WHAT NOW FOR THE TEA PARTIES?

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Yes, we won that very precious 41st vote, and thank God for that. Dennis Prager said, "We avoided a torpedo, but you don't win a war by avoiding a torpedo." Americans are not prepared to spend themselves into oblivion, and the Massachusetts election made that very clear.

Already we see that Scott Brown is endorsing John McCain for re-election in Arizona, and Brown is supporting Obama's commission to reduce the deficit, rather than the Conrad-Gregg proposal.

We needed to get someone into that congressional seat to stop the bleeding, but if it were a regular primary it might have been a different outcome. We have time for choices in upcoming primaries such as Florida, with Marco Rubio definitely the best conservative choice over stimulus and health care approving Charlie Crist. In California, Chuck DeVore is the conservative choice over moderate Carly Fiorina, and anybody is the favorite over moderate, illegal alien amnesty advocate John McCain in Arizona.

The struggle for the TEA Party movement is to get the RINOs out and core valued conservatives in, starting with Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. ( UPDATE: I'm hearing J.D. Hayworth may hang up his mic and run against McCain)

Andrew Ian Dodge writes some food for thought in Pajamas Media:

What Now for the Tea Parties?
Scott Brown will no doubt disappoint some conservatives, but does the movement really want to associate itself so closely with the GOP?
by Andrew Ian Dodge, January 23, 2010

Scott Brown has managed to take Ted Kennedy’s former seat in Massachusetts and swing the independent voters from the Democrats to the GOP.

The right is pleased with itself, especially the tea party movement. They believe that by electing Brown, they have driven a stake through the heart of the health care vampire.

Unfortunately — like any horror story — the villain may yet live. Democrats had already begun drafting contingency plans for Brown’s election when things started looking bad. They will consider every possible trick in the book before considering the white flag.

Conservatives may in fact be better positioned should the Democrats continue their arrogant ways and push through health care (which will probably be the Senate plan now). If the president and his party ignore the overwhelming anger of the American people, it will be curtains for many Democrats.

Alas, political observers — including this one — think that the liberals who control the Democratic Party are so dedicated to the cause of universal health care that they will sacrifice as many seats as necessary. They have been waiting 30 or more years for the right opportunity to push their socialist agenda, and would rather go down in flames than step back.

The tea party movement now has a big problem. They have thrown their lot behind a RINO in the form of Scott Brown, a man who voted for RomneyCare. Brown leans further left than Dede Scozzafava. Now the RINOs will point to his victory and see it as a sign that their “moderate” ways are vote winners, and all the angst that should be directed at the RINOs — for helping get us in this mess in the first place — may dissipate. Will conservatives be able to make a case for primary challengers against the RINOs for 2010? Will their short-term pragmatism prove too clever by half in the long run? After all, Brown did not thank the tea party movement in his victory speech, despite the many tea partiers who helped him win.

Will tea party movement conservatives be able to guide the Republican Party in the wake of a RINO being elected in Kennedy’s old seat? And what has this whole campaign done to the movement that tries to proclaim itself to be non-partisan? When the Republican Party needed them, the tea party movement fell into line. How can the movement proclaim its independence when it has just stumped for a Republican who is not even a conservative?

This special election has been a gift to the Republicans in their quest to co-opt the tea party. Surely it would be ironic if Ted Kennedy in death helped the Republican Party get back to electability. Yet Kennedy may have delivered lapsed Republicans back to the party, and split the tea party movement so it is no longer as big a threat to both parties.

Ultimately, if the tea party movement wants to see the House and the Senate spurn its liberal Democrats, they should hope for shenanigans. Voters have very short memories, and this vote for Brown may placate them. In victory, the tea party movement must continue to press its message of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and the free market.

They need to quickly return to the task at hand. Scott Brown’s election does not render the April 15 rallies less important. The movement needs to keep its eye and pressure on elected officials in D.C., and they also need to make sure Brown is seated as soon as possible.

It is up to the tea party movement regarding whether this will be merely a Pyrrhic victory in the long campaign against the socialist agenda. This is one small gain — possibly even a temporary one if Brown votes as he did in Massachusetts — in the long quest to return the U.S. back to its constitutional roots of prudent governance.


Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.

THE MEANING OF BROWN

It's not surprising to see the Democrats in denial. When have they ever taken responsibility for the result of their actions, especially this narcissistic leader? The most comical of all was Obama's statement comparing Scott Brown's victory to his own! Scott Brown rode to victory campaigning against everything Obama and his administration stands for.

What this means is America has had enough. We are frightened, disappointed, appalled, running out of money (some bankrupt), unemployed, and angry. It isn't hard to see the hypocrisy when a man who has campaigned hard for the last 11 months about the need for his health care 'PLAN', never mentions it in his stumping for Martha Coakley.

The Democtrats have spent this past year ignoring and dismissing the TEA Party movement starting in the early spring with tea parties across the nation; during the summer at town hall meetings; and an overwhelming march to Washington DC in the fall. In addition, they dismissed the millions and millions of phone calls, faxes and letters from a nation begging them not to pass this atrocious government run health care bill. They were "showed arrogance being dismissive, even derisive", if I may steal from a quote of Obama describing our country on his "Bash America Tour". Is it any wonder Mr. Brown took the country by storm? A man of conviction, on solid ground, not whining or vacillating.

This special election was profound, and the always brilliant Charles Krauthammer illustrates in his current excellent piece in Real Clear Politics:


The Meaning of Brown
by Charles Krauthammer, January 22, 2010

WASHINGTON -- On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform. "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable: Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."

I say: Let them sleep.


letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

PROTECTING UNBORN LIFE AT FORT HOOD

It is disturbing to read about the number of fatalities as being 13 in the Fort Hood massacre, when in fact the number is more accurately 14. On November 5, 2009, terrorist, Nidal Malik Hasan, executed a massacre of Fort Hood soldiers, killing 13 and wounding 30 while proclaiming "Allah Akbar! Included in the 13 was Private Francheska Velez, 21, who was three months pregnant and preparing to return home to Chicago from a tour of duty in Iraq. She was due home by December to begin her maternity leave.

Now that this terrorist has been charged with 13 counts of murder, the number needs to be corrected to include this unborn child. In a note from WallBuilders.com, a group of Texas legislators has asked the Secretary of the Army to confirm whether Velez was pregnant, and if she was, to prosecute Hasan for 14 murders rather than 13.

We thought you might be interested in seeing the excellent letter that these legislators have sent to the Secretary of the Army.....

You may want to contact the Texas legislators listed in the letter and send them a note of thanks (you may find contact information for them on the Texas House of Representatives site).

The letter is signed by 31 State Representatives and states:

Dear Secretary McHugh:

As Texas state legislators, we would like to express our gratitude to you for your department’s work investigating the shootings perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood Military Base. Your personal attention to the investigation is appreciated by us and the Texans we represent in the State Legislature.

We understand that Major Hasan will be tried in a military court martial and that he will be charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We respectfully request that an additional charge be brought under Article 119(a) of UCMJ if it is finally determined that one of the victims, Private Francheska Velez, was pregnant at the time of the shootings.
Specifically, Article 119(a), UCMJ provides that:

• (1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
• (2) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

We believe that the murder of Private Velez’s unborn child must be prosecuted under this section of UCMJ. Indeed, such action would underscore the fundamental point that unborn children must be afforded the same legal protections against offenses that can be committed against individuals, such as homicide.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 319 (78R), which we strongly support. The legislation provided that a person who commits an offense that results in harm to or the death of an individual who is an unborn child can be prosecuted in generally the same manner as an offense committed against an individual who is born. The law is in keeping with the value that we place on the sanctity of all human life, including the lives of unborn children. Charging Major Hasan with the murder of Private Velez's unborn child under Article 119(a), UCMJ would be in keeping with the spirit of state law in Texas.

Thank you again for your leadership during this difficult time for our nation; we greatly appreciate your department’s response to the shootings at Fort Hood military base.

A VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH

A landmark decision was made last week in the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of freedom of speech. A lot has been said for and against this decision, but our most treasured law, freedom of speech, has once again been saved.

It's laughable to hear Obama pontificate about the injustices of this decision. "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't."

This, coming from the man who raked in millions from the likes of big corporate George Soros, Warren Buffett, Unions, Goldman Sachs (bailout), Microsoft, Google, Citicorp (bailout), JP Morgan (bailout), IBM, General Electric, Time Warner, etc.

This decision is made to protect everyone, no matter how large or how small, but methinks it will actually benefit the smaller corporations, such as the one who filed this law suit, who do not have the funds to fight off the larger ones. Strike another blow for David against the behemouth Golieth. No wonder Obama hates it.

But that's not going to stop Obama. After all, only God can reverse the Supreme Court!

Because of its very nature, describing the importance of this decision can be complicated, but is important to understand its historic impact. This piece by Jacob Laksin of Frontpage Magazine makes the argument in favor of this monumental decision:


A Victory for Free Speech
by Jacob Laksin, January 22, 2010

Can the government suppress free speech critical of elected politicians? In the home of the First Amendment, that may seem an unusual question to pose. But that was the question before the Supreme Court this week, as it handed down a landmark ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on corporations and labor unions using money from their general funds to produce and air campaign ads in races for Congressional and presidential races. Also overturned was a ban on corporations and unions airing campaign ads 30 days before primary or 60 days before general election.

The case in question dates back to January 2008, when the conservative non-profit group Citizens United produced a documentary critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton titled Hillary: The Movie. When the Federal Election commission used the McCain Feingold campaign finance law to limit Citizen United’s ability to advertise the film during the 2008 presidential primaries, the group sued to protest the restriction on free speech.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizen United’s favor. In so doing, it won approval from free-speech advocates and strident criticism from many on the political Left. To discuss the case and its political implications, Front Page turned to Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

FP: The Supreme Court’s decision has certainly stirred its share of controversy. How do you view the Court’s ruling?

Shapiro: This is a big win for free speech. It is the most significant ruling on campaign finance since [the 1976 case] Buckley vs. Valeo and it continued the trend of this court of allowing greater speech in the political arena. It’s a victory for the marketplace of ideas and it’s a victory for democracy.

FP: Some, especially on the Left, don’t see it that way. The New York Times despairs this morning that the decision is a “blow for democracy” that paves the way for “corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections.” Is there any merit to the objection that the court’s ruling will distort democracy by empowering corporations while diminishing the voice of regular citizens?

Shapiro: I think the concern about corporations is misplaced. Most corporations are not Exxon. They are smaller companies or non-profits. With the disclosure rules that are in place, voters will still be able to judge which candidate is in the pocket of some corporation, whether it’s the ACLU or the Sierra Club, or the Cato Institute for that matter. We still have laws in place going back to 1907 that prevent direct contributions to candidates.

To the extent that there has been a diminution in the public’s faith in the democratic process, the government is probably more to blame than the corporations. Earmarks, special tax breaks, the dispersal of government goodies and baddies – these types of actions harm democracy much more. McCain Feingold was never about regular citizens. It was a creature of the Beltway. There was no great call from the hinterland to get money out of politics.

I don’t think democracy will be diminished as a result of the ruling. What we could see is more ads like the Swift Boats ads during the 2004 presidential campaign or the Hillary movie. But the way the law stood, some government bureaucrat could have simply banned books that were critical of a political candidate in an election year. That would have been far worse.

FP: In part, there is a partisan argument here. Democrats complain that if you make it easier for corporations t o spend money in political campaigns, you empower Republicans, since the Left considers corporations and Republicans natural allies.

Shapiro: I think that argument is laughable. It’s not at all clear which party would benefit from this ruling. Corporations are highly strategic about what they do with their money. It’s because they want political influence that they donate money to both parties. Goldman Sachs gave more money to Barack Obama than to any other candidate in the last election cycle. They were the number-one donor to his campaign. You could go down the list of Fortune 500 companies and find similar contributions. So when Obama rails that this ruling will help Wall Street, it’s a little rich. He set the record for donors from big companies.

FP: Another common claim among critics of the ruling is that corporations don’t deserve the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

Shapiro: No one is saying that corporations are human beings. But corporations are groups of private individuals who have legal rights. Take Front Page magazine. It’s not an individual. But the government can’t raid your office and just seize your computer. That would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, corporations have First Amendment rights. Think of it this way: George Soros can spend as much as he wants in an election, but if you and a hundred other people get together to spend your money, suddenly, that can’t work. Individuals don’t lose their rights just because they come together to magnify the effects of their donations.

FP: Some claim that this decision bespeaks a political agenda of the court’s conservative majority, that the court had no business hearing the case and seized on it for political purposes.

Shapiro: Justice Roberts has actually addressed this point in his concurring decision. In legal doctrine, you have something called stare decisis, which means that you don’t reverse a precedent even if it’s wrong. People rely on legal precedent. But in this case the precedent was not that old. On top of that, no one relies on having less speech. No one says, ‘I have an interest in self-censorship.’ The court used the smaller issue of the Hillary film to get at the larger issue of how free speech can be regulated. The court is acting properly when it upholds the Constitution.


Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with David Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Weekly Standard, City Journal, Policy Review, as well as other publications. Email him at jlaksin@gmail.com.

TECHNOCRACY: THE DEMOCRATS' TECHNOLOGICAL THUGGERY

We have all heard about the corruption of politics, but not with the force this administration has wielded. We not only heard about it, but witnessed it in a front row seat. The Democrats always overreach, but this time it was in your face, to use one of Obama's favorite idioms. A classic example of things to come was the scene outside a Philadelphia polling place with Black Panther thugs wielding nightsticks intimidating white voters [charges mysteriously dismissed], but most people didn't want to face that little tidbit.

After being dismissed as unruly children, we have seen the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama ignore the cries of the American people, shutting them out to make the decisions they want to make while blaming their opponents for it not working and blaming the private sector. Talk is about all they do best, because the actions do not support the rhetoric. This is why you have to focus on their actions, not the words.

Although Obama may have lost his lockhold, he still has a lot of power, enough to do great damage to this country in the next three years. He has his Article 2 powers, and that in itself is enough to scare the living daylights out of every freesom loving citizen.

An excellent piece about this treachery by Phil Elmore in World Net Daily:


Technocracy: The Democrats' Technological Thuggery
by Phil Elmore, January 21, 2010

Force is technology.

It is crude technology, but it is technology nonetheless. Technology is the application of a tool or tools to human effort. This produces a result greater than can be accomplished without the tools used. In the case of naked force, technology could be a clenched fist wielded with intent – or it could be the truncheon in the white knuckles of a Black Panther who is bullying elderly voters.

The technology of force can also be thieving, manipulation and intimidation of any democratic or bureaucratic process, in this case as nationally exhibited by the Democratic Party. Force, as misused by the Democrats, is the application of violence, abuse of process, libel, slander, propaganda, theft and a variety of other criminal behaviors to gain and keep, through any means necessary, the power to rule, arrogantly and presumptuously, every miniscule facet of your waking life.

Democrats engage in this reprehensible, morally bankrupt, hypocritical behavior even as they breathlessly exclaim that their political opponents mean them harm. The example that springs most readily to mind is the bug-eyed, botox-paralyzed, Medusan visage of Nancy Pelosi as she feigned crocodile tears at the thought of those awful, mean "tea party" people waving imaginary Nazi symbols and somehow implying violence because they dared to oppose the socialization of American health care.

Meanwhile, as hand-wringing Democrats engaged in these histrionics, their union thugs were beating protesters in an effort to silence them. A supporter of socialized medicine bullied, assaulted and then bit off the finger of an older man who dared to oppose Obamacare. Supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens attacked Americans opposed to the invasion of their nation. Conservative protesters were pepper-sprayed and beaten by homosexual activists.

Republican protesters risk their well-being whenever they dare to stand up for their political beliefs – and the left-leaning popular media turn a deliberately blind eye to their Democrat fellow travelers' crimes. While all this was going on, Democrats and the media were falling over themselves laughing to redefine "tea party" protesters as "teabaggers," a sexually vulgar term that left-wingers across the mainstream media are now free to use with impunity. Winking and nudging your co-anchors while uttering the word is optional, incidentally.

Take Steven Benen, for example. Benen's a typical liberal whose first reaction to the news of Kenneth Gladney's beating by SEIU thugs was to sneer that, well, if the guy could still walk around afterward, it couldn't have been a very big deal. Why, conservatives must have been busily manufacturing a cause celebre ... and why doesn't Gladney have health insurance? Benen was, in fact, much more concerned with who was paying Gladney's hospital bill than he was with the assault on a black conservative.

That black man – whom Benen apparently thought probably deserved a good roughing up – was one of the many people MSNBC's execrable Contessa Brewer condemned as "racist" for daring to oppose Obama's socialist agenda. Considering the topography of left-wing political beliefs, the reasonable man finds a disturbingly large number of Democrats who are entirely comfortable with the thought of roughing up their political opponents. Failed Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley certainly had no problem with one of her aides knocking down a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Who do those conservative journalists think they are, after all?

When they're not libeling or beating their opponents, Democrats are busily changing the rules to their benefit in the middle of the political process. Never was this more obvious than in the battle over the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Democrats in Massachusetts changed the law half a decade ago to stop then-Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican Senator to fill the seat that would have been vacated by John Kerry (had he become president). The Democrats then changed the process back so a Democratic governor could appoint a Democrat to fill Kennedy's seat after "the Lion of the Senate" died of cancer. When the people finally got to vote on that seat and put a Republican in office, it threatened the 60-vote majority needed to prevent a Republican filibuster in the Democrat-ruled Senate.

The Democrat response? The lisping, bloated self-parody that is Barney Frank sputtered and stammered and spat his way through a statement in which he hinted that the Democrats might do away with the filibuster to prevent this challenge to their imperial reign. This shouldn't surprise us at all; it wasn't too long ago that MSNBC host Ed Schultz said he was perfectly OK with vote fraud to keep those "bastard" Republicans out of office.

In the vote-fraud department, illegitimate officeholders like Al Franken are way ahead of Schultz. Franken stole his Minnesota Senate seat from Norm Coleman by (as tried and true for Democrats) changing the rules in the middle of the process – manipulating the recount of a close election to usurp that election's rightful winner. We can thank the precedent set by Democrat Al Gore in his attempts to commit similar theft of a presidential election.

The damning evidence is clear: Democrats are violent, corrupt, arrogant and self-righteous. A Democrat believes that his cradle-to-grave ideology makes him special. Whatever a Democrat does is justified in his mind as what is best for the masses, regardless of whether the proles know what is good for them.

The Democrats will continue to lie, to cheat, to steal and to trample the Constitution of the United States. They will be removed from power only through the most vicious of battles, and they will have to be dragged, kicking and clawing and screaming, from the table of government. The technology of their tyranny is all around us. The infrastructure of their arrogant imperialism is inescapable. Only when we are willing to acknowledge the fact of their thuggery will we have even the slightest hope of combating it. Only when we admit publicly that Democrats individually are villains will we have any chance of overcoming them.


--------------------------------------------------

Phil Elmore is a freelance author, technical writer and publisher of the self-defense e-zine The Martialist.

THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK

It's been a long time since America has been under a Democratic rule without some kind of balance, and every time they have such power, it doesn't take long for them to remind us why we don't like them. We are a center right country, with strong Christian values, no matter how much noise the far left radicals are compelled to make. America was taken for a ride last year, and the timing couldn't have been more ripe.

Well, Tuesday, January 19th, America said "We've had enough!" Although the election was in Massachusett(e)s, across the nation citizens rallied in his support, which goes to show you what the 2010 elections will bring. All of us make a difference. We are united against this oppression. We are focused, and will remain engaged for as long as it takes.

Scott Brown has been as inspirtion, and Obama is unraveling at the seams, blaming everything and everyone in his line of fire, attacking and criticizing everyone else, including (as always) George W. Bush and especially the private sector. If he destroys the private sector, he is one step closed to government run 'everything'. So now, Obama is out there, where he's most comfortable, in campaign mode, BS-ing and attacking the people who actually create jobs, taxing and regulating the private sector so they can no longer provide these jobs.

He says it's not about him, but in the same sentence it ends with all the I, me's you can count. Ann Coulter writes a wonderful piece on America's awakening and Obama's denial:



That Old Obama Magic Is Back
by Ann Coulter, January 20, 2010

Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy.

Less than two weeks ago, The New York Times said that so much as a "tighter-than-expected" victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite "soul-searching among Democrats nationally," which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, "soul."

A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute "the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party" will affect the 2010 elections.

But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick's fault.

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it's ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats' obsession with forcing national health care down the nation's throat.

Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have.

As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley's objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: "Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election four days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout."

Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley's immediate family would have even been aware of the election.

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk -- as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.

And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: "A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state's attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support."

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she's being hung out to dry so that Democrats don't have to face the possibility that Obama's left-wing policies are to blame.

Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown's colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying "no" generally, but not to anything in particular.

Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda.

As a result, for the past four decades, American politics has consisted of Republicans controlling Washington for eight to 14 years -- either from the White House or Capitol Hill -- thus allowing Americans to forget what it was they didn't like about Democrats, whom they then carelessly vote back in. The Democrats immediately remind Americans what they didn't like about Democrats, and their power is revoked at the voters' first possible opportunity.

Obama has cut the remembering-what-we-don't-like-about-Democrats stage of this process down from two to four years to about 10 months. Folks, I'm convinced that if we all work really hard, we can get it down to three months.

Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us two titanic Reagan landslides, peace and prosperity for eight blessed years -- and even a third term for his feckless vice president, George H.W. Bush.

Two years of Bill Clinton gave us a historic Republican sweep of Congress, which killed the entire Clinton agenda (with the exception of partial-birth abortion and felony obstruction of justice) -- and also gave us two terms for George W. Bush.

And now, merely one year of Obama and a Democratic Congress has given us the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 31 years.

In other recent news, last November, New Jersey voters, who haven't voted for a Republican for president since 1988, threw out their incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. In Virginia, which Obama carried by 6 points a year earlier, a religious-right Republican won the governor's office by 17 points.

Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, won his last election in 2006 by 28 points -- the largest margin for a Democratic Senate candidate in that state in a quarter-century.

Since voting for the Senate health care bill last Christmas, the once-bulletproof Sen. Nelson not only gets booed out of Omaha pizzerias, but he has also seen his job approval rating fall to 42 percent and his disapproval rating soar to 48 percent. (Meanwhile, the junior senator from Nebraska, Mike Johanns, who voted against the bill, has a job approval rating of 63 percent.)

The Democrats have no natural majority because they have no fundamental principles -- at least none that they are willing to state out loud. They are like a drunken vagrant who emerges from the alley to cause havoc every few years. They are the perpetual toothache of American politics.

To be sure, the fact that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters are racist, sexist tea-baggers -- i.e., voted for a Republican -- means only that the Democrats just went from having the largest congressional majority in a generation to the second largest. But this was "Teddy Kennedy's seat." And it was in Massachusetts.

Now, no Democrat is safe.

But the country just got a lot safer.


-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?topic_name=Ann+Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault America."
-----------------------------------------------------

GREAT SCOTT !!

Great Scott, he did it!! It was a catharsis, and congratulations from a grateful republic.

Can you hear us now ?