The Boston Tea Party
Vol: 100 Issue: 20 Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Scott Brown’s astonishing upset over Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat made vacant with the death of Teddy Kennedy, represents a sea change in the political landscape moving forward.
The next trick in the Democrat handbook will be to try and find a way to delay seating him until after the Senate has finally passed healthcare reform.
With Brown’s election, Senate Democrats no longer enjoy a filibuster proof majority. Brown’s election splits the Senate 59 — 41 when most bills require a 60 vote majority for passage.
The same forces of disgust with establishment politicians that toppled the Republicans last year and handed Obama that filibuster-proof majority in Congress are the ones that took away yesterday.
Suddenly it is the Republicans that are offering ‘change we can believe in.’
The Massachusetts upset, coming as it does after the Democratic defeat in reliably blue New Jersey and Virginia during last year’s off year election, signals real change in November.
It wasn’t Martha Coakley that Massachusetts voters were voting against. It was Barack Obama.
Obama abandoned everything on his plate, from the wars to the economy to the Haiti relief effort, in order to make a last-minute pitch for Coakley on Sunday.
At the time, Coakley was down by three points. On Monday morning after Obama’s visit, she was down by nine.
Obama also campaigned on behalf of the Democrat candidates in New Jersey and Virginia. Both of them went down in flames, both in contests where they were facing relatively unknown challengers.
Noted Ben Smith in Politico magazine;
“the logic of Obama’s visit is mathematical: Coakley’s polling, a Democrat involved in the race said, has shown that certain key Democratic demographics, including less affluent women and African-Americans, don’t supporter in the overwhelming numbers Democrats had expected.”
“A huge bloc of voters who have a favorable opinion of Obama art with Coakley,” is how one Democrat chose to spin it. But the fact is, there aren’t that many people who still have a favorable opinion of Obama, as evidenced by Coakley’s five-point drop after Obama’s endorsement.
Polling conducted by Suffolk University during the race found that only 36% of Massachusetts voters support pending health-care legislation.
Most amazing of all is the Democrat reaction, particularly from the White House, to the stunning defeat in Massachusetts. In response to the clear expression of repudiation by the voters, the administration promised to go full steam ahead on healthcare reform, anyway.
White House senior advisor David Axelrod told Politico Magazine; “I think that it would be a terrible mistake to walk away now. If we don’t pass the bill, all we have is the stigma of a caricature that was put on. That would be the worst result for everybody who has supported this bill.”
So, their pride is hurt? That’s the reason to continue beating the dead horse? Can they really be so thick? They don’t want to walk away now, despite an almost total act of public support for the plan, because it will make them look bad?
It’s too late. They already look bad.
In reality, it isn’t their pride that has been hurt, it is their agenda. There is no political logic, in the normal understanding of the term, that would explain the suicidal effort by the left to advance their health-care agenda.
But this isn’t about normal politics, this is about the progressive liberal agenda. Healthcare “reform” has been on the Democrat dream sheet since the 1930s.
In the 1930s, liberals had a great admiration for the communist system of cradle-to-grave security, mainly for the centralized control that was required for it to operate.
The centerpiece of cradle-to-grave security is healthcare. Everybody gets sick. There is therefore no one who can be outside the system, regardless of what that system might be.
The overall plan is to introduce government healthcare in such a manner as to crowd out all other alternatives.
With everyone enrolled in such a system and with no alternatives, the government has a hammer with which it can easily crush any political dissent. It is simply a matter of demonstrating how that particular dissent poses a threat to health care.
The Democrats have introduced Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc., for the express purpose of threatening it in order to get their own way. It has been standard practice in every Democrat administration since FDR.
Adding healthcare to that toolbox would give the government as much control over the individual population as was enjoyed by the commissars in 1930’s Russia. That goal has always been at the heart of the liberal agenda.
They don’t see it like that — they believe that the only problem with communism was that it had no compassion. They really do see themselves as the party of compassion, just as they really do see themselves as the party of tolerance. Provided you don’t disagree with them, in which case you will be destroyed.
Uber-liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz is a prime example of the compassionate, tolerant liberal.
“I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times,” Schultz told his audience on Friday.
“I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bast**ds out. I would. Because that’s exactly what they are.”
MSNBC host Chris Matthews lamented on his program that the Democratic machine in Massachusetts wasn’t buying votes using what he called “street money”.
And then there is Keith Olbermann, another MSNBC liberal. He didn’t quite rise to the level of endorsing outright voter fraud, but he did manage to call Scott Brown a “homophobic racist”. But they honestly think they are the voices of compassionate tolerance.
The Massachusetts election was metaphorically another Boston Tea Party, an expression of disgust over taxation without legitimate representation and a backlash against liberal hypocrisy that will likely culminate in a voter revolution in November.
In terms of Bible prophecy, what I think it demonstrates is the genuine and powerful restraining influence on evil exerted by the Church in this generation. When one sits down and carefully examines the aims and practices of the liberal progressive movement, it stands for everything that Scripture calls evil. (See 2nd Timothy 3:-1-7)
While the Democrats may howl epithets at me for saying so, the majority of the Republican party are Christians, (although that isn’t the same as saying all Christians are Republicans.)
It isn’t the party of Ronald Reagan, but if a Christian is planning to join a political party, he is unlikely to choose to affliate with a party that embraces unrestricted late-term abortion, gay marriage, opposes public prayer and celebrates Marx and Mao as cultural heroes.
That is NOT to say that the Republicans are the party of God or anything like that. They are just less likely to mock you for being a Christian. Still, it was those voters that stopped the Democrat machine in its tracks.
In so doing, they have stopped the agenda in its tracks. Obama may push through his healthcare plan, but that is likely to be the last piece of major legislation of his administration. That agenda is restrained until November, at which time it will be stopped dead.
The Apostle Paul, writing to the Church at Thessolonika of the events that would lead up to the revelation of antichrist, wrote of a Restrainer in the last days Whose Presence would prevent unrestrained evil from overtaking the world.
“For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until He be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:7-8 ASV)
I chose to quote the ASV here because it translates the word that in the KJV is translated as “let” more clearly as “restraineth”.
The English of 1611 would have understood ‘to let’ in the sense of the safety provided by the restraints of the castle walls, which of course implies occupation behind that wall.
Even today, advertising a ‘room to let’ implies the restraining of external threats by occupying place of safety.
While the evil already exists, Paul says, right now there is one that restrains it. But Paul says He will be taken out of the way. That restraint is accomplished through the Holy Spirit’s occupation of the believer.
The antichrist could not advance his agenda with the Restrainer in place. He would be stopped the same way the Massachusetts vote stopped the Obama machine.
That is why the Restrainer is taken out of the way first, before the antichrist is revealed. Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would not forsake me until He returned for me, and the Holy Spirit must be removed before the antichrist can move his agenda forward, it means that the Lord must come for me first.
There are two ‘comings’ of which Jesus spoke. The first was His triumphant Second Coming sitting “on the right hand of power” and with great power and glory. Jesus said that all would witness His glorious return.
But He also describes a sudden, secret coming; “Watch, therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing or in the morning. Lest coming suddenly He find you sleeping.” (Mark 13:35-36)
They are two separate events. The first example describes His glorious Second Coming at the conclusion of the Tribulation Period. The second example of a description of when He comes for me, before the Tribulation Period.
But until the Rapture happens, we’ll just have to content ourselves with small victories where we find them.
Like yesterday’s Boston tea party.