Tuesday, July 26, 2011


http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way

(Note: Updates to this post here: The Norwegian Government - Covering Up Immigrant Rapes and here: Rapes: Nothing to do with Islam?)

Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city:

Thomas Anderberg, responsible for statistics at the Malmö Police, says there was a doubling of the number of reported rapes by ambush in 2004, following what was already a decade of steadily increasing numbers of sexual crimes. - I think that’s great news, says Anna Gustafsson, head of the Domestic Violence Unit at the Malmö Police. She suggests that the increase is due to the fact that women who otherwise wouldn’t press charges for rape now choose to contact the police.

In other words, Gustafsson claims that we are dealing with a “technical” increase, not a real one. However, national statistics reveal that reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the pastten years:

According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so)

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos:

Becirov runs the Islamic Center of Malmö, on the outskirts of Sweden's third-largest city. Some immigrant neighborhoods in the city have (official) unemployment rates exceeding 50 percent. Swedish authorities have failed to lift up the area, and seem to be giving the Islamic Center of Malmö a great deal of leeway in attempting to do so. An article that appeared in 2003 noted that "a few" of the 6-to 10-year-old girls were wearing headscarves. On a visit in January 2005, fully 80 percent were covered in class--only a handful were not. In a fit of absent-mindedness, Sweden has suddenly become as heavily populated by minorities as any country in Europe. The percentage of foreign-born is roughly equivalent to the highest percentage of immigrants the United States ever had in its history (on the eve of World War I). Rosengård appears to be all-immigrant. The public schools have virtually no ethnically Swedish children. There are stories--familiar in other parts of Europe where immigrants from the Muslim world have recently settled--of students harassing Jewish teachers and defacing textbooks that treat Jewish themes. Crime is high.

Is it unfair and “racist” to suggest a link between the influx of Muslim immigrants and the growing number of rapes? Not if we compare with the situation in neighboring Denmark, where this trend has been evident for years:

Criminologist: immigrants are rape champions

If one leading expert is to be believed, the sharp rise in the number of rapes in this over the last 5 years is largely attributable to a group of unemployed and alienated immigrants. 'Over the last 5-10 years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate immigrants,' says Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at Copenhagen University. 'As a result, many second generation immigrants have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity, including rape.'

Muslim rape concern

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

As Robert Spencer has demonstrated, rape can indeed be linked toIslamic teachings of Jihad, and even to the example of Muhammad himself, his Sunna. Above all, it is connected to Islamic notions of the role of women in society, and their behaviour in the public sphere. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape."Apparently, he isn’t the only Muslim in Europe to think this way:

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called "smiley". It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.

Hijab, the Islamic veil, is thus not ”just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and whores, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. Judged in the light of the Mufti who said that women who don’t wear it are asking for rape, how on earth can the veil be said to be about ”choice”? The freedom to choose not to be raped if you dress in a normal fashion in your own country? Is that what freedom is about in Europe in 2005?

Even though Sweden, unlike Denmark, has almost no public debate about immigration, frustration is very much present underneath the surface. 75 % of Swedes think that many people in their country “dislike” Muslims, more than in any other European nation surveyed. Even in Holland, which recently witnessed violent clashes with Muslims after the murder of Islam-critic Theo van Gogh, the rate is lower than in Sweden. But you’re not supposed to talk about such issues in Sweden. That would be “racist”:

Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I don’t think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes." ["Jag tror inte jag är ensam om att må dåligt när jag läser om hur svenska tjejer har våldtagits av invandrarhorder"]

All in all, we must say that there is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that the rise in rape charges in the city of Malmö could very well be real, which puts the Malmö Police assertion that this is “great news” in a rather curious light. And the problem is not just limited to Sweden. Itexists in Norway, too:

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Europe: Tolerating Intolerance

An incredibly revealing article that tells us all we need to know about the multiculturalist fetish in Europe and some parts of North America, not to mention the need for change within Islam. Apparently, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants – a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (note: her name is Unni Wikan) as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

In January 2005, Norwegian media reported that 2004 saw the highest number or rape charges ever recorded in the capital city of Oslo. Strangely enough, there was now no mentioning of how immigrants were grossly overrepresented in rape cases. Why not? Unless there has been a sudden and unexplained drop in the number of immigrants raping Norwegian women between 2001 and 2004, which is unlikely, the statistics should be at least as staggering in 2005 as they were before. If they are not revealed, it can only mean that “somebody” didn’t like the numbers presented in 2001, and decided to bury them. That “somebody” must be a person at the very top level in the police, maybe even in the government. If so, that is disquieting. What is even more disquieting is that the media are equally silent about this. How come no journalists are digging into the material? And where are all the professional Feminists, in a Scandinavian nation brimming with them?

The conclusion one may draw from this is that the authorities in Sweden and Norway know about, or should know about, a disturbing amount of Muslim immigrant rapes of native Scandinavian women, yet choose not to make this information known to the public. Perhaps it would be just too politically incorrect to reveal the negative effects of decades of naïve immigration policies. Perhaps it would also destroy too many multicultural pipe dreams among the intellectual elites, who have built their current careers and reputations on advocating how culturally and economically enriching this new population mix would be. So in the end, the safety of young Scandinavian women is sacrificed in order to keep the glossy image of a multicultural society intact. It is a chilling demonstration of an Eurabian continent that now appears to care more about not upsetting relations with its immigrant population than about protecting its own citizens.

More Americans unhappy with Obama on economy, jobs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/more-americans-unhappy-with-obama-on-economy-jobs/2011/07/25/gIQABJ9sZI_story.html?hpid=z3


More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
But Americans’ discontent does not stop there. The survey also found that Americans harbor negative feelings toward congressional Republicans. Roughly as many people blame Republican policies for the poor economy as they do Obama. But 65 percent disapprove of the GOP’s handling of jobs, compared to 52 percent for the president.
The dissatisfaction is fueled by the fact that many Americans continue to see little relief from the pain of a recession that technically ended two years ago. Ninety percent of those surveyed said the economy is not doing well, and four out of five report that jobs are difficult to find. In interviews, several people said that they feel abandoned by both parties, particularly as debates over the debt ceiling gridlock Washington.
“What I’ve realized is it doesn’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat anymore,” said Joey Wakim, 21, a used car salesman from Allentown, Pa. “We just want somebody who’s gonna get things right.”
The Post-ABC survey found that a majority of Americans still blame former president George W. Bush for the state of the economy. But it also found that Americans who identified most closely with the burgeoning tea party movement are more likely to have experienced lifestyle changes because of the downturn.
Rose Bear, 52, said her husband travels 800 miles round trip to work in North Dakota because there are not enough jobs near their home in Laurel, Mont. Bear said she supports the tea party in part because of its focus on taxes and employment.
“If you keep throwing up the taxes and busting the guy who’s employing you, people are gonna lose jobs,” she said. “They’re addressing the issue of the joblessness.”
The poll showed support for Obama’s economic agenda has begun to slip in the past nine months. The percentage of people who said Obama has made the economy worse jumped six points since October to 37 percent. That creates a bigger opening for Republican attacks as the presidential campaign begins to heat up.
The latest viral video by the Republican National Committee hones in on the jobs lost since Obama took office. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has made “Where are the jobs?” a catchphrase of his campaign. Tea party favorite Michele Bachmann made waves earlier this month when she proclaimed that she would create “real jobs” for Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner if she ousted them.
Still, Obama receives higher marks from crucial independents than Republicans when it comes to jobs. But appeasing his own party could prove to be a bigger challenge.
The Post-ABC poll found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent. The number of African Americans who believe the president’s actions have helped the economy has dropped from 77 percent in October to just over half of those surveyed.
Justin Ruben, executive director of the progressive MoveOn.org, said many people are frustrated by the bitter partisan battle over raising the debt ceiling that has consumed Washington, calling it a “bizarro parallel universe.” Another liberal group, Campaign for America’s Future, said it is planning a national protest Tuesday urging a speedy resolution over the national debt in order to refocus attention on unemployment.
“Many liberal Democrats are hoping that Obama can pivot from defending Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to putting forward his own plans for creating jobs,” the group’s co-director Roger Hickey said.
Wakim, the used car salesman, is among the self-identified liberal Democrats whose support of Obama has begun to falter. He said he spends as much as $80 on gas each week and has seen other bills rise while business is “hit or miss.”
Wakim said he has applied for a job as a police officer to help pay his bills while he attends community college. The economic downturn has changed his views on politics, and he said he wants Washington to buckle down.
“We’re focusing on too many things right now,” Wakim said. “Our biggest issue is the economy. People are hungry; people want work. Honest to God, it’s tough times.”


New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles

July 26, 2011 | 
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html


With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders said:
"I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."
This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid's Democratic posse.
But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders' mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don't want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.Vermont's independent senator Bernie Sanders
Closely read the transcript of Obama's Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner's response is right here.
An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach
Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter.
The nation's top talker uttered 4,526 words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph.
That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. "Balanced approach" is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.
Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples' priority.
Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor's offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November's midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.John Boehner Obama Harry Reid enjoy ongoing Deficit Talks 7-23-11
Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we've had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama's fading job approval, especially on the economy.
Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama's liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:
Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."
Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?
A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February.
A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.Button Hillary I Told U So 2012
To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.
But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise.
"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among  his base,"the Post reports.
Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.
Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

Attitudes Toward Amnesty: Zogby Poll Examines Support Among Different Constituencies

http://www.cis.org/ZogbyPoll-ConstituencyAttitudesTowardAmnesty

By Steven A. Camarota 
September 2001
Backgrounders and Reports



During their summit in early September, presidents Vicente Fox of Mexico and George W. Bush of United States discussed an amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States. While at first both presidents indicated that giving legal status to illegals would be a long process that might take years to implement, in the course of their summit they both indicated that they wanted things to move quickly. Moreover, on September 7 the Senate judiciary committee held a hearing on Mexican immigration. Senators from both parties indicated their support for granting amnesty in some fashion to illegals from Mexico.
The Zogby poll reported on in this Backgrounder was one of the first to examine in detail how various segments of the population would view an amnesty. Using neutral language, the Zogby International poll of likely voters also explores how supporting an amnesty might affect votes for President Bush and members of Congress in the future among different groups of constituents. While overall the poll finds little support for an amnesty, it does show some significant differences among groups. The strongest opposition is found among conservatives, moderates, union households, and voters with lower incomes. Among the findings:
  • Consistent with other polls, the Zogby poll finds that the majority of Americans (55 percent) think that an amnesty is a bad or very bad idea compared to 34 percent who think it is a good or very good idea.
  • The strongest opposition to amnesty can be found among conservatives, with 60 percent thinking it is a bad or very bad idea compared to 26 percent who think it is a good or very good idea. Perhaps most troubling for the president, almost one-third of all conservatives (32 percent) indicated that they would be less likely to vote for Bush if he supported an amnesty, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to vote for him.
  • Among Democrats, 55 percent said they thought an amnesty would be a bad idea and 36 percent thought it was a good idea. Some of the strongest opposition was found among voters in union households, a key Democratic consistency. Sixty percent of voters in union households thought it was a bad idea compared to 32 percent who thought it was a good idea. An amnesty splits the party’s liberal base right down the middle, with 46 percent of liberals thinking it was a good idea and 45 percent thinking it was a bad idea.
  • An amnesty does not appear to be a way of winning Hispanic votes for either party, with 51 percent of respondents identifying it is a bad idea and 49 percent thinking it’s a good idea. When asked how it might affect their vote, twice as many Hispanics in the survey (33 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Bush in 2004 if he supported an amnesty compared to 15 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for him. The same basic pattern exists for Democratic candidates, with 36 percent of Hispanics saying they would be less likely to vote for a Democrat in Congress who supports an amnesty and 20 percent indicating they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who supports amnesty.
  • Those who oppose an amnesty seem to be much stronger in their opposition than are supporters in their support of an amnesty. While 20 percent of voters said that they thought it was a very bad idea, only 6 percent said it was a very good idea. Moreover, of those who said it was a bad or very bad idea, 51 percent said they would be less likely to vote for President Bush if he supported an amnesty. In contrast, of those who thought an amnesty was a good or very good idea, only 22 percent said they would be more likely to vote for Bush if he supported it. Very similar proportions exist when asked about Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
Not only does the president risk alienating his own conservative base, but he also risks alienating self-identified moderates, who are critical to his winning reelection in 2004. Moderates thought an amnesty was a bad or very bad idea by a margin of 59 percent to 32 percent. Moreover, 38 percent of moderates indicated that they would be less likely to vote for Bush if he supported an amnesty, compared to 8 percent who indicated that they would be more likely to vote for him if he supported an amnesty.
Most troubling for Congressional Democratic supporters of an amnesty, 33 percent of voters in union households said they would be less likely to vote for Democrats who supported an amnesty, compared to only 14 percent who said they would be more likely. Thus, an amnesty has the potential to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party and rank-and-file union voters.
Also troubling for Democrats, lower income voters who tend to vote Democratic, but face the most job competition from immigrants, take a very dim view of amnesty. Voters in households with income of less than $35,000 thought an amnesty was a bad idea by a margin of more than two to one. In addition, more than one-third of low-income voters indicated they would be less likely to vote for Democrats in congress who support amnesty.
The poll also asked voters about a possible guestworker program that would allow Mexican immigrants into the country to work for a period of time after which they would have to return home. Voters were asked if they thought most of these workers would return home when they are supposed to. Overall, 77 percent of voters thought that most guest workers would not return home after their time expires compared to only 13 percent who thought most would return home. Similar attitudes hold for every subgroup in the population. It appears that most voters do not think that a guest worker program would solve the problem of illegal immigration.
Clearly, an amnesty for illegal immigrants would be only one issue among many considered by voters when deciding how to cast their ballots. However, by supporting an amnesty, Republicans may run the risk of having some of their conservative base sit home on election day and of alienating moderates, all without attracting significant Hispanic support. Democrats, too, may alienate moderates and also may reduce support among some union voters and lower income voters, who need to turn out in large numbers if Democrats are to regain the House of Representatives and the presidency.
Data Source
This nationwide poll of 1,020 likely voters was conducted by Zogby International from Saturday, August 25, to Wednesday, August 29, 2001. All telephone calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y. The margin of error is +/-3.2 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
Neutral Question Wording. The Zogby poll on which this analysis is based attempted to ask questions about an amnesty in as neutral a manner as possible. The tables contain the full wording of the questions used in the survey, as well as the results. Purposefully, the question dealing with amnesty did not use a euphemism such as "regularization" nor did it make any mention of the fact that an amnesty would mean eventual citizenship, which is likely to elicit a more negative response (see Table 1). Moreover, the term "illegal immigrant" is used and not the more euphemistic "undocumented immigrant" or the more negative "illegal alien." Finally, the amnesty question does not characterize illegal immigrants, as some surveys have done, in a positive way such as "tax-paying" or in a negative way such as "violating our laws."
The three questions dealing with how candidates’ support for an amnesty might affect votes are also asked in as straightforward a manner as possible (see Tables 2,3,4). Moreover, these questions specifically give respondents the option of saying that a candidate’s position on amnesty would have no effect on their vote. By using neutral language and by not forcing those taking the survey to say that an amnesty would have an impact on their vote, this survey should provide a good deal of insight into voter preferences on this important issue.
Results
Intensity of Opinion. The fact that opponents of amnesty seem to feel more strongly in their opposition to amnesty than supporters do about their endorsement is one of the most important findings of this survey. This greater intensity of feeling on the part of amnesty opponents means that it is not simply that most Americans are against it, but also that it might affect how they vote in 2002 and 2004. Thus, supporting an amnesty seems only to hurt and not help the president or Democrats and Republicans in Congress who might support it.
The table shows that in every group examined here, a plurality indicate that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports amnesty. In contrast, very few voters indicate that they would be more likely to vote for the president if he supported amnesty and the same holds true for members of both parties in Congress. Whatever its merits as a matter of public policy, it seems that politicians who oppose amnesty are likely to derive much more political benefit from their opposition than are candidates who support it.
Union Members. The opposition among persons in union households is one of the most interesting and in some ways the most surprising finding, because most union leaders strongly support an amnesty and have been actively making the case for it to their members for over a year. Yet, only a little over one-third (36 percent) of those in union households think an amnesty is a good idea. This strongly suggests that union leaders have a long way to go before their members agree with them on this issue. The fact that 60 percent of voters in union households oppose an amnesty and that 33 percent of all persons in union households said they would be less likely to vote for a Democrat who supports it, should be a matter of some concern to Democrats. It opens up the very real possibility that Republican congressional candidates who are opposed to amnesty could use the issue as a way to attract union members in much the same way that Ronald Reagan was able to get votes from union members who made up a significant share of the so-called "Reagan Democrats."
Hispanics. The even division among Hispanic voters in the survey may come as a surprise to some because, of any segment of the population, Hispanics are often assumed to be overwhelmingly in favor of an amnesty. It is generally assumed that one of the reasons President Bush may support an amnesty is that he hopes to attract Hispanic voters by doing so. However, this survey provides no evidence that supporting an amnesty will help the president with Hispanic Americans. If anything, it seems to hurt him. Hispanics in the survey responded two-to-one that they would be less likely to vote for the president if he supports an amnesty (see Tables). These findings are consistent with other surveys that have tried to measure the opinion of Hispanics. A number of polls have found that Hispanics, like other Americans, are concerned about immigration and think that the current level is too high. Thus, it’s not so unexpected that roughly half of all Hispanic voters think an amnesty is a bad idea and that many indicate they would be less willing to vote for a candidate who supports one.
It is also important to remember that the survey is confined to likely voters, and that a very large share of Hispanic adults are not citizens. Since they cannot vote, they are not included in this survey. The opinions of non-citizen Hispanics, many of whom may benefit from an amnesty, could differ significantly from their citizen counterparts. Of course, politically, it’s votes that count, which is why surveys of this kind are confined to likely voters. Certainly no amnesty beneficiary would be able to get citizenship in time to vote in the 2004 election. It should also be pointed out that it would be incorrect to say that Hispanic voters are against an amnesty — they are evenly divided. What does seem to be the case is that those Hispanic voters who oppose an amnesty feel much more strongly about their opposition than those who support it feel about their endorsement. As a result, despite being evenly divided on the issue overall, more Hispanic voters indicate they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports amnesty. None of this means that Republican efforts to attract Hispanic voters are misplaced. Instead, these results simply suggest that supporting an amnesty is not the best way to attract Hispanic voters.
Moderates and Independents. As already mentioned, self-identified moderates think an amnesty is a bad idea by a margin of 59 to 32 percent. Also, between 38 and 43 percent said they would be less likely to vote for Bush or Democrats in Congress if they supported an amnesty, compared to between 5 and 8 percent who said that they would be more likely to vote for Bush if he supported amnesty. Similar results exist among self-identified independents (see Tables). This is significant politically because moderates and independents often decide elections, especially in this era when the electorate is so closely divided. While some may imagine that amnesty is a way to appeal to individuals in the middle of the political spectrum, this survey indicates that the opposite is true. It seems that opposing an amnesty may be a way of winning support from this critically important segment of the population.
Unaffected Voters. Although the table shows that a plurality in every social group indicate that they would be less likely to vote for candidates who support an amnesty, it is important to realize that the table also shows that, for many voters, amnesty is not likely to effect how they cast their ballots. This should come as little surprise since voters consider many issues when deciding how they will vote. Still, it is interesting that a large share of voters across different socio-demographic groups indicate that they are more likely to vote against those who support amnesty, even if the candidate comes from the party that we would expect them normally to support. The large share of voters in union households who said they would be less likely to vote for Democrats in Congress if they support amnesty and likewise the significant share of conservatives who said they would be less likely to vote for Republican supporters of amnesty indicates that, for many Americans, amnesty is an issue that matters. Thus, to the extent that amnesty does matter to voters, they are for the most part opposed to it.
Conclusion
There are few issues on which Americans from a broad range of perspectives and backgrounds agree. Opposition to an amnesty appears to be one of those issues. There seems to be no major group in society that strongly supports amnesty. Moreover, there is no group for whom a candidate’s support of amnesty would increase votes. One of the main reasons for this is that opponents feel more strongly about the issue than do supporters. Of those who said they thought it was a good idea, 69 percent indicated that if president Bush supported an amnesty it would still have no effect on their vote. In contrast, 59 percent of those opposed to an amnesty indicated that his support for amnesty would affect their vote.
This same pattern exists for Democrats in Congress. As a result, support for amnesty seems to hurt candidates much more than it helps them. This is true for both parties and across every major constituency group. A second important finding is that although supporters of amnesty have been very effective in lining up support among union, business, church, and other leaders, this elite support has not translated into public support. Of course, none of this shows that an amnesty is sound or unsound as a matter of public policy. However, whatever its merits, it would certainly be better that the public is first convinced of the wisdom of such a major change in policy before granting permanent residency status to millions of illegal immigrants. It is always better in a democracy for public policy to reflect public opinion.
Advocates of amnesty certainly are trying hard to convince the public. One tactic that should probably not be employed is to use euphemisms such as "regularization," "legalization," or "normalization" rather than amnesty. Tactics such as this only make the public more cynical, especially since opponents as well as journalists will quickly point out that this is deceptive. If an amnesty has merit, then it should be debated as openly as possible. The results of this survey indicate that supporters of amnesty clearly have their work cut out for them across a broad range of the population.

Federal pay ahead of private industry

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm


The typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation. Median annual salary:
FederalPrivateDifference
$66,591$55,500$11,091
Sources: Bureau of Labor statistics, USA TODAY analysis



Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according toBureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Federal pay has become a hot political issue in recent months because of concerns over the federal budget deficit and recession-battered wages in the private sector.
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., made federal pay an issue in his successful campaign to fill Edward Kennedy's seat and is fighting for a pay freeze.
The federal government spent about $224 billion in 2008 on compensation for about 2 million civilian employees.
"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," saysCato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits."
But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says.
"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.
Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers.
USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses.
The BLS reports that 216 occupations covering 1.1 million federal workers exist in both the federal government and the private sector. An additional 124 federal occupations covering 750,000 employees — air-traffic controllers, tax collectors and others — did not have direct equivalents, according to the BLS.
Federal jobs have more limited salary ranges than private-sector jobs, some of which have million-dollar payouts.
Key findings:
• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector.
Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world.
State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.
Job comparison
Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:
JobFederalPrivateDifference
Airline pilot, copilot, flight engineer$93,690$120,012-$26,322
Broadcast technician$90,310$49,265$41,045
Budget analyst$73,140$65,532$7,608
Chemist$98,060$72,120$25,940
Civil engineer$85,970$76,184$9,786
Clergy$70,460$39,247$31,213
Computer, information systems manager$122,020$115,705$6,315
Computer support specialist$45,830$54,875-$9,045
Cook$38,400$23,279$15,121
Crane, tower operator$54,900$44,044$10,856
Dental assistant$36,170$32,069$4,101
Economist$101,020$91,065$9,955
Editors$42,210$54,803-$12,593
Electrical engineer$86,400$84,653$1,747
Financial analysts$87,400$81,232$6,168
Graphic designer$70,820$46,565$24,255
Highway maintenance worker$42,720$31,376$11,344
Janitor$30,110$24,188$5,922
Landscape architects$80,830$58,380$22,450
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker$33,100$19,945$13,155
Lawyer$123,660$126,763-$3,103
Librarian$76,110$63,284$12,826
Locomotive engineer$48,440$63,125-$14,685
Machinist$51,530$44,315$7,215
Mechanical engineer$88,690$77,554$11,136
Office clerk$34,260$29,863$4,397
Optometrist$61,530$106,665-$45,135
Paralegals$60,340$48,890$11,450
Pest control worker$48,670$33,675$14,995
Physicians, surgeons$176,050$177,102-$1,052
Physician assistant$77,770$87,783-$10,013
Procurement clerk$40,640$34,082$6,558
Public relations manager$132,410$88,241$44,169
Recreation worker$43,630$21,671$21,959
Registered nurse$74,460$63,780$10,680
Respiratory therapist$46,740$50,443-$3,703
Secretary$44,500$33,829$10,671
Sheet metal worker$49,700$43,725$5,975
Statistician$88,520$78,065$10,455
Surveyor$78,710$67,336$11,374
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA TODAY analysis