, today released the results of a six-state “Super Tuesday” poll of almost 2000 Muslim voters indicating that almost half of those voters (46 percent) support Hillary Clinton, followed by Bernie Sanders at 25 percent and 11 percent support for Donald Trump.
CAIR’s poll also showed that growing Islamophobia is the top issue for Muslim voters.
According to Discover the Networks:
The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT’s ideology — now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.
Nihad Awad
“American Muslim voters are worried about the unprecedented anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by presidential candidates and are going to the polls in increasing numbers at both the state and national levels to make their voices heard by the candidates,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
Awad publicly declared “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” during a March 1994 symposium at Barry University.
An exit poll of Muslim voters in Texas and Virginia indicated that Sanders narrowed Clinton’s lead in those states – 34 to 40 percent in Virginia and 29 to 37 percent in Texas.
In upcoming primary elections in California, Illinois, New York, and Florida Clinton’s lead over Sanders ranged from 22 percent (California) to 40 percent (New York).
The survey indicated that older Muslim voters – 65 percent of those 45 to 64 and 80 percent of those 65 and older – backed Clinton, while younger Muslim voters (18 to 24) supported Sanders (78 percent). In the 25 to 44 age group, support for Clinton and Sanders was more evenly distributed at 44 percent for Sanders and 56 percent for Clinton.
CAIR noted that Muslim support for Sanders may actually be higher because its poll surveyed more voters over the age of 45.
Nationwide, Islamophobia continued to rank as the most important issue of concern for all Muslim voters (24 percent), a partisan divide was evident with Muslim Democrats ranking Islamophobia highest (27 percent) and then the economy (19 percent), while Muslim Republicans ranked the economy (38 percent) highest followed by Islamophobia (14 percent).
Support for the Democratic and Republican Parties mostly remained constant from previous surveys with 67 percent of Muslim voters supporting the Democratic Party and 18 percent supporting the Republican Party. CAIR’s February 1 poll of Muslim voters showed 67 and 15 percent respectively voiced support for the Democratic and Republican Parties.
RELATED ARTICLE: Were Muslim Voters Behind Sanders’ Surprising Upset in Michigan?
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the March 8 primaries and caucuses, the U.S. Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each participating state’s voting-age population and industries. Statistics include:
Profiles are provided for the following states:
WASHINGTON, March 1, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the Hawaii caucuses on March 8and March 26, the Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of the state’s voting-age population and industries. Statistics include:
NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire/ — Happy Super Tuesday! As primary results start streaming in today, there is bound to be plenty of analyzing, spinning, and no small amount of arguing. Nine in 10 Americans (91%) feel political discussions today are angry and bad tempered, with nearly four in 10 adults (38%) describing them as extremely angry and bad tempered. What’s more, most Americans feel this tonality is on the rise:
And if Americans are right, we should expect to see this anger bubbling over into our daily lives as well: three-fourths of adults (76%) believe that the way American politicians treat one another influences how American citizens treat one another.
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,219 U.S. adults surveyed online between February 17 and 22, 2016. Full results of this study, including data tables, can be found here.
The majority of Americans (69%) have negative opinions of politicians they perceive as generally angry and bad tempered; 8% have positive feelings toward such candidates, while 20% feel neither positive nor negative toward them.
But where do the candidates stack up? When asked (in an open ended manner) which candidate’s campaign they believe has been the most angry and bad tempered thus far, over six in ten Americans (62%) point toDonald Trump; 11% choose Hillary Clinton, while 7% cite Ted Cruz.
On the other end of the spectrum, a 22% plurality points to Bernie Sanders as their top pick for the candidate whose campaign has been most civil or even tempered thus far; next up are Hillary Clinton (15%) and Ben Carson (14%).
Electing an outsider
“Outsider” has been something of a buzzword so far in this election cycle, and a separate Harris Poll, conducted in December, found that Americans have some varied – and even contradictory – points of view on the subject:
Americans are especially mixed when asked more directly about their feelings on electing a political outsider as the next President of the United States, with 37% in favor, 32% opposed and 8% unsure.
Presidential and Congressional ratings
Even as much of the country heads to the polls in order to narrow the field of White House contenders, President Obama and Congress still have a responsibility to the electorate and the electorate still has opinions about the respective jobs they’re doing. Four in ten Americans (41%) give President Obama positive ratings on his overall job performance, while 59% rate him negatively. This marks a four point drop from last month’s post State of the Union high (45%), but is also four points up from December ratings (37%). An identical 41% rate the President positively for his performance in relation to the economy.
Congressional ratings have seen some incremental growth in recent months (from 10% in November to 12% in December to 15% in January), but that trend sees a sharp reversal this month, with only 9% of Americans rating Congress positively.
Direction of the country
One-third of Americans (33%) believe things in the country are going in the right direction, up from 29% in December. In comparison to past election years, this attitude is on par with levels seen leading up to the 2012 Presidential (34% March 2012) and 2014 midterm (34% Feb 2014) elections. Millennials (43%) are far more likely to feel things are going in the right direction than their elders (32% Gen Xers, 28% Baby Boomers, 24% Matures).
To see other recent Harris Polls, visit us at TheHarrisPoll.com.
Want Harris Polls delivered direct to your inbox? Click here!
Methodology
This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between February 17 and 22, 2016 among 2,219 U.S. adults and between December 9 and 14, 2015 among 2,252 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, The Harris Poll avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Poll surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in our panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
The results of this Harris Poll may not be used in advertising, marketing or promotion without the prior written permission of The Harris Poll.
The Harris Poll® #17, March 1, 2016 By Larry Shannon-Missal, Managing Editor, The Harris Poll
About The Harris Poll®
Begun in 1963, The Harris Poll is one of the longest running surveys measuring public opinion in the U.S. and is highly regarded throughout the world. The nationally representative polls, conducted primarily online, measure the knowledge, opinions, behaviors and motivations of the general public. New and trended polls on a wide variety of subjects including politics, the economy, healthcare, foreign affairs, science and technology, sports and entertainment, and lifestyles are published weekly. For more information, or to see other recent polls, visit us at TheHarrisPoll.com.
Super Tuesday voters gave Donald Trump clear wins in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Virginia and Vermont. Senator Ted Cruz won in his home state of Texas and the neighboring state of Oklahoma. Senator Marco Rubio won in Minnesota.
Trump made a short statement at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida following the super Tuesday primary results:
I will say this, we have expanded the Republican party. When you look at what’s happened in South Carolina and you see the kind of numbers that we got in terms of extra people coming in. They came from the Democratic party… and they were never going to switch and they all switched. They were Independents. We’ve expanded the party. Look at the number of votes we had in that area as an example. Four years ago they had 390,000 or so votes. We doubled it. We’re almost 800,000. The Democrats went down.
There’s much less enthusiasm for the Democrats. I’m a unifier. I know people will find this hard to believe. Once we get this finished, I’m going to go after one person on the assumption she is allowed to run. I don’t know if she will be allowed to run. I don’t think Marco will be able to beat her. I think Ted will have a very hard time… I just tell you this, we are going to be a much finer party, a much — we’re going to be a unified party. We are going to be a much bigger you can see that happening. We’re going to be a much bigger party. our party is expanding.
All you have to do is take a look at the primary states where I’ve won. Much larger number. I think we’ll be more inclusive and more unified. I think we’ll be a much bigger party. I think we’re going to win in November.
It is clear that Donald Trump has energized the electorate, driving voters to the polls to support the Republican party in record numbers.
Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:
It is becoming clearer that on November 8th the battle will be between a Collectivist (either Hillary Clinton or Senator Bernie Sanders) and an Individualist, Donald J. Trump.
French historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) wrote, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
Let the people chose which path they will follow. Will they follow those who “bribe the people with their own money” or those who remain dedicated to preserving the Republic? That is the basic issue facing America today.
RELATED ARTICLES:
NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Pivit, the world’s largest real-time prediction market, announced today it has reached more than 4 million predictions made on its 2016 Political Marketplace, as the nation prepares for the Super Tuesday primary contests on March 1st. Pivit also commemorates another milestone today– marking more than 100,000 registered participants actively trading in the political markets during this election season.
“In this, the data election, our goal is to produce a categorical benchmark measure of real-time public consensus that answers the question most people want to know – ‘Who will win?’,” said Pivit co-founder Greg DePetris. “Using data science and professional risk-takers, we have combined the best polling and gambling market data, real-time news and now a community of 100,000 competing participants in the U.S. and around the world to build an incredible asset that helps us better understand the electorate. This benchmark index will only grow stronger, faster and more valuable as we head into the general election.”
“The markets are telling us a very different, very interesting story as the 2016 election cycle unfolds,” said John McNamara, Pivit co-founder. “We have seen the markets leading in both the primaries and other key events in the campaigns to date. Pivit continues to distinguish itself in providing the best real-time data in politics.”
Some additional takeaways from today’s announcement:
Pivit has listed markets for all of tomorrow’s Super Tuesday primary contests. Participants can register and continuously predict when election odds will change. Pivit tracks and reports real-time market odds to reflect the public consensus about each individual race and political outcome.
About Pivit
Pivit is a global interactive gaming platform that combines data science and news with crowd-based public opinion to produce changing real-time odds on the outcome of events. Founded in 2013 by the minds behind Intrade, Pivit seeks to engage millions of people worldwide in real-time prognosticating on the outcomes of political contests, sporting events and key events happening around the globe. Live odds will change every second as the public weighs in on the increasing or decreasing chance of an event to occur. Players compete for points, rewards and status as they properly forecast the outcomes of world events. For more information: http://www.pivit.io/ or join our partners for political markets at http://www.cnn.com/predict.
OAKLAND, Calif. /PRNewswire/ — As front-runners for the Democratic and Republican nominations will further emerge based on Super Tuesday results, Dictionary.com, the online and mobile resource dedicated to helping users master the art of language, today unveiled Your Candidate in a Word, a compelling look at the language favored by the current top presidential hopefuls. Based on analysis of the major presidential debates, one word has risen to the top for each nominee: systemic (Hillary Clinton), utterly(Ted Cruz), blue-collar (John Kasich), apocalyptic (Marco Rubio), handful (Bernie Sanders), and eminent(Donald Trump).
Through proprietary big data analysis from 15 main presidential debates, which took place between August 6, 2015 and February 13, 2016, Dictionary.com analyzed the language used by each candidate to identify the 20 words that were most statistically significant in each contender’s speech.
While a number of the candidates’ word representations relate to major issues and campaign platforms, such as Clinton on LGBT matters and Rubio on Guantanamo, just as many are adjectives that paint a clear picture of each candidate’s speaking style and vocabulary, including Sander’s frequent use of “perpetual” and Trump’s favor of the word “nasty.”
“Every idea and belief, down to the level of the individual words chosen, counts when it comes to candidates speaking to Americans on their plans for the country if they were to be elected,” said Liz McMillan, CEO, Dictionary.com. “These words shed light on the issues, policies, and rhetoric of individual candidates on an extremely granular level, ultimately giving us valuable insight on the people vying to be the next President of the United States.”
Below are the top 20 words or phrases favored by each candidate in Dictionary.com’s analysis:
Hillary Clinton
Ted Cruz
John Kasich
Marco Rubio
Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump
About Dictionary.com
Dictionary.com, an IAC (NASDAQ: IAC) company, is the world’s leading, definitive online and mobile resource dedicated to helping people master the art of language. We provide tens of millions of global monthly users with reliable access to millions of definitions, synonyms, audio pronunciations, example sentences, translations, and spelling help through our services at Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com. Our leading mobile applications for reference and education have been downloaded more than 100 million times.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Kelly Cox.
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the March 5 primaries and caucuses, the U.S. Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each participating state’s voting-age population and industries. Statistics include:
Profiles are provided for the following states:
Florida’s Governor wrote a very insightful and passionate op-ed for USA Today titled, “Donald Trump has America’s pulse.” The op-ed is not an endorsement. Rather it is the reflections of one political outsider on another political outsider. Governor Scott has been there and done that, so to speak. Governor Scott writes:
Political pundits are shocked that Donald Trump is leading in the polls. The same thing happened in 2010 when I entered the Florida gubernatorial race against the already anointed and establishment-endorsed sitting Republican attorney general. One establishment member even said to me, “How can you be governor? I don’t know you.”
I won the governor’s race in 2010 and many outsiders — some of them business people — continue to shock the political establishment by coming into elected office from careers outside of politics. Attorney Chris Christie was elected governor of New Jersey in 2009; manufacturer Ron Johnson was elected senator of Wisconsin in 2010; businessman Bruce Rauner won the governor’s race in Illinois in 2014; and businessman Matt Bevin won the governorship of Kentucky just a few months ago. Voters have been choosing new ideas and new energy over the old formula of sheer time served in political office.
I know Donald Trump personally, and while I currently have no plans to endorse a candidate before Florida’s March presidential primary, there is no doubt that Donald is a man who speaks and tweets his mind freely. But I don’t think his ability to give the most interesting interviews or speeches is the only thing that has him leading in the polls. I think he is capturing the frustration of many Americans after seven years of President Obama’s very intentional government takeover of the U.S. economy.
Click here to read the entire USA Today op-ed piece by Governor Rick Scott.
Governor Scott has focused his efforts on cutting taxes, job creation, cutting regulation and reducing the size of government. Governor Scott has also opposed bringing Syrian refugees to the Sunshine State.
Sound familiar? It should.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Ann Coulter writes:
Donald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care.
I wish he’d stop showing off, the little scamp, but maybe the GOP establishment will finally get the message that voters have been waiting a really long time for a candidate who would put Americans first. Not donors, not plutocrats, not foreigners, and certainly not foreign plutocrats (i.e., Fox News).
Trump is the first presidential candidate in 50 years who might conceivably: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) build a wall, (3) block Muslim immigration, (4) flout political correctness, (5) bring manufacturing home, and (6) end the GOP’s neurotic compulsion to start wars in some godforsaken part of the world.
That’s all that matters! Are you listening yet, RNC?
In my column “The Trump Insurgency” I noted:
If you Google the words “Trump” and “insurgency” you will get over 650,000 links to articles and commentary. I recently said to a friend that Donald Trump has gone from being a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President to the leader of a movement.
Can this movement be called an insurgency?
The definition of an insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.”
Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing insurgency that was already taking place? I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.
Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:
Donald Trump has tapped into the “Individualism Movement.” Trump’s life is the embodiment of the individualist. Trump has been rich, then poor and then rich again. He has done this not with government handouts, but rather despite the government.
It appears Ann and I agree. The GOPe is baffled, the people are not.
RELATED ARTICLES:
TREVOSE, Pa. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump should sweep Super Tuesday primaries, according to the Presidential Promo Polls on bumper sticker preferences released today by the Advertising Specialty Institute® (ASI).
With an eye on Tuesday’s primaries and how promotional products are used in elections, ASI asked residents in primary states this question: If you received a bumper sticker from each of the presidential candidates, which one would you be most willing to put on your car?
“We purposely chose to ask people about bumper stickers because it is an iconic election promotional product that’s also very personal,” said ASI Editorial Director Andy Cohen. “While you might accept and use a branded pen from a candidate you don’t necessarily support, no way would you put a bumper sticker on your car if you didn’t really endorse a candidate.”
In the lead-up to Super Tuesday, ASI released results from voter polls taken in nine, non-caucus states participating in primaries. More than 600 people from each state participated in each survey that was fielded among the Google Consumer Survey Network. All responses were collected between February 20-25.
In all nine states, voters ASI polled chose Trump and Sanders by wide margins.
When asked about the popularity, in particular, of the Vermont senator with Democrats, versus former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ASI’s Director of Market Research Nate Kucsma said, come Tuesday, voters ASI polled may end up voting with their heads instead of their hearts. “Although our poll tells us lots of people love Sanders enough to put his bumper sticker on their car, they may end up voting for Hillary because they think she has the best chance to win in November,” Kucsma said. “Whereas Republican voters truly believe that Trump, or whomever else they support, can win it all in November.”
Below are results from ASI’s Presidential Promo Poll:
Promo products, also known as swag, freebies and giveaways, are items like pens, T-shirts, caps, coffee mugs and high-tech electronics imprinted with a logo or slogan used by companies, schools and non-profits to advertise their brand and events and to thank employees and clients.
In 2012, ASI estimated total election-related promo product spending fueled by giveaways like bumper stickers, yard signs and candidate brochures hit $870 million.
About ASI
The Advertising Specialty Institute (ASI®) serves a network of 25,000 suppliers, distributors and decorators in the $22 billion promotional products industry.
LOS ANGELES, CA /PRNewswire/ — A new national survey from E-Poll Market Research measures perceptions of the current Presidential candidates among members of each political party along 46 personality and behavioral attributes. Among Democrats, results show Clinton and Sanders splitting the ballot on many attributes, with Clinton owning the traits most associated with statesmanship (Experienced, Influential and Confident) while Sanders wins on attributes associated with likeability (Sincere and Trustworthy).
Among Republicans, Trump is perceived as most Confident and Influential. Carson is the anti-Trump, perceived as the most Appealing, Intelligent, Sincere and Trustworthy. Rubio is noted as most Articulate, while Kasich is most Experienced. Cruz does not lead in any of the presidential attributes.
Evolving Perception of Clinton
Since her last presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton has increased her appeal, especially among women, and held very strong or grown in the presidential attributes including Experienced, Influential and Confident. Since 2008 she is considered less Sincere and Trustworthy by Democrats, and particularly male Democrats.
|
2016 Presidential Candidates: Perceptions Among Democrats |
||||||
|
FEMALE DEMOCRATS |
MALE DEMOCRATS |
|||||
|
Attribute |
Hillary Clinton |
Bernie Sanders |
Attribute |
Hillary Clinton |
Bernie Sanders |
|
|
E-Score |
82 |
87 |
E-Score |
82 |
87 |
|
|
Appeal |
64 |
63 |
Appeal |
51 |
66 |
|
|
Articulate |
44 |
34 |
Articulate |
26 |
49 |
|
|
Confident |
57 |
33 |
Confident |
36 |
36 |
|
|
Experienced |
54 |
43 |
Experienced |
49 |
48 |
|
|
Intelligent |
62 |
54 |
Intelligent |
43 |
52 |
|
|
Sincere |
18 |
42 |
Sincere |
13 |
38 |
|
|
Trustworthy |
17 |
30 |
Trustworthy |
8 |
41 |
|
|
Source: E-Score |
|
Perceptions of Hilary Clinton: Then and Now |
|||||||
|
FEMALE DEMOCRATS |
MALE DEMOCRATS |
||||||
|
Attribute |
2008 |
2016 |
Attribute |
2008 |
2016 |
||
|
E-Score |
75 |
82 |
E-Score |
75 |
82 |
||
|
Appeal |
55 |
64 |
Appeal |
49 |
51 |
||
|
Experienced |
54 |
54 |
Experienced |
49 |
49 |
||
|
Influential |
50 |
55 |
Influential |
55 |
30 |
||
|
Confident |
58 |
57 |
Confident |
53 |
36 |
||
|
Sincere |
24 |
18 |
Sincere |
21 |
13 |
||
|
Trustworthy |
23 |
17 |
Trustworthy |
21 |
8 |
||
|
Source: E-Score |
|
2016 Presidential Candidates: Perceptions Among Republicans |
|||||
|
Attribute |
Donald Trump |
Ben Carson |
Ted Cruz |
Marco Rubio |
John Kasich |
|
E-Score |
76 |
82 |
49 |
60 |
40 |
|
Appeal |
46 |
67 |
46 |
60 |
33 |
|
Articulate |
14 |
32 |
28 |
37 |
35 |
|
Confident |
45 |
35 |
43 |
43 |
35 |
|
Experienced |
36 |
36 |
27 |
28 |
44 |
|
Influential |
41 |
26 |
29 |
32 |
18 |
|
Intelligent |
38 |
68 |
49 |
56 |
48 |
|
Sincere |
9 |
42 |
20 |
22 |
24 |
|
Trustworthy |
10 |
34 |
22 |
31 |
26 |
|
Source: E-Score |
Methodology:
E-Score surveys conducted among 1,000 persons aged 18+with general representation across income, age, education and geographic demographics to represent a cross-section of the U.S. population. 2016 Surveys conducted February 5, 2016. 2008 Survey conducted June 9, 2008. All numerical figures except E-Score represent % of respondents.
About E-Score:
E-Score has been the leader in personality ratings for more than 15 years, and tracks public opinion on more than 9,000 entertainers, athletes, politicians and newsmakers. E-Score is a product of E-Poll Market Research, a full-service consumer research company. More information is available at www.epollresearch.com.
When Governor John Kasich said recently that he probably should be running in the Democrat Party, he wasn’t kidding. Although seeking office in Cuba might be even more fitting.
Taking a break from lecturing us on how we must accept amnesty, the presidential contender recently weighed in on the case of the Oregon bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a faux wedding. Mentioned briefly in Thursday’s GOP presidential debate, here are his comments, made on Monday at the University of Virginia:
I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them. But if you’re a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake. Let’s not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff — move on. The next thing, you know, they might be saying, if you’re divorced you shouldn’t get a cupcake.
Now, Kasich is a man who just loves the idea of moving on. After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision last June, he said that recognition of faux marriage was “the law of the land and we’ll abide by it” and that now “it’s time to move on.” It’s no wonder Republicans long ago move on from the idea of him as president.
Kasich managed to squeeze a remarkable number of misconceptions into his three sentences. First, while the cupcake lines may be cute to some and possess rhetorical flair, they’re nonsense. There’s not one Christian baker persecuted by governments recently who said he wouldn’t bake “cupcakes” or anything else for a given group; in fact, these businessmen have made clear that they serve homosexuals all the time. This isn’t about serving a certain type of people.
It’s about servicing a certain type of event.
Only someone who hasn’t bothered to ponder the matter deeply or who’s intellectually dishonest could miss this simple fact. And I’ll put it to you, Governor Kasich: can you cite any other time in American history when the government compelled a businessman to service an event he found morally objectionable? This is unprecedented. And is it really a road we want to go down?
If so, can the government compel a Jewish or black businessman to cater, respectively, a Nazi or KKK affair? How about a forcing a Muslim restaurateur to serve pork at an event for the National Pork Producers Council? Or is this another situation where government gets to pick winners and losers, this time in matters of conscience?
Of course, this is already happening, which brings us to Kasich’s divorcé cupcake eater. The proper analogy here doesn’t involve serving such a person because, again, the bakers in question serve homosexuals.
The proper analogy involves servicing an event celebrating a divorce.
Government wouldn’t even consider compelling participation in the above, or in events celebrating adultery, fornication, polygamy (yet) or auto-eroticism. So why the double standard? Well, homosexuals have very effective lobbying groups and millions of enablers — such as Cupcake Kasich.
Kasich‘s “churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them. But…” comment is also interesting. Our First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. For those who say this is only meant to restrain the central government’s legislature (and I’m sympathetic to this view), note that the constitution of Kasich’s own state dictates that no “interference with the rights of conscience be permitted.” And since he was commenting on a case involving Oregon residents, consider that the Beaver State’s constitution likewise reads, “No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”
Now, “exercise” is action; thus, at issue here isn’t just the freedom of religious belief, but of acting on that belief. Of course, there are limits in that we don’t allow practices such as human sacrifice. But anything considered legitimate action under these constitutions is allowed in churches. And here’s the point: none of these constitutions limit this free exercise to church property.
Thus, any type of exercise allowable in church is allowable outside of it.
So for this reason alone, the action against the Oregon bakers was unconstitutional. Since a person can refuse to be party to a faux wedding within a church, he can also refuse to be party to a faux wedding outside of it.
Interestingly, Kasich and others seem to be espousing a kind of “dual truth” philosophy, which I understand is part of Islamic theology. This basically states what what’s “religiously true” may not be true beyond the religious realm (whatever that’s supposed to be). But a moral issue doesn’t cease to be a moral issue because it moves down the block.
The action against the bakers is unconstitutional for another reason. Perhaps invariably, part of creating a wedding cake is placing a written message on it; in the case of faux weddings, this message would relate to faux marriage. Even two male figurines placed on top of the cake relate a message; note here that the courts have rule that symbolic speech is covered under the First Amendment. And where does the government have the constitutional power to compel people to be party to a message they find morally objectionable? Forced speech is not free speech.
Of course, none of this would be an issue if we accepted a principle even many conservatives today reject: freedom of association. Think about it: you have a right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you please, for any reason whatsoever, whether it’s because the person is a smoker, non-smoker, black, white, Catholic, Protestant, or because you simply don’t like his face.
Why should you lose this right merely because you erect a few more tables and sell food?
Or because you bake cakes, take pictures, plan weddings or conduct some other kind of commerce?
It’s still your property, paid for with your own money and created by the sweat of your own brow. Is a man’s home not his castle?
Of course, this all goes back to a Supreme Court ruling stating that private businesses can be viewed as “public accommodations,” which was a huge step toward the Marxist standard disallowing private property. And it has led to endless litigation, with the Boy Scouts sued by homosexuals, atheists and a girl (who wanted to be a “boy” scout); the PGA Tour sued by a handicapped golfer who wanted a dispensation from the rules; Abercrombie & Fitch sued by a Muslim woman who wanted to wear her hijab on the job; and Barnes & Noble sued by a male employee who claimed he suddenly was a female employee, just to name a few cases. It has also led, now, to some Americans being confronted with a Hobson’s choice: cast the exercise of your faith to the winds and bow before the government’s agenda, or kiss making a living goodbye.
Is all of this worth it just to stop less than one percent of the population from discriminating in unfashionable ways? And remember, freedom of association is like any other freedom: it’s only the unpopular exercise of it that needs protection. As for popular exercise, its popularity is usually protection enough.
As for Kasich’s desire for popularity, it’s pretty hard to achieve when your implied campaign slogan is “A chicken-hearted politician in every office and a coerced cupcake in every cupboard.”
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Super Tuesday, the biggest primary day of the election cycle, is around the corner. On March 1, 15 states will go to the polls to choose who they want to see on the November ballot. And after the primaries and caucuses that have already happened this year, it’s clear that every vote counts.
Learn if your state has primaries or caucuses and check out USAGov’s reasons to get involved:
Stay up-to-date with VoteUSA, USAGov’s yearlong effort to help Americans become more informed about the 2016 election. VoteUSA will also host regular Facebook Q&A sessions and Twitter events, as well as virtual office hours to answer your questions live. Don’t miss our Facebook Q&A on February 29 at 8:00 PM ET. Join the conversation using #VoteUSA or by following USAGov on Facebook and Twitter.
ABOUT USAGOV
USAGov is a federal program that guides you to tips and tools in English and in Spanish from hundreds of government agencies, departments, and programs. We make it easier for you to find answers you can trust about government information and services–online, by phone, e-mail or chat, and in print.