Stupidity on Steroids: Massachusetts man facing charges after killing unarmed bear in his yard

Comments Off on Stupidity on Steroids: Massachusetts man facing charges after killing unarmed bear in his yard

From Hotair:


Richard Ahlstrand, of Auburn, Massachusetts, faces criminal charges after encountering a bear in his back yard and shooting the damned thing to avoid being mauled or eaten. Specifically, as noted at Reason 24/7, he’s charged with “illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failure to secure a firearm.” All of these charges, once translated from Massachusetts to American, seem to stack up to outrage that Ahlstrand didn’t make his yard completely inhospitable to animals that are rarely seen in the area, and then investigated a suspicious noise with a weapon in hand rather than cower under the bed. Worst of all, he actually defended himself when he encountered danger.

The baiting charge, as J.D. Tucille notes, comes from the fact that Ahlstrand had a large barrel of birdseed in his yard, even though it was not meant to bait a bear, and bears are rarely seen in the area.

The police account, with a hint of contempt for a 76-year-old having the temerity to defend himself:

Chief Sluckis said the bear is believed to have been attracted to a 50-gallon drum of birdseed Mr. Ahlstrand had in his backyard. He said Mr. Ahlstrand told police he heard a noise outside and felt in fear of his life.

“He went back inside, retrieved a shotgun and decided to shoot the bear,” Chief Sluckis said. “Obviously we believe if Mr. Ahlstrand was truly in fear for his life he would have stayed secured in his home and would have called the police.”

There’s that indomitable spirit of ’76 embodied. Hide in your house at all costs, people, “dial 911 and then curl into a fetal position whenever they hear a curious noise.”

Via CBS Boston, a 300-400-lb bear began chasing him before he went inside to get his gun.

The feds dropped charges filed against an Idaho man in 2011 for a similar “crime,” amidst public protest and urging by the governor of Idaho. Jeremy Hill’s children were playing in his yard when a grizzly bear showed up. Yelling to warn his children, but unable to confirm they were all out of the bear’s range, Hill grabbed his daughter’s shotgun to protect the family. He then immediately reported his “crime” to the state wildlife authorities. This is the government’s take on that:

Although hunting of grizzlies is generally prohibited under the Endangered Species Act, the law allows the animals to be killed if they are a threat to human life.

Federal prosecutors said in a statement that wildlife investigators were unable to pinpoint where the Hill children were when three grizzlies appeared about 40 yards from the family home. When the bears neared a pig pen, Hill fired the first of three rounds at the closest of the bruins, according to statements by the government and by Hill.

“By the time Mr. Hill fired the final shot, he was aware that all of his children and his wife were inside of their house,” according to the prosecutors’ statement.

Hill said he fired the third and fatal shot because he thought “it would be very dangerous to leave the bear wounded, possibly posing a threat to others.”


Muslim Holidays to be Observed in Cambridge Massachusetts Schools

Comments Off on Muslim Holidays to be Observed in Cambridge Massachusetts Schools

Well we’ve arrived now haven’t we Cambridge. Beginning next year their school system will observe on Muslim Holiday and close the schools. Cambridge School Committee Vice Chairman Marc McGovern said, “Cambridge schools already close for some Christian and Jewish holidays, and McGovern said he believes Muslims should be treated equally.”

“The issue that sort of came up was should we celebrate any religious holidays, but there was not the will to take away Good Friday or one of the Jewish holidays,” he said. “So I said, if that is the case, I think we have an obligation to celebrate one of the Muslim holidays, as well.”

An official also said, “It just didn’t seem right that we would close for two of those religions (Christian & Jewish), but not for the third.”

(This article below starts out in an attempt to pull your heart strings for 17 yr old Dunia Kassay and her dilemma so you’ll go along with this decision.)

(IMO-It is appropriate that  we don’t close for the third “religion” (ideology) because we are a Christian nation, not Islamic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Saudi Arabia celebrates even one Christian holiday or doesn’t even allow a Christian church to be built, along with allowing Bibles in the country?)

School system to get Muslim holiday

Cambridge to start observance in 2011-12

As a Muslim and a high school senior at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, 17-year-old Dunia Kassay faces a tough choice every year on Islamic holy days: go to school or stay home to be with family and friends.

If she stays home, Kassay says, she will be forced to play catch-up and make up her school assignments. But if she goes to school, she will be neglecting what she feels is her religious obligation on holidays such as Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting.

“It’s really conflicting,’’ Kassay said. “Instead of fasting for a month and enjoying this really big day, eating and going to family’s houses, it’s kind of like, ‘Oh, hey, guys, I’ve got to go do my homework.’ ’’

But beginning next year, Cambridge public schools will attempt to make it easier for Muslim students to honor their highest holy days.

In a move that school officials believe is the first of its kind in the state, Cambridge will close schools for one Muslim holiday each year beginning in the 2011-2012 school year.

The school will either close for Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, depending on which holiday falls within the school year. If both fall within the school calendar, the district will close for only one of the days.

But Cambridge School Committee member Marc McGovern, who pushed for the Muslim holiday in city schools, said he thinks people need to take a step back from what he called hysteria and the stereotypes of all Muslims as terrorists.

“At a time when I think the Muslim population is being characterized with a broad brush in a negative way, I think it’s important for us to say we’re not going to do that here,’’ McGovern said.

Cambridge schools already close for some Christian and Jewish holidays, and McGovern said he believes Muslims should be treated equally.

“The issue that sort of came up was should we celebrate any religious holidays, but there was not the will to take away Good Friday or one of the Jewish holidays,’’ he said. “So I said, if that is the case, I think we have an obligation to celebrate one of the Muslim holidays, as well.
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, spokesman for the department, JC Considine. said,If a school district has a large number of students who observe Good Friday and would not attend school that day, Considine said the districts are allowed to close because of the expected low attendance. But the state does require districts to schedule at least 180 days of school.

Cambridge School Superintendent Jeffrey Young said the district does not collect information about the religion of its students. But Young said that there is a significant Muslim population in the city, and that, at least anecdotally, the Muslim population in the schools appears to be growing.

A large Muslim population is one of the reasons why the school district in Dearborn, Mich., began closing schools for high Islamic holy days 10 years ago, said David Mustonen, communications coordinator for the school system.

Mustonen said that at first there were some people in the community who didn’t like the schools being closed on Eid holidays. “However, I don’t think this is the case anymore as people have come to realize that it is no different then taking time off at Christmas or Easter,’’ Mustonen said in an e-mail.

(I have to disagree with Mustonen…we are a Christian nation and worship a different God than Islam. Massachusetts may later feel the wrath of the God of Abraham…..not allah by doing this.)

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said that to his knowledge Cambridge would be the first school district in Massachusetts to close schools for a Muslim holiday.

“Somebody has to be first,’’ said Koocher. “I suspect there may be heightened interest in this. We’ll see how this plays out.’’

Missouri against Obamacare in its First Direct Referendum


Yesterday Missourians voted to “Nullify” Obamacare just like Virginia and around 18 more States did (Tennessee chickened out). This is long but a great informative article….so I’m including it all.

Show Me ObamaCare

The political revolt against ObamaCare came to Missouri Tuesday, with voters casting ballots three to one against the plan in its first direct referendum. This is another resounding health-care rebuke to the White House and Democrats, not that overwhelming public opposition to this expansion of government power ever deterred them before.

Missouri’s Proposition C annulled the “individual mandate” within state lines, or the requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax. Liberals are trying to wave off this embarrassment, but that is hard to do when the split was 71.1% in favor in a state John McCain won by a mere 0.1% margin. The anti-ObamaCare measure carried every county save St. Louis and Kansas City with 668,000 votes, yet just 578,000 Republicans cast a ballot in the concurrent primaries.

If the practical effects of this conflict between state and federal law are likely to be limited, more importantly, Missouri’s vote revealed once again that the country is still aghast over President Obama’s health-care presumption. Earlier this week, the Congressional Research Service reported that the new bureaucracy the bill created is so complex and indiscriminate that its size is “currently unknowable.” Capitol Hill’s independent policy arm added that among “the dozens of new governmental organizations or advisory bodies,” it is “impossible to know how much influence they will ultimately have.”

No wonder Missourians rebelled, as with voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia last year. There will be more such what-have-they-done ObamaCare moments. Wait until the public discovers the government is now literally determining what qualifies as “health care” in America.(of course they are….what have Steve and I been telling you?…The federal government has become the same as an Insurance company. That’s all this administration has done since it took office….Take over Private Companies….that what!)

That isn’t a typo. ObamaCare mandates that insurers spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on benefits, but Democrats never got around to writing the fine print of what counts as a benefit. So a handful of regulators are now choosing among the tens of thousands of services that doctors, hospitals and insurers offer. Few other government decisions will do more to shape tomorrow’s health market, or what’s left of it.

This command-and-control mechanism is the bill’s mandate for insurance “medical loss ratios” (MLR) of 85% for large employers and 80% for small businesses and individuals. The MLR is an accounting statistic that measures the share of premiums paid out in patient claims (“losses”). In the individual market, MLRs typically run between 65% and 75%, and Democrats like Jay Rockefeller and Al Franken think this is evidence of excessive profits, executive pay, marketing and other supposedly wasteful overhead.

The same mentality prevails in the Administration, so it may well adopt a narrow definition of medical expenses when it issues final regulations by early fall. The insurance industry is lobbying for a less rigid standard: It will be easier to run a business and turn a profit if more of the costs are considered truly medical in nature.

More notable is that people partial to ObamaCare but largely outside of politics are coming to understand the mess Congress has created. To wit, much of health care’s intellectual energy is moving toward a concept called the “accountable care organization,” which would replace today’s fragmented delivery system of mostly solo practitioners with teams of doctors and hospitals working together. These integrated groups would manage and coordinate care, use more information technology and try to improve treatment quality for chronic disease and complex conditions.

Yet “it isn’t easy to draw a bright line, or even a fuzzy line, between traditional health services and some of the more innovative coordinated models,” says Mark McClellan of the Brookings Institution and a leading accountable care proponent. The new model would rely on many tools that aren’t strictly medical, like, say, a checkup or a CT scan.

For example, how to classify a program to double-check doctors orders to avoid one of the unnecessary surgeries that kill some 12,000 people every year? Or counseling, calls, emails and other types of case management to make sure patients comply with their diabetes regimen? Or investments in electronic medical records? Obviously these programs aren’t the same as an O.R. visit, but they still cost money, often a lot of it, and many insurance programs pay or are starting to pay for them.

The possibility that these will be written out of the MLR definition is feeding a growing unease about politics shaping medicine more than it already does. The California Association of Physician Groups, the largest U.S. accountable care trade group, recently protested that a narrow MLR ruling “would create a disincentive for plans to contract with our members and undercut the coordinated care model.”

Health Integrated, a respected medical consulting firm, urged regulators “to avoid discouraging or inadvertently extinguishing the successful innovation that (so frequently) arises only from a plan’s ability to try new ideas.” Even North Dakota’s Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who voted for the bill, argues that tight MLR regulation “could have a chilling effect on future innovative programs.”

“The real question is the overall philosophical thrust, which will determine the long-term direction of health care,” Mr. McClellan says of the coming definition. The regulatory debate is dominated by Senator Rockefeller and others on the left who are still angry they never got a public option and are trying to use MLR as a proxy for controlling the insurance industry. The irony is that the new health models they claim to favor may be collateral damage, even as insurers take the fall for the problems Congress created.

Another danger concerns the individual market, where a wave of destruction could be imminent. If the MLR definition is so arbitrary that health plans can’t cover their claims and expenses, they’ll simply withdraw that book of business. Mila Kofman, Maine’s insurance superintendent and an ObamaCare supporter, warned that “the federal standard may disrupt our individual health insurance market” and is seeking an exemption. Her protest is all the more notable given that Maine’s health regulations closely resemble those that are about to be imposed nationwide.

Ms. Kofman and others are right to worry. In the 1990s, an MLR crackdown in Washington state caused the individual market to collapse in 36 of 39 counties. Too bad for the people with coverage today who were promised they could keep it if they liked it.

This fight over medical loss ratios is an early taste of how a “government takeover” operates in practice. The state insurance commissioners advising the federal government—and who know something about the business—have already missed several deadlines because writing a uniform definition of medicine is “time consuming,” while a wrong move would “destabilize the marketplace and significantly limit consumer choices.”

We predicted that under ObamaCare politicians and technocrats would dominate medicine, and here they come. Without more Missouri-style revolts—or perhaps in spite of them—the rest of us will soon learn how competent they really are.

Wall Street Journal

Massachusetts joins effort to bypass Electoral College


What the heck? How can these States get away with this? The Constitution calls for the Electoral College by the founding fathers in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.   It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections.  The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Massachusetts Moves to Circumvent the Electoral College and Constitution

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the verge of passing a new law that will circumvent the Electoral College system so that future elections will be determined by the national popular vote. One vote remains in the Massachusetts state senate before the National Popular Vote bill is signed into action by Governor Deval Patrick. The legislation will allow all of the state’s electoral votes to go to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally. It is part of an effort lead by a group called National Popular Vote (NPV) that is gaining momentum across the country to obliterate the Electoral College.

The Wall Street Journal explains that in order for the NPV campaign to be successful, “The plan needs to enlist just enough states to command 270 electoral votes, or a majority of the Electoral College.”

The Boston Globe addresses the implications of such a law that seems contradictory to the intent of the Founding Fathers. “[Critics] point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.”

Likewise, the Boston Globe adds, “Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.”

These notions are diametrically opposed to the system of government created by the Founding Fathers that rested the greatest control and authority to the individual first and foremost, the state second, and finally the least control to the central government.

Despite this, Massachusetts state House Speaker Robert DeLeo issued a statement on the bill. “The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people.”

Little does DeLeo know that the intention of the Electoral College was created to guarantee the rights of the peopleIt is a uniquely American system that was intended to be one of the many protections against a too-powerful federal government.

The New American

Why the Electoral College?

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place.  Notice that the country is named the “United States”, not the “United People”.  Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.  They had their own independent governments.  They had militaries which defended their borders.  They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Shouldn’t a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?

Yes.  But we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress.  The Congress is divided into two houses.  The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power.  The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will).  In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power.  The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union.  Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.
When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation.  Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone.   Let’s assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit.  Now let’s assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends.  Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit?  Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone?  Of course not.  But there is the security factor.  Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone.  This is very similar to a state’s decision to enter the United States.  They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise.  But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join.  This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states.   They CHOOSE not to be.  This is very confusing to those American citizens who’ve been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist.  Puerto Ricans aren’t stupid.  They like their independence.  Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems.  In Puerto Rico’s case, they are having their cake and eating it too.
So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place.  The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College.  A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress.  The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S.  Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.
How do states determine which candidate(s) get their Electoral College votes?
This is determined by the individual state.  Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency.  Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish.  In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote.  Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3).  Then the other two votes are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote.  This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.
It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state.  Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states.  If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives.  Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a “winner-take-all” system because it maximizes the state’s voice in the electorate.  When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
How many electoral votes does a presidential candidate have to receive to win the presidency?
An absolute majority.  Technically, it is 50% + 1.  Since there are currently 538 electoral votes (in 2000), a presidential candidate must receive 270 to win the presidency.  In rare cases, no candidate has received an absolute majority.  In this situation, the new Vice President would be chosen by the Senate with the winner receiving the most votes.   The President, however, would be chosen by a unique election in the House of Representatives.  Each state would get exactly one vote toward a single candidate.   States that are divided equally along party lines may not conclude a winner for the state.  So they may abstain from the voting entirely.  But in this House election, the winner must receive an absolute majority (26) of the House votes.  If no candidate was able to receive the required number of votes in the House, the Vice President (chosen by the Senate) would officially become the President.  The selection of the new Vice President at this point is unclear and may be appointed by the new President.
The Presidential election has been sent to the House once before.  In 1824, four different candidates received electoral votes, and none of them received an absolute majority.  The vote then went to the House and John Quincy Adams was elected as the president.
What would happen if we abolished the Electoral College?
This is basically common sense.  What would happen when you decrease the power of government representation for a group of states?  What if we abolished the U.S. Senate?  This is exactly the same thing.  Abolishing the Electoral College or Senate would reduce the government representation of the smallest states to make it illogical to remain in the Union.  This has happened before, in 1860.  I shouldn’t need to remind you of the 620,000 deaths over the next five years after that.   You think that was bloody?  Try abolishing the Electoral College or Senate in the 21st Century.  You’ll see division in this country not seen since the War for Southern Independence.  Only this time, the two sides are not geographically separated.  Our decades of racial, religious, and political integration in this country will come to haunt us in the future.  It will be then when the nation’s integrity and peace are ultimately challenged.  Can we divide into two nations peacefully with few problems or will the liberals insist that we fight another war?  Is 10 million deaths worth a segment of the country retaining domination over the rest?  Only time will tell.  I hope and pray that future leaders will foresee the blood-shedding and prevent it before it’s too late.
So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart?
The same people who want to do away with ALL states’ rights.  They don’t understand the purpose of having states in the first place.  These people would prefer living under an omnipotent centralized government.   They believe that their lives will be much more secure under such rule.  Those of us who oppose such government power recognize that a strong centralized government that can deliver perfect security from invading and interior forces then itself becomes the primary enemy as it controls its own power limits.  If you let anyone or anything determine its own limit of power, then it will choose not to limit itself.  A “secure” nation is one with a perfect balance of limited government and national/domestic defense.  Any shift in either direction leaves the population at serious risk to domestic and/or foreign opposition.

Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.   It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections.  The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Why the Electoral College?

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place.  Notice that the country is named the “United States”, not the “United People”.  Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.  They had their own independent governments.  They had militaries which defended their borders.  They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

If Martha Coakley Loses in Mass. Its Bush’s Fault

Comments Off on If Martha Coakley Loses in Mass. Its Bush’s Fault

No this is not a joke, you just couldn’t make this stuff up. This is exactly what the Democrats said yesterday when Obama came to Massachusetts to “help” Martha Coakley  attempt to wrestle a victory from a defeat that the polls are showing right now.  If she loses they say, “it’s Bush’s fault”. I’m including a video from Cavuto (Got to love him) on Fox News Channel talking with a Democrat Pat Caddell. He has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992.

After Obama Rally, Democrats Pin Blame on Bush

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama‘s rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley’s now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person — George W. Bush.

“People are upset because there’s so many problems,” Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight’s rally wrapped up. “But the problems came from the previous administration. So we’re blaming poor Obama, who’s working 36 hours a day … to solve these problems that he inherited.”

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by “George Bush and his cronies” are not so easily solved. (Never mind that the Democratic Congress caused a lot of this, by forcing banks to make sub-prime loans to people that normally couldn’t buy a home)

“If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown,” Kennedy said. “If you don’t, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole … then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president’s in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that.” (As Pat Caddell pointed out on Cavuto, the people are revolting over Obama’s policies, not Bush’s….Bush is history now.)

(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as “Marcia,” not “Martha.”)

Blaming their problems on Bush does carry a risk for Dems, however — with their sights so firmly focused on the past, Brown’s campaign has managed to wrest the “change” mantle from them.

Meanwhile, even as Kennedy took on both Bush and Brown head-on, some attendees were more muted in their criticism of Brown.

“I mean, he is handsome,” Christine DiPitro, 61, of Malden, said of Brown.

“He does appeal to the regular guy with his truck, but that’s about all.”

New Poll, Scott Brown Pulls Ahead in Massachusetts


Well here we go down to the stretch in Massachusetts with Republican Scott Brown having a good chance to win. Who would have ever thought it in such a liberal state. The difference here is that in Massachusetts the Independents are 51% of the voters and are turning 3 to 1 for Scott Brown.

New Poll, Scott Brown Pulls Ahead in Massachusetts

Tea Parties vs. the SEIU, Freedom vs. Socialism

Another new poll is out showing Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Scott Brown, ahead in the Special Election race for Senator of Massachusetts.

The highly respected American Research Group poll shows Brown ahead by 3% over his Democrat rival, the far-Left Martha Coakley (48%-45%).

The Special Election is now just 3 days away. Democrats and liberal special interest groups have dumped over $1 million into the race this week alone. Bill Clinton just campaigned for Democrat Martha Coakley, and Barack Obama is set to do the same on Sunday.

Groups like the Tea Party Express are continuing their fundraising for Scott Brown, and the SEIU has mobilized their union power to thwart the Tea Parties and other conservative groups.

The campaign of Scott Brown for U.S. Senate released a new web video today entitled “Coakley’s Closing Argument.” The video highlights Martha Coakley’s support of the latest tax hike proposal from Washington Democrats as her closing argument to Massachusetts voters.

“In the closing days of this campaign, Martha Coakley is enthusiastically endorsing the Democrats’ latest tax proposal before she even understands its potential impact on Massachusetts families,” said Beth Lindstrom, campaign manager for Brown for Senate. “Martha has never met a tax increase she didn’t like, and if she goes to Washington, she will eagerly rubber-stamp the big-spending, tax-raising schemes that will kill jobs and hurt our economy. Bay State voters know there is only one tax-cutter in this race, and it’s not Martha Coakley.” “COAKLEY’S CLOSING ARGUMENT”

See the advertisement here:

January 15, 2010 – Massachusetts US Senate

Massachusetts US Senate
1/14/2010 Brown Coakley Kennedy Undecided
Likely voters 48% 45% 2% 5%
Democrats (44%) 20% 71% 1% 8%
Republicans (20%) 94% 1% 5%
Other (36%)
58% 37% 4% 1%
Men (47%) 54% 39% 2% 5%
Women (53%) 44% 50% 2% 4%
18-49 (43%) 52% 42% 2% 4%
50 plus (57%) 46% 47% 1% 6%

UPDATE:In Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy’s Senate seat

Comments Off on UPDATE:In Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy’s Senate seat

Well it appears the polls are getting closer for Scott Brown in the race for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Since this is in such a liberal Democratic state as Massachusetts, it shows how put out people are with what this current Democratic administration is doing. Who would ever have thought a Republican could come so close in Massachusetts. Now we are seeing why Harry Reid,Nancy Pelosi and President Obama wanted this passed in August before their recess.

In Massachusetts, Republican Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy’s Senate seat

Fueled by the energy of conservative activists, a solid debate performance and a 24-hour, $1.3 million Internet fundraising haul, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has thrown a major scare into the Democratic establishment in his bid to win next Tuesday’s special Senate election over once heavily favored Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) highlights the degree to which the race has taken on national significance. A victory, or even a narrow loss, by Brown in the competition for the symbolically important seat would be interpreted as another sign that voters have turned away from the Democrats at the start of the midterm election year.

More urgently, a Brown win would give Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and the ability to block President Obama‘s health-care initiative and much of the Democrats’ 2010 congressional agenda. Strategists on both sides concede that a Brown victory would drastically reshape the calculus of the health-care debate, which is now in its final stages.

Brown still has some distance to go to pull off an upset, but Democrats now recognize they were wrong not to have taken his challenge more seriously from the start and are vowing not to let the race slip away out of neglect and a lack of aggressiveness.

“We believe at the end of the day the attorney general is going to win the race, but we’re not going to take our foot off the gas,” said Eric Schultz, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a top adviser to Brown, said: “I think it’s a tight race, but Scott Brown still has to be considered the underdog. But clearly there’s panic setting in on the other side, and they’re jumping in with both feet.”

Democrats have buttressed Coakley’s campaign this week, adding fresh money and personnel to her operation and vowing to go after the Republican far more aggressively than they have to date.

The DSCC bought $500,000 in advertising time for the contest, and national Democrats sent a pair of experienced strategists — Michael Meehan and Hari Sevugan — to Massachusetts to help lead the attack on Brown and oversee the final days of Coakley’s campaign. Democrats also have sent fundraising e-mails from Obama and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

Brown countered by announcing he had raised $1.3 million in the previous 24 hours through an Internet appeal. A sizable portion of that money will pay for television ads that combat the Democrats’ stepped-up attacks.

Polls have offered a muddled picture of the race. On Sunday, the Boston Globe put Coakley’s lead at 15 percentage points. But that came after two automated polls, whose methodology is not always as reliable, showed a far closer contest — one gave Coakley a nine-point advantage, the other showed a virtual dead heat.

On Monday, national Democrats released the results of an internal survey showing Coakley’s lead at 14 points, but their actions since have belied the idea that she is comfortably ahead. A pair of internal polls taken for the parties showed the gap between the candidates in the mid-single digits.

Democratic strategists in Massachusetts and Washington said they remain confident that Coakley will prevail, given the huge Democratic registration advantage in the state and the attorney general’s appeal to female voters. But they blamed Coakley and her campaign for letting up over the holidays and allowing Brown to change the dynamic of the race.

Coakley and Brown held their last debate Monday night, and while no clear winner emerged, Brown most often appeared to be taking a more aggressive posture. The two traded accusations on taxes, health-care reform and economic policy, with Coakley charging that Brown would take the country back to the economic policies of the George W. Bush administration.

Brown challenged Coakley, who opposes Obama’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, on national security and terrorism, arguing that she was wrong to support the administration’s decision to try self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian court. After the debate, he also criticized Coakley for declaring that terrorists “are gone” from Afghanistan in explaining her support for an exit strategy.

Hoping to appeal to Massachusetts’s long Democratic tradition, the Coakley camp began running a negative ad Monday attacking Brown as someone who would march “in lockstep with Washington Republicans.” He responded Tuesday with his own ad in which he said she had decided “that the best way to stop me is to tear me down” and called on voters to reject her tactics.

Older Entries