Saturday, September 26, 2009

Massachusetts Governor’s Race 2010 Poll - Patrick: 29% Believe He Should Be Re-Elected – Mihos Beats Baker in Republican Primary (Again) – Analysis

Mihos-Patrick Matchup likely 2010 according to Recent Polls

A newly releasedpoll (marginal’s here) by Suffolk University is accompanied by the headline: “Patrick Leads Opponents Despite Negative Ratings”, however, the conclusion is a bit premature given the early nature of the race (primary is not set until Tuesday, September 14th, 2010), and the overall disapproval of the Governor’s job performance to date in that same poll.

In reviewing the marginals, the University, once again, polls 8% on campus, with the balance of the geographic areas of Massachusetts being either over represented or underrepresented (county by county census data) The sample of registered voters, once again, under represents the “unenrolled” – an ever growing portion of the electorate – currently approximately at 51% (based on Massachusetts Secretary of State Voter Registration as of 2008). Therefore, the poll, for all intents and purposes, is more entertainment at this juncture.

The Govenor, who only 29% of those polled believe should retain his seat, appears to have unusually high favorability ratings – 42% favorable/45% unfavorable and 11% undecided (1% never heard of him). Tim Cahill, Democrat turned Independent, 35% favorable, 12% unfavorable, 25% Undecided, 18% never heard of him. Republican, Charlie Baker, and fares poorly overall, 45% never heard of Baker, of those who have, 15% favorable, 11% unfavorable and 30% are undecided. The one populist candidate, running as a Republican, is Christy Mihos, 27% favorable, 23% unfavorable, 29% undecided, and 22% of those polled never heard of him.

Given this scenario and the fact that independents vote in the Massachusetts Primary (given enough interest in a given race, and one must understand that there is a great interest in the race), even among non-political junkies: Mihos would trounce Baker in the primary, leaving a three way race between Cahill, Mihos and the Incumbent, Patrick. Historically, the independent candidate does not fare well in Massachusetts, Mihos understands this quite well, running in 2006 in a three way match-up between Patrick and Kerry Healy, Mihos took 3% of the vote – Healy, weakened by the Republican brand, negative campaign ads, and lack of grassroots support, lost by over 21% To those in the state that blame Mihos for Healy’s loss, a basic math review may be in order.

Therefore, a race between Mihos and Patrick is likely – with Patrick most definitely (according to this poll) taking a loss. This is based on the pivotal question and result: Does Patrick deserve to be re-elected: a measly 29% of those polled (included 8% of university students/professors) believe that he does.

One has to understand that some polls are designed and commissioned in order to achieve results, which may be given to the press, which then broadcasts the “approved results”; never bothering to investigate the marginal’s where the real story lays. One of the most amusing aspects of this poll is a question: “Do you favor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts adding a recall vote where
citizens could remove an elected official when he or she is underperforming?” – the results: 54% yes, 38% no (the percentage of Democrats polled), with only 8% undecided on this issue. If that were, in fact, available to the state’s electorate, one would bet the house that many of those sitting on Beacon Hill would find themselves out on the street.

However, caution is in order, as again, it is still early in the season, with a primary almost a year away – but one can predict, given previous polls by Suffolk (marginals here) that the scenario of a Patrick /Mihos matchup would result.

Friday, September 25, 2009

School Children Taught to Sing Praises to Obama To the Tune of “The Battle hymn of The Republic” – Political ideology in The Classroom - Analysis

A video on YouTube has generated more than a bit of controversy over the past day or two: children from a New Jersey School singing praises to President Obama. The debate focuses on the appropriateness of teaching young children to sing praises to any sitting president; and if the lyrics are politically motivated. The fact that progressive political activists supporting Obama have used children in the campaign went fairly unnoticed (video’s below), and if anything was printed or broadcast, it was related to comparisons between those children and children who were used by political figures of the past (i.e. Hitler Youth Group), this, however, is being viewed as political indoctrination via the public school system – which is, in a word, ridiculous. Ridiculous because the President of the United States, regardless of accomplishments, should be “lionized” as an individual who is somehow on a pedestal above the rest of the population. The fact that the Presidency is a temporary office to which the people, by majority, hire to do a job – the position also has evolved to mean that the sitting President is the titular “head” of a political party – the rub. On the face of it, the particular lyrics may be argued, specifically the “equal work for equal pay”, which, most probably should have been “equal pay for equal work”, an obvious error on the part of the lyricist. Women in this country understand that they are still earning less than their male counterparts in most instances – that said, someone should have caught the this mistake.

What is most disturbing is the tune to which the song is set: “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”. To those of any religious affiliation (or non-affiliation) in the United States, the concept of religion in the classroom has become, in itself, either a question of the separation of church and state (vis a vis the Constitution), and/or, the infringement on religious freedom (again guaranteed by the same document). The Battle Hymn of the Republic, a religious song most often associated with American holidays regarding Veteran’s, is sung in churches nationwide – the fact that the lyrics of a song, praising one president, to this particular tune (God aiding soldiers on the battlefield) is a mockery of the faith of many citizens of the nation, as well as a mockery of those who served this nation without regard to personal loss.

What would be appropriate (for those who are focused on the racism that exists in the world today) would be a little ditty praising the American People for electing Obama to the office in the first place. In reality, his presidency is too new, without the burden of any attacks on our nation’s soil, to have a history of achievement. The fact that the nation is embroiled in a disastrous economic cycle, and Obama happens to be trying to lead us out of it (this is also open to debate, but that is a political and economic debate, but, to date, there is no evidence that this has happened. It is the political ideology of those who run the school systems in this nation (progressive socialists) that should be called into question – a generic song singing the praises of all presidents, and/or a song specifically praising the American Citizenry for seeing past color (and hopefully, one day, gender) would have been appropriate and there would be no concern from any segment of the population – but this is of concern, given the nature of the lyrics, the tune to which these lyrics were set, the nature of the office of the Presidency and the nature of the setting. One cannot, for a moment, believe that this is an isolated incident, given the pervasiveness of progressive socialists in the school systems (from the University level down to pre-school) – it is, most likely, being sung throughout the nation.

Therefore, the President, himself, should perhaps make a statement regarding the flattering, yet totally inappropriate use of his name in this instance. Is it the fault of President Obama that children are being taught, by rote, to praise him in this regards? The answer is, equivocally, no. He may not even be aware that this has taken place, given the burden of the Office (see financial disaster, and aggressive progressive programs that the President is trying to put into place) – but once made aware, the problems should be addressed, not necessarily by the President himself, rather one of his staff, most appropriate the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan It must be, to anyone who understands the Office, an embarrassment, as so many great men, who achieved so much over a span of 8 to 12 years, were not lauded in this manner and no man (or someday woman – when the nation reaches that level of enlightenment) should be placed above another who held that citizen driven office – respect is due the Presidency – accomplishments, once they occur belong to the historians and should be taught in the proper classroom – history (or as it has now evolved: social studies).

There is a commonality between all videos, parents and or mentors (teachers) have taught their children (or charges) by rote, a song praising a political figure. It should be noted that political ideology that has been taken to this extreme, regardless of affiliation or party, is beyond normal levels of admiration – what should have been taken into consideration by those who involved their children (or were in charge of involving the children of others) is the fact that in 4 years or 8 years this man will no longer be the President, and should these “great” (vague) accomplishments not occur – those children will be left with a hearty case of disrespect for the office and, disrespect for those foolish enough to laud one man, over many. Politics is a sport to many, to many it is a duty, but to some in this nation, it is a moral imperative and therein lays the danger – to our nation, and in these instances to our nations children.

Lyrics to Battle Hymn of the Republic
The Lyrics to video NJ School:

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

Video of School Children at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ

During the campaign 2008, video of Obama Step Team

Children during the Campaign singing Obama Praise Song

Link to video of 4 year old singing Obama Praise song – embed feature removed by the parent

Thursday, September 24, 2009

IRS Say No to ACORN as Tax Advisors after being Caught on Tape – IRS Misses Tax Liens on Organization for Non-Payment of Withholding Taxes.

The many facets of ACORN - volunteers/employees at Town Hall Meetings Supporting Health Care Reform

More in the ACORN saga - the Internal Revenue Service had previously allowed ACORN to volunteer its services as tax advisors – it is now removing them from the volunteer list. Apparently, the video’s that surfaced regarding ACORN offices in multiple states, in multiple areas of the country, giving advice to prostitutes and pimps on how to evade taxes and while “employing” underage children smuggled into the country, was the last straw. ACORN provided assistance on approximately 25,000 tax returns, according to the IRS – one wonders if those would be under review – given the circumstances. Apparently, ACORN has been served with Federal and State Tax Liens, (documents here) for non-payment of employee withholding taxes. The IRS has yet to make any statements regarding that “oversight.”

Federal Tax Lien filed against ACORN

While one must understand that the original intent of the organization is noble (Community Organization devoted to aiding the poor in regards to housing), the criminal abuses coming from so many employees of this non-profit, publicly funded organization, are rife. One has to wonder, with so many highly paid employees at the top, with the ability to hire and recruit employees and volunteer that would be well-vetted and able to follow guidelines, how these non-isolated instances can possibly be attributed to an anomaly. In the case of most corporations, bad management and policy is made at the top. It appears that after having been caught red handed, and losing Federal Funds, their position within the Census and now their ability to play with peoples tax returns, a complete restructuring from the top down would be in order. That might include the IRS as well, considering the organizations inability to track the fact that an organization working for them has outstanding Federal tax liens (let alone, State Liens). This could be construed as a product of Big Government.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

ACORN Hires Massachusetts Democrat, Scott Harbarger to Lead Investigation: The Chickens Guarding the Henhouse

From the Boston Globe, former Commonwealth Attorney General, Scott Harshbarger, has been chosen by ACORN executives to perform an internal investigation of the organization that has come under scrutiny for voter fraud and most recently, incidents involving advising prostitutes on how to evade income taxes and run an underage brothel. Harshbarger is currently an attorney with a Boston firm, specializing in corporate defense and investigations. Mr. Harshbarger, also is the director of “Common Cause”, an allegedly non-partisan organization that has offices in several states. See non-partison: soliciting funds to remove Tom Delay from Office. (Screenshot below)
One can anticipate that any internal investigation done by Mr. Harshbarger, with an expertise in corporate defense and ties to an organization that is similar in scope to ACORN should do a bang-up job. – One can predict the outcome – ACORN is not responsible for the actions of a few employees and the organization is clean from the top down.

Bipartisanship shown by Common Cause - click image to enlarge

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Acorn Congressional Funding Ban – Nadler (D-NY) Believes Congress Ban Unconstitutional

Jerrold Nadler, NY 8th District(D) believes Ban on ACORN funding unconstitutional - Image

From Politico: One of the few Democrats in the House that voted against removing Federal Funds on the group “ACORN”, is arguing that the Congressional Ban may be unconstitutional. ACORN, who’s offices and employees have come under scrutiny for voter fraud and counseling pimps on how to avoid taxes as well as bring underage children into the country to work as prostitutes, lost funding in bans from both the Congress and the Senate last week.

Nadler, one of the 75 Democrats who voted to retain funding (345 Congressional Representatives voted to rescind funding for ACORN from a student aid bill), insists the exclusion of ACORN (Primary Function –Housing – Community Activism) is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment – sections 9 and 10. Nadler insists that the Constitution’s language regarding the passage of “Bills of Attainder” prevents the Congress from passing any laws that would prohibit funding as part of a penalty.

Article 9 states (source Cornell): “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”, Section 10 refers to the same language, but that is in regards to the individual states and their relationship with the Federal Government. A bill of Attainder: ()source: Free Dictionary)A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder. Such acts are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Further “Attainder” (According to: Merriam Webster) has to do with: the removal of civil rights of an individual who has been sentenced to death – normally for treason. In 1965, (source techlawjournal)“"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)

Therefore, a clause in the U.S. Constitution that referred to an act of treason and suspension of civil rights, was interpreted by the court as outmoded and then updated in one particular case (U.S. v. Brown 1965 – The 9th District applied a civil rights case and determined to be “liberally construed”, in this case, regarding an individual’s rights.

ACORN is not an individual, it is a group that, for all intents and purposes, should serve a noble purpose, but, unfortunately, involves itself in areas that are illegal. A perfect case for R.I.C.O. , rather than a “victim” of a Bill of Attainder, vis a vis being denied further funding due to criminal activity. Nadler’s argument in this case is moot – an organizations funding does not fall under any section of the Constitution, nor does the 1965 decision regarding the rights of individuals to a trial (which is the entire gist of this either in its “arcane” form or the updated “liberal” interpretation from the California 9th District Court).

ACORN’s offices should be under a thorough investigation to reinstate funding, and one would think that those 75 Democrats would be demanding an investigation into all aspects of ACORN’s activities in order to allow them to continue to receive the largess of the American People (i.e. taxpayer’s dollars.) The argument that one is not responsible for the actions of one’s employees, could also be taken into consideration, however, the fact that the “pimp tax evading” advise was offered at ACORN offices in multiple states, across the country, would suggest that it is more “policy” than the individual act of an “employee”. The same would apply to the instances of voter fraud: One person being paid a “per capita” fee for each voter registration, who then registered “Mickey Mouse” in order to make a buck, would not penalize an entire organization, however, that instance occurring in 14 states, in multiple areas, might again, go to an organizational “policy”.

Therefore, it is this writer’s opinion that the Congress and Senate acted appropriately in removing funding from said Organization, regardless of the fact that such was based upon multiple criminal complaints that are directly related to Federal Law (Voter Fraud, Human Trafficking). It is not “Civil Right” for any group to receive Tax-Payers dollars – and it is the right of the Congress to remove and or award funds at any time. It is, after all, interpretation of the Constitution, on the one side, strict interpretation of the law, and on the other, a more “liberal” (9th District Court, 1965) view. Perhaps the Supreme Court should weigh in on this particular case, as it would be an interesting judgment regarding individual rights versus the rights of an “Organization” as it applies to treason and due process (civil rights).

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Massachusetts Now Taxes Your Dogs! – Hinging on the Ridiculous - State to Levy Additional Taxes and Fees on Pet Owners!

Going to the Dogs - Massachusetts New Taxes!

The Commonwealth, ever searching for the next dollar it can squeeze from those that work for a living, has a new plan to levy taxes and rules on Pet owners in the State, an additional Tax on Dogs. It is clearly one of the most ridiculous proposals to come out of that asylum known as the Massachusetts Legislature, in at least a week.
Senate Bill 186 commonwealth of Massachusetts (PDF). This Bill suggests that anyone having more than 3 or 4 dogs, have a kennel license or those who do not, may want to consider one. The suggested fees for each Town/Municipality will rise to $3 to $50 (for an intact dog) annually, $3 of which will be kicked back to the State. These fees, originally intended to help a spay and neuter program, only give only a portion of the sum collected to that endeavor. Additionally, the bill also includes fines for non-compliance to the Commonwealth, much like fees levied on taxpayers who cannot afford Massachusetts current bankrupt Health Care System. Perhaps the funds are needed to cover the growing cost of putting up homeless families in hotels (now at several million per month).

In today’s economy, the fact that the State is collecting an additional 25% on every item one purchases for one’s pet, and those that live on fixed incomes (the elderly particularly) and rely on their companions, this is the despicable added burden. One has to wonder what the Democrats (otherwise known as professional legislators, on Beacon Hill will do next? Tax one’s children?!
For those animal owners who want to voice an opinion directly to one of the Commonwealths Senators who made this General Law – contact information is locatedhere All 6 Republican Senators can be sent a thank you note.

In the interest of full disclosure – owner of three dogs. Max show in First Photo



Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address