"The Star-Spangled Banner" with the Boston Pops... and Ayla Brown

I was alerted to this video in an email from my wonderful (biological) sister, and Sister in Christ, Mary Jen. She said in the email, "To my patriotic brother…this is probably the BEST version of Star Spangled Banner. Hope you enjoy it." Yes, Mary Jen, I enjoyed this very much! If it hadn't been for the miraculous Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, I wouldn't have had a clue who Ayla Brown was. But, now maybe, we'll all know. And I bet you could say the same thing. Well, at least if you saw Scott Brown's victory speech last week.

April 24, 2008 - Ayla Brown - "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the Boston Pops Ayla sings "The Star-Spangled Banner" at Boston's Fourth of July celebration accompanied by the Boston Pops (originally aired 07/04/06).

Video provided by yutoobe

Obama: The era of big government is ... eternal ~ By Larry Elder

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Larry Elder Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The Massachusetts "Miracle on Ice" hit Democrats like an avalanche crashing in on a downhill skier. Gone is their 60-vote, filibuster-proof Senate supermajority. Likely dead is the Senate version of health-care "reform," if not Obamacare altogether. Stunned and confused, Democrats now scramble around trying to decipher "what it means." President Barack Obama's hard-left base calls the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat a wake-up call – for bigger spending. They see the defeat as a referendum for broader and bolder "health-care reform" that includes a so-called public option, higher taxes and an expansion of the number of insured through Medicare. Their argument goes like this: People are unhappy, not about reckless spending, but because Obama has governed like a "centrist." He's "caved in to special interests," hasn't gone far enough and hasn't increased government fast enough. He abandoned his "progressive agenda," and voters punished him. Voters, wanting more government, elected a guy who promised less. A Hofstra University professor represents this view in his analysis of "what it means": "The obvious solution, of course, would be a sharp turn to the left. Go where the real solutions are. Fight the good fight. Call liars 'liars' and thieves 'thieves.' Do the people's business. Become their advocate against the monsters bleeding them dry. Create jobs. Build infrastructure. Do real national health care. End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending. Produce actual educational reform. Launch a massive green energy/jobs program. Get serious about global warming. Kick a-- on campaign finance reform. Fight for gay rights. Restore the New Deal-era regulatory framework and expand it. Restore a fair taxation structure. Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs. Rebuild unions. Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives. Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda. Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies." Good grief! So much for voters telling Obama to slow down and move toward the center. READ FULL STORY >

Obama's bag of tricks empty ~ By Erik Rush

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Erik Rush Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The pressing question Americans and some members of the press have been asking over the last week or so, even prior to President Barack Obama 's State of the Union address last night, is one that has given rise to some frustration and a sense of futility on my part. That question would be: Will the Democratic leadership in Washington now heed the message of Scott Brown's election and "get with the program" as far as what Americans really want? Some regular readers of this column (and, I would surmise, some who are not) will have already recognized that this question assumes a flawed premise – this being, that the Democratic leadership in Washington is concerned with what Americans want to any degree at all. At the risk of appearing condescending: In order to appreciate the dynamic at hand, those who are currently inclined to make the above query will have to execute the intellectual leap to the realization that the Obama administration and congressional leaders are wholly unconcerned with our wants, needs and general well-being. Their agenda is to effectively supplant our system of government with a radically dissimilar one; as such, it is diametrically opposed to the existing paradigm, which includes deference to the will of the people. It's pretty simple when you think about it. This is the reason they have prioritized such things as health care and climate change, issues only around 40 percent and 18 percent of Americans (respectively) count as high-priority concerns (Gallup, Jan. 20). Our leaders' road map toward ostensibly ameliorating deficiencies in these areas would, however, convey upon them unprecedented political power and economic control. Within hours of Republican Scott Brown's dramatic victory (in capturing the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy), President Obama was on the air with Democrat hack (as well as former Clinton White House communications director and current ABC News correspondent) George Stephanopoulos, executing some truly Orwellian damage control. Claiming that "the same thing [voter anger] that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president immediately lapsed once again into "Blame Bush" mode: "People are angry and they are frustrated," said he. "Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." His practice of transferring culpability is reportedly wearing thin even among Democrats. READ FULL STORY >

Way to go, Scott! ~ By Barbara Simpson

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

"Predictably, Obama blames George Bush for the Democrat loss, and the pundits regard Brown and his supporters as low-class, redneck, truck-driving boobs. "Whatever you call them, they outnumber the Harvard-educated, self-appointed elites who are hell-bent on destroying this country. "There's a reckoning coming."

By Barbara Simpson Posted: January 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I didn't say it first, but I agree wholeheartedly. "This one's for you, Mary Jo." Last week's election of Scott Brown to replace Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate really was justice delayed for Mary Jo Kopechne, who died at the incompetent hands of the last Kennedy brother on July 18, 1969. Because of money, family and political connections, Teddy Kennedy left the scene of Mary Jo's drowning in the car he'd been driving and proceeded into a historic run as a fixture in Washington. This man, who never held a real job in his whole life, found his calling as a U.S. senator, ironically by completing the term of his brother John, who'd been elected president. When Teddy wanted re-election, he got it – again and again and again – ultimately serving eight full terms. His position in the Senate became "Kennedy's seat," as though it belonged to him. It did, but only because voters re-elected him, as though not to do it would insult the Kennedy name and family. He spent 46 years in office, his votes and legislation changing the United States from a free country to one that's now careening toward Marxist socialism. When Kennedy died Aug. 25, for the first time in decades it was an open race for his Senate seat. But Democrats didn't worry. It was Massachusetts, after all. They figured their candidate was a shoo-in. But something happened last Tuesday in that bluest of blue states, a state securely in the liberal pocket. What happened was that a young, mostly unknown Massachusetts politician, Scott Brown, beat the odds and won election to the U.S. Senate to complete Kennedy's unexpired term. It's poetic justice that Kennedy died before his term was up! Imagine! Democrat pundits figured wrong. Their candidate, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, lost. What made the results historic wasn't just that it was to fill Kennedy's term, but that it wasn't just any candidate who won. It was a Republican! Those pundits were really wrong. READ FULL STORY >

State of the Union grade: 'F' ~ By Chuck Norris

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: January 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1806 what many of us were thinking a week ago when Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts: "I sincerely congratulate you on the triumph of republicanism in Massachusetts. The hydra (or many-headed monster) of federalism has now lost all its heads but two." Of course, Jefferson was referring to the remaining two heads of Connecticut and Delaware, yielding to the overarching federalist powers. A great battle was won – but the war was not over. And such is our struggle today from the overreaching power of the federal government. Remember when Washington powerbrokers, as well as mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC, gave little press to the tea-party rallies? Remember when they mocked cross-country town-hall meetings last summer as pockets of resistance and labeled us patriots, constitutionalists and independents as extremists or radicals who had little sway? That has all changed with the election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate seat long held by the late Ted Kennedy. Whether you agree with him or not, Brown's election was a real turning point in our country. It truly is a repudiation of all that Washington is fighting for and forcing like a ramrod down our country's throat. It serves as a reminder that patriots can indeed rally across the country and change the flow of Washington. But does Washington get it? President Obama? For a moment, I thought they might (how temporarily naïve or overly optimistic of me). But then I listened to President Obama being interviewed by ABC's George Stephanopoulos the morning after the Massachusetts election. The president's exact words were: "And here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. 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." Wrong, Mr. President. What swept Scott Brown into office was a national disdain for what your administration is doing and has done to our country. It's no longer an anger or frustration with Bush's presidency, but yours. It's not what's happened in the preceding eight years, but the past year since you've become president. (Are you really still blaming President Bush?) Mr. President, it's time to face the music, and help America to do the same. This Wednesday evening, you will give your State of the Union address. And millions upon millions of us are even now wondering if you will again sugarcoat the truth – if you will pad your performance over this past year or confess that the path Washington is taking is plummeting our country deeper into the abyss. If you convey the real status of the union, then you must confess that we are truly no better off (and much worse off in many respects) than when you first took seat in the Oval Office. About this I'll give you credit: that you have indeed fulfilled your promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." And you've done so in record-breaking speed – one year, to be exact. READ FULL STORY >

Repudiation of the unholy trinity ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: January 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The rebellion that swept across Massachusetts Tuesday should provide Washington's unholy trinity – Barry, Harry and Nancy – with convincing evidence that the American people will no longer tolerate their tyranny. Tyranny is the "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority." Does this not describe perfectly the actions of the unholy trinity? Consider the so-called $787 billion "Stimulus Bill" that the public opposed, enacted with little Republican support. Consider the government takeover of General Motors, AIG and the banks. Consider the pending health-care bill the unholy trinity has twisted, shaped and manipulated into such a corruption that even the people of the nation's bluest state rejected it. The unholy trinity now must decide whether to follow the clear instructions of the people and repent from their tyrannical past, or choose instead to follow Master Saul Alinsky's advice given in "Rules for Radicals," which says, "When times get tough, step on the accelerator." Some of the president's advisers are telling him that now is the time to get tough and show strength and conviction of character by forcing his health-care bill through Congress. Nancy told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the Massachusetts election, "… we will have health care one way or another." Congressional underlings, however, who must face a hostile electorate in 10 months, are less confident. There is no doubt that the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts has dramatically altered the progress of the progressive agenda Obama is pursuing. This remarkable victory in no way reduces the urgency of continuing the rebellion across the country. The unholy trinity and the Marxist majority they lead are not defeated. They have simply been forced to slow down a little and devise new strategies. Their long-term goal is still "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" into a government that reflects their Marxist ideals. While they are trying to put the best possible spin on the Massachusetts debacle, they are also moving ahead with other initiatives that don't get the national spotlight. READ FULL STORY >

After Massachusetts, what's next? ~ By Star Parker

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Star Parker Posted: January 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Have you ever watched as a dear friend becomes smitten with someone you know is not for them? You listen as they swear how Mr. or Ms. Right has finally arrived, wondering how they cannot see the obvious. Your only option is to watch and wait for the inevitable, knowing that when it's over you'll be there to help pick up the pieces. So, yes, independent voters, who were key to electing Barack Obama, are now falling out of love with him. But, I ask, what were you folks thinking a year ago? You didn't realize that the post-racial candidate with the magic wand was a classic, boilerplate liberal? You were so sick of Republicans that you didn't bother to think about it? But you do know about these rebound relationships, don't you? It's not like we haven't had our experience with liberalism. That experience made the liberal label so politically deadly that liberals renamed themselves "progressives." So, what can we expect now in the wake of the miracle in Massachusetts? Democrats are between a rock and hard place because Barack Obama is not going to change. This is a date you know after five minutes is not going to work, and you have the whole evening ahead of you. In this case, it's three more years. READ FULL STORY >

Patriotism or just PO'd? ~ By Dave Welch

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Dave Welch Posted: January 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The political breath of fresh air that swept through Massachusetts this week like an old-fashioned "nor'easter" gave hope that the government takeover of health care and the radical agenda of the Marxist/Democrat machine can be slowed or stopped. The fact that it occurred near where another "shot heard 'round the world" occurred on the 19th of the month (April) was particularly sweet. As usual, let me be the fly in the sugar bowl for a moment to remind us of some important facts. First, anything close to center and certainly center-right from the Commonwealth was a huge victory. However, lest we pin too much hope on Scott Brown, it is important that we remember some critical facts. First, he represents a state that has given us Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barney Frank and – I know I'll raise some ire with this inclusion – Mitt Romney … all center to very far left on a legitimate scale of true conservatism. This political victory was desperately needed to throw grease under the drive wheels of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi locomotive. The fact that it also represents the uprising of the Common Joe to take our government back is inspiring. With that stated, here is the question we must answer; "How did we get from John and Sam Adams to Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank to begin with?" We must also answer the challenge David presents us from God's word: "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) The foundation he was referring to is in verse 1, "In the Lord, I take refuge. …" Do we largely take refuge, aka hide our collective self under His authority and protection? How is it that the region that was the birthplace of freedom and produced like the Adams and documents like the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut declined so far, so fast? While we often deride Western Europe for its dead churches, secularism and socialism, those nations have been on a much longer and more gradual decline. New England is the least churched region in the nation, following in the footsteps of our European cousins, producing similar fruits. In large part the majority of our pulpits, congregations and institutions no longer reflect the "aflame with righteousness" described by Alexis de Tocqueville. We have loved comfort, popularity, prosperity and peace far too much to risk even preaching the offensive truth of God's Word lest we chase off the big donors or aren't invited to be keynote at the Church Growth Conference. While we love to wave flags and wipe a tear on Independence Day, do we really know what patriotism is, or is it even a legitimate premise for Christians? Am I irritating you will all these questions? Good. How we define patriotism in its true form, whether it is just people mad at government overreach and overspending or whether the foundations of it are much deeper, is critical. Noah Webster, in his historic 1828 dictionary defines it as:

PAT'RIOTISM ,n. Love of one's country; the passion which aims to serve one's country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity. Patriotism is the characteristic of a good citizen, the noblest passion that animates a man in the character of a citizen. (emphasis added)

READ FULL STORY >

WE the People say, "Scott Brown, thanks for your help"

From TheREALjohnny2k youtube.com Channel

January 22, 2010 We the People just want to say, "Thank you, Scott Brown, for your perseverance, and continuing on with your campaign, even when you were WAY down, in a Democrat (deep Blue) state, for a seat once held by the Kennedy family. Because of the victory, the Democrats suddenly realized the fact that the tea parties were for real, people weren't kidding at the town halls meetings. There is a cameo guest star in this video. It is VERY fitting!

Massachusetts' Other GOP Winner ~ By Kim Strassel

From THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL ~ Opinion Journal

Mitt Romney should write off his health-care plan as a mistake that Democrats have made worse. By Kim Strassel OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH | JANUARY 21, 2010, 9:41 P.M. ET Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts has most Republicans hopeful about midterm elections. It has Mitt Romney hopeful about 2012. In many ways, the former Bay State governor never ended his 2008 presidential campaign. From a perch atop his Free and Strong America PAC, Mr. Romney has been raising money, nurturing his team, keeping himself in the national spotlight. With the Massachusetts Senate race, he sensed an unexpected opportunity to step to the front of the GOP presidential ranks. He played it nicely. Aware that many voters have mixed views of his governorship, Mr. Romney stayed in the shadows, leaving other notables to stump with Mr. Brown. Behind the scenes was a different story. Mr. Romney headlined fundraisers for the little-known state senator and used his own national mailing list to help raise dollars. He called on supporters to make calls on Mr. Brown's behalf, and he harnessed his media operations to bolster the candidate. His closest aides flooded to Mr. Brown, bringing with them the savvy of a national operation. Beth Lindstrom, a cabinet official in the Romney administration, served as Mr. Brown's campaign manager. Also in Brown HQ were Beth Myers, Mr. Romney's presidential campaign manager, and Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom, who worked on the now-famous TV spots showing a tax-cutting John F. Kennedy morphing into Mr. Brown. Mr. Romney got his due on election night. He was the first political figure Mr. Brown thanked for helping "show us the way to victory." Romney allies had already been busy touting his role. "There's no one who has done more behind the scenes and in front of the scenes than Mitt," Republican National Committee member Ron Kaufman told Politico—two days before the election. By midweek, the political pundits decreed Mr. Romney the other big winner. Some went so far as to credit him with the 41st vote, potentially saving the nation from ObamaCare. In doing so, they unwittingly touched on the flip side of this week's race. For all the benefits this contest held for the former governor, it also churned up what will prove the biggest obstacle to Romney 2012. Mr. Brown brazenly turned his Senate bid into a referendum on President Obama's health plan, and voters rewarded him with a job. Yet ObamaCare's model was the health reform inflicted on Massachusetts by a certain Republican governor in 2006, otherwise known as RomneyCare. READ FULL STORY >

That old Obama magic is back ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern © 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 three 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. READ FULL STORY >

Time to kick 'em when they're down ~ By Erik Rush

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Erik Rush Posted: January 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 For better or worse, I can understand why some are deriving an almost obscene degree of enjoyment in witnessing President Barack Obama's political currency spraying the walls like a severed carotid artery. While the results of two gubernatorial elections last fall (which seated Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey) appeared to represent a visit to the woodshed for Democrats, these were counted as an aberration by the party and the establishment press, and thus abandoned as a news item within scant days. Of course, one could not have expected them to do otherwise; the press has evidenced itself as nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Obama administration, and the party is under the complete control of its hard-left leadership and Obama's "kitchen cabinet" – the foremost of which being billionaire pirate financier and former Nazi collaborator George Soros. Now, Republican Scott Brown – a man most Americans had never even heard of two weeks ago – has captured a Senate seat held by Democrats for the last four decades. In deep-blue Massachusetts, of all places. On Jan. 17, when Obama jetted into that state in a bid to salvage Martha Coakley's campaign, the 3,000-plus capacity hall wasn't even full. Many who showed up were devotees who did so just to glimpse the president, like old hippies attending the farewell tour of an aging '60s rock icon – and weren't even Massachusetts residents. One attendee roundly heckled Obama . Very few press outlets disclosed these facts, but the evidence was there on the videotape and in a few correspondent accounts. "Health-care reform," which, as reported, is what Democrats were scrambling to save, represents so much more than a piece of legislation. As Fox News' Neil Cavuto said on Tuesday, "This [health-care reform] is bigger than these guys [the Democrat leadership in Congress]." And how true it is; the health-care reform legislation now in the Senate signifies one of the key vehicles by which the far left intends to cement its power in America for all time. READ FULL STORY >

Tea party returns to its Mass. roots ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 12:25 am Eastern © 2010 What can I say? What can anyone say? The long-awaited political realignment has begun. The Democratic Party has self-destructed. Even Massachusetts recognizes it and led the way last night in making it official. When the polls closed, the curtain opened on a midterm election year that promises the biggest political revolution this nation has witnessed since 1994 – maybe bigger, maybe much bigger. I don't know much about Scott Brown. His story is almost beside the point. What we witnessed yesterday in Massachusetts was a referendum on Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The people of arguably the most liberal Democratic state in the country delivered a no-confidence vote on a government controlled lock, stock and barrel by liberal Democrats. As the Buffalo Springfield once sang, "There's something happening here." But, in this case, what it is is exactly clear. The tea party has returned to its roots. As hard as it might be to believe, Massachusetts was a leader of the War of Independence 230 years ago. Now, it is living up to its revolutionary heritage by rejecting the sharp change of direction this nation took just over a year ago. I hate to say it, but I really did tell you so. READ FULL STORY >

King, Brown, and Haiti ~ By John Kubicek

From BreakdownofAmerica.com

By John Kubicek January 19, 2010 Like Rush Limbaugh, I have my stack of stuff that I’d love to write about today. There’s the National Holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., which brings all kinds of things to mind, such as the fact that I think it is WONDERFUL that we have a holiday to celebrate his unfortunately shortened life. We SHOULD have a day to celebrate his contribution to our society, and most appropriately, to honor what he stood for. And then, there is the race for the Senate seat vacated by the late Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy, between Scott Brown, a Republican, and Martha (or is it Marsha?) Coakley, the Democrat. Not too long ago, Coakley was the obvious heir-apparent to become the next Senator for Massachusetts. We’ll know later today, but that doesn’t seem to be a shoe-in any more. Last, but not least, there was the powerful earthquake in Haiti that reduced their largest population center, Port-Au-Prince, to rubble and left dead bodies “littering” the streets. With the news coverage that we see, there should be absolutely no doubt that Haiti is now exemplary of a true Hell on Earth. I told a friend that I didn’t know which of the events I should write about today. The feedback that I received was that the three events could be combined into one piece. And, yes, I believe that can be done here, but give me a minute to get this all together. Whether we are talking about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the vast devastation in Haiti, or Republican Scott Brown coming out of nowhere to challenge the heir-apparent to the Ted Kennedy Senate seat, Democrat Martha Coakley, all are monumental uphill battles to change the way things are. King succeeded in doing what he set out to do. We’ll find out to day if Scott Brown will be successful, or not. And, whether or not Haiti can make it, we may not know for years. And now, we get to the reason all three of these events have a common thread: The fight for FREEDOM. READ FULL STORY >

Massachusetts Miracle

Video provided by mnmajoritydotorg

January 12, 2010 - Massachusetts Miracle On January 19, 2010, a special election will be held in Massachusetts to select a new US Senator. Mainstream media pundits would have you believe Democrat Maratha Coakley is the undisputed leader in the race. But the so-called 'experts' may be in for a bit of a surprise. Freedom-loving Americans from across our nation are rising-up to support Republican candidate Scott Brown. In the days leading up to the election, Brown has advanced such that some polls now actually show him within the margin of error. Brown would provide the critical 41st vote in the Senate to break the Democrat's filibuster-proof majority and stop the unprecedented assault on our personal liberties that is now taking place in Congress. Scott Brown has pledged to vote against the government takeover of our health care system and is also opposed to cap-and-trade. Martha Coakley, on the other hand, supports Obama's socialistic agenda. The political elite should not underestimate the resilience of the American people to defend their liberty from a tyrannical government.

Lawyers poised for lawsuit in Senate election

From WorldNetDaily

GOP candidate dead even with heavily favored Dem to replace Kennedy Posted: January 16, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Lawyers are being positioned even over the weekend to file a legal action quickly in support of the GOP candidate in the Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy should he succeed in defeating a hand-picked Democratic successor. There is concern that since a victory by Republican Scott Brown over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the battle to replace Kennedy would threaten President Obama's health care plan in the U.S. Senate – Brown has promised to be a key vote against the plan – Democrats in power would delay certifying the election and getting him seated in the Senate. Polls heading into the weekend show the surge of support for Brown is continuing, to the point that President Obama has tentatively scheduled a trip to Massachusetts to try to salvage Coakley's campaign. Officials with Gun Owners of America aren't waiting. They announced today that they have instructed their attorneys to "prepare a lawsuit to force the Senate to seat Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown immediately should he, as seems increasingly likely, succeed in his Jan. 19 bid for the Senate seat." The statement from Gun Owners executive officer Larry Pratt said, "Recent polls showing Brown pulling even with anti-gun zealot Martha Coakley have led to threats by current placeholder Paul Kirk and Democratic operatives to block the will of the people of Massachusetts until the Senate has adopted the ObamaCare bill." READ FULL STORY >