Monday, September 27, 2010

Charlie Daniels’ Open Letter to Obama

Mr. President,

I write this letter as a patriot, a taxpayer, a lifelong resident and as concerned citizen of what I consider to be the greatest nation ever known to man, the United States of America.

I am Caucasian, so let’s get the racial aspect out of the way to start with. This letter has nothing to do with your race. I lived through the cruelty of Jim Crow and segregation and learned early on in my life that the color of my skin does not make me better or worse than any other man.

We all remember Martin Luther King, Jr.’s statement about judging people, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, and I believe that with all my heart.

I believe that America is an exceptional country. We have been liberator, benefactor and leader of the free world for centuries. America is an example of what can be achieved by free people living under the free enterprise system.

We have led the world in technology, industry, science and medicine for a long time.

Our capitalist system guarantees that those who explore new worlds and bring us new products and better techniques are amply rewarded for their efforts, and this is as it should be.

A person who is the first one to get there and the last one to leave, who burns the midnight oil and never gives up until they realize their goals, are a boon to humankind. They’re the ones who discover new cures, start new industries and create jobs.

These people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and for the products and services they bring to make life better for all mankind.

Mr. President, it is my personal opinion that you want to take the well-earned rewards of these people and give it to those who have done nothing to deserve them.

It’s really redistribution of wealth, and it’s nothing new. It’s been tried many places before and it has miserably failed in every one of them.

It’s called socialism.

Am I calling you a socialist? Yes, I am. I firmly believe that you are a socialist and a globalist, and that you think America should have a comeuppance and have our playing field leveled to match those of other countries not as industrious or as innovative as we are.

Mr. President, how can you support the building of a mosque in the very same area where Islamic radicals murdered so many Americans?

Just who’s side are you on?

Am I accusing you of being a Muslim? No I’m not, but the jury is still out a little bit on that subject in my mind, because many times your sympathies seem to lean in that direction. You need to watch who you bow to Mr. President.

You have betrayed a whole generation of African-Americans who voted for you because they really believed all that junk about “hope and change,” they really thought you were going to do something great and the only thing you’ve done is to make their jobs disappear and their health insurance go up.

You and your party have corrupted duly elected officials in an effort to get your legislative agenda passed. Remember the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback,” and that’s just a couple we know about, but you bought off a bunch of congressmen and senators, knowing that you were going against the will of the majority of Americans, because you think that you and your arrogant friends know more about what’s good for America than the citizens your disastrous actions effect.

Am I accusing you of being an elitist? You bet.

I don’t believe you take the Islamic threat to America nearly as seriously as you should. You use semantics like “Overseas Contingency Operation” and “Man Caused Disasters” to soften your rhetoric toward people who would like nothing better than decapitate the entire population of America.

And Mr. President, if you’d really like to know the kind of warriors who are fighting the “Overseas Contingency Operation,” and you would like to really know about what kind of enemies they’re fighting, you should read a book called Lone Survivor by a brave, young Navy Seal named Marcus Lutrell who went to hell and back for his country, and is still a dedicated patriot. I think you’d find it enlightening, Mr. President and after you finish it would you pass it on to Janet Napolitano? And by the way, tell her that my invitation to take her to Iraq and show her some “Man Caused Disasters” is still open.

Am I calling you naïve? Absolutely.

You seem to think that America has an endless supply of tax dollars for you to waste and give away, and the debt you’ve piled up could well bankrupt the greatest nation on earth.
Am I calling you a failure, Mr. President?
With all due respect that’s exactly what I’m doing.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

The GOP Pledge to America -


America is more than a country.

America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic,political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.

America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.

Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.

These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.

In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.

An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.

Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.

Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.

The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.

With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.

We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.


...for the rest of the GOP pledge here (21 pages)

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Articulate "EXHAUSTED" TownHaller: Hot Dogs and Beans the New Reality?

Obama is called to task by one of his early supporters:
"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for."

Funny thing happens on the way to hot dogs n beans - when you take away from the few to distribute to the many - soon everyone has equal portions of poverty and there is no one left anywhere to provide the means to potato salad on the menu except thru servitude of ComradeKarl in Gov we must

Am still wondering when Mathews or Pelosi will come forward to say this lady is crazy-extremist-dangerous -racist or a secret Constitutional terrorist...and we know they won't because she isn't. Just as the other millions of American citizens who gather to express their concerns are not.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Obama quotes Declaration and Omits the "Creator"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Obama Omitted the very words that make us unique- words that make us strong- words that are written to assure that MAN can not remake those rights into his own image.

The ommission had to be by design and forethought -"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are-" was left out of the speech.

Look to the last 18 months of 'change' and you do not have to wonder why Obama would leave out WHO he actually believes gives us our 'rights' and to the one world godless Marxists he assigns to take them away.

Friday, September 10, 2010


Obamacare Czar Sebelius Threatens Insurance Companies who are raising premiums due to the Health care Scam passed by Congress.

The Sebelius letter to Insurance Companies warns them if they raise premiums or explain why the premiums are being raised then they would be locked OUT of future government controlled parsing out of the foretold 30 million new subscribers and their dollars.

Play to pay. Play or pay.

This heavy handed extortion is nothing new for the Obama thuggish crowd - do what we say or you will pay. Do not speak against us or you will regret it. Co-operate and be rewarded. Ask for information and we will deny you access. Dare use first amendment and we will find ways to deny your use of it.

Common sense tells you if the health care law imposes extra costs upon the insurance companies that they would pass the costs on to consumers. Of Course we all knew that but we were shouted down or ignored.

"Misinformation" is something Sebelius just won't tolerate...Ironic...The Obama crew could swipe 500 billion from seniors health coverage while saying it won't affect them at all.
BTW- in the 18 months that we have heard about the 500 billion that will - supposedly pay for nearly half of this national health care scheme and - come from Medicare fraud savings etc- HOW MUCH HAVE YOU RECOVERED?

If these Obama disinformation people continue to operate as they have in the past look soon for a "Turn in your Neighbor for HealthCare Lies Website" to be formed.

The Health care Insurance Industry and medical costs are out of line for sure but the Government socialist control of either is not the answer.

What can we expect next to come out of 1600 Red Square?

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Restoring Constitutional Government - [Return to First Principles]

Restoring Constitutional Government

Paul A. Rahe

We have come a long way in the last twenty months. The President of the United States, his Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader in the United States Senate have done for the Republican Party what no Republican could have accomplished. Just as rigor mortis was about to set in, they brought the old corpse back to life. For their efforts on our behalf, we should be forever grateful.

It is easy to lose perspective. It is easy to forget the dire straits in which the Republicans found themselves in and for some time after November, 2008. On the first Tuesday of that month, they were soundly defeated. The Democrats controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. In time, when Al Franken was seated and Arlen Specter turned coat, the Democrats would attain El Dorado – a commanding majority in the Senate capable to bringing a filibuster to a screeching halt.

The Republicans initially thought that to get along they would have to go along. Had Nancy Pelosi thrown a little patronage their way when the so-called “stimulus” bill was being put together, had Barack Obama intervened to insist that she include earmarks for compliant Republicans in the House, a great many of them would have voted for the measure. It is to her that we owe their solidarity on the occasion of the vote. She is responsible for the fact that on that occasion they presented themselves to the world as a party of principle. If the Tea-Party Movement, which sprang up in the immediate aftermath of the bill’s passage, was not as resolutely hostile to the Republicans as it was to the Democrats, it was because Pelosi and her minions wanted vengeance, sought it, and got it.

Even when the Tea-Party Movement had emerged, the Republicans were not quick to realize what was in the offing. On 2 May 2009, some six months after the election, Jeb Bush emerged from a meeting with Mitt Romney and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor to announce that it was time for the Republicans to give up “nostalgia about the past” and to leave Ronald Reagan and all that he stood for behind. “You can’t beat something with nothing,” he observed, “and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that.”

Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor may have been slow to grasp what was going on, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are dopes. It was not until early August in that year that I was willing to admit to myself that a political realignment in the Republicans’ favor was a serious possibility; and, as I noted in a piece posted in the aftermath of the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in early September, I was even then almost entirely alone. At that convention, I had attended a panel on Barack Obama’s first year as President at which not one of the distinguished students of American politics on the panel had in their prepared remarks even mentioned the Tea-Party Movement. And when I asked a question about it, I received a perfunctory answer. It was odd, my interlocutor remarked, that such a movement had emerged in the absence of institutional support. It was, I thought, very odd, very odd, indeed.

Now, thanks to Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, the Republicans appear to be on the verge of an historic victory.

I would not be surprised in the slightest if they were to gain more than seventy seats in the House of Representatives and to retake the Senate as well. But, as I intimated in a recent post entitled John Boehner’s Testing Time, nothing is certain, not even now, and Jeb Bush was certainly right about one thing. You cannot beat something with nothing, and in recent years the Republicans have stood for next to nothing. If they are to effect a lasting political realignment — a possibility for which I have argued repeatedly in the last twelve months (first here in August 2009, then in posts linked here and archived here, here, and here) – they must give the American people reason to put their faith in them.

In an earlier post, entitled Patronage, Principles, and Political Parties, I explored the history of American political parties, their propensity to oscillate between being parties of patronage and parties of principle, and the manner in which the American constitution with its separation of powers both requires and subverts parties of principle. In John Boehner’s Testing Time, I drew on this earlier post and suggested that Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and their associates would be well-advised to draft a new Contract with American designed to nationalize the midterm elections and to transform the Republican Party – which has in recent years tended to be a party of patronage oriented towards the needs of particular, local constituencies – into a party of principle capable, at least for the time being, of genuinely governing these United States.

This end, I contended, can be achieved only if the Republicans appropriate for their own use a claim falsely but effectively advanced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936 which – thanks to our current President, his Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader in the United States Senate — now rings all too true: that today the American republic is threatened by a conspiracy, that “a small group” of individuals, lead by Obama, Emanuel, Pelosi, and Reid, is intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor — other people’s lives.” If they wish to effect a realignment, I argued, all that the Republicans have to do is to complete the task of unmasking begun by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Emanuel and make it clear that they really do intend to repeal Obamacare, to balance the federal budget without enacting permanent tax increases, to roll back the scope and size of the administrative state, and to restore within these United States limited, constitutional government.

To this end, they not only need to spell out in some detail what they intend to do; they need, as I argued in that earlier post, to justify their proposals in terms of constitutional principles. To grasp what this entails, they will need to specify what these principles are. Here is how this can be done.

As I argued in an earlier post and, in much greater detail, in my recent books Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty and Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, the American regime is an experiment of a particular kind. In the late eighteenth century, it was almost universally agreed that a republic cannot be sustained on an extended territory. Such was the argument that Montesquieu advanced in the first part of his authoritative book The Spirit of Laws, and he had good reason for advancing such a claim. Athens and Sparta were situated on territories of no great size, and the same could be said for early Rome and for Lucca, Florence, and Venice in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

Late republican Rome was an exception to the rule, to be sure. But – as both Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy and Montesquieu in his Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline and Spirit of Laws pointed out — Rome was also the exception that proved the rule. It was a republic that, by dint of conquest, came to be situated on an extended territory and then collapsed. The Framers of the American constitution faced a great challenge, and this they knew.

The challenge was straightforward. Polities situated on extended territories sit at a great distance from the vast majority of the people whom they rule. This is consistent with despotism; and if the distance is not too great, it is consistent with legitimate monarchy and the rule of law as well. But for republics it poses a problem. Governments at a distance from the people they rule tend to be invisible; and when human beings are invisible, they tend rightly to suppose that they can get away with a lot. Moreover, large polities tend to face emergencies more often than small polities, and emergencies require from rulers vigor, alacrity, and resoluteness of the sort most easily provided by a man who can act alone. The challenge facing the American Framers was to devise a constitutional structure capable of producing a government fit for meeting emergencies but unlikely to become, as James Madison once delicately put it, “self-directed.”

To meet this challenge, they turned to the second and third parts of Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws – where he sketched out two different ways in which a republic can overcome this limitation on its magnitude. It was, he realized, necessary that it do so because – at least in modern times – no small republic could hope to marshal the resources necessary for its self-defense when attacked by monarchies of intermediate size or despotisms immense in size.

The first expedient suggested by Montesquieu was federalism. By means of federalism, a group of republics could project power in the manner of a monarchy while remaining small enough to be genuinely self-governing.

Montesquieu’s second expedient was the separation of powers. By distinguishing along functional lines between the executive power, the legislative power, and the judicial power and by distributing these three powers to different bodies in such a fashion as to render them separate and quasi-autonomous, the English had managed to transform a monarchy into a republic capable of sustaining itself on an extended territory. For emergencies, they had an executive capable of vigor, alacrity, and resoluteness. To prevent that executive from becoming a tyrant, they had a House of Commons responsible to the electorate and capable of calling the executive’s servants to account. To avoid populist excesses, they had a House of Lords capable of checking the House of Commons; and to protect the liberty of the citizens, they had judges who could not easily be removed from office and juries selected from among the peers of those accused.

The Americans combined both expedients. To begin with, they instituted a federation, building on the remnants of the old colonial system and on the structure that existed under the Articles of Confederation. At the center, they established a government of limited powers – capable of defending the nation, of guaranteeing to every state a republican government, of regulating commerce between the states, and of responding to emergencies. To the states and local governments, where the territory was comparatively small, they left all other legitimate powers. To make the federal government in some measure independent of the states, they provided for direct popular election of the House of Representatives; and to enable the states to protect their own prerogatives from federal encroachment, they had the state legislatures elect the federal senate.

At both the state and federal level, the American founders instituted a separation of powers, giving to the executive, the legislators, and the judiciary the means by which to defend their own prerogatives and the motives for doing so – and, by dividing and separating the powers, the Founders sought to make the government and its operations visible to the citizens. Each branch served the general public as a watchdog with regard to the others.

The measures undertaken by the Obama administration and by its supporters in Congress that gave rise to and sustained the Tea-Party Movement all have this in common. They constitute an assault – evident to anyone who cares to look – on our inherited political order. They transgress on the two great principles constitutive of that order. They are inconsistent with federalism and the separation of powers, and nothing speaks to their character more eloquently than the fact that they were crafted in camera behind closed doors, that those who voted on them had not read them, and that they were of such a length as to be incomprehensible even to their putative authors.

Let me be a bit more precise. The two great measures passed since January, 2009 – the healthcare reform bill and the financial-regulation reform bill – presuppose that the federal government can do anything. Both run roughshod over the prerogatives of the states. Neither is consistent with federalism as a principle of governance.

The same can be said with regard to the separation of powers. Both bills presuppose a massive delegation of legislative power to executive agencies. Both presuppose that appointed officials can and should be empowered to issue regulations having the force of law. Both presuppose on the part of both houses of Congress an abdication of the legislative power. Both require a concentration of executive, legislative, and judicial power within a single agency that operations, in effective, behind closed doors. Both promise to give rise to a government that is invisible and unaccountable. The combination of these powers is, Montesquieu asserted, the very emblem of despotism.

My critics will respond that this is nothing new, and they are very nearly right. The administrative state is now nearly a century old. It has existed since the days of Woodrow Wilson. It assumed gigantic proportions under the New Deal and the Great Society. But never was its expansion brazenly and arrogantly thrust upon the American people until now. By the methods that they have employed to secure its aggrandizement, Obama, Emanuel, Pelosi, and Reid have unmasked the administrative state and have made visible its tyrannical potential.

It is the task of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and their associates to unite their brethren behind a common program designed to roll back the administrative state and to hold them to their commitments. To do this successfully, they must make use of what the Democrats have done in the last few years in such a way as to educate the American people with regard to the roots of the present discontents. What those who joined the Tea-Party Movement sense must in the course of the midterm campaign be made manifest in all of its horror.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. What we need is a return to first principles.

Reprinted with permission of the Author.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, Violates the Hatch Act?

Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, urged his employees to attend Sharpton's email.

The Washington Examiner learned of the e-mail from a Department of Education employee who felt uncomfortable with Duncan's request.

"ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the 'Reclaim the Dream' rally and march," began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday." writes Lisa Gartner of the Washington Examiner.

She goes on to write:
"Although the e-mail does not violate the Hatch Act, which forbids federal employees from participating in political campaigns..."

I think I have to disagree with her on this.

The act of using government computer and EMAIL is a violation of the Hatch ACT IF done so in endorsing a partisan political group also.
-at least by my understanding of the email portion of the Act...also "supervisory employees may not invite subordinate employees to political events or otherwise suggest to subordinates that they attend the political event or undertake any partisan political activity."

Certainly Sharpton was a partisan political figure, past and present, representing partisan rhetoric at his rally. Sharpton's comments prior to the rally made it very clear he had a bug up his bun, or a bee in his political bonnet, towards Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor Rally" held on the same day.

At Sharpton's rally he said that Republicans "think we showed up in 2008 and that we won't show up again. But we know how to sucker-punch, and we're coming out again in 2010."
Various speakers praised Obama and took pot shots at Tea Party people.

Sure sounds like a 'partisan political group' to me.

Education Department spokesperson, Sandra Abrevaya, stated the get out and participate email was promoting a "back to school" activity.
Now we've heard everthing.
This kind of end-round spin explanation just shows that they KNEW they were acting in violation, like a Yosi Sergant propaganda sneak play, and once again this administration chooses which laws it will, and will not, abide by.

An investigation would be nice -
...but if history is any indicator for democrats who break the law - a conviction would just get Duncan appointed or elected to some other office somewhere in the re-education plan.

Obama Communist backed Voice in the Labor Department: Hilda Solis

Hilda Solis, Obama’s Secretary of Labor, tells illegal immigrant workers to call her and let her know if they are being fairly paid or not — documented or not:

Apparently Obama's America transformers are willing to make sure that employers acting illegally are to be reported - or protected- for improperly paying illegal workers properly.

Another Obama staffed Social Engineering Agency not doing its job.
Not only does the Obama Administration decide which laws it will and will not follow - but it embraces and encourages lawlessness.

It is unlawful to be in the U.S. without proper documents.
It is unlawful to be working in the U.S. without proper documents.
It is unlawful for employers to hire undocumented workers.

What part of ILLEGAL does the Obama Squad of changers not understand?

Does Obama appoint anyone who follow our laws - or anyone who would enforce them?

Obama and his selected unaccountable administrative people continue to portray their inconsistency to follow American law, foundation and principle.

Hilda Solis, a past keynote speaker of the Democratic Socialists of America, is not only backed by the Communist Party USA but she is one of those affiliate voices of the House Progressive Caucus...

Does Obama know anyone not tied to communists and socialists - Marxists and Anti-America ideals?
Anyone who likes America? Free Market?