Thursday, January 28, 2010

JUSTICE ALITO SAYS "NOT SO" TO OBAMA'S GOOF IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Supreme Court justices sit stoically as Democratic leaders behind them rise Wednesday night to applaud President Obama's attack on the court's recent decision re campaign contributions.

**********************************************

The Court: In Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie," the pantomimist Marcel Marceau hilariously uttered the film's only audible word — "Non!" — when asked if he'd appear in it. The State of the Union contained such a moment.

Thanks to Justice Samuel Alito, who merely mouthed what appeared to be the words "Not true," the president's sense of decorum — not to mention his celebrated grasp of constitutional law — was called into question. Hilariously, too.

In the chilly House chamber, the president was somewhere in the middle of his stemwinder when he arrived at the sentences on his teleprompter written to attack the Supreme Court.
"With all due deference to the separation of powers," he began, "(the court last week) reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

The berobed justices, as they traditionally do, sat directly in front of him, keeping straight-faced, their hands motionless so as not to betray an actionable opinion. All, that is, except Alito, who seemed to be channeling the spirit of Marceau.

He couldn't contain it, the cameras caught it, and within minutes of the speech's end the scene went viral. It's now the single most memorable moment from a night of rhetorical excess that only Alito's silent gesture could punctuate.

Now Washington's keepers of decorum are tut-tutting Alito's federalist-mannered reaction, finding it almost as scandalous as Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie!" as the president was similarly explaining his policies last September.

We all know the footnote to that outburst: Wilson apologized but reaped huge rewards from sympathetic financial contributors.

Alito is not positioned to receive contributions, which leads to a key difference: The long-established protocol at State of the Union events is that the justices, even there exercising judicial restraint, appear as a matter of courtesy.

Likewise, the Joint Chiefs of Staff show up, sitting stony-faced as presidents occasionally set impossibly naive missions for them.

Only senators and representatives are, by tradition, allowed to whoop it up in response to the president's oratory.

So when Obama targeted the Supremes, he attacked targets that couldn't answer. Except Alito, who reached into his quiver and found the now-famous silent objection.

The late conservative political scientist Willmoore Kendall argued that all three branches of government should be able to criticize each other. Indeed, some of the president's defenders point out that recent Republican chief executives have in their own congressional speeches attacked Roe v. Wade, the high court's 1973 decision to legalize abortion.

But those criticisms never landed on a decision so raw as this one, in a matter of days after the ruling, and crafted in such a way as to humiliate the justices before a national TV audience.

And there's that matter of factuality, so crucial to the president's sense of himself. Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission left untouched the regulation against foreign money in political campaigns. The president and his speechwriters could benefit from a fact checker.
To be sure, President Obama may well be foreshadowing the qualifications he expects in his next Supreme Court appointee.

But his tactic may just backfire, as the hitherto swing votes, and maybe even a left-leaning justice or two, rally silently to the defense of their constitutionally essential institution.

The President's Pantomimist
INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY
THURSDAY, 28 JANUARY 10
**************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

WHEN WILL THE REPUBLICANS READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ?

"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story

The ObamaPrompter
In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."
Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.
Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.
Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.
In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.
On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.
First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."
Correct.
Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."
As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, -- that "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.
Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.
To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."
That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."
It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.
In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.
Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.
With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.
Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."
"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."
And well, it should.
Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
This is subterfuge.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
This is deception.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."
This is farce.
Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.
If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.
And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."
Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.
Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."
True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.
P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.
State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
by Mark Alexander Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Thursday, 28 January 10

***********************************************************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

HOW ABOUT A ONE-TERM MEDIOCRE PRESIDENCY, MR. OBAMA?

THE BLOATED FEDERAL PAYROLL INVITES REVOLT BY ORDINARY PRIVATE CITIZENS

LAST MONTH, the US economy shed another 85,000 jobs.

It marked a miserable end to a calamitous year in which an estimated 4.2 million American jobs were liquidated, and the unemployment rate rose to 10 percent. In addition, more than 920,000 "discouraged workers" left the labor force entirely, having given up on finding work and therefore not included in official unemployment data.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans who do have jobs have been compelled to work part-time or at reduced wages; many others have not seen a raise in years.

But not everyone is having a rotten recession.

Since December 2007, when the current downturn began, the ranks of federal employees earning $100,000 and up has skyrocketed. According to a recent analysis by USA Today, federal workers making six-figure salaries – not including overtime and bonuses -- "jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months." The surge has been especially pronounced among the highest-paid employees. At the Defense Department, for example, the number of civilian workers making $150,000 or more quintupled from 1,868 to 10,100. At the recession's start, the Transportation Department was paying only one person a salary of $170,000. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees were drawing paychecks of that size.

All the while, the federal government has been adding jobs at a 10,000-a-month clip. Between December 2007 and June 2009, federal payrolls exploded by nearly 10 percent. "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time in pay and hiring," USA Today observes, "during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." And to add public-sector insult to the private-sector injury, data from the Office of Personnel Management show the average federal salary is now roughly $71,000 -- about 76 percent higher than the average private employee earns. (If benefits are included, the disparity is even greater.)

Needless to say, it isn't only at the federal level that government pay and perks increasingly outstrip those in the private sector. In states and municipalities across the country, public-employee pension costs are going through the roof.

In Ohio, a joint reporting effort by the state's eight largest newspapers found that even in a time of severe budget cuts, "one expense government leaders have not cut is pensions for their workers." The annual public pension tab in Ohio, currently $4.1 billion, is growing by around $700 million per year. "Retirement incomes for the most experienced government employees top out at 88 percent of their active-duty pay," writes James Nash of the Columbus Dispatch. "Unlike most private-sector workers, whose retirement is driven by the strength of the stock market and 401(k) plans, government employees' pensions are guaranteed."

Moreover, government retirees in Ohio enjoy taxpayer-provided health care, and in many cases can retire at age 48. Especially egregious are the "double-dippers" -- public employees who "retire" on a full pension while returning to work and collecting a paycheck. In 2009, double-dippers were paid nearly a billion dollars by Buckeye State public-pension systems.

Ohio is hardly unique. A public-pension tsunami is beginning to inundate government budgets at every level. As more and more of taxpayers' earnings are confiscated to fund outsize public-sector benefits, the backlash from the private sector will only grow angrier and more intense.

"We are about to get run over by a locomotive," warned California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in his State of the State address this month. Over the past decade, he told lawmakers, pension costs for state employees swelled 2000 percent -- but revenues only increased 24 percent. The state has had to come up with funds to close that gap -- funds diverted from "our universities, our parks, and other government functions."

Public-employee unions fiercely defend their members' pay and pensions, of course, but even labor-friendly Democrats are starting to acknowledge the inevitable. "The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life," former San Francisco mayor and California Assembly speaker Willie Brown recently wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle. "But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages. . . . Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact."

A showdown is coming, and more likely sooner than later. Taxpayers will put up with a lot, but their patience has its limits.

Public-sector pay, private-sector backlash

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 27, 2010

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6872/public-sector-pay-private-sector-backlash

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

*********************************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

Monday, January 25, 2010

THAT MASSACHUSETTS PICKUP TRUCK

"What has [Scott] Brown done for us?

He just administered a stunning 'Tea Party Republican' thrashing to the 'Kennedy Liberal Democrats' in Massachusetts -- with Obamacare front and center as the core issue at hand. That's what. Forget any other spin you hear -- that is what just happened. That Brown did not stress the party or the term 'tea party' does not matter. His issues were right off of the tea parties' posters and out of the official GOP platform manual. Sure, Martha Coakley ran a horrible campaign. But Democrats win safe seats with horrible campaigns all the time. Brown ran a great campaign, but good candidates lose uphill battles all the time in places like Massachusetts. And no, MS-NBC, this was not a Tip O'Neil 'all politics are local' referendum on potholes and such. Thanks to big government liberals, no politics are local anymore. Not even an obscure congressional district known as NY-23. Every single seat may now hold the key to Washington's ability to reach into the homes and wallets and lives of every American for any reason they deem necessary. And that's what this was about, with health care as the key issue but only one of many concerns about intrusive government." --columnist C. Edmund Wright

*****************

"On December 16, 1773, several dozen colonists in Boston, angered by King George's financially ruinous tea tax, took action into their own hands. Dressed as Mohawk Indians, they snuck onto 3 British tea ships and dumped over 300 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. That revolt was said to have sparked the American Revolution. Last [Tuesday] night, the state of Massachusetts was the site of yet another revolt, only this time it was Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic Party, and President Obama, health care and health care reform that were thrown into the drink, following the stunning election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate. Yet on the eve of the election, the White House suggested ... that they would not moderate the president's policies, but in a fit of madness akin to King George's, would double down and strike a more combative tone. I have a feeling that over the next few days, the White House will want to ... amend their remarks. ... In response to the tea party protest, King George passed the 'Coercive Acts,' which was every bit as punishing as it sounds. Will King Barack respond to the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts with moderation and scrap health care or with madness and shove a coercive bill down America's collective throats?" --columnist Brian Doherty

***

"The stunning upset in Massachusetts should send shock waves through the Democratic Party nationwide. The people have spoken, yet again, with the election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate and as such, have soundly rejected the leadership of the president and the Democratically-controlled Congress. The elections in Virginia and New Jersey this past November should have been a wake-up call for Democrats. Democratic candidates were defeated because the people thought the candidates, like the leadership of the Democratic Party, were out of touch with the needs of the citizenry. While Republicans focused on the economy, job creation, deficit reduction and responsibility, Democrats were bogged down -- almost exclusively -- on health care, blaming Bush and defending their failed economic policies. ... The Democrats set forth an agenda that was 180 degrees opposite of what needed to be done and what the American people wanted to see done. The Democrats manufactured a 'crisis' on health care, when we have an honest to goodness economic crisis and recession -- the worst since the Great Depression. ... The American people are more than disappointed with the 'change' they got this past year and are worried about their future and the condition of the economy. But it's not over, the people will continue to let their frustration be known this coming November in the midterm elections." --Georgetown University professor Bradley Blakeman

*****************

"Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that [Martha] 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." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

**************************

THE PATRIOT POST. COM

MONDAY, 25 JANUARY 10

**************************

Sunday, January 24, 2010

SCOTUS SHOOOTS DOWN McCAIN-FEINGOLD - FREEDOM LIVES

THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a triumph for the First Amendment. In clear and cogent language, five justices swept away the caste system under which some groups of citizens have been free to engage in vigorous and unfettered political speech while other groups face criminal penalties for doing the same thing. Overturning two of its precedents and much of the 2002 McCain-Feingold act, the court called their sweeping restrictions on corporate spending during election campaigns by the name they merit: censorship. When the government dictates "where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, "it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Not surprisingly, some of the formerly privileged groups are reacting angrily to the court's blow for free speech. The New York Times, for example, promptly excoriated what it termed a "disastrous" decision, declaring that it that will "thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century" by freeing corporations to deploy "their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding."

In truth, the decision simply extends to all corporations the same First Amendment freedoms that media corporations -- such as The New York Times Co. -- take for granted. For-profit corporations that happen to be in the business of publishing or broadcasting are free to spend money supporting or opposing political candidates. Why shouldn't corporations in every other industry be equally free?

On the front page of Friday's Times, an article analyzing the impact of the court's decision was headlined, "Lobbies' New Power: Cross Us, And Our Cash Will Bury You." Sounds menacing. Yet newspapers, magazines, and TV networks deploy that power all the time, "burying" public officials (and countless other subjects) with hard-hitting journalism and commentary of every kind -- news stories, photographs, documentaries, exposés, endorsements. They may not always use their power wisely or fairly, but on the whole the marketplace of ideas is richer for their participation. If media corporations have a robust First Amendment right to be heard during political campaigns, every other kind of corporation does too.

Some of the attacks on the high court's ruling have been hysterical -- in both senses of the word. "SUPREME COURT UNDOES DEMOCRACY," wailed Public Citizen in bright-red, Armageddon-sized capital letters on its web site. Florida congressman Alan Grayson denounced Citizens United as "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case."

Such unhinged reactions to a ruling that extends free speech rights to all is a sad reminder of how far the left has moved from the First Amendment tradition of the 20^th century's great liberals. Kennedy's opinion quotes from a 1957 dissent by three of those liberals -- Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black, and Chief Justice Earl Warren:

"Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign," they avowed. "The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community."

McCain-Feingold was an egregious affront to that principle of open communication. It made it a crime for any corporation -- big or little, for-profit or nonprofit -- to broadcast "electioneering communications" in the weeks leading up to an election, or to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate for federal office at any time. That meant, as the court pointed out, that under McCain-Feingold it would have constituted a felony for the Sierra Club to run an ad a month before Election Day exhorting viewers to disapprove of a congressman who favors logging in national forests. Or for the National Rifle Association to publish a book urging citizens to vote against an incumbent US senator because he endorsed a handgun ban. Or for the American Civil Liberties Union to put up a website telling the public to vote for a presidential candidate because he is a champion of civil liberties.

"These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship," wrote Justice Kennedy. Of course they are. Why did it take the court so long to say so? And why wasn't the opinion unanimous?

BY JEFF JACOBY

THE BOSTON GLOBE

SUNDAY, 24 JANUARY 10

*********************************************************

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

Friday, January 22, 2010

OBAMA HAD NOTHING TO SAY IN MASSACHUSETTS BUT HE SAID IT ANYWAY

The president at a Jan. 17 campaign stop in Boston for Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. The most striking aspect of his performance was... View Enlarged Image

So what went wrong? According to Barack Obama, the problem is he overestimated you dumb rubes' ability to appreciate what he's been doing for you.

"That I do think is a mistake of mine," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."

But you schlubs aren't that smart. You didn't get it. And Barack Obama is determined to see that you do. So the president has decided that he needs to start "speaking directly to the American people".

Wait, wait! Come back! Don't all stampede for the hills! He gave only 158 interviews and 411 speeches in his first year (according to CBS News' Mark Knoller). That's more than any previous president — and maybe more than all of them put together.

But there may still be some show out there that didn't get its exclusive Obama interview — I believe the top-rated "Grain & Livestock Prices Report, 4 a.m. Update with Herb Torpormeister" on WZZZ-AM Dead Buzzard Gulch Junction's NewsTalk Leader is still waiting to hear back from the White House.

But what will the president be saying in all these extra interviews? In that interview about how he hadn't given enough interviews, he also explained to Stephanopoulos what that wacky Massachusetts election was all about:

"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," said Obama. "People are angry and they're frustrated, not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years."

Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they're voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. Boy, I can't wait for that 159th interview.

Presumably, the president isn't stupid enough actually to believe what he said. But it's dispiriting to discover he's stupid enough to think we're stupid enough to believe it.

Searching For Droolers

So who's panting for that 412th speech? Not the American left. As Paul Krugman, the New York Times' "Conscience of a Liberal," put it: "He Wasn't The One We've Been Waiting For." Not the once-delirious Europeans, either. As the headline in Der Spiegel put it: "The World Bids Farewell To Obama."

And not any beleaguered Democrat candidates trying to turn things around in volatile swing states like, er, Massachusetts. The Barack Obama who showed up two days before Tuesday's election to help out Martha Coakley was a sad and diminished figure from the colossus of a year ago.

He had nothing to say, but he said it anyway. As he did with his Copenhagen pitch for the Olympics, he put his personal prestige on the line, raised the stakes, then failed to deliver. All those cool kids on his speechwriting team bogged him down in the usual leaden sludge. He went to the trouble of flying in to phone it in.

The most striking aspect of his performance was how unhappy he looked, as if he doesn't enjoy the job. You can understand why.

He ran as something he's not and never has been: A post-partisan centrist transformative healer. That'd be a difficult trick to pull off even for somebody with any prior executive experience, someone who'd run something, like a state, or even a town, or even a commercial fishing operation, like that poor chillbilly boob Sarah Palin.

At one point late in the 2008 campaign, when someone suggested that if Gov. Palin was "unqualified" then surely he was too, Obama pointed as evidence to the contrary his ability to run such an effective campaign. In other words, running for president was his main qualification for being president.

That was the story of his life: Wow! Look at this guy! Wouldn't it be great to have him as ... as community organizer, as state representative, as state senator, as United States senator. He was wafted ever upward, staying just long enough in each "job" to get another notch on the escutcheon, but never long enough to leave any trace.

The defining moment of his doomed attempt to prop up Martha Coakley was his peculiar obsession with Scott Brown's five-year-old pickup. "Forget the ads. Everybody can run slick ads," the president told an audience of out-of-state students at a private school. "Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck."

How they laughed! But what was striking was the thinking behind Obama's line: that anyone can buy a truck for a slick ad, that Brown's pickup was a prop — like the herd of cows Al Gore rented for a pastoral backdrop when he launched his first presidential campaign.

Or the "Iron Chef" TV episode featuring delicious, healthy recipes made with produce direct from Michelle Obama's "kitchen garden." The cameras filmed the various chefs meeting the first lady and picking choice organic delicacies from the White House crop, then for the cooking the show sent out for stunt-double vegetables from a grocery back in New York.

Viewed from Obama's perspective, why wouldn't you assume the truck's just part of the set? "In his world," wrote the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, "everything is political and everything is about appearances."

Howard Fineman, the increasingly loopy editor of the increasingly doomed Newsweek, took it a step further. The truck wasn't just any old prop, but a very particular kind. "In some places, there are codes, there are images," he told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. "You know, there are pickup trucks; you could say there was a racial aspect to it one way or another."

Ah, yes. Scott Brown has over 200,000 miles on his odometer. Man, he's racked up a lot of coded racism on that rig. But that's easy to do in notorious cross-burning KKK swamps like suburban Massachusetts.

Whenever aspiring writers ask me for advice, I usually tell 'em this: Don't just write there, do something. Learn how to shingle a roof, or tap-dance, or raise sled dogs. Because if you don't do anything, you wind up like Obama and Fineman — men for whom words are props and codes and metaphors but no longer expressive of anything real.

Right And Bereft

America is becoming a bilingual society, divided between those who think a pickup is a rugged vehicle useful for transporting heavy-duty items from A to B, and those who think a pickup is coded racism. Unfortunately, the latter group forms most of the Democrat-media one-party state currently running the country.

Can you imagine Bill Clinton being so stupid as to put down pickup trucks while standing next to John Kerry? And what's even more extraordinary is that those lines were written for Obama by paid professionals.

But fine, have it your way. Tuesday's vote was really a plea by a desperate people for even more Obama. We're going to need even more Obama teleprompters, even more Obama speeches, even more sonorous banalities unrelated to action, even more "Let me be clears" prefacing even more tinny generalities, on even more reams of even more double-spaced paper. And we're gonna need a really heavy duty rig to carry all that verbiage.

Maybe Scott Brown can sell 'em his truck.

© Mark Steyn, 2010

INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY

FRIDAY, 22 JANUARY 10

******************************************************

OBAMA SEEKS TO PROJECT HIS SELF-DELUSION ONTO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Hope floats in Boston Harbor

"Here's my assessment of not just the mood in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office." So said Barack Obama when asked about Tuesday's special election to fill the Senate seat held for 46 years by the late Ted Kennedy.

Naturally, to Obama, everything is about him; though, in a sense, Brown's shocking victory was about Obama -- but not in the way he thinks. In fact, we're hoping the president campaigns for more Democrats come fall. Voters have responded to his presence on behalf of fellow Democrats with resounding rejections in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and now in deepest-blue Massachusetts.

Then again, Obama says, it's Bush's fault. "People are angry and they're frustrated," he explained, "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So Scott Brown became the first Republican senator elected in Massachusetts since 1972 because voters are still angry with George W. Bush?

In reality, Brown won for several reasons. First, he was a first-rate candidate. His regular-guy persona resonated with voters and he communicated the right message -- that we need less government, not more. He ran explicitly against ObamaCare, saying, "I can stop it." In his victory speech, he said, "People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt."

Best of all, in a debate with Democrat opponent Martha Coakley, Brown answered a challenge from moderator David Gergen about taking Ted Kennedy's seat only to derail health care: "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

That's when the sea change in the polls began.

Second, Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. Briefly, for example (and there are many), in a state with a large percentage of Catholic voters, Coakley offered the advice that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic, then "you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room." She derided Red Sox hero Curt Schilling as a "Yankee fan" and scoffed at greeting people in the cold at Fenway Park, which is precisely what hungry candidates do in sports-crazy Boston. In addition, a member of her staff was caught on video knocking a conservative reporter to the ground. In short, her arrogance and inanity are out of touch.

Finally, health care became an albatross for Coakley, and the Leftmedia didn't help, continuing to refer to the seat as "Kennedy's seat" in order to play up that debate. Kennedy spent a lifetime fighting for socialized health care, and, when he died, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even suggested naming the health care bill after him. The irony is that the senator from Massachusetts was supposed to steer socialized medicine to passage; now it looks like the senator from Massachusetts could be the one to sink it. As PBS's Judy Woodruff sobbed, it would be "a tragedy of Greek proportions if Ted Kennedy's successor ... is the one who was responsible for the death of health care."

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Americans who want to see the current health care bills die owe a debt of gratitude to Republican Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he signed universal health care into law in 2006 (as a state legislator, we should note, Brown voted for it). The law is similar to the one being debated in Washington in that Massachusetts residents are required to buy health insurance. The program is currently 20 percent more expensive than projected, and premiums are rising at least 7 percent per year. The reason Bay State voters don't want to pay for socialized medicine is that they're already paying for it. They believe that Washington's bill is redundant, and they have serious questions about the affordability and sustainability of their own state's health care plan. That's federalism at its best.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't think so, however. "Massachusetts has health care and so the rest of the country would like to have that too," she defiantly lectured. "So we don't [think] a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."

Brown's win Tuesday may well end up being a victory for liberty. Many Democrats (finally) appear cautious about proceeding on health care. Even Pelosi admits she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate version in the House. Some, including Obama, are talking about a much smaller bill.

We won't hold our breath, but those metaphorical crates of tea floating in Boston harbor this week may just be a promising sign.

Quote of the Week

"Martha Coakley's resounding defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race is hardly the sort of anniversary gift President Barack Obama could have predicted. Yet there it was, wrapped in a bow and plopped on his doorstep like a flaming bag of dog poo to mark the end of his first year in office." --Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason magazine

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Sen. John Kerry, in a fundraising appeal for Martha Coakley, continued Democrat ridicule of the Tea Party sentiment bubbling up in Massachusetts. He warned that Scott Brown's "allies in the right wing dream of holding a 'tea party' in Kennedy country."

Uh, John, the original Tea Party was in Boston.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton took the opposite tack, though at least he acknowledged the first Tea Party. "The Revolutionary War was first won here," Clinton told a Boston crowd. "It started with the Boston Tea Party, and the right-wing Republicans have appropriated that on the premise the Tea Party was against government. What they were against was abuse of power."

Try parsing that one in a way that favors Democrats.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"That I do think is a mistake of mine -- I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it." --Barack Obama on his proposed health care takeover

Got that, folks? Even when he's admitting a "mistake of mine," he's throwing the blame onto others. His failures are your fault because you just don't get it. That's called pathological narcissism.

New & Notable Legislation

Senate Democrats want to raise the federal government's debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to a mind-boggling total of $14.3 trillion. The current debt limit was just established by an increase of $290 billion snuck in at the end of December 2009, but will be reached by mid-February. If the ceiling is not raised again, then the government will default on payments to millions of Social Security recipients, defense contractors and other beneficiaries of government disbursements. Just 10 years ago, an increase of this size would have covered government spending for an entire year. Now, they're sweating just getting through February.

The proposal is coupled with a new PAYGO proposal that would offset increased spending with tax hikes and cuts in other areas of the budget. Previous attempts at PAYGO fell by the wayside in recent years, as both Republicans and Democrats have given up on even the appearance of fiscal responsibility -- which is all PAYGO is.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) have indicated they will not support PAYGO or a debt increase unless they are accompanied by a bipartisan commission that would create fiscal reform measures. House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, are against the idea of a commission because it would take power away from their own budget committee leaders. The Obama administration attempted to bridge this logjam by announcing the creation of a similar commission at the executive level that would include Democrats and Republicans appointed by both Congress and the president. Any commission created by Obama, however, wouldn't release any recommendations until after the November elections. How convenient. The dodge around fiscal responsibility continues.

THE PATRIOT POST. COM

FRIDAY, 22 January 10

*************************************

Thursday, January 21, 2010

WHAT THE MASSACHUSETTS ELECTION REALLY MEANS

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 overhaul.

"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 Sunday 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% of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78% 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% 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 they'd spent Obama's first year ignoring or disdaining the 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 elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey.

On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who went 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. Tuesday's turnout 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.

What Brown's Election Win Really Means

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMERPosted 06:44 PM ET

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010

*********************************

The Huffington Riposte