Yep. The Economy is Definitely In "Recovery"

There is a big headline today on the Gallup site, that reads "Smaller Majority Calls Economy “Most Important Problem”".

HA!

Sixty nine percent of Americans now view the economy as the biggest problem our country faces. The same amount of people that saw the economy as a big problem when the stock market crashed in September. It's laughable because economists and bureacrats are seriously saying that we are entering recovery. What logical person thinks that when 69% of a population sees something as a huge problem, that things are getting better?

The second biggest issue concerning Americans is the issue of the conflicts in the Middle East, the Iraq war included. Eleven percent of total responders found this to be the biggest problem. That number is up from 6% two months ago. Also laughable because the Middle East conflict the second biggest issue that got Barack Obama elected and peopel are actually becoming more concerned as his presidency goes on.

Funny.

Obama Administration Refusing To Close Borders In Midst of Pandemic

During tonight's Presidential press conference, which is probably still airing now I just got too irritated to watch any more of it, President Obama addressed the issue of closing the Mexican border with the intentions of slowing the spread of the swine flu virus.

“I have consulted with our public health officials extensively…. At this point they have not recommended a border closing.... It would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out because we already have cases here in the United States.”

The key to keeping Americans safe, he says, is “great vigilance” and that “everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up, and individual families start taking precautions that make a difference.” He repeats what he said at the beginning: “It sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference.” That is: wash hands, cover mouth, stay home if sick.

I find it funny that American families are being urged to use common sense and precautions when it comes to staying healthy, but our government is refusing to do so for our safety. Americans are told to "stay home if sick" but Mexicans are allowed to come and go across our borders as they please.

Common sense would tell me that if I wanted to stay healthy, and keep my family healthy, and a sick person came knocking at my door, I would think twice before I would let them run around my house coughing.

No Mr. President, this situation is not akin to "closing the barn door after the horses are already out". Closing the borders would be akin to closing the barn door before MORE horses get out. I don't know how common sense eludes Obama so. If you want to fix a flooded basement, you have to fix the leaky pipe before you pump out the water and re-do the walls.

Obama Is Paying Back The Union Thugs That Got Him Elected

Original story at Freedom@Work Blog:
Freedom@Work readers will remember our extensive coverage of Barack Obama's numerous executive orders (during the first month of his Presidency) paying back union bosses for their efforts getting him into the White House.

Yesterday, a provision in Obama's January 30 executive order took effect -- revoking former-President Bush's February 2001 executive order which required federal contractors to post notices in the workplace simply informing employees of their right to refrain from formal, dues paying union membership and withhold forced dues for everything but the documented cost of collective bargaining.

The Obama directive is intended to ensure millions of workers do not learn of their right, won in the National Right to Work Foundation's precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court victory Communication Workers v. Beck, to withhold forced union dues earmarked for union politics, lobbying, and other non-bargaining activities.

This is just the first of many steps by Barack Obama and his Big Labor cronies (for example, his Labor Secretary Hilda Solis) are already taking

Obama Secretly Ends Program That Allows Pilots To Carry Guns On Planes

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, commercial airline pilots were granted the ability to carry a concealed weapon with them in the cockpit after their succesful completion of a federal firearms safety course.

Now President Obama is silently and he is hoping for secretly, trying to end that program that allows pilots to defend not only themselves but the passengers they are responsible for.

President Obama is diverting money away from the pilot training program. He is instead using that money to hire more government supervisory staff that will engage in field inspections of the pilots.

An editorial in The Washington Post brings to light just how unnecessary this change of practice and diversion of funds is.
"This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate."

I, for one, cannot understand for one second what this diversion of funds is to accomplish. No American of sound mind would have a problem with a properly trained pilot being able to carry a gun in the cockpit. The only people I can see that would have a problem with this practice are terrorists or anti-gun whackjobs who are no better than terrorists.

American Legion "Deeply Disappointed and Concerned" With President's Wounded Soldiers Healthcare Plan

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The plan that Commander Rehbein is speaking of is President Obama's new idea that in order to save federal money to bailout big labor and provide medical treatment to the poorest of the poor, soldiers wounded with service related injuries would now have to have their injuries treated with private insurance as opposed to treated on the government's dime. The government whom these brave men are serving.

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

I do believe that Commander Rehbein will have plenty of support behind him on this. I don't think many Americans will stand behind a concept that says we would rather make sure welfare junkie ne'er-do-wells are more taken care of then men that stand on the front line. We may not all agree on what wars should be fought, be we all should agree that it is not the fault of the men serving our country in times of war. These men are sent by our government to fight these wars. Our government should take care of the injuries that they sent these men and women to get.

Barack Obama and Administration "Open" To Taxing Health Benefits

Remember back to the October 8th Presidential debate. The one where Barack Obama chided John McCain's health care plan by saying what John McCain "doesn't tell you he's going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever." Obama argued that this would lead to "“the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”

Today, March 15th, four months after Barack Obama won the election and almost two months after taking the oath of office, the administration seems to be considering that idea themselves.

Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear of the NY Times tells us,

"At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden [that's the pretentious looking fellow pictured in the upper left], an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”

Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council."...


...When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.

The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenue for a single year. Stopping short of full taxation, as Mr. Baucus and others suggest, would mean less new revenue.

At this point I am at a lose for words as to what we can expect next from our lawmakers and this new administration. The "change" that was promised to us, the 'change" that many were so skeptical that would actually come, is just rearing its head as more of the same. More double speak and rhetoric from a shady administration with nothing more important to them than paying back the special interest groups that helped elect them. Change my "A".

Jim Cramer Calls Obama's Communist Policies Out

I saw this story first on The Libertarian Republican Blog.

Kudos to media personalities for finally speaking their minds!

Not Everyone Is Catching the Frenzied Obama Inauguration Fever

From Politico:

With Barack Obama's approval ratings in the 70s and his visage plastered on every shop window and Metro card in Washington, it's hard to remember that 58 million Americans voted for the other guy.

Even President Bush — who presumably counts himself among that group — said last week that Obama's inauguration is "a moment of hope and pride."

That's not exactly how Michelle Malkin describes it.

"Jan. 20 has turned into a schlock inauguration, (where) every last moocher has come to cash in on Obama," says the conservative blogger and pundit. "There are some of us who want to bang our heads against the wall."

While most Republicans now in office are saying all the right things about Tuesday's proceedings — roll tape on "peaceful transfer of power" and "historic moment for the country" sound bites — some conservatives can't quite get themselves in the "We Are One" mood.

Not even for a day.

On his radio show last week, Rush Limbaugh railed against "people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds. We have to give him a chance.'"

"Why?" Limbaugh demanded. "They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."

In the wake of the disputed 2000 election, only 47 percent of the public predicted that Bush would be an "above average" or "outstanding" president. In a new Associated Press-GfK poll, 65 percent of the public attaches those words to Obama.

Asked about Obama's inauguration last week, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay hammered on the cost.

If Obama were "serious" about changing Washington, DeLay said, "He would announce to the world: 'We are in crisis, we are at war, people are losing jobs; we are not going to have this party. Instead, I'm going to get sworn in at the White House. I'm going to have a nice little chicken dinner, and we'll save the $125 million.'"

DeLay said he understands why Republicans in Congress aren't complaining about this publicly: "Those in elected office are looking at Obama's popularity numbers and don't want to be perceived as anti-American by being anti-Obama."

He didn't name names, but the normally outspoken Rep. Michele Bachmann might fit the bill.

Just before the election, the Minnesota Republican told Chris Matthews that she thought Obama might have "anti-American views."

Last week, she told The Hill: "I look forward to working with him and I would expect to be as friendly as I would be to [any president]."

In March, Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King predicted that an Obama victory would have "the al Qaeda and the radical Islamists and their supporters ... dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11th."

Last week, King was still grumbling about Obama's middle name — Hussein — but he told Politico that he's "very respectful and appreciative of the historic moment" and counts it "among life's privileges" that he'll have a seat in Congress when Obama puts his hand on the Bible.

Malkin conceded that it's appropriate to show some deference to the occasion, but she complained that Republican lawmakers aren't standing their ground.

"Especially in the Beltway," she said, "they are more wrapped up in who got invited to what dinner and who didn't. And my criticism of the GOP establishment, as they've rolled on every [Obama Cabinet] nomination, is they are completely out of touch with how fly-over America feels about this spectacle."

Or, as Bob Anderson put it: "Pffffffffffffffffft."

Anderson, a retired chief master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, is the founder of the conservative grass-roots organization "What are we fighting for?"

Asked to elaborate on his onomatopoeia, Anderson said that "Obama-mania" is leading the country into bad times.

"The only positive thing I can see is hopefully it will be bad enough quick enough that the people will stop drinking the Kool-Aid and see what we're about to lose," he said. "I think we have a very short launch window."

RedState's Erick Erickson is blasting off.

"I think we're going to be treated to.hagiography for weeks if not months," Erickson complained. "The first time Obama uses the bathroom, Newsweek will do a five-page spread."

Tom Hoefling, the political director for Alan Keyes' group America's Revival, has had it with all the talk about the "historic" nature of Obama's inauguration.

"What's historic about it?" he asked. "So it's historical because of his skin tone? Isn't that a racist idea in the first place? ... I could care less what color his skin tone is. What matters is his philosophy -- his political philosophy and his ideology."

Anderson suggested that squeamishness about race is silencing the dissent.

"We're so focused with political correctness people are uncomfortable in saying your baby is ugly and stuff is broken," he said. "While we're sitting around the campfire and trying to sing Kumbaya, our country is slipping away from us."

Anderson won't be watching the inauguration. DeLay will be out in California to rally conservatives. And Richard Viguerie, the king of right-wing direct mail, said Tuesday will be "just another day at the office."

"Yeah, sure, we can be happy that we've taken another step in the racial progress, but I just am not about race, quite frankly," Viguerie said.

He doesn't necessarily begrudge those who will celebrate this week, so long as they keep it short. "You can take a sip of Kool-Aid. It's OK to smell it, stick your finger in it. But on Jan. 21, let's get back to business."



Note from the gop4liberty author:
Thank god there are still some sane people out there!

Bailed-Out Citibank Top Donor To Obama Inauguration

Employees of Citibank, which received $45 billion in rescue funds in the federal bailout, have contributed the most to Barack Obama’s inauguration fund — at least $113,000 as of Wednesday.

And the bank is lobbying behind the scenes for more money from the second $350 billion installment of federal bailout funds, according to The New York Times.

Among the contributions from Citibank executives is $50,000 from Ray McGuire, the bank’s co-head of global investment banking, and $50,000 from Louis Susman, the recently retired vice chairman of Citigroup, the Huffington Post reports.

Susman also bundled $300,000 in donations for the inaugural committee.

Nearly 80 percent of the $35 million raised by Obama’s inaugural committee has come from just 211 bundlers, according to Public Citizen.


You know when the HuffPo is criticizing the Obamanaut it has to be bad:
"In recent weeks, Obama has vowed changes to the much-criticized $700 billion bailout program, demanding that the second installment should focus on helping families at risk of losing their homes and small businesses, and echoing Democratic criticisms of banks giving lavish bonuses to their senior executives.

Yet, as the New York Times recently reported, many of the banks, including Citigroup, need more bailout money and have been fiercely lobbying behind the scenes for a major piece of the $350 billion second installment.

Citigroup senior counselor and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was close to Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. But he recently resigned from the firm after months of criticism of his performance and his admitted failure to foresee the credit crisis.

In addition, Citigroup employees were Obama's 7th-biggest contributor, giving $586,866 to the candidate during the 2008 election cycle.

Other bailed-out banks, which have contributed to the inauguration fund, include Goldman Sachs ($44,500), JPMorgan Chase ($30,600), and Wells Fargo ($2,450).

Goldman Sachs employees were Obama's second-biggest contributor, giving $884,907 to the candidate. JP Morgan Chase employees were Obama's sixth-biggest contributor ($600,210). Morgan Stanley employees contributed $425,502 to the candidate."

Atheist Group Files Suit Against Prayer at 2009 Presidential Inauguration

Twenty eight member of the group Freedom From Religion, have joined forces with Michael Newdow(that wacky atheist who tried to have the words "under god" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance), in a lawsuit to remove the words "so help me God" from the Presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News.

Reverends Rick Warren and Joe Lowrey, who will be participating in the inauguration ceremony have been named defendants in the suit. "Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides. In America we are free to disagree. We can disagree with Rev. Rick Warren but we're not free to ask our government to settle the argument," Barker said, adding that government causes harm when it takes on "the mantel of religion and expresses religion as an official governmental function.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it's Obama's decision whether to include a prayer, not the government's. Sprigg also told Fox News that ""These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgement of the existence of God,"

Sprigg and I agree that this lawsuit will probably go nowhere. Seriously Atheists. Freedom of religion means that we can not be persecuted for believing what we wish to believe, or not believe. It does not make God a dirty word. If the word God is hated so much by Atheists, I think they should do the noble thing and start boycotting U.S currency. After all, that nasty little evil word is printed on it. Come on Atheists, put your money where your mouth is. Literally.

I'm fine with you not believing in God, its whatever floats your boat. But it's about time that atheists stop trying to bully the rest of the population out of their rights to say the word God.

Corruption, Politics and the New Administration: Bill Richardson and His "Pay to Play" Scheme.

Read the newest Update on the Richardson Scandal Richardson withdraws from Obama Cabinet

Looks like another political player strongly connected to Barack Obama is playing dirty and for keeps.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Obama's appointed Secretary of Commerce, is being investigated by a federal grand jury and is being linked to a bond deal scheme that has landed Birmingham, Alabama’s mayor, Larry Langford with federal solicitation charges.

From Bloomberg:

The grand jury in Albuquerque is looking into Beverly Hills, California-based CDR Financial Products Inc., which received almost $1.5 million in fees from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004 after donating $100,000 to Richardson’s efforts to register Hispanic and American Indian voters and pay for expenses at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation asked current and former officials from the state agency if any staff members in the governor’s office influenced CDR’s hiring, said the people, who declined to be identified because the proceedings are secret. Richardson, who is President-elect Barack Obama’s designate for Commerce Secretary, has a staff of at least 30 people.

“They’re looking at everything related to CDR,” William Sisneros, the finance agency’s chief executive officer, said of the FBI probe. “They’re just trying to evaluate all the relationships to see what CDR was doing for the money.”

In October 2003, CDR President David Rubin gave $25,000 to Moving America Forward Inc., a political action committee formed by Richardson, disclosure forms show. Seven months later, CDR, known then as Chambers, Dunhill, Rubin & Co., gave $75,000 to ¡Si Se Puede! Boston 2004 Inc., formed to help pay expenses at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, where Richardson was chairman.

Cooperation Expected

“The Governor’s Office is aware of questions surrounding some financial transactions at the New Mexico Finance Authority,” said Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for Richardson. “We expect any state agency that is approached with federal officials” to cooperate, he said, declining to comment further. Calls to Richardson were directed to Gallegos.

Darrin Jones, an FBI spokesman, declined to comment, as did Norman Cairns, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Albuquerque. CDR’s lawyer, Richard Beckler, a partner at Howrey LLP in Washington, declined to comment. Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki declined to comment.

A member of the agency’s board, Craig Reeves, said he was asked by federal agents about hiring CDR and whether the donations had any role.

‘Many Things Discussed’

“That was one of many things we discussed,” he said, declining to comment on the specific scope of the investigation. He said no one at the governor’s office discussed retaining CDR with him when the decision was made.


I did a quick google search for this story and it seems the only people running this story, besides Bloomberg which broke it, is The Washington Post and the National Review, both decidedly conservative publications. Also our friend Eric Dondero at The Libertarian Republican blog makes mention. God Bless that Dondero.

Questions Arise About the Governor Rod Blagojevich/Obama Connection

As you all have heard, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was taken into Federal custody today on a slew of corruption charges, the most prominent charge being that he tried to sell President Elect Barack Obama's newly opened senate seat.

When asked for comment today, Obama had this to say "Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney's office today," said President-elect Obama this afternoon in Chicago, speaking of the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. "But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time."

And when asked if he had any contact with the Governor about this issue, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

Seems a wee bit confusing because when David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, appeared on Fox News on November 23rd, 2008, Axelrod had this to say about Obama's interaction with the Governor " "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

Today, The Office of The President Elect released a statement saying that Axelrod misspoke on November 23rd. This evening David Axelrod issued a statement of his own. ""I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."

According to Federal Affidavit's, on November 11th, 2008, Blagojevich told an associate that Obama was not going to appoint him to a cabinet position because of the negative press surrounding himself. He then said that he knew Obama had a preference for a specific candidate and that "“they’re not going to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them."

I'm no Federal Agent, but it would seem to me that if Blagojevich knew Obama had a particular candidate in mind, that there would have to be some kind of contact between them because this was not reported in the press. It would also seem that if Blagojevich knew what that particular candidate was prepared to "offer" him, either Obama offered Blagojevich that information, or Blagojevich had contact with this unnamed candidate, who most likely would relay that information back to the President Elect. Either way, Obama is in up to his knees on this one.

Even more staggering about this Chicago ring of corruption is the fact that Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, was also a top advisor of Rod Blagojevich in his gubernatorial race.

But wait! There's more!

You remember the name Tony Rezko right?? That was the guy that sold the family Obama a piece of land at a grossly under priced rate and is now a convicted felon for demanding kickbacks from Chicago politicians for fundraising efforts. Well he is tied into this as well. Rezko raised phenomenal amounts of money for both Blagojevich and Obama. It is known that Obama has already used to his influence to secure a real estate deal for Rezko while he was just a lowly state senator. Rezko was supposedly a right hand man of the corrupt Blagojevich as well.

Obama's defense is, as it always has been, to play it cool and say "Oh wow, Really?? I had no clue that he was such a bad guy! I swear I didn't know anything!". The same defense he used with Ayers, the same defense he used with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and countless others. It makes one wonder, if the President Elect is just one big lying sack, or worse, is he actually stupid and dimwitted enough to have absolutely no idea what kind of corruption is going on right under his nose. If the former is true, we can deal with that. There are legal measures such as impeachment or a recall of the vote. Obama can rot in jail for the rest of his life and that is fine, as long as he stays away from politics. If the later is true, we are in BIG trouble. How can a man that is supposed to be the leader of the free world be so dim and nieve to not see that kind of trouble coming right at him??

Chambliss Wins Senate Seat Vital For Preserving Conservative Convictions

Saxby Chambliss, a first term Republican senator from Georgia, won the hotly contested and absolutely vital senate seat in the Georgia run-off election which took place yesterday December 2, 2008. With 95% of precincts reporting, Chambliss holds a margin of 58% to incumbent Jim Martin's 42%, a win of almost blow-out proportions.

The seat was absolutely vital to conservative interests, in the Republican party's effort to prevent the Democrats from obtaining a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This victory also give Washington Republican's s optimism as it does the brakes on the Democratic momentum that had been building.

Republicans were gearing up for the election in true Republican form. There was a superb grass roots effort to get out the vote, and Sarah Palin hosted a slew of Chambliss rallies in the state yesterday. All four of Palin's rallies crowds were estimated to be in the thousands.

One theory for the blow-out this time around, is a poor turnout on the Democrats behalf. Without the allure of Barack Obama, I guess those Dem's found better things to do.

Makes one wonder, just how many uninterested, uninformed and otherwise inactive voters came out on November 5th just to check off the name Obama and how different those results would have been had only people really interested in the political process would have voted.

Political Holiday Obama Banter Between Friends Sparks Violence in Jacksonville Florida!

Reported by:WOKV in Florida.

An angry Obama supporter resorted to violence when a friend revealed during a polictical discussion, that she was not a supporter of Obama.

Fourty six-year-old Lindsy Whitfield was so enraged by his friend's free thoughts that he flew into a rage, broke a picture frame and threw the pieces in her face. The he supposedly began punching her and threatened to kill her.



Apparently these people didn't get the memo, that political discussions are a no-no during Holiday dinners.

Chuck Norris to Obama: Now That You Work For Me

This is letter written by Chuck Norris that was first published on the Human Events wesbite:

Dear President-elect Obama:

First, congratulations on your victory. The historical magnitude of your presidential win is nothing short of stupendous and a colossal fulfillment of the American dream (an achievement embedded long ago in the equality clauses of the Declaration of Independence).

It's likely no big surprise that I don't see eye to eye with you politically. Actually, I stand in stark opposition to most of your politics. Still, I realize that we must learn to work together if we are to see our country get back on track. After Election Day, I asked myself, "How can I work for our new president to help better America?" Then a thought occurred to me. The first question that should be answered is: How will you work for me? After all, "We the People" of the United States employ you, correct?Continued

So here are a few ways you might begin to gain the respect of those who oppose you and to show that your campaign pledges to bridge the divides were not empty promises to get you into office. And these requests I make are based upon the inaugural oath you will make Jan. 20, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." No doubt these won't be my only requests through the years, but they serve as a good beginning:

-- Use and cite the Constitution. If that constitutional oath ("preserve, protect and defend") is the central duty of your job description, then I assume we will be hearing often from you about exactly how you are doing just that. There is no replacement for strict adherence, application and defense of the Constitution. And it's high time that presidents quit reciting the presidential oath tritely and then abandoning its tenets when they enter the Oval Office. You should be quoting from the Constitution publicly as often as a preacher quotes the Bible to his congregation -- at least weekly. If you take this oath and challenge seriously, you will limit the powers of federal government, reduce taxes (for everyone), encourage the freedom of religion and expression (even in the public square), and stand up for such things as our right to bear arms. The American public and the government have lost their grip on the content and role of the Constitution, but if you daily choose, you can help to re-educate and model its usage for them.

-- Protect American life. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Those are powerful and enlightening words. Of course, such a role was created and secured in the very fabric of our nation -- in the Declaration of Independence. The commitment to protect life should serve as the basis for all you do, even as a foundation for your national defense strategy. I'm sure the first of your secret briefings this past week on our global security threats have opened your eyes to the extensive onslaught of our enemies. Don't allow your pride, partisanship, personal bias or political abilities to jeopardize the safety of Americans lives. As commander in chief, you are called to preserve American life. Quite frankly, that is why I'm surprised that a man such as you, who professes to fight for minorities, would not recognize the clear value of a human life in a womb. Federal law should not decree the sacrifice of one human life for the preference of another. Both lives should be protected. Otherwise, what do Jefferson's 1809 words mean? As president, you are called to protect (not destroy) human life; it is the "first and only legitimate object of good government."

-- Lead more from the center. It's been pointed out by countless pundits, and your track record is clear: You have one of the most liberal records in the Senate. You've had the liberty of voting and fighting for an agenda "from the left" as you've tried to persuade state and federal lawmakers to do the same. But if you continue to lead our country down a more liberal road, you will follow the peril of Bill Clinton, who stepped into office and initially tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and extend abortion rights, only to prompt the creation of a more balanced and strong Republican Congress in the 1990s. Don't underestimate the resurrecting power of the conservative voice. You observed in last week's election how three states across this union voted to protect marriage in their constitutions (the 28th, 29th and 30th states to do so -- California, Arizona and Florida).

We will be watching who you choose to be in your Cabinet. We will discern how you lead Pelosi and Reid. We will be observing those you select as candidates for Supreme Court justices. The election is over. No more promises. No more words. You might work well in a team, but this time, you don't have congressional members to hide behind. You're on your own -- leading the pack -- and the whole country is watching. I, especially, am watching. So make sure you lead more from the center.

One of your 300 million bosses,

Chuck Norris


editors note:
BRAVO CHUCK NORRIS!! BRAVO!!