A Letter to Our Employees in Congress

To the Members of the U.S. House & U.S. Senate,

I am writing to you, the employees of the People of the United States of America, to remind you of your jobs and your place in our republic. You are elected by the citizens of your districts and states to represent them in the federal government. You are expected to fulfill your duties, which include drafting and voting on legislation that conforms to the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the People through the United States Constitution. We the People also expect you to read and understand that legislation before you vote on it! In addition, we expect you to be available to your constituents, the People you represent, to hear and listen to what we say.

We also expect you to respect the rights and the sovereignty of the several States of the United States of America, in which we live. The Tenth Amendment was passed because several of the States would not sign the Constitution and join the United States without assurances that their rights and sovereignty would be respected and remain intact.

We do NOT want you to enact legislation that you know is in direct opposition to the wishes of the American People or which infringes on our rights or the rights of the States. You, despite what you may believe, do NOT know better than your constituents. We want to remind you that you don't have any right to your elected positions in Congress. You serve at our pleasure, and we are NOT pleased.

The power of the Federal Government and your authority to pass laws, comes from the People. You do not have any right to tell us how to live our everyday lives. You do not have any right to enact laws designed to change our behavior, even if you believe it's our best interests. We are not children and you are not our parents. If any of you have actually read the U.S. Constitution (and I say if because it's obvious that you don't read the legislation that you so arrogantly vote on), then you should be aware that it's preamble starts with the phrase, "We the People of the United States of America..." This is not by accident or coincidence. The Founding Fathers were leery of a powerful central government and deliberately crafted the Constitution to limit it's powers and yours.

So, we the People want to remind you that we elected you and sent you to Washington, D.C. to represent us and we can bring you home. In affect we can fire you, if you fail to live up to our expectations or fulfill your responsibilities. Despite whatever amount of money you may raise, what political alliances you may form or what intimidation you may use, the power in this republic still resides with us. If you continue to pass laws designed to control our money, our businesses, our behavior and our day-to-day lives we the People will replace you with others that will do the job we sent you to do.

We the People of the United States of America are your employers. You the members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate are our employees. It would be best that you keep this fact in mind when you are scoffing at the idea of reading a bill before you vote on it, thinking of raising our taxes or enacting laws that you know we don't want you to pass.

You should consider this letter a prelude to a pink slip. If you don't start to execute your duties as prescribed in the Constitution and as you know we want you to, then we the People will simply have to vote you out of office and elect citizens that will actually represent us and our wishes.

America As We Know It or America As Obama Would Remake It.

For 50 years the United States and it's allies engaged in the Cold War to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding Communism/Socialism around the world. We spent billions of dollars, fought proxy wars and supported many democratic movements.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of USSR, we have seen Socialism on the rise, in various forms and to differing to degrees in every part of the world. In some places this has been relatively benign, like in Canada and the U.K. where the governments are still democratic.

In other nations it's been more frightening, such as in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez a democratically elected leader has used intimidation and civilian organizations to build a power base and change the constitution to give him the right to run for reelection for the rest of his life. In effect he is a dictator. He has nationalized several industries, silenced most opposition, taken control of the media and filled the legislature with people loyal to him.

Here at home we would never willingly become a Socialist nation, or would we? Throughout the last presidential election cycle Barack Obama was completely honest about his agenda. But it seemed the mainstream media either didn't want to see it, or was complicit. He said he was going to "spread the wealth around" and "fundamentally change America". He went to the SEIU, the most left-wing labor union and told them they would help to shape the agenda in his administration. He told ACORN pretty much the same thing. Both ACORN and the SEIU want, universal healthcare, massive entitlement programs, increased unionism and mortgage holder bailouts. Does any of this sound familiar? Obama has several former ACORN members as advisors and "czars" in his administration. He is rushing multiple, massive pieces of "reform" legislation through Congress that no members have had time to read and he is using intimidation to get them to move at his pace. Rahm Emanuel was chosen as his Chief of Staff for just this reason.

Of course in 2004 when the Patriot Act, something Obama didn't support, was rushed through Congress he had a different take on the situation. Back then he said, "...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration." Again, does any of this sound like anything we've seen lately?

We haven't got a commander-in-chief, we have a proud community organizer-in-chief. He has an agenda that most of us wouldn't consider to be American, but socialist. He was elected democratically, with the help of his allies ACORN and the SEIU. There are investigations involving ACORN in 21 states for voter fraud and voter registration fraud. Some ACORN members have been indicted and prosecuted for these offenses. A list of Obama donors that had contributed the maximum to his campaign was given to ACORN's Project Vote organization to solicit those donors for money to get voters to the polls. You can be sure that anyone they brought to a polling place voted for Barack Obama.

We can fight back and retake our government before Obama and his allies "fundamentally change America". But we have to recognize what they are doing and demand that our senators and congressman investigate ACORN and vote against his agenda. I urge everyone to visit www.acorncracked.com, watch and listen to Glenn Beck, and ask lots of questions. Tell anyone that will listen to wake up and ask questions. Tell any member of Congress that doesn't read a bill before they vote for it, that they will be voted out. We need to retake Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. We must organize as Americans for democracy, liberty and capitalism. This isn't a matter of Republican or Democrat. It's a matter of democracy vs. socialism. It's a matter of America as we know it or America as Obama would remake it.

Something To Bring Us Together?

I was reading some e-mails that Michelle Malkin posted on her website tonight. They were in response to her appearance on 'Hannity' promoting her new book. They were all incredibly hateful, racist, misspelled and grammatically incorrect. It got me thinking that we are so polarized in this country that when we disagree, we can't seem to do so in civil manner. In fact, some people can't disagree without becoming completely irrational. But it also got me thinking about what brings us together.

Obviously politics is very divisive, especially at this time in our nation's history. Recent events have shown that race still divides many people in this country more than it should in age when we've elected the first black president. Many of us can't even agree who our enemies are, much less how to deal with them.

But one thing that generally can bring people of different ethnic groups, religions, economic classes and even different political persuasions together is music. Of course individuals like different kinds of music and different artists. But having been to my share of concerts over the years, I'm always amazed at the spectrum of people that show up at concerts. I've seen people ages 8 to 80 at a Beach Boys concert, people of all different ethnic groups at a Pink Floyd show and people showing up in beat up clunkers and expensive BMWs at a Little Feat performance. So I guess that it's true that music is the "universal language". In these times when the news is often so bad and those of us on the right seem to be forever arguing with those on the left, it's nice to know that there's still something to bring us together.

Palin's Options Are Vast

Yesterday Sarah Palin stepped down as governor of Alaska, turning over the reins to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell. While many talking heads have called her a quitter and proclaimed that her political career is over, I vehemently disagree. I don't know if she still has presidential aspirations. But I don't think it's at all out of the question for to run in 2012 or 2016, or that her prospects are limited to that alone either.

For the moment Palin will go on the speaking circuit, likely garnering hefty fees. She's a rock star with the Conservative base of the Republican Party and in high demand as a speaker. She's also working on a book, scheduled to come out next year. Since the former-governor has incurred more than $500,000 in legal fees defending herself from 19 or so ethics complaints, all of which concluded that she did nothing wrong, except for one which is still pending, her first priority is understandably to make some money to pay those bills.

Governor Palin is also in demand to campaign for GOP candidates all over the country. Her popularity among Republicans, particularly conservatives, will likely keep her quite busy in the lower 48 from now until Election Day 2010.

As far as Sarah's professional or political future, in my opinion she has a number of options open to her. She could run for the U.S. Senate, though why she would want to be a member of that corrupt body is beyond me. She could be a possible replacement for RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who many are disappointed with, myself included. She might also decide to put her popularity to work as a political pundit or host a television show, like former-Governor Mike Huckabee. Her personality and looks make that a very real prospect, especially on the Fox News Channel. Another career move I haven't heard mentioned is a radio program. Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee Senator, TV & movie actor and presidential candidate has a very successful radio show with his wife Jeri. I think Palin would do a great job shaping policy and opinion from behind a microphone.

Getting back to the "quitter" label for a moment, I think that's an unfair criticism under the circumstances. From the moment John McCain tapped her as his running-mate last year, Sarah was savaged by the liberal media. She received more scrutiny in the first two weeks after she was picked as the GOP's vice-presidential candidate, than Barack Obama had in the two years he was running for president. She was accused of pretending that her child Trig was hers. The bloggers said that Trig, who has Downs Syndrome, was actually the child of Palin's eldest daughter Bristol. The mainstream liberal media instead of practicing journalism and investigating this ridiculous accusation, reported it as though it were fact. Of course this turned out to be completely untrue. Once that myth was debunked, she was criticized for having a child with Downs and then for working full-time while raising a family. Women's groups, instead of defending her for being a mother and a successful professional, either joined the chorus of critics or were noticeably silent. The traditional rule that the children of candidates were off limits was tossed out for Governor Palin. The press and the blogosphere relentlessly intruded upon and attacked the Palin children and it didn't stop even six months after the election was over. Given that and the frivolous ethics complaints I addressed earlier, I think it's very understandable that Governor Palin decided to step aside. As she said in her resignation announcement, the constant allegations were costing her and the State of Alaska huge amounts of money and making it nearly impossible for Palin and her staff to do the job she was elected to do by the voters, running the State.

I believe that Sarah Palin's options are vast. The reason that liberal pundits and Democratic politicians and operatives are still attacking and belittling her, is they recognize that she's still a force to be reckoned with and they are concerned about her. If they weren't, why would they mention her at all?

The Business of Victims

Recently, many of you probably saw the confrontation between Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer and Mr. Harry Alford President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Alford took offense to Boxer quoting the NAACP's supposed support for the Cap and Trade bill moving through Congress at a Senate hearing. He told her she was "being" racial and Boxer was taken aback by his reaction. She went on to to quote another "black leader" and say that he would be "proud" that Alford was testifying before a senate committee. Again Mr. Alford was not impressed and made sure Boxer knew it. He told her he was an American, a veteran of the US Army and that she was jumping into a mud pit that he wasn't going to jump into.

The following week Mr. Alford appeared on 'The O'Reilly Factor'. In conversation Bill O'Reilly, trying to be fair to Boxer said he thought that Boxer "likes black people", to which Mr. Alford replied "she likes black people in their place", going on to remind us that Boxer had belittled and berated Condeleesa Rice for not having children and that Boxer was the mastermind who had Anita Hill accuse Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Since the incident with Boxer, Mr. Alford has received thousands of e-mails supporting him and his point of view. The National Black Chamber of Commerce is a non-partisan group that encourages black entrepreneurship, not the victim mentality that many liberals seem to prefer.

This got me thinking about something that Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter has been saying about the liberal victim hierarchy. She said that liberals have a hierarchy of victims and blacks are at the top of their list. But beyond the hierarchy, I realized that there is something even more insidious and despicable at work.

Blacks, and people of color in general, tend to vote for Democrats disproportionately. But why? What have Democrats done for them? Democrats don't put forth policies that have lifted them up or made them more self sufficient. Democrats, and more specifically liberal-Democrats offer programs that make blacks and other people of color more reliant and dependent on government. Why is this? Simple, beyond making them more dependent on government, it also makes them more likely to vote for Democrats so that those programs and entitlements will continue to exist. Indeed even so-called "black leaders" like Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson also fight and lobby for Democrats and the programs they continue to propose.

The reason is simple. If black people become self sufficient and successful on their own, then the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world will be out of business. There is big money and power in the business of victims. So at every opportunity they find racism, racial profiling and injustice to exploit. The recent incident between Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley in Cambridge, MA is a perfect example of this. A neighbor of Professor Gates noticed two black males trying to break into a home in Cambridge and did what we all hope our neighbors would do in that situation, she called 911. Sergeant Crowley responded, as did several other officers as backup. When Crowley requested picture I.D. from Gates, who's home it turned out to be (Gates had just returned from a trip and had lost or forgotten his house keys), Gates replied "why, because I'm a black man in America?" From here the situation only deteriorated, with gates calling Crowley a racist and proceeded to call the Cambridge police chief. Professor Gates immediately played the race card even though the police were actually there to protect him and his property, which had been burglarized before not that long ago. He was making himself the victim and to some extent it worked. After continuing to berate Sergeant Crowley for being a "racist" and ignoring instructions to calm down Crowley was arrested for disorderly conduct. Witnesses on the scene, confirmed that the professor was making a scene in public that could be heard and seen from the sidewalk. The charges against Gates were later dropped. That evening, President Obama in a national, primetime news conference on healthcare reform responded to the final question of the evening which was about the Gates/Crowley incident by stating he didn't have all the facts, but still said that the "police acted stupidly."

He assumed that Gates, who he said was his friend, had been the victim of racism. In short he made Gates the victim. He went on to say that this was a "teachable" moment for all on the continuing problem of racial profiling in America. This is ironic considering that Sergeant Crowley teaches a course at the police academy on avoiding racial profiling. This is a job he was handpicked for by his supervisor, who happened to be black himself. In addition, two other officers that responded to the call at Gates' home, one hispanic and one black, indicated that Gates was the one yelling about Crowley being racist and disruptive and backed the Sergeant's handling of the situation. Two days later President Obama attempted to back peddle from his earlier statements in the wake of huge public outcry at his comments. But he stopped short of actually apologizing for his remarks and continued to insist that this was a "teachable moment".

But why do Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer and even the President of the United States want blacks to have a victim mentality? In the case of the President it's because he can't break out of his community organizer mentality, which says that blacks have been the victims of racial profiling in the past, continue to be today and will be in the future. I think that the President also believed he would curry favor among people of color by taking this stance. In the case of Boxer it's her liberal mindset that she can't break out of and because she wants blacks to be reliant on the programs she champions so they'll be stuck in the entitlement cycle and continue to vote for her and her liberal allies. But in the case of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson it's because blacks continuing to be victims is a big and lucrative business for them. Their organizations exist to exploit the victim mentality. If all blacks were to stop being victims and be self reliant, successful people on their own, Sharpton and Jackson would be out business as so-called black leaders.

If you stop to think about it, the very idea of black, latino and leaders of other ethnic groups is in and of itself racist and offensive, or should be. Can you name a white leader? Of course not. But when there's a problem of some sort between a white person and a person of some ethnic or minority group, these "leaders" come out of the woodwork, demanding investigations, apologies and punishment for the "offenders" involved.

In the case of Gates and Crowley, the people that behaved in a racist way were President Obama and Gates himself. Al Sharpton got his "15 minutes" on TV to speak out on racial profiling and Professor Gates will be able to go back to his classes in the fall and teach his students that racism and racial profiling are alive and well in America as well.

I'm not saying that there is no racism in America, or that no cops ever engages in racial profiling, but we have come a long way. The fact that we've had a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a National Security Advisor and now a US President that are black is some evidence of this. But at the same time, if we can't have a black person and white person have a disagreement or even a confrontation without it immediately becoming a matter of race, how can we ever move forward? If the culture of being a victim isn't broken, then how will the majority of people of every ethnic group be truly equal?

I think it's time people reject this culture and business of victimization based on race. It's time to tell our political leaders and those that claim to be the leaders of ethnic groups that they need to recognize the progress we've made and truly lead by building upon that progress. If they don't, then if they're elected officials we should vote them out. If they're religious or civil rights leaders we should reject them and let them get real jobs. If a police officer truly engages in racial profiling or racism they should be disciplined, retrained and/or fired. But we shouldn't assume that they've engaged in this behavior without all the facts and we shouldn't enable the very people that are deliberately trying to keep Americans down by encouraging them to be victims.

Letter to the Employee-in-Chief

Mr. President,

On several occasions you've referred to the White House as "my house". I just wanted to remind you that it isn't your house, it's the people's house. You are just a temporary tenant and employee of the citizen's of the United States. I think many people agree with me that it's inappropriate for you to refer to the White House that way. Please try to remember that you work for us and the White House is just a perk of the job.

Thank you for your time and attention.