A letter from Charlie Daniels...

February 24, 2003

An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch

Ok let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid,
unrealistic children had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.

Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all our nuclear weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we've done for world peace.

Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires.

Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody.

I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble would have disbanded it's horrible military and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit.

After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.

Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning. Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?

Barbara Streisand's fanatical and hateful rantings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing. You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get out into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.

Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong. Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself. Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever had the displeasure to hear about.

Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, "fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we didn't have the stomach for war.

You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby. Freedom of choice you say?

Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own. If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to. In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.

You scoff at our military whose boots you're not even worthy to shine. They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury. The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.

America is in imminent danger. You're either for her or against her. There is no middle ground. I think we all know where you stand. What do you think?

God Bless America,
Charlie Daniels

[quote]You're either for her or against her. There is no middle ground.[quote]

Okay, I can't speak for the people in Hollywierd, but I've got something against this quote. It seems to lump people that speak out against the war as anti-American, which for the Hollywierdians, may, or may not be true.

I have refrained from sharing my views on the War with Iraq and on our President's decision to go it without the aid and agreement of the rest of the world. I am going to voice them now and hopefully, will not suffer a massive backlash.

I am 100% for my country. I am 100% for the safety of our troops overseas and our troops here at home. I am 100% for the safety of America and her citizens. I am 100% for the right to say whatever you want here or abroad without fear of persecution. And I am 100% for the liberation of a tortured and opressed people.

That said, I am not 100% for this war with Iraq. I am not 100% in favor of George Bush(or most other political figures). I am not 100% in favor of the fact that George Bush is the Commander In Chief, despite not ACTUALLY winning the majority vote of the people.

However, with all that said, my first paragraph still stands. I am 100% for America's safety, 100% for those men and women serving at home and abroad, and 100% for the liberation of the Iraqi people from a corrupt and tyrranical leader.

And in my second paragraph, you know what, right now, there is nothing that any amount of protesting, sign holding, or sitting in can do about it. The war IS happening and George W. Bush IS the President of these United States. Nothing that anti-war protestors can do now will change the fact that WE ARE AT WAR.

And you know what? Despite my disagreeing with the war and with all of the the President's policies, I will STILL salute our soldiers in uniform. I will STILL stand at attention during the Pledge of Allegiance. I will STILL support our boys and girls willing to die for every single one of us and for the liberation of a suffering people. And I will STILL utilize the rights those men and women in uniform work to uphold for me and to secure for those people. And even though he is not my favorite person, when the day is won and I see those brave men and women coming home safely and the Iraqi people free from the grip of a corrupt and evil regime, I will stand at attention and salute them, and say, "Good job Mr. President, good job."

For what it's worth, I don't think Charlie Daniels was saying that those who are against this war are necessarily anti-american. I don't think that way either. I believe one can be against the war, and still be a good citizen of this country. It's those who actually seem to believe that everything wrong with the world is the fault of the United States that serve as the addressees of that letter and that quote.

Also, for what it's worth, whether George Bush actually won the popular vote or not is something that will never be known for certain. Why? Because CA did not count its absentee ballots in the 2000 election. There were over 1 million ballots cast (overwhelmingly by military members), and even though that was a number high enough to likely have made Bush the popular vote winner, it was not enough to change the outcome of the CA state electoral votes. So, CA decided not to waste the money counting them.

In the end, it does not matter, because, as you said, he IS the president. I just cringe a little any time that "didn't win the popular vote" issue is raised.

Just addressing the popular vote issue...

This is a quote by Robert Anton Wilson (Good guy although his politics are based off the events of forty years ago)...

I printed this off a website someplace and there's a spot where a marker bled through so that I can't read it... but the vast majority of the text is still there.

I have never enjoyed an election more, or had my spirits raised higher by the results. I feel, in short, just like I did (MARKER BLOTTED A FEW WORDS): a quantum jump seems about to happen. My perennial candidate, Nobody, scored another stunning victory. The majority of citizens simply ignored the gush/bore/ Control Machine, and "voted for Nobody," i.e. didn't vote at all. I belong to the majority party -- the millions who looked over the candidates and decided they trusted Nobody. According to the latest [wobbly] figures, since Gush and Bore each got the vote of [roughly] 25% of the eligible voters, and Nobody got the vote of [roughly] 50%, then Nobody won. Adding the "protest votes" for Nader, Browne etc., Nobody won even bigger, around 55%. since in this carefully rigged system, third party votes are, in effect, votes for Nobody. The people who voted for those "minority" candidates certainly didn't expect them to win; they just expressed their contempt for the 2 Lying Bastards more actively than those of us who just stayed home, got stoned and looked at Three Stooges videos. I celebrate the majority. The so-called Elite-- specifically, the 1/2 of 1% who own damn near everything, especially the politicians and the media -- spent THREE BILLION DOLLARS on this malign fiesta and still couldn't convince most of us that a choice between two over-rouged old whores like Gush and Bore matters a damn. A few hours ago, I heard a pundit on CNN announce that whoever enters the White House on 20 January 2001 will know that "half the country" regards him as a fraud and usurper. As usual, the media got the facts wrong; they ignored the landslide 55% who chose Nobody. Whichever Lying Bastard enters the White House that day will seem a fraud and usurper to 80% of the country-- the 25% who prefer the other Lying Bastard + the 55% who prefer Nobody. This seems wonderful to me. Liberty can survive only as long as most people distrust their government, and falls into decline and the "sickness unto death " whenever the people trust a government too damn much. Besides, I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. Meanwhile, times changed and our "representatives" have sold us out to the corporations, as we in the majority party all agree, whatever our differences in other matters. And we don't need "representatives" anymore; we have the Net technology to represent ourselves. In that evolutionary sense, every vote for Nobody really represents a vote for Everybody.

It really helps to understand that this was obviously written prior to the actual election results and inaguration, and WAY before the "War on Terrorism"... AND that R.A.W. developed his social and political views during the sixties...

Just an interesting position on the election problems.

Considering Mr. R.A.W.'s apparent lack of understanding concerning the purpose for our being a representative republic instead of true democracy, it would seem that he formulated his political biases during the 60s, while smoking some really bad stuff!

Call it elitist if you will, but the Founders understood human nature pretty well, if you ask me. They knew full well that the populous could not be required to vote and still be free. Likewise, one could never depend upon the populous to truly educate itself on the issues of the day or to have the necessary comprehension to understand those issues beyond a merely superficial level. Furthermore, the Founders knew that an uneducated electorate made uneducated decisions, and while that was fine when electing one member of the House of Representatives (to be drowned out by the voices of all the others in the House), it would never do for a task as important as electing a senator or a President.

It was not until the 17th Amendment (1913) that the election of senators was accomplished by popular vote. Before that, the State legislatures were the electorate of each State's senator, and the senate was a body representing the rights of the States, rather than the citizens of the States. This is why the Senate was given the right of Advice and Consent for all judicial nominees of the President, the House was considered too volitile and ill-prepared for the task. Of course, now that the Senate is elected by the people, it has become a smaller, more powerful version of the House, and we truly have gridlock in Washington.

The President? Oh, the founders were so worried about the people's input on that great issue, that they took it completely out of the hands of the people, creating a body that exists for only one purpose, only once every four years. The Electoral College has a membership number determined by the House and Senate population figures, and the States have elections to express the will of their citizens, but the EC can, and has, voted however it wants when it comes to the presidential election, regardless of who the people want.

Why did we need a representative republic instead of a pure democracy in 1789? For the very same reason we need it today . . . in the realm of politics and world affairs, uneducated voters are scary (it's called "mob rule"), and the United States of today, like that of 1789, is full of them!

Well... i think ol Charlie Daniels kinda summed it up... he said what needed to be said,,, and i hope all the people in hollywood, that are not in touch with reality get the message! is there something that says the more money you acrue, the more out of touch with reality you get...there has got to be something in the water in hollywood... something yellow... or makes a yellow streak down there backs,,,