President Obama,

I want to express my sincere congratulations for your recent election as the President of this United States of America. Regardless of the differences in our political and social views, you are going to be my President and I will support you in that capacity. A wise patriot once said,

“...my she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country.”

While I profess my support for you, as my President, I do have some concerns and questions that will be answered only by your actions as the leader of the free world. However, I do wish to clarify my perception of your ambitions and policies you wish to instill upon us.

You have ask us to “come together to remake this great nation” under your guiding hand and philosophy of “change”, and a majority of the electorate has decided that we will do just that. I do not profess to be one of her brightest sons, but my memory pushes me to recall being taught about a moment in our history, July 4^th 1776, when the corner stone of this country was set, by our founding fathers, through a Declaration of Independence from the British crown. I will begrudgingly admit that we, as a nation, are not perfect. You yourself eloquently pointed this out to citizens of Germany in your speech to the global community - Ironically, on the very soil the sons and daughters of this country fought and died to emancipate. However, I must confess that I still harbor deep emotional and spiritual beliefs that, while not perfect, our country is the greatest union of people and ideals in all of history. I am not convinced that we need to “remake” our nation into something different than what it stands for today. I was not aware that, in the course of today’s events, it has become necessary for us to dissolve the political bands that have connected us for centuries and that the ideal of unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness needs to be remade.

According to the educated academic elite, you are the vessel for this change. Only you, President Obama, can clarify your vision of “change” through your actions.

Your administration has asked us to view your tax plan not as a socialistic scheme, but rather as a “patriotic” duty offering hope to everyone. You have personally told the American people that any resistance to giving the government more of our income for redistribution is nothing short of “making a virtue out of selfishness”. I must admit that various times in my life I have chosen to lavish gifts and material goods upon myself or my family when I was fortunate enough to have an excess of income. While these occasions do not happen too often, I am guilty as charged. Maybe this is a rift within the moral cloth that covers my life. Maybe I am selfish. On other occasions, however, I have given freely of my time, attention, and income to causes that I see as being worthwhile and more deserving than my own personal wants and desires. I am happy to do this when I am able and hope that a day will come when I can freely give much more without substantial impact to my family. Our willingness, as a nation, to freely share our toys and the contents of our lunch bag (as your example used) is well documented and does not reflect socialist or communist views - quite to the contrary. It reflects the Christian values our nation was built upon. The difference, President Obama, is that these acts are selfless and voluntary. However, the moment that the government mandates a “redistribution” or “equalization” of wealth through taxation, it is no longer voluntary and thus becomes socialistic in nature.

According to a majority of the journalists of television and print media, your plan is fair and equitable. Only you, President Obama, can clarify your meaning of “hope” through your actions.

Political pundants have made reference to the immensely negative world view of our United States. It seems we are perceived as being the bully of world politics, despite the fact that we, as a nation, contribute more to the United Nations than any other country in the world, offer aid to anyone willing to accept it, have fought to preserve freedom on almost every continent, and actively promote tolerance, democracy, and peace throughout the world. You, President Obama, have stated that we simply need to open a direct dialog between the White House and our enemies that want to destroy us. How, sir, can we communicate and bargain with people whose initial offer on the table is the destruction of our democracy and death to our citizens? Shall we offer them part of our freedoms and only the elderly or young as a sacrifice? How can they be trusted regardless of their promises? I assume that the decision to negotiate with these enemies must come from our trust in your ability to make a personal judgment upon their character. After all, we have entrusted you with the safety and security of our nation. My only concern is that your judgment does not have a very impressive track record. Your dealings with William Ayres, however innocent they were, seem to be based on the assumption that you had no idea that he was an unrepentant domestic terrorist. It seems your personal intuition lead you astray on that one. Another interesting figure in your history is your “mentor”, “father figure”, and pastor at your wedding, Reverend Wright. Beside the fact that you attended his church for 20 years, you never knew he held the belief that God should not bless America but rather he should damn America. You also never knew that he openly professed that we actually deserved to be attacked on 9-11, that America is the “number one killer in the world”, and finally, that no black man would ever be President of our country because “racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”  I hope that you would agree that he was wrong on all counts.

 According to the Democratic Party, you are the “change we can believe in”. Only you, President Obama, can prove that we should believe in you through your actions.

So, President Obama, our academic community, our media, the Democratic Party, and slightly over half of the population of this great nation is solidly behind you and your message. You have a mandate and a solidly Democratic Legislative branch to back you up. Will you destroy the best healthcare system in the world by forcing government intervention, or will you preserve our medical community? Will you stand behind our right and freedom of speech, or will you institute laws that restrict and silence it? Will you reduce the strain on our social and economic foundation by stopping the flow of illegal immigrants across our sovereign borders, or will you pander to the radical fringe and ignore our laws you have sworn to uphold? Will you protect our 2^nd Amendment rights or will you actively work to suppress our right to bear arms?

How will the historians reflect on the first black man to become President of these United States of America? Will they view you as one that held firm to the beliefs recorded within our Constitution, or will they see you as the President that destroyed the very foundation of the greatest country the world has ever known?

Only your actions, Mr. President, will reflect your true intentions. Everything else is “just words” and “just speeches” that mean absolutely nothing.

JP

Immediately following the Veep debate, I started surfing the cable news channels for the pulse and talking points by the MSM and the party pendants of both sides. It didn’t take me long to find them.

Aside from the fact that everyone was trying to downplay Gov. Palin’s performance as anything other than a success, I noticed that everyone was all abuzz over her comments regarding the Vice Presidential duties and powers set forth by the constitution as President of the Senate. Needless to say, the blogosphere is red hot on this topic and it is my pleasure to enlighten everyone on this issue.

It seems many of our friends on the left want to point to Article 1, Sec.3 of the Constitution as proof that the Vice President is nothing more than a secondary vote in the event of a tie.

Really? Let’s look at this in more detail.

Art.1 – Section 3

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

…So far so good. Let’s continue….

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

…. Oops. That put an end to that argument.

So, “in the absence of the Vice President” the President pro tempore shall preside over the Senate. Considering that the legal definition of pro tempore is “for the time being” or “in the absence of” the Vice President, it is obvious that the position was originally designed to have much more interaction and influence on the Senate floor.

The Vice President is the President of the Senate, and thus, has the power to preside over any session of the Senate. This means that that first statement regarding a tie breaking vote is not the only responsibility of the Vice President. In fact, it is more a statement of the VP’s limitations of duty rather than the solitary responsibility.

For those of you that are still not convinced, lets look at another example. Up until the 1950’s, the Vice President’s primary office and daily duties were conducted on Capitol Hill, not in the Executive Office. In fact, the VP still has an office on the hill.

Want more proof? If the VP was an extension of the Executive branch, it goes to reason that this position would fall under the fiscal responsibility of that branch of government. However, contrary to this point, the Vice President is paid by Congress, just like the Senators and Representatives.

The argument that the Vice President has no power over the Senate is simply not supported by the Constitution or by prior precedent.

Game…. Set….. Match.

Let me take you back in time a little bit….

Back in June and July the Democratic Party and liberal pundants touted their unified support behind their candidate. They consistently downplayed the rumors that the Clinton faction of the party was disgruntled and reluctant to support Barack Obama.

During the Democratic National Convention, the party went so far as to devote two primetime slots to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They even felt it necessary to include Chelsey in their “unity” love fest. This proverbial olive branch humbly given to the Clintons seemed to satisfy the main stream media (MSM),  and the Clintons played their part beautifully.

After the announcement that the McCain campaign had selected a little known female governor from Alaska, Sara Palin, as the running mate on the GOP ticket, the Obama camp wasted little time dispatching Hillary Clinton in an effort to offset the raising Palin tide. After that initial request, Hillary has logged many miles stumping for Obama. And so it went….

Today….

Weeks have passed and Hillary continues to campaign for Obama. After all, she still has aspirations for a future bid for President and in order for her to even be considered for this slot, she has no choice but to do her party’s bidding and support Obama. 

Even with her support, a recent AP-Yahoo News poll reported that only 58% of the partisan supporters that backed Hillary in the bare-fisted primary campaign are now supporting Obama. Here is the bad news - if that were not bad enough. This percentage has not increased a single point since Clinton bowed out of the race in June. In other words, statistically there has not been any increase in support for Obama from the Clinton supporters for the last 3 months.

The MSM and the heart and soul of the Democratic Party are steadfast and “unified” in their “Oba-mania”. This coupled with the injection of liberal stupidity from many of the Hollywood elite, and adolescent mocking from programs like NBC’s SNL and Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, would seem to lend some credibility to the assertion that Obama is destine to assume his position as the liberal messiah in Washington, DC.

Yet they may have miscalculated their strength, or better yet, may have underestimated just how much support McCain has, not only from the ever important blue collar workers and residents from within battleground states like Florida and Ohio, but also from the trenches of the Democratic Party.

Thursday, former President Bill Clinton dropped a bombshell (or two) on the Obama campaign while being interviewed by ABC’s Chris Cuomo on Good Morning America.

When Cuomo ask Clinton his view on the McCain request to delay the first Presidential debate due to the current financial crisis, Clinton responded;

“We know he didn't do it because he's afraid - because Sen. McCain wanted more debates,” he continued with, “presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that”. At that point, I think I heard an audible yelp from Obama supporters across the nation. But it gets even better.

During this same interview, Cuomo ask Bill Clinton if he was surprised that the Democrats are blaming this whole economic crisis on Republicans and that they are claiming that it came “out of nowhere”. Clinton hurled another grenade with his reply.

“I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in Congress,  or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten-up a little on Fannie-Mae and Freddie Mac.”

You read this right ladies and gentleman. Bill Clinton not only suggested that McCain was not “afraid” of debating Obama, he also threw the Republicans a bone by admitting that the Democrats have stifled efforts to overhaul the financial system by the hated Republicans. How many jaws do you think hit the floor in the ABC studio when that comment was broadcast nationwide? Better yet, how do they downplay and discredit one of their most popular and loved former Presidents?

Finally, on Larry King Live ( CNN ) Clinton did acknowledge that he would start campaigning for Obama “ after the Jewish Holidays” in October… and then he added “they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the 'cracker vote' there.”…. Was that a politically incorrect joke he just told? And wait a minute, Bill is a Christian - Why is he waiting until after the “Jewish” holidays?

I think this is the first of MANY unintentional slips that will occur between now and November 4^th. Looks to me like Bill Clinton is finally giving Obama that “boost” so many Democrats have wanted. It just seems to be in the opposite direction than they had anticipated.

If I were Obama, I would seriously consider taking a pass on more “help” from Bill Clinton. Then again…

How else will Hillary have a chance in 2012 ?