The recent Climategate scandal, in which it was learned that “scientists” were manipulating the data in order to achieve their desired outcome, should have been enough to sink the fraudulent global warming crisis. But the media and most of the politicians have ignored the story. It is true that a couple of politicians have called for an investigation into the scandal, but nothing has come from it, and nothing will because it does not fit template that has been created around this whole myth. The environmentalists, and the all too willing politicians in Washington, have way too much money tied up in this– and stand to gain a gigantic windfall if cap and trade legislation is passed– to ever bring this scandal to the light of day.
And as if Climategate wasn’t bad enough on its own, we are now learning that is is quite possible that “scientists” have been ignoring temperatures in the colder regions of the globe in order to make the “global temperature” appear warmer than it actually is.
“Scientists” are picking and choosing which temperatures they will use in their models, and wich temperatures they will ignore. Needless to say, the “scientists” are ignoring much of the data that is accumulated from Canada and other cold regions in an attempt to “hide the decline” in the average global temperature.
These people have an endgame in sight and they are not going to stop until they achieve it. The end justifies the means. These “scientists” have pre-determined the outcome they wish to achieve and now they are going about the process of arriving at that outcome by any means necessary.
Barack Obama on the difference between the 1994 mid-term and the 2010 mid-term: “Me”
Scott Brown’s election has had a profound effect on worried Democrats in congress. Worried Democrats are starting to back away from the president’s agenda as the similarities between the 1994 mid-term elections– when the Democrats lost 50+ house seats– are now being brought to light in the media.
Barack Obama has a message for those who worry that the upcoming mid-term elections will have the same type of result as the mid-term elections of 1994: Don’t worry about a thing, I have your back.
Barack Obama claims that there is a major difference between the 1994 mid-term election and the impending mid-term election, and the difference is him. This revelation comes courtesy of the latest Democrat to declare that he is not going to run for re-election– Marion Berry.
They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.
Apparently, Barack Obama is counting on his personal likeability rating to encourage Democrats that this upcoming election won’t be the same bloodbath that befell President Clinton. While it is true that the president’s personal likeability is still high, more people are opposing the president’s agenda on a daily basis.
We need to look no further than the recent election of Scott Brown to the senate for an example of how the president’s personal rating compared to his policy rating effected the special election. Barack Obama still held a personal favorability rating of 60% in Massachusetts before the election and it still wasn’t enough to carry Martha Coakley to victory. Voters went to the polls and voted against Barack Obama’s policies even though they still claim to like him personally by a large margin. Why should the upcoming mid-term election be any different?
Yet the president appears blind to this fact as he tries to encourage Democrats that the public still likes him enough to send incumbant Democrats back to congress in November. How can he still feel this way? Is it arrogance? Is it denial? Or his he merely trying to “rally the troops?”
Most likely, it is all of the above. The Massachusetts election should be a warning to all of those politicians who still support the president’s agenda; the people do not support it. It doesn’t matter how much somebody may or may not like you, in the end it is the results that people are interested in. Right now the people do not like the results– or lack thereof– and they are voting against this president. He can claim that the Massachusetts election “is not about me,” but in fact it was about him. It was about him and his policies.
The fact that Barack Obama is unwilling to acknowledge this, coupled with the fact that he is still asking Democrats in congress to put their careers on the line in order to pass his agenda is certainly good news for those of us who oppose the president’s policies. If he keeps his head in the sand, and he continues to deny that his policies are being rejected by the American people, there will be a bloodbath at the mid-term elections. And, unless Barack Obama is just putting on a brave face, the only one that will be surprised by the outcome will be Barack Obama himself. Then, and only then, will Barack Obama realize that, yes, it is about him.
Barack Obama’s arrogance could be his downfall. Instead of learning the lesson of the Massachusetts election, Barack Obama is denying that this election had anything to do with him. He will carry on as if nothing unusual happened in Massachusetts. But the question is, have the other Democrats learned the lesson that Massachusetts is trying to teach them, or will they trust Obama when he claims that his popularity will carry them through the mid-terms?
Democrats will have an interesting choice to make over the next 10 months, surely they all can’t be in denial the way Barack Obama is, can they? If they are, Republicans and conservatives can expect to make gains in congress that seemed unthinkable just a few short months ago.
Democrats send mixed messages on the future of healthcare reform
The election of Scott Brown has predictably thrown the healthcare debate into chaos. Flustered Democrats do not know which way to turn, or the best strategy in reviving the healthcare reform bill– or whether to revive it at all.
On one hand, we have several Democrats who have stated that they believe it is time to slow down, and rethink the bill altogether. There is talk that some Democrats believe it is time to start over, while others– Ben Nelson– have stated that the Democrats took on healthcare reform too soon and that there were other priorities that the congress should have focused on. Perhaps he is sending a signal to his colleagues that the focus should turn to the economy and jobs while putting healthcare reform on the back burner.
And then there is Chris Dodd, who feels that perhaps congress should take at least a month off from the healthcare debate in order to regroup and start again. Dodd is also stating that there are other issues that can be focused on during the break in the healthcare debate.
There seems to be growing sentiment in congress that the election of Scott Brown has sent them a message; and that message is to slow down, perhaps start over, on healthcare reform. Democrats are nervous, they never expected this turn of events and they feel that if the discontent of the people is so great that this could happen in Massachusetts, it could happen anywhere.
Even the president has suggested that it might be time to scale back the healthcare reform bill, to make it smaller, in an attempt to pass it.
While many members of congress, and even the president, are sending us this message, there are those in the party leadership– namely Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid– that are sending us a different message. They seem to be ignoring the message that the people sent them. According to this article, even as I write this, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are having closed door (transparency?) meetings over the weekend in a last ditch effort to save the healthcare bill.
Their plan appears to differ from the suggestions being made by many people in their party. It looks like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are trying to strike a deal that the senate could pass using reconciliation– which requires only a 51 vote simple majority rather than the 60 vote super majority.
This would be done by putting the changes to the current healthcare bill in a separate bill that together would give the president his much wanted “victory” on healthcare reform.
I have to wonder whether the Democrats are just throwing up trial balloons in an effort to see if anything gains positive reaction from the public, or are they really this divided on the issue? I think it is a combination of both. Democrats in the House and Senate had a growing divide between them before January 19th; the election of Scott Brown on January 19th has scared them to the point that they do not know in which direction to turn.
Some Democrats are looking at re-election and are taking the message that Massachusetts sent them seriously, while their leaders are looking at alternatives to pass healthcare reform in spite of the people’s message. While the priorities of many Democrats have shifted in wake of Scott Brown’s election, it appears the party leadership is still moving forward, oblivious and blind to the will of the people, solely focused on giving Barack Obama what he wants instead of giving us what we want.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not seem to care that passing healthcare legislation by using reconciliation would be political suicide for their party, but the rest of the Democrats probably do. It will be interesting to see if Pelosi and Reid pursue this avenue fiercely and if they do, will the rest of the Democrats follow their lead?
Supreme Court rules McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law violates the first amendment and is unconstitutional.
McCain/Feingold limited corporations from running campaign ads in the last 30 days of a campaign. Here is what Justice Kennedy had to say while writing for the majority:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech
And that is what was at issue here, this law put restrictions on free speech. Or to be more precise, on political speech. It limited who could say what, and when they could say it, during political campaigns. That certainly seems to be the opposite of one of the main foundations that America was built on. Don’t get me wrong, I feel that there is too much money that pours into all of these campaigns from special interests, and eventually the winner has to repay the debt, but this law did not stop special interests from spending money.
The primaries leading up to the last presidential election took in record amounts of money with McCain/Feingold as law. The law led to the creation of the “527’s” that were exempt from the law, which led to an even greater influx of money to the candidates. In addition to the law being unconstitutional, it was ineffective and a failure.
While I find the influence of special interest groups on both sides to be reprehensible, I find it equally– if not more so– reprehensible to limit a group’s first amendment rights.
Barack Obama blames George Bush for Scott Brown’s victory
When asked about the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, and of the mood around the country in general, Barack Obama did what Barack Obama does best when he replied: “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
He actually blamed George Bush for the election of Scott Brown to the senate. I find this interesting considering that Martha Coakley ran ads claiming that Scott Brown agreed with George Bush and Dick Cheney on economic policy and the wars. She stated in her ads that Scott Brown agreed with all George Bush’s policies that got us into this recession in the first place.
Does this make sense? Martha Coakley ran ads that basically claimed that Scott Brown was nothing more than another George Bush, and the residents of Massachusetts– who gave Barack Obama 62% of the vote last November– are still so angry at George Bush that they elected a man who they were told is more of the same? The voters of Massachusetts are so angry at George Bush that they elected a senator from the same party as George Bush?
Nobody gives a damn about George Bush anymore, he is in the past; Barack Obama simply does not get it. After three days of doing nothing after the Christmas day terror attempt aboard Flight 253, Barack Obama addressed the American people. He told us that as president final responsibility falls on him, the buck stops here. Shouldn’t this also apply to the election of Scott Brown? The buck stops at Obama, he deserves a lion’s share of the blame in handing the “people’s seat” once held by Ted Kennedy over to the Republicans. Yet he continues to pass the buck and blame the previous administration for his party’s failures.
As I said, Barack Obama does not get it, and that is fine with me. Let him continue to live with his head in the sand. Let him continue to believe that while the nation is angry, they are not angry at him but rather at George Bush. Let him continue to believe the reason that he is losing support is because of his predecessor. Let him continue to believe that the reason his party is losing elections is all Bush’s fault, and in the end, let him explain that the reason he lost his re-election bid is because people are angry at George Bush. That will be just fine with me.
Barack Obama, you’ve been teabagged!
April 15th 2009, the day the revolution began; no not a revolution of arms but a revolution of ideas. From the beginning the Tea Party movement was seen as a joke. We were laughed at in the media, we were ridiculed. We were called racists, homophobes, bigots, stupid, radical, and nazis. But still we persevered, we are firm in our beliefs on government and on April 15th we began an attempt to return our country back to the ideals represented by the founders that were put down in a document that is called the constitution.
But we were called one other thing as well– teabaggers. The first time that I heard the term used to describe the Tea Party movement was when I heard Anderson Cooper say, “it’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging,” although this article claims that it was Rachel Maddow who first used the term to describe the movement. The origin doesn’t matter, and to be honest, I chuckled when I heard Anderson Cooper say that we were teabagging. I think that I was chuckling for two reasons. The first being that I did in fact think that it was kind of funny, I would be lying to say that I was offended. But the second reason that I was laughing is because I realized that we were not being taken seriously by the media or the government. We could use this apathy to our advantage and we have. They are not laughing any more, they are in a panic.
Since that time, the term has been used over and over again by the left in an attempt to marginalize us, to anger us, and to goad us into fighting on their terms. That is not going to happen, at least not here.
By now even those who were not familiar with the term have found out what it means through the internet, I don’t think that I need to explain the term to anyone. If however you are unaware of what the term means, a simple google search will tell you all that you need to know.
While I was not offended by the distinction thrust upon us, I know that many people were. And I think that one of the best ways to diffuse the attackers who call us teabaggers is to not fight against the term and to voice our displeasure, our agitation will only encourage them, but to embrace it, to turn the tables on them.
I propose that we add a second definition to the term “teabagging,” after all, if we are the “teabaggers” there has to be a “teabagee” does there not?
The second definition of “teabagging” should read something to the effect of: demonstrating against and throwing out of office all of those who do not live up to their promise to protect and defend the constitition of the United States of America; Fighting against what Scott Brown calls the “machine;” Voting out of office all of those who are unwilling to listen to the voice of the people they are supposed to be representing.
Those are all noble and necessary causes and that is what the Tea Party movement, and yes, we teabaggers are all about. Under the new definition of teabagging, we are going to hold politicians accountable for their votes. What a novel concept, huh?
The movement has grown since April 15th, more so than I had hoped that it would. We have been very active, we have been teabagging and we are proud.
Since the initial teabagging rally, New Hampshire has seen three conservative candidates win election on the state level in special elections. But while these elections were important to New Hampshire, they were just small fish on a national scale.
In recent elections, the Tea Party movement has seen great gains:
Jon Corzine– teabagged
Timothy Kaine– teabagged
Martha Coakley– teabagged.
The teabagging that the voters of Massachusetts gave to Martha Coakley was more than a normal teabagging. It was a repudiation of the national Democrat agenda. Harry Reid, you have been teabagged; Nancy Pelosi, you have been teabagged; and most important of all, Barack Obama, you and your agenda have been teabagged!
But the movement will not end here, this is just the beginning. The list is long: Barney Frank, Deval Patrick, John Lynch, Carol Shea-Porter, Paul Hodes, Jeanne Shaheen, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Spectre, Ben Nelson, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer; you are all on the teabagging list, but there are more, too many more to name. Some have already decided to “retire” instead of risking a chance at being teabagged– Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgon, to name just two.
We are watching everybody, and if you refuse to listen to the people, you will be teabagged. That is who we are and that is what we do. There are lessons to be learned from the Massachusetts election, hopefully the politicians in Washington are paying attention to us, because we are paying attention to them.
Who’s next? That is what they should be asking, because we are not going away and I think that the Washington politicians now know this is true. Listen to the voters or be teabagged, it is up to you.
Scott Brown wins! Thank you Massachusetts
Thank you Massachusetts.
The eyes of the nation were upon you, and you did not disappoint, you sent Scott Brown to the senate. This was more than just a special election, this was a referendum on Barack Obama and his agenda. This is the shot heard around the nation.
Democrats took the Massachusetts race for granted, there was not even any exit polling because it was thought that Marsha Martha Coakley would run away with this election. The sense of entitlement on behalf of the Democrats was palatable. There was no way that a Republican in Massachusetts could win a national election; hell, it hadn’t happened since Richard Nixon was popular.
But the Democrats failed to realize how upset the American people are; it is hard to image this is possible because we have let them know how we feel many times.
It all started on April 15th of 2009; the Tea Parties. We were laughed at, we were scorned, we were ridiculed. But we were serious, and we should have been listened to. We were not, and then came the Town Hall meetings over the Summer. We let all of our “representatives” know exactly how we felt on healthcare. Were we listened to? No! The Democrat party tried to marginalize us; they called this movement an “Astroturf” effort. And they continued to push the healthcare bill forward against our will.
Still they didn’t listen. But then came the elections in Virginia, New York, and New Jersey. While Republicans lost in New York, big gains were made in the Virginia and New Jersey races. This was a repudiation of Barack Obama yet the Democrats still did not listen to us. They still moved forward with healthcare reform.
I was enthusiastic after the elections of Virginia and New Jersey, but I warned about getting too complacent because we were going to lose the next special election, to be held in Massachusetts. I was wrong, and I couldn’t be happier. I never thought that our movement would gain enough momentum to carry us toward victory in Massachusetts of all places.
If this does not wake up the Democrat party, nothing will. We have been heard once again, this time in what is possibly the bluest state in the union. The Tea Party movement is here to stay! We are not going away.
We are watching all of you, not just the Democrats. There are several Republicans that we have our eyes on– we all know who they are, and so do they. This should send a shockwave through Washington D.C.
Scott Brown’s victory has to have all of the Democrats in Washington second guessing themselves. If a Republican can win in Massachusetts by running against Barack Obama’s agenda, they have to be wondering how they will fare in re-election bids in states that are not nearly as blue as Massachusetts. This should put a real crimp on Barack Obama’s agenda; Democrats in Washington will have to decide whether to succumb to the pressure of the White House and sacrifice themselves for the president’s agenda, or whether they should listen to the people that they work for and vote against the president’s agenda. In the end, they need to remember that they work for us, and they had damned well better learn their lesson from Massachusetts or they will all be in the unemployment line come November.
The fight is still not over, we must remain vigilant and follow this through until the November election. We have the momentum and we must stay true.
They laughed at the Tea Party movement in April, they had better not be laughing any more. Martha Coakley was “teabagged” in Massachusetts, and we will “teabag” anyone that does not listen to the will of the American people. Who is laughing now?
Once again, thank you Massachusetts. You have given the “people’s seat” to Scott Brown.
The revolution will be televised!
Massachusetts: The eyes of the nation are upon you
Massachusetts residents, tomorrow you head to the polls. Remember that the eyes of the nation are upon you. Here is your order of the day courtesy of Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Residents, Citizens and Voters of Massachusetts! You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the nation are upon you.
The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In spirit with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms in other states, you will bring about the destruction of the Democrat party machine, the elimination of liberal tyranny over the conservative peoples of America, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your opponent is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. She will fight savagely.
But this is the year 2010! Much has happened since the Democrat triumphs of
2006-08. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Americans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the country and their capacity to pass their liberal agenda.
Our Home Fronts have given us overwhelming superiority in the minds of the people, and placed at our disposal great reserves of tea party fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the country are marching together to Victory!
That is all.
Obama officials believe Scott Brown will win in Massachusetts
Another mobile post, hopefully I will get my computer back tomorrow.
According to this report, Obama officials believe that Scott Brown will defeat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts for the “people’s seat.”
Barack Obama made a trip today to try to revive Martha Coakley’s faltering campaign. But officials in the Obama administration have let it leak that they believe Scott Brown will win. They have access to the best internal polls available, so this should be troubling to the administration and to Democrats in general. However, one has to wonder if this nothing more than political gamesmanship.
Why would the administration let this news slip if they truly believed Martha Coakley would lose, and why would Obama risk the political embarrassment if that were the case?
Either the election of Martha Coakley really is in doubt and Obama campaigned on her behalf as a last ditch effort, figuring there was nothing to lose, and leaking this news provides political coverage. The administration will be able to claim that the race was lost before Obama showed up and that his appearance, while it failed to rally the base, did not adversely effect the outcome.
Or, the administration is trying to lull the conservatives to sleep. If he lets it slip that he doesn’t feel Martha Coakley can win, perhaps conservatives will stay away from the polls figuring that Scott Brown has the election in the bag. If that is the case it won’t work, there has not been voter excitement in Massachusetts like this in many, many years. Conservatives in Massachusetts, who have thought for so long that their vote means nothing, just cannot wait to vote; nothing will stop them from voting on Tuesday.
And then there is still the possibility that the Obama internal polls show that Martha Coakley could still win and his appearance could push her over the top, that all is not lost. If Coakley wins the election, the Democrats would then be able to say it was because of Obama. They would then be able to use Coakley’s victory as proof that the people are still behind Obama’s agenda, even though the polls in Massachusetts show that only 35% of likely voters approve of the healthcare reform bill.
Whatever the case may be, and while this news seems uplifting at first glance, remember that this could just be political posturing and gamesmanship. There is a reason that this information was leaked; now is not the time for contentment, there will be plenty of time for that on Wednesday. We are in the last throes of the campaign, you alone can hammer the death knell into Barack Obama’s agenda.
The eyes of the nation are upon you.
The revolution will be televised!
Vicki Kennedy calls Ted Kennedy’s seat the “people’s seat” in a campaign commercial
During last week’s debate, Scott Brown was asked by the moderator if he was really prepared to sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and vote against healthcare reform– an issue that was near and dear to the late senator’s heart.
Because this is a mobile post I am not able to post the video of the question, but I am sure that it can be found on youtube. The tone that was used in asking this question was apparent– the moderator was asking a loaded question in an attempt to trap Scott Brown.
The trap failed as Scott Brown masterfully responded very politely that “with all due respect, this is not the Kennedy seat, this is not the Democrat’s seat, this is the people’s seat.” That response alone ignited the conservatives and energized them to the point where Scott Brown has soared into the lead over Martha Coakley.
The line garnered national attention and catapulted the Massachusetts election into the national spotlight. Overnight this election became a national election and a possible referendum on healthcare reform.
Martha Coakley has been struggling ever since to gain back the momentum that Scott Brown has carried since the debate, and now she is even trying to cash in on Scott Brown’s assertion that they are fighting for the “people’s seat”
In an ad that came out over the weekend, Ted Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, has tried to turn the tables on Scott Brown by claiming the senate race is not for her husband’s seat, but for the “people’s seat.”
In the ad Vicki tries to claim that Martha Coakley is the only candidate who can properly fill the “people’s seat” because she is the candidate of the people. (Of course she forgets that while Coakley is meeting with insurance company lobbyists in Washington, Scott Brown is actually out there meeting the people he hopes to represent.)
This is so transparent that it is laughable, Scott Brown has connected with the voters in a way that Martha Coakley has not been able to, to the point where she is trying to make Scott Brown’s most memorable moment her own.
Does she think that the voters of Massachusetts are too stupid to realize what she is doing?
On a funny little side note, I laugh every time spell check suggests changing “Coakley” to “cackle.”
America's Watchtower 