The latest Rasmussen poll shows Tim Cahill gaining support as the governor's race enters the final two weeks of the campaign. Without leaners, Cahill is at 14% -- up from 11% in the last Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen includes leaners in the Massachusetts polling, but not in the Maine gubernatorial race to apparently benefit the Republican candidates in both states.
"We call on Rasmussen Reports to release the full results of its polls in Massachusetts, rather than mislead voters by releasing selective information. This poll clearly shows that Tim Cahill is gaining ground in the critical stretch before Election Day, not fading as Scott Rasmussen predicted," said Cahill Campaign Manager Scott Campbell.
Rasmussen describes, "Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate. The approach anticipates that support for third party candidates typically declines as Election Day nears and voters begin to gravitate toward one of the major party nominees. Rasmussen Reports now considers results with leaners the primary indicator of the race."
"Our numbers are not fading; Tim Cahill is gaining ground in the polls in the final days, as some opponents lose points. We are in this race to win it." said Campbell.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
News from Tim Cahill (I) for MA Govenor
About TimNewsEventsDonateVolunteer Media CenterCampaign NewsThe Cahill BlogSun, 2010-09-26 11:06 — admin
“Yesterday’s poll results are evidence that this race is very much up for grabs. The large number of undecided voters indicates that voters are fed up with negative campaigning, attack ads and the two-party system. They are looking for somewhere to turn. I have remained resilient and unwavering to my values in the face of national parties’ attacks for months. This poll is more evidence of that smear campaign but it’s not about the polls but about the message and the results, like Harry Truman said, ‘How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?’ We're going to continue working on solutions for job creation and highlighting my successful leadership. When voters learn about my opponents’ failed attempts at leadership and realize that we must go in a new direction if we want different results, they will join in our effort. My supporters and I will spend the remaining days of this campaign fighting for the principles and values of the middle class citizens who have been forgotten by both parties. They deserve for their voices to be heard and I will continue to fight for them,” said Timothy P. Cahill.
“Yesterday’s poll results are evidence that this race is very much up for grabs. The large number of undecided voters indicates that voters are fed up with negative campaigning, attack ads and the two-party system. They are looking for somewhere to turn. I have remained resilient and unwavering to my values in the face of national parties’ attacks for months. This poll is more evidence of that smear campaign but it’s not about the polls but about the message and the results, like Harry Truman said, ‘How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?’ We're going to continue working on solutions for job creation and highlighting my successful leadership. When voters learn about my opponents’ failed attempts at leadership and realize that we must go in a new direction if we want different results, they will join in our effort. My supporters and I will spend the remaining days of this campaign fighting for the principles and values of the middle class citizens who have been forgotten by both parties. They deserve for their voices to be heard and I will continue to fight for them,” said Timothy P. Cahill.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Proof Please
I am tried of bad reporting by a newspaper that was once one of the best forth estate papers in New England. On Sept.3th Rep. Jeff Perry was tried,convicted, and sentenced with out any proof of a crime. If Rep.Perry did something illegal as a police officer the Herald reported should have done an investigative piece that would have lead to an incitement.
If Rep. Perry is guilt why was he NOT charged with patella. He had a subordinate who was charged and convicted. The reasoning of the Herald reporter would go like this in the news paper business. A reporter kills a young girl and ten years later we are writing stories about what a bad person his editor is.The guilty reporter is doing life at Cedar Junction. Why
didn't editor know the reporter was a murder. The editor did not editorialize that the reporter was not guilt. We still talk trash about the editor because his/her subordinate is a convicted murder.
Why would the Liberal reporter at the Boston Herald endores Mr. Malone?
If Rep. Perry is guilt why was he NOT charged with patella. He had a subordinate who was charged and convicted. The reasoning of the Herald reporter would go like this in the news paper business. A reporter kills a young girl and ten years later we are writing stories about what a bad person his editor is.The guilty reporter is doing life at Cedar Junction. Why
didn't editor know the reporter was a murder. The editor did not editorialize that the reporter was not guilt. We still talk trash about the editor because his/her subordinate is a convicted murder.
Why would the Liberal reporter at the Boston Herald endores Mr. Malone?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Malone Needs Mojoe
Joe Malone is a blast from the past. Some people in the Republican Party have thawed Joe out to run for Congress. He is as out of step with the voters of the 10th Congressal District as Austin Powers was when he was thawed out. Joe's mojoe dried up decades ago.
Many voters in the district were not born the last time Mr.Malone held elected office. Jeff Perry is a state representative. He was offered the Perry amendment which would have forced the state to check citizenship before giving public housing, state medicaid, or free state college tuition out.The same party stopped the Perry amendment are taking the state of Arizona to US Court. Joe should be more concerned about illegals now than a 23 year old policeman in the 1980's. The 80's was closer to the time when Joe had his political mojoe.
We the people deserve a working statesman in Washington NOT thawed out Ma polotican.
Many voters in the district were not born the last time Mr.Malone held elected office. Jeff Perry is a state representative. He was offered the Perry amendment which would have forced the state to check citizenship before giving public housing, state medicaid, or free state college tuition out.The same party stopped the Perry amendment are taking the state of Arizona to US Court. Joe should be more concerned about illegals now than a 23 year old policeman in the 1980's. The 80's was closer to the time when Joe had his political mojoe.
We the people deserve a working statesman in Washington NOT thawed out Ma polotican.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Palin: Obama Doesn't Have 'Cojones'
Palin: Obama Doesn't Have 'Cojones'
Monday, 02 Aug 2010 11:07 AM Article Font Size
By: John Rossomando
Sarah Palin assesses President Barack Obama’s approach to immigration bluntly: declaring that he doesn’t have the “cojones” to enforce the nation’s laws.
The former Alaska governor used the term — the Spanish word for “testicles” that often is used to mean courage — during a Fox News interview Sunday as she praised Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for standing up against the Obama administration’s lawsuit to block enforcement of the state’s immigration law.
Brewer “has the cojones that our president does not have,” Palin told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. “If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer and 44 other states who are in line to support Jan Brewer in state laws, state efforts to do what our president won’t do.”
A federal district court judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, including the section instructing law enforcement officers to check a person’s immigration status where “reasonable suspicion” exists a person they have detained is illegal.
Palin, who described the court injunction as “temporary,” praised Brewer for continuing the fight with the Obama administration to enforce the law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected hear Arizona’s appeal in early November.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate also pointed to the administration’s failure to act against so-called “sanctuary cities” around the country that refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities to show the hypocrisy of its argument against the Arizona law.
The administration contends that Arizona has circumvented federal law by ordering local authorities to enforce federal immigration law but has not applied the same reasoning to cities that refuse to enforce the same laws.
“The Obama administration did not put up a fight at all against this idea . . . of having sanctuary cities,” Palin said. “We’ve seen state laws where they are allowing for sanctuary cities, and that trumps a federal law, yet nobody’s saying ‘boo’ about that.
“Jan Brewer and other governors were protecting their citizens — protecting the nation as a whole — were very, very faithful that they are willing to go toe to toe and go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be and get this thing resolved.”
Meanwhile, Obama, appearing on CBS’ “Early Show” with Harry Smith Sunday, Obama said he understands people’s frustration with illegal immigration but warned against states taking action on their own.
“I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue,” Obama said on the program, which was taped Friday and also aired Monday. “And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m gonna be anti-immigrant, and I’m gonna try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, 02 Aug 2010 11:07 AM Article Font Size
By: John Rossomando
Sarah Palin assesses President Barack Obama’s approach to immigration bluntly: declaring that he doesn’t have the “cojones” to enforce the nation’s laws.
The former Alaska governor used the term — the Spanish word for “testicles” that often is used to mean courage — during a Fox News interview Sunday as she praised Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for standing up against the Obama administration’s lawsuit to block enforcement of the state’s immigration law.
Brewer “has the cojones that our president does not have,” Palin told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. “If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer and 44 other states who are in line to support Jan Brewer in state laws, state efforts to do what our president won’t do.”
A federal district court judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, including the section instructing law enforcement officers to check a person’s immigration status where “reasonable suspicion” exists a person they have detained is illegal.
Palin, who described the court injunction as “temporary,” praised Brewer for continuing the fight with the Obama administration to enforce the law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected hear Arizona’s appeal in early November.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate also pointed to the administration’s failure to act against so-called “sanctuary cities” around the country that refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities to show the hypocrisy of its argument against the Arizona law.
The administration contends that Arizona has circumvented federal law by ordering local authorities to enforce federal immigration law but has not applied the same reasoning to cities that refuse to enforce the same laws.
“The Obama administration did not put up a fight at all against this idea . . . of having sanctuary cities,” Palin said. “We’ve seen state laws where they are allowing for sanctuary cities, and that trumps a federal law, yet nobody’s saying ‘boo’ about that.
“Jan Brewer and other governors were protecting their citizens — protecting the nation as a whole — were very, very faithful that they are willing to go toe to toe and go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be and get this thing resolved.”
Meanwhile, Obama, appearing on CBS’ “Early Show” with Harry Smith Sunday, Obama said he understands people’s frustration with illegal immigration but warned against states taking action on their own.
“I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue,” Obama said on the program, which was taped Friday and also aired Monday. “And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m gonna be anti-immigrant, and I’m gonna try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Kagan Promoted Shariah Law
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Kagan Promoted Shariah Law at Harvard
Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.
Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.
Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.
Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 -- and likely more today.
At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."
Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.
Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate" and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.
For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no on her confirmation.
Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.
Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.
Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.
Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 -- and likely more today.
At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."
Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.
Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate" and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.
For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no on her confirmation.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Should Christians respect Obama?
This guy was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker. I almost shouted "HALLELUJAH" when I finished reading.
Forward or discard....it's your choice.
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the
Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President !
Why am I doing this ?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his
beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran ..
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right !
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs !
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant !
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country !
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society !
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to
bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code !
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech !
Unite behind Obama? Never ! ! !
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his
Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America ."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country ! ! Any more compromise is more defeat !
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country ! ! !
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe.
"In GOD We Trus
This guy was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker. I almost shouted "HALLELUJAH" when I finished reading.
Forward or discard....it's your choice.
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the
Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President !
Why am I doing this ?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his
beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran ..
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right !
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs !
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant !
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country !
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society !
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to
bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code !
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech !
Unite behind Obama? Never ! ! !
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his
Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America ."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country ! ! Any more compromise is more defeat !
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country ! ! !
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe.
"In GOD We Trus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)