A Call To Action

There is no question that times are tough. The national unemployment rate is around 10%—probably higher when you count the under-employed, those whose unemployment benefits have run out and those who have given up looking—and in many states the unemployment rate is even higher that the national average.

While the Democrats didn’t start the out-of-control spending, they did accelerate the deficit spending. Now they are making the problem exponentially worse by increasing taxes and fees.

The only segment where employment is increasing is in government. But the government doesn’t produce anything except bureaucracy, fraud and waste.

We have an opportunity to change the way government works and get our nation back on track this November. But in order to do this we must support good constitutional-conservative candidates. While most of these candidates call themselves Republicans, they are often not supported by the Republican establishment—a simultaneously good and bad thing. On the plus side, non-establishment candidates will work for the people who elect them, not special interest groups. On the negative side, lack of establishment backing also means they must struggle for both money and media attention to get their message out to the voters who have the power to send them to Washington, D.C., their state capitals, their county seats or their city halls.

It is imperative for each and every one of us to help these candidates in any way possible. We all know that money is tight and just paying the bills is a struggle. But if we miss this opportunity in November of 2010, our nation may be unrecognizable by 2012. So, if it means making a sacrifice to contribute ten dollars to a candidate you feel is worthy, do it.

But what if you truly can’t afford those ten dollars? Then get involved directly. Walk precincts for your candidate to get the word out. If you have a blog, write about the candidates you support. If you have an Internet radio show, or know someone who does, get that candidate on the air to get their message to as many people as possible. Offer to hold a fundraiser or a meet & greet at your home or business. Be creative, but find a way to get the candidates you support elected.

We are at a crossroads in our republic and it is time to take a stand for our liberty, for our Constitution and for our children’s future.

Simply voting on Election Day is not good enough. Get involved. Get some skin in the game. We get the government deserve, so let’s make sure we deserve a great one!

McChrystal’s Ouster

General Stanley McChrystal served his country for 34 years. He began his military career as a Second Lieutenant in 1976 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and was promoted to 4-Star General in June of 2009 when he took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

His career was distinguished and decorated, including the Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters) and the Bronze Star. He deserved better than to be relieved of duty because of some off-color remarks made in a bar, that were reported in a dying left-wing publication like Rolling Stone Magazine.

With all that said and with all due respect to his service to our nation, he and his staff showed an incredible lack of judgment by allowing that reporter (and I use the term loosely) to be embedded with them in the first place. This lapse in judgment left President Obama no choice but to ask General McChrystal to submit his resignation.

Unlike generals like Douglas MacArthur and George Patton who had won unprecedented battles and were storied heroes of World War II, Stanley McChrystal was fighting an increasingly unpopular war. Many now question the wisdom of invading Afghanistan in the first place, while still others criticize the strategy and tactics employed in the effort. McChrystal was in fact on the losing end of a war where American soldiers and marines were dying as a direct result of his own Rules of Engagement.

The counter-insurgency tactics he successfully championed and sold to President Obama are controversial to be sure. The ROE imposed upon our military in Afghanistan were unpopular with the soldiers on the ground and many military analysts here at home.

I have had the privilege of interviewing retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and Brig. Gen. James Cash, as well as former CIA operative Michael Baker about the war in Afghanistan. Although all of these men expressed great respect for General McChrystal, they expressed staunch disagreement with the wisdom of the tactics he was employing.

No one wants the American military to kill innocent Afghans. We all want to limit collateral casualties if possible. But it’s important that when we put our brave men and women in harm’s way that we give them the resources they need to accomplish their mission and protect their lives as well.

When the rules of engagement include such things as not being allowed to fire until fired upon, not being able to call in air strikes in populated areas, or pursue Taliban fighters into populated areas, we are tying the hands of our military and putting them in unnecessary and unacceptable peril.

As we witnessed in Somalia, in what became known as the “Black Hawk Down” incident in Mogadishu, when political concerns trump military considerations our soldiers die. In the Battle of Mogadishu, political concerns about having too big a footprint caused Washington, D.C. to withhold AC-130 gunship support and prevent armored vehicles from being used. The results were dead Army Rangers and Delta Operators. The images of our dead soldiers being dragged through the streets by Somali militiamen led to our withdrawal from that troubled country and was a demoralizing blow to the morale of our troops.

With all due respect to General McChrystal, who obviously believes in the COIN strategy, in my opinion (for what it’s worth) he was the wrong general, fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He should not have been given this assignment, in the first place. But that of course is not his fault.

The fact that President Obama dithered for four months before giving the general only 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he requested for his “surge” in Afghanistan must have frustrated McChrystal tremendously, and the fact that Vice-President Biden strongly opposed the COIN strategy and favored a counter-terrorist strategy instead, also was a point of contention for the general.

McChrystal and his staff were obviously blowing off steam when they made the comments that Rolling Stone printed. But they let their guard down with the enemy in their midst and he cut them down just as surely as a Taliban infiltrator would have.

Now we have to hope that McChyrstal’s replacement, General David Petraeus, tapped by President Obama, will change the Rules of Engagement to effectively grant Obama the necessary time to defeat the Taliban and get the Afghan Army and police to defend their own people and nation.

In order to win the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan peasant-farmers, Petraeus might consider allowing them to grow poppy to be purchased by western pharmaceutical companies, rather than trying to destroy the crops or forcing the Afghans to grow some other much less lucrative crop.

We need to manage our expectations and realize the futility of trying to turn Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy—or even into an Iraqi-style democracy. We can only hope to make it a functioning country that is not a haven for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Criticize Obama For The Right Reasons

Much has been made of the fact that President Obama did not attend the wreath laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery this Memorial Day, choosing instead to take a vacation in Chicago. Some even claimed it was the first time a wartime president had failed to pay his respects to the fallen at the nation’s most esteemed military cemetery.

Upon first reflection this seemed like a terrible slight to our armed forces. But after further research and analysis it seems that on at least two scores this may have been overblown and factually incorrect.

To begin with, this not the first time the President of the United States has been absent from Arlington on Memorial Day—even during wartime. Ronald Reagan had a deputy defense secretary fill in for him. In 1992, while the Gulf War was taking place, George H.W. Bush (a WWII Veteran) missed the annual event, but actually spoke to a veterans group in Kennebunkport, Maine. Years later in 2007, while our troops were fighting valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, George W. Bush sent Vice-President Dick Cheney to Arlington in his place.

This year President Obama attended a ceremony at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Illinois, hardly ignoring this important day of remembrance. Vice-President Biden, the father of a son that has served in Iraq, laid the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington in the president’s place.

Second, those that take issue with our commander-in-chief might consider that Biden, a man who has had a son in combat, might be better qualified to understand the feelings of veterans and their family members than Obama who does not share that experience.

If critics of Obama, his administration and his policies are to maintain credibility we must take care to keep our criticisms based in facts and not in the kind of irrational hyperbole that the left so often engages in.

There is cause for criticism to be leveled at President Obama for taking another vacation at this time, but it should be for the fact that he does so while there is an environmental disaster occurring in the Gulf Mexico and along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and while millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to pay their essential expenses. It seems heartless, elitist and tone-deaf for Obama to be taking yet another vacation while so many Americans are suffering and losing so much.

Why Obama & His Allies Fear States Rights

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “The 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.” It was added to the Bill of Rights because several of the Founding Fathers, including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson, would have opposed the ratification of the Constitution without it. They feared a powerful central government that would – in brazen disregard of the US Constitution – seize ungranted powers, deny the sovereignty of the states and impose tyranny on the people.

Over the past century we have witnessed an out-of-control federal government, in both the Executive and Legislative branches, misuse the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…” to justify regulating elements of American life, thus doing exactly the thing feared most by the Founders, who never intended an increasingly expansive, individual-liberty-crushing nanny state.

The most recent example is of course the unconstitutional federal mandate forcing citizens to purchase health insurance or face stiff fines and/or penalties. This government power-grab has resulted in many states passing legislation to reassert their sovereignty and added even more passion, energy and momentum to the burgeoning Tea Party Movement. It has also compelled some thirty states to file suit against the federal government over the constitutionality of the healthcare law.

States like Florida have passed resolutions that simply reaffirm the principles already outlined in the Tenth Amendment. Other states like Montana have passed laws exempting commodities manufactured and sold solely within their borders, (e.g. firearms), from federal regulations. Still others like Arizona have gone a step further by passing a law that mirrors an existing federal statute pertaining to illegal immigration – a law that the federal government, in dereliction of its duties – refuses to enforce.

In each instance the Obama administration and Congress have belittled the efforts of governors and state legislatures to uphold and assert state sovereignty.

While the federal government continues to whittle away at the rights of the states and the American people, they are simultaneously working to impose the will of the United Nations and International Law upon us.

The Clinton Administration signed the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1994 but to this day, the Senate has yet to ratify it. This treaty would essentially give the United Nations jurisdiction over mineral extraction from the sea floor and allow it to limit the territorial waters of nations. Further, it would also call for the redistribution of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations. Additionally and perhaps most disturbingly, it would also – in the opinions of many – limit the ability of the United States Navy to operate in certain areas without U.N. approval.

This week President Obama directed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sign the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which could potentially lead to a ban on all privately held semi-automatic weapons in the United States. This is in clear violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…”

The Second Amendment was intended to prevent the American government from imposing tyranny upon the citizens of the United States. It guarantees an inalienable right, one granted to every American at birth. As George Mason put it in 1788 during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Or as Thomas Jefferson put it, "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that the Small Arms Treaty will be ratified by the Senate – especially in an election year. But the point is that the rights of the states and individuals are under relentless attack while the federal government continues to weaken the United States Constitution in favor of international laws. Our very liberty is in jeopardy when those who we’ve entrusted to represent us attempt to deprive us of our means of defending that liberty.

This may explain why the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress fear states rights; to their great credit, strong governors like Jan Brewer in Arizona and Chris Christie in New Jersey as well as state legislatures nationwide have refused to buckle under the assault waged against them and the Constitution.

Besides being a document that grants the enumerated powers to the federal government from the people – not the other way around – the Constitution is also a contract between the federal government, the states and the people. It is a limiting document.

As such, it is imperative that the people of our great constitutional republic elect representatives at the local, state and federal levels who understand and embrace this founding principle of our nation. We must reign in the federal government and reject all efforts to further weaken the Constitution and impose the will of the United Nations in its place.

Many Americans seem to have lost their fear of an omnipresent central government or have become so dependent on the federal government that they dare not speak or act against it. But as President Gerald Ford so wisely said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have”.

FROM INCOMPETENCE TO LOSS OF CONFIDENCE

It was a bad week for the Obama administration in general and Attorney General Eric Holder in particular.

President Obama scolded BP and it’s subcontractors for their handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and for playing the blame game as they continue to point fingers at each other for not being able to contain the massive spill. Then the president went on to scold the federal government for its roll, in essence scolding himself.

It seems ironic that Obama would scold some his biggest contributors and then himself, but we should be glad the president finally took at least some responsibility for something. It was refreshing to learn that something wasn’t George W. Bush’s fault for a change. However, the fact remains that the spill continues and neither the oil industry, nor the federal government seems to know how to cap the gusher, which is some 5,000 feet beneath the surface of the Gulf and apparently beyond their reach, both figuratively and literally.

The president continued to castigate Arizona for passing its new Illegal Immigration law, though he still hasn’t read the 16-page document. If he had taken time to read it, he might have realized that he has been misrepresenting what the law, which mirrors existing federal law, actually says and does.

Obama also continued his do as I say, not as I do modus operandi when he went to New York City and ordered chicken wings, fries and onion rings -followed no doubt by a Marlboro- even as he, the Congress and the First Lady move to enact nanny state legislation that will require the states to mandate that healthcare providers monitor the Body Mass Index, or BMI, of children ages 2 to 18, all in the name of stemming childhood obesity. This is an admirable goal, but as usual Democrats think that the government, not parents should be responsible. And as usual they want taxpayers to foot the bill.

But the member of the Obama administration with the most egg on his face this week has to be Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder when asked by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas whether some of those that have perpetrated acts of terrorism against the United States, “might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam,” was unable to give a yes or no answer. Instead he said, “No, no I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion… that’s not consistent with the teachings of it” and “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.”

Really Mr. Holder? It’s not consistent with the teachings of a religion that calls upon it’s followers to “kill the infidels” and “bring Jihad” to unbelievers? And when those that attack us get their training from radical Islamic terror groups and yell “Allah akbar”, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that they “might have been incited” by radial Islam? Incompetent doesn’t even begin to cover holding that position, but we’ll leave it at that for now.

If the attorney general didn’t look incompetent after that exchange, his admonition to Representative Ted Poe of Texas that he had “glanced at” the Arizona Illegal Immigration law, SB 1070, but hadn’t had the chance to read it should seal the deal. Holder went on the Sunday morning talk shows on May 9th and consistently said that he and the administration were concerned about the possibility of law leading to racial profiling, as well as its constitutionality and went on to say that he and the administration might even challenge the law in court.

The realization that, as many had suspected, the attorney general hadn’t read the 16-page law is reason enough for many to wonder how he still has his job. Certainly this should lead even the most ardent supporter to question the competence of the attorney general or, at the very least, shake their confidence in him.

Incompetence Or Intent?

Three major events have occurred over the past few weeks that call into question the competence and motives of the Obama Administration.

The first was the explosion and subsequent oil spill on the British Petroleum offshore oilrig, Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico. The second was the failed terrorist car bombing in New York City’s Times Square, and the third was the massive and devastating flooding in Tennessee.

President Obama and his administration’s officials have been claiming that they were on top of the oil spill from “Day One”. However, the facts would seem to refute those claims, as most news reports indicate it took several days for the administration to become engaged in the crisis. I’m not one who subscribes to conspiracy theories, but I’ve found it very convenient that after decades of safe oilrig operation this disaster has occurred so soon after Obama upset his base by appearing to open up new areas off the Atlantic Coast to new oil exploration.

Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, have seized upon this oil spill as an excuse to end any talk of new exploration off America’s shores. It should be noted that Russia, China and several other nations are already planning to drill for oil in the international waters off our coasts. If we don’t go after those reserves, they will. It’s safe to say that none of those nations will be as concerned about drilling in an environmentally responsible fashion as we would be. It’s also worth noting the presence of oil rigs in much more hostile parts of the world than the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Coast of the United States, such as the North Sea. In fact, there are more than 5,000 offshore oil platforms worldwide – and all have been operating safely for decades.

Before we jump to any conclusions or react impulsively, we must determine what really happened on the Deepwater Horizon. As retired fire-rescue captain Matt Bruce reports, there are many questions about this disaster and its causes.

Then there’s the attempted terrorist attack in Times Square by Faisal Shahzad, which some have characterized as “amateurish”. CBS News has reported that Shahzad had been on the terrorist watch list between 1999 and 2008 because he entered the country with approximately $80,000 and made no less than eight trips to and from Pakistan in the past several years.

However, Shahzad was removed from the list shortly after Obama began shutting down Bush-era terrorist investigations in 2009. We were lucky his IED fizzled instead of detonating in Times Square, since the systems that should have prevented this man from becoming a naturalized citizen and getting the chance to perpetrate this attempted attack failed spectacularly. Only the quick thinking of a New York City street vendor — who noticed smoke coming from Shahzad’s SUV — the NYPD, and the NY Fire Department averted disaster.

Despite the existence of video surveillance of the suspect and the fact that the FBI was initially tracking him, Shahzad had no difficulty boarding an Emirates Airlines flight. If not for the keen eye of an immigration officer, who prevented him from successfully fleeing the country, he would’ve eluded capture. Apparently at some point during their surveillance, the FBI lost track of him.

Most remarkably, the Obama Administration — which only reluctantly acknowledges terrorism — has been touting its success in this affair. It’s also worth mentioning that the media and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg have been contorting themselves ever since, consciously trying not to call Shahzad a Muslim terrorist, while simultaneously worrying not only about his motives, but also about “backlash” against Muslims and Pakistani-Americans.

In fact, Bloomberg initially posited the ludicrous theory that the bomber might be some “deranged person” or someone who’s unhappy with the healthcare bill. He even went so far as to use the incident to push for closing the so-called “gun show loophole”, one of this anti-Second Amendment advocate’s favorite causes.

The third and final event has gotten very little press, even though it involved the greatest loss of life and property. The floods in Tennessee have killed 23 Americans and devastated a huge swath of the “Volunteer State”. Yet we’ve heard almost nothing from President Obama on this disaster. Thousands of Americans lost their homes and suffered the worst devastation imaginable, yet the President has for the most part ignored this catastrophe and the human suffering it inflicted.

If President George W. Bush were still in office and had reacted so slowly and incompetently to these three equally newsworthy situations, the lamestream media would be savaging him relentlessly. But as per usual, they’ve given the Community Organizer-in-Chief a pass.

So what are we to conclude about Obama’s motives in the aftermath of his mishandling of these three events? Should we assume that in the case of the BP oil spill that Obama actually wanted it to become an environmental disaster, the better for him and his allies to use as an excuse to end all further talk of future offshore oil drilling? After all, if there’s one thing we do know about this administration, it’s that they never let a good crisis go to waste.

In the case of the Times Square terror attack, should we assume that the President simply doesn’t understand the threat? Or should we instead assume that he and the team he’s assembled are incompetent and incapable of fulfilling their primary responsibility of protecting the people of the United States?

As for the floods in Tennessee, should we accuse Obama of the very thing so many on the left erroneously and venomously did of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina — that he’s a reverse racist? The population of middle Tennessee is mostly white, so using the left’s logic it only stands to reason the president doesn’t care about white people.

I’ll leave the answers to these questions up to everyday Americans, but will add that giving Obama a pass on his responses to any or all of these events is simply unacceptable. Our country is at war and facing economic and military threats on a global scale; our government must respond in an appropriate matter to every catastrophe, or the consequences will be devastating and far-reaching.

The riots that have plagued Greece in the wake of its financial collapse could soon be replicated in other European nations. Subsequent bailouts by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have forced the Greek government to make cuts in services and entitlements, inciting the entitlement population to violence. Judging by the past sixteen or so months, what we’ve witnessed in Greece could be a disturbing glimpse of our nation’s future. Yet Obama and the Congress seem hell bent on traveling this road to disaster.

There are dangerous days ahead for the United States and our allies. There are credible reports that Iran and Syria have provided Hezbollah with SCUD missiles and are planning preemptive attacks on Israel this summer; there are also reports that the Iranians have plans in place that could even lead to an attack on the United States itself. Terrorist groups are targeting us here at home, even as our troops face them overseas. There are potential threats from North Korea, Venezuela, Russia and China, just to name a few. We cannot have an administration that either is too incompetent to recognize the dangers we face, or perhaps worse, willfully negligent in its failure to protect American citizens from those it does recognize, simply for political advantage.