In December 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.  The amendment formally outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States.  This amendment, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments that followed it, began a long road to freedom for black Americans.  Now, almost 150 years later, many black Americans are enslaved by a new kind of servitude under what we know today as the welfare state.

In the beginning, it really wasn’t their fault.  Facing discrimination everywhere, black Americans struggled for almost 100 years before American society began to finally take notice of the injustices mounted against them.  Following the Brown vs. Board of Education judgement by the Supreme Court, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which helped strengthen voting rights for blacks.  Seven years later, the act was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  These acts basically leveraged the rights guaranteed by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.  Despite having legal protections against discrimination, black families still continued to suffer economically.  In the 1960s, the modern welfare state was born from President Lyndon Johnson’s “War On Poverty”.  In the end, the war on poverty turned into a war on the values of self-sufficiency and hard work.Many black Americans have grown up with some kind of government entitlement program.  These programs have ranged from direct cash payments to food and housing programs.  Hiring and college admission standards known as Affirmative Action have given blacks an advantage when applying for jobs, or to colleges and universities.  Did all of these programs really make things better?  In the end, no.  These entitlement programs lead to more poverty, and more discrimination.  Generations of Democratic politicians have promised every election year to make things better, and generations of black voters keep buying their promises hook, line, and sinker.  When will they learn that these programs have essentially destroyed the black family structure?  They have bred a feeling of entitlement instead of a desire to succeed through hard work and determination. I am saddened when I see black Americans, Hispanics… or anyone for that matter, living in poverty because of the broken promises of Democrat politicians and government bureaucrats.

Children need parents who will set an example that hard work and determination are the only true pathways to success.  Sometimes success is someone becoming wealthy.  Other times, success is becoming self-sufficient, and having a feeling of self-worth and value.  Entitlement programs can never have this effect on the recipients.  Instead, entitlements tear down self-sufficiency and self-worth.  What’s worse is that many people dependent upon welfare programs seem totally unaware of this effect.  They pass along their dependency to their children, along with their resentment of anyone resourceful enough to get off the cycle of dependency.  President Obama’s class warfare statements are aimed directly at welfare recipients.  The Democratic Party has built its success over the last 80 years upon growing the size of the dependent class in this country.  Southern slave holding plantations of the 1800s have given way to the Democratic Party Plantation of dependency.

What happens to blacks who leave the plantation, or refuse to live on it in the first place?  They are called “sell outs”, or “Uncle Tom”, referring to any black person who behaves in a supposedly subservient way toward whites.  Look at the way that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is often treated.  Herman Cain had to endure criticism from liberals and other blacks who could not understand how a black person could be conservative.  While still a candidate, President Barack Obama was criticized by other blacks for “not being down with the struggle”, and for not being born with slave blood.  A liberal, black columnist for the LA Times called Obama the “Magic Negro“.  Colin Powell has been referred to as “not black enough”.  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the victim of disgusting racist political cartoons that accentuated stereotypical black features, and often portrayed her in the image of Aunt Jemima. Need I say more?  All of this from the so-called “enlightened ones”, Democrats, and other blacks.  And they call conservatives and Republicans racist!

On March 31, I sent a letter to President Obama.  I wanted to express my concerns over his policies, and my anger over his personal conduct while serving as President.  The entire letter is posted below.  I have also sent copies to my congressman, Representative Sam Johnson (3rd Dist. of Texas), and to Texas Governor Rick Perry.  I outlined several areas of concern, but there were many more that I wanted to address. *This letter has been edited for two typos.  See details at the end of the letter.

March 31, 2012

To: President Barack Obama

CC: Congressman Sam Johnson, 3rd Distirict of Texas;  Governor Rick Perry

Dear Mr. President,

Let me first begin by thanking you for your time taken to read this letter. I am writing to you today because I believe that my freedoms are in grave danger, and I wanted to express my anger about the way that you have conducted yourself while serving as President. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes the rights of every citizen to speak freely, express ideas, and to “petition government for a redress of grievances”. In writing this letter, I am exercising those rights.

While I did not attend law school, I have read the U.S. Constitution many times, with a particular focus on the proper role of government, and individual liberty. As you know, the Constitution was written to protect individual liberty by limiting the size and scope of government. Over the last eighty or so years, the federal government has grown far beyond the limits that were put in place by the framers of the Constitution. Under your leadership, the growth of government’s involvement into the daily lives of the citizens has accelerated. This is a threat to liberty. To illustrate this, I would like to address some very specific points.

Obamacare

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare”, is a violation of not only our individual liberties, but it is also a violation of states rights. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, “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”. Any reasonable person studying the Constitution would conclude that Obamacare oversteps the authority of the federal government. The national government should not pass one-size-fits-all laws for the whole nation. Doing so violates the ability of the states to be responsive to their citizens. It destroys the sovereignty of the states, and changes them into mere administrative districts of the federal government instead of sovereign states. As President Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, “the federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government”.

Obamacare violates individual liberty in that it compels us to enter into a private contract with another entity, or face penalty. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and individuals. Government must not attempt to be a master over the people. It should instead seek to serve the people. While you, and several members of Congress have attempted to justify this act by citing the Commerce Clause contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, you could not be more wrong. The purpose of this clause was to give Congress the ability to establish uniform laws governing commerce between the states. Nowhere is there a clause containing a provision allowing Congress to regulate the economic behavior of individuals. It can be argued that states can compel individuals to purchase insurance, but the federal government does not have this authority. The constitutionality of Obamacare is in the process of being decided by the Supreme Court as I write this, but no matter what the justices decide, the law is still unconstitutional.

Immigration, Fair Elections, & Racism

As President, your primary responsibility is to defend this nation against threats. This is written into the Constitution under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, in your oath of office. Threats can come from both foreign and domestic sources. Our country shares a border with Mexico that is over 1900 miles long. It is the duty of the President to protect against illegal immigration into our country. Why then is your Justice Department filing lawsuits against states that attempt to enforce immigration laws? This is unacceptable, and it is a dereliction of your duty to protect this nation. People who enter this country illegally are not entitled to rights under our Constitution. For relevant legal fact on this, look no further than the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the equal protection of our laws to all who fall within the jurisdiction of the United States. Mexican nationals are not under our jurisdiction. They must and should be removed from this country. The border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas can respond to threats much more quickly and effectively than the federal government. Why are you so intent on suing states who try to deal with the illegal immigration problem? Illegal aliens have committed crimes in this country, including robbery, rape, and murder. In addition to the crimes committed, these people also burden social services funded by taxes collected from U.S. citizens. Would it not be better to allow the states to deal with this problem, then reimburse them for the tax dollars spent on the interception, and removal of illegals?

Why do you sue states who try to ensure integrity in our elections? If voters are not required to prove their identity when voting, how can we be sure that the results of our elections are accurate? The idea that voter I.D. laws harm Hispanics, and other racial minorities is absurd. How do these people cash checks? How do they board airplanes? How do they prove their identity when applying for a job? Are liquor stores being racist when they ask someone to provide an I.D.? I am forced to conclude that your lawsuit against my state was to allow ineligible voters to cast votes. I’m sorry Mr. President, but there is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn. I hope that you will instruct your Justice Department to clarify its objections to voter I.D. laws. Otherwise, this looks like a tactic to stack the deck against legitimate voters such as myself. We must protect the integrity of our elections. Otherwise, voters won’t go to the ballot box. Why do so when their votes will be cancelled out by the votes of ineligible voters who may vote multiple times? We must have the ability to compel voters to prove their identity. There is nothing racist about asking for an I.D. and it is irresponsible for a voter not to have the proper identification. You can claim that these people are too poor to afford an I.D., so why not find a way to help them get proper identification, instead of suing states?

I was shocked and appalled when I found out that your Attorney General would not prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party. Why? We have video proof of their acts of voter intimidation. Is justice now racially selective? There were many Americans (myself included) who hoped that your presidency would serve to represent that this nation is not racist.  In 2008, we elected the first President who is not a white male.  I hope to see this trend continue.  Instead of helping to eradicate racism in this country, you have allowed it to become worse. Race baiting has flourished during your presidency, and you have done nothing to stop it.  You have encouraged it with your policies.  The most recent example being the way you inserted yourself into the Trayvon Martin case.  No matter how we may think personally about this incident, we must proceed in the manner that the Constitution and state law dictate.  The president should not interfere.  You would have best served the people affected by this tragedy by reminding the race baiting protestors that this nation is governed by laws, not by mobs.  Democracy cannot guarantee the freedom of individuals, and apply justice in a fair manner.  Only the law can do that.  When our President refuses to follow the law, it sets a very dangerous precedent that will tear this country apart.

National Security & Energy Policy

Despite your statements on the campaign trail in 2008, Iran has proven to be a grave threat to this country, as well as to Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Iran will soon have nuclear weapons that could threaten not only other countries in the Middle East, but this nation as well. I have frequent nightmares over the threat of nuclear attacks. Unlike you, I don’t have a bunker to hide in, so my only recourse is to attempt to persuade you to take this threat seriously. Iran must be dealt with now! We cannot afford to wait, and you should not attempt to stop Israel from launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Instead, you should be aiding them. This nation has faced down many threats throughout it’s 236 year history. We survived these threats because past Presidents were able to rise to the occasion, and provide solid leadership armed with the courage to do what was right, even if doing so was not popular. I am quite sure that many of the people who supported you in 2008 would be very unhappy with you if you launched an attack on Iran, or aided Israel in that endeavor, but the courage to do the right thing must take precedence over your reelection efforts. If you were to order an attack on Iran, or if you aided Israel in an attack, you would have my full support.

One cannot discuss issues of national security without also including a discussion of energy policy. Despite your repeated statements, this country has huge reserves of oil and gas. Some experts have said that these reserves could last up to 100 years. It is well known that you believe that “alternative energy” is the way of the future, and I agree. However, while those other sources of energy are being developed, we must increase domestic production of oil, natural gas, and coal. We should also be building more nuclear power plants. Someday, I hope to see every car on the road running on electricity. Today is not that day. Only market forces can bring alternative technologies into the mainstream. Government grants, and loan guarantees will never achieve that. As we have seen with Solyndra, and other “green energy” companies, when government gets involved, billions of tax payer dollars are wasted. You cannot force market acceptance of these technologies while you destroy the industries that supply us with energy now. Your policies are resulting in higher gas prices at the pump, higher electricity prices, and higher prices for goods and services that we need to survive and prosper as a nation. Continued dependence on foreign sources of oil is a threat to national security, and our economic well being. Those two things are linked. When one is destroyed, the other will follow.

Your Personal Conduct

In November 2009, I lost my job. Fortunately, I was hired by another company only 2 months later. I was spared the need to depend upon unemployment benefits for a lengthy amount of time. Despite my short period of unemployment, I still had to live with the fear that I would not be able to pay my rent, my car payments, or care for my mother who came to live with me in 2007. Like many Americans, I find it offensive that you have taken so many vacations while in office. How many Americans, working, or out of work, can afford extravagant vacations to Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard, Spain, South Africa, and Aspen? It’s offensive to me that Mrs. Obama feels it necessary to use a separate plane to travel instead of waiting to ride with you on Air Force One. This is wasteful behavior, and it is disrespectful of the working people who pay the taxes that finance your leisure travel. Camp David was built to give the President and his family a place to enjoy a vacation away from the limelight of Washington. Why not use Camp David instead? We are already paying for it!

Like many Americans, I don’t appreciate being mocked by you when you discuss your energy policy. Your recent statements ridiculously suggesting that we want to drill on the National Mall, or in our front yards are insulting and they are not worthy of the office of President. You should be ashamed of yourself for making those statements. If you have so low respect for the millions of Americans who disagree with your policies, you should resign. We deserve a President who will listen to us, and not mock us when he disagrees with us. I was enraged by these statements, and I intend to channel that rage into the ballot box this November.

I am very angered by the fake controversy that has erupted over birth control. Most people may not realize this, but this all started during a GOP debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos. He questioned Rick Santorum over his beliefs regarding birth control, and tried very hard to maneuver Mr. Santorum into making statements that would damage his candidacy. The next day, a mock outrage started to spread throughout the news media. Later, you announced a mandate requiring religious institutions to pay for birth control and abortions as part of their insurance plans. Coincidence? I don’t think so. You can’t campaign on your record as President, so your people have invented a controversy. Republicans are being portrayed as woman haters. All of this culminated with the testimony of Sandra Fluke before Congress. She complained that birth control is very expensive. This prompted radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to make some improper statements about her, but what Rush said was what a lot of other Americans were also saying. We just didn’t have a microphone transmitting our words across the airwaves. Therefore, there was no media outrage over my statements, which were very similar to the ones Rush made. In the end, no matter what you want to call Ms. Fluke, the issue here is not just about religious freedom, which is protected by the First Amendment. It’s also about personal responsibility. If someone wants to engage in sexual behavior, and so much so that birth control becomes unaffordable, why must tax payers, and religious institutions be forced to fund it? The ideas of abstinence and self control have been totally whitewashed over. I believe that your phone call to Ms. Fluke was staged. You knew this would happen. I’m not buying that you merely felt concern for her. Why did you not call Sarah Palin after the disgusting way that she was treated by David Letterman? What about Bristol Palin? Did you call Laura Ingram after she was called a “right-wing slut” by Ed Shultz? Are liberal women the only women you feel sorry for? What about how this whole controversy has affected free speech? When conservatives express ideas that some may find offensive, there is a national uproar throughout the media, and from liberal politicians. There are efforts to silence them and destroy their careers. When liberals make disgusting remarks toward women, or threaten conservatives with death, you are silent. Why? Is free speech only for liberals? Will I be hounded and persecuted for writing this letter? Has the Bill of Rights lost all meaning?

Final Thoughts

I hope that you can sense from the tone of my letter that I am a very angry citizen. Despite my anger, I respect the rule law, and I don’t believe that it’s right to pitch a tent on someone else’s private property while I protest. Unlike the Occupy Wall Street protestors that you seem to admire and support, I have a job, and I work hard to provide for myself. I don’t envy the rich, and I don’t vilify people who are successful in life. I would never seek to harm others in my quest to voice my anger. My intent in writing this letter was not only to express my anger and outrage to you personally, but also to hopefully get you to understand that you have been acting outside of your Constitutional constraints. I find it disturbing when you complain that there are limits to your authority. That’s how the founders meant it to be! When a President, Congress, or the courts act beyond the Constitution, liberty is lost. The Constitution is more important than any one man’s presidency. This has a lot of people in this country very frightened. I simply could not remain silent any longer.

I have included my contact information at the beginning of this letter. It includes my phone number, and email address. Please feel free to pass this information along to anyone you see fit to provide it to so that they may respond to this letter on your behalf. Please respect my privacy when doing so. You are not authorized to provide it to members of the news media, or anyone else outside of your staff. Thank you again for reading my letter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Howard D. Isaacks II

EDIT:  After sending my letter, I noticed two typos.  The first was when I mentioned the section in the Constitution were the President’s oath of office is located.  I wrote that it was in Article I, but it is in Article II.  The second typo occurred in the Immigration, Fair Elections, and Racism section. I spelled the word ‘mush’ when I meant to type ‘must’.

When talk turns to the Constitution, the one thing that gets steamrolled over is why it was written in the first place. Our president violates the Constitution every day, yet the news media turns a blind eye. Candidates running for office mention the Constitution, but they go on to advocate policies that are a clear violation of the Constitution. Why is the Constitution so important, and why was it written?The Constituion was written to protect individual liberty. The method used to achieve that goal is to limit the size and scope of government. That’s what the Constitution sets out to do in the first paragraph known as the Preamble.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble lays out six things that the Constitution is being written to do. Nowhere is there a provision for healthcare. There is no mention of birth control. There is no mention of regulating marriage. There is no mention at all of economic equality (a code word for Socialism). The Preamble simply lays the groundwork for a limited government that will help unite our nation, establish a civil society, help us maintain justice and fairness, defend the nation against foreign threats, create the conditions for prosperity for all, and last but not least…. protect our liberty. Why are these concepts so difficult to understand? Why must we expect government to be involved in our daily lives so much?

The problem here is twofold. First off, politicians figured out during the 1930s that if they promise to “fix” all of our social and economic ills, they will keep getting reelected. The bureaucracy that was built around the social welfare programs that spewed forth from The Depression figured out that they can give themselves life long, high paying jobs. So naturally, they’ll do anything they can to keep entitlemment programs alive, and ensnare more people. The second part of the problem is that there are too many people in this country that believe that it is their right to receive something from government. We see this everywhere from “poor” people expecting to be provided with basic needs such as housing, healthcare, food, and child care just to name a few. We also see this sense of entitlement from people who, just because they have some minor infirmity, or because they’re old, think they deserve to have the front most parking spaces at Wal-Mart. What’s happening here is that personal responsibility is slowly being eroded from our American culture. With that erosion of responsibility, our freedom is also being eroded. Like a broken record, I always say that personal responsibility and individual liberty must go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. I genuinely feel sorry for those among us who are poor, sick, old… etc., but no matter what your condition, you and you alone are responsible for your own life. I will always help someone in need if I know that what I am able to do will really help them, but I don’t appreciate politicians and bureaucrats making me do it by redistributing my hard earned money to someone who is not willing to work for what they get. What the hell has happened to the rugged individualism that built this country? Why are job creators being vilified? Why do so many people hate the rich? Why do we have a president hell bent on dividing this nation between rich and poor? Why are liberals so much more generous with other people’s money than their own?

I will probably never be a rich man. My salary as an Apple Consultant is pretty good, and it will probably get better as my skills improve and the company grows. That’s as it should be. As long as I work hard, and make a stronger contribution, I will be rewarded with better pay, which I will use to build a better standard of living. That’s the way this is all supposed to work. If I decide that I’m not being appreciated enough, I won’t complain to President Obama, or my Congressman. I won’t bitch and whine about the rich not paying their “fair share”. I will discuss it with my boss and find a way to come to a mutual understanding. That’s how responsible people act. My life and my standard of living are my responsibility. They are not the responsibility of government. I want to take care of myself. I don’t need or want anyone to give me “economic justice”. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this country who do not want to take care of themselves. They prefer instead to have things given to them. What they don’t understand is that every government program and welfare check comes with chains around their freedom. When you allow someone else to take care of you, you have to live by their rules. There is no freedom when you live on the backs of the taxpayers. Today, almost 50% of the people in this country pay no taxes at all. If that doesn’t scare you, it should. No matter what your income level, the fact that you work, and earn a living means that you will be working to finance the lifestyles of people who prefer to take from society rather than contribute to it.

As we move through this election year, I am reminded every day of the need to defeat this president, and replace him with someone who will lead this nation back to personal responsibility, and prosperity. There is no reason at all why we must have millions of people on the public dole. The people of this country have built the largest economy and the highest standard of living ever seen in the history of mankind. Note that our prosperity does not come from government. Government can encourage prosperity by simply standing aside, and letting us run our own lives. Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying that “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits in industry and development, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”. I know that Thomas Jefferson is just a dead, slave owning white guy, but he knew what good government is. I’ll forgive him for having some flaws.

Replacing the president isn’t the only thing we need to do. We also need to drastically reduce the size and power of the bureaucracy standing behind him. The bureaucrats are just as damaging to our freedoms as our Marxist president is. What’s more, they don’t go away when the president does. They continue on, and on, and on…. A huge portion of the federal budget goes to the bureaucracy. Think about how much lower your own taxes would be if you weren’t paying the salaries, health insurance, and pensions for millions of government workers who do nothing in return but make your life more complicated. Where in the Constitution is there a provision for a permanent bureaucracy class?

As a result of the 10th Amendment, most of the power that the federal government is trying to wield belongs to the states. While a lot of the blame for the growth of the federal government can be placed on past presidents, and Congress, some of the blame rests with the states. State governors should be fighting for states rights, and they should be telling the federal government to back off. Voters are also to blame. In their desire to get more and more benefits, they keep voting for every political hack who will dole out those benefits. What’s lost is individual liberty. It saddens and frightens me that so many people don’t understand that. All I can do about it is to work hard at providing for myself, try to convince other people, vote for good candidates, and write this blog. Hopefully, I can also find the time to participate in some Tea Party events too! I work for a living, so I can’t pitch a tent somewhere for months at a time, and trash somebody’s park while I sit around doing nothing productive. There is a war being waged on individual liberty. How far will we let this go? With all the talk about the problems this country faces, the one thing that keeps getting missed is that individual liberty is under attack.

 I really do believe that President Obama must have been sick the day they taught the Bill of Rights at law school.  He has referred to the Bill of Rights as being a “charter of negative liberties”, and laments that the Constitution limits his executive authority.  This should make every man, woman, and child in this country gravely concerned for their liberty.  An all powerful government is a threat to our freedoms.  This is why the Bill of Rights was enacted.  After the original seven articles of the Constitution were written and ratified, the founders realized that there was a need to also include guarantees of some of our basic liberties, and the rights of the states.Below is the Bill of Rights in its entirety, with my own comments and analysis added.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment is often misunderstood to mean that there there shall be a separation of church and state in this nation.  That is untrue.  The intent of the Framers was for government to adopt a neutral stance toward religion, and to respect the religious beliefs of the people.  When government forcibly compels individuals or groups to act against their religious values — no matter how well intentioned, this is a violation or our individual liberty and it destroys our freedom to be who we are.  While free speech is sacred, common sense must prevail.  If your exercise of free speech or freedom of the press harms others, you deserve to be punished.  Freedom must always be coupled with responsibility.  Our right to assemble peaceably does not include the right to violate or commandeer private property for the purpose of launching a protest nor do we have the right to act violently in the face of percieved grievances against government.

Amendment II

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.

I am appalled at how so many people in this country do not understand basic grammar.  This is evidenced in the shoddy writing and speaking styles that we see even from supposedly well educated people.  This one sentence lists two things:  ”A well regulated militia”, and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  It then goes on to say that these two things shall not be infringed.  How hard is that to understand?  The states cannot act as free and independent institutions without the ability to defend their people through force of arms.  While the federal government has a certain supremacy over issues of national defense, the states must be able to organize armed citizens to defend against threats.  This is why each state has its own national guard, which is under the command of the chief executive of the state.  When the state fails to protect its citizens, we have the right to repel threats through force of arms if necessary.  Any law prohibiting our right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.  While our right to keep and bear arms is absolute, states have the right to make reasonable laws to regulate gun ownership.  Doing so is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This amendment might seem a bit outdated by today’s standards.  No wars have been fought on mainland American soil since the 1860s.  Despite this, the 3rd Amendment recognizes our right to be free from government intrusion into our homes.  The states have the right to make appropriate laws in this area that best fit the needs of the people.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Imagine a nation where the government could search your home, your person, and your possessions based upon perceived threats.  Your innocent actions could arrouse the suspicions of government officials who may want to act against you with little or no evidence.  The 4th Amendment tasks the judiciary with defending our right of privacy against actions deemed necessary to incriminate us.  Some people see an implied general right of privacy in this amendment, and I agree.  Without privacy rights, we cannot be free.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I’ve always thought of the 5th Amendment as being a bit odd.  It groups together two basic rights into one amendment:  the right to fair treatment when we are accused of a crime, and the right to private property.  Private property doesn’t just include physical things such as houses, land, cars, and money, but it also includes our labor, our time, and our bodies.  Unfortunately, government is increasingly disrepectful of our private property, and our legal justice system is being corrupted by judges who are more interested in the politics of their decisions than they are with protecting the integrity of our legal justice system.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This amendment was a reaction to the often trumped up charges levied against the citizens of the British colonies.  The founders wanted to guarantee that all of us, no matter what our station or class, would be treated fairly, and be allowed to have legal counsel.  Unfortunately, serveral times throughout our history, the rights of citizens to a fair and speedy judicial process have been violated in the name of national security.  That’s right.  I said CITIZENS.  Non-citizens are not entitled to rights under the 6th Amendment.  This was solidified even more by the 14th Amendment, which defines a “citizen” as being someone born or naturalized in, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  Foreign terrorists captured on the battle field, or apprehended within the borders of the United States are not entitled to rights under the 6th Amendment, and children born of illegal aliens are not citizens.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Without jury trials, cases brought before a court will be subject more to the whims of the judge, and or their desire to please other government officials, than fairness.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This amendment was enacted to ensure that punishment for crimes wold not be imposed without due diligence.  Without it, judges and juries may decide upon any punishment that they desire, ignoring all precedent.  Successive Supreme Court cases have helped define this amendment to mean more than just punishment, but also, protection against unfair treatment before trial or prosecution.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th Amendment was enacted to avoid the conclusion that the rights recognized by the previous eight amendments are the only rights retained by the people.  This is also an indirect recognition that our rights do not come from government.  Instead, they are inalienable, and cannot be taken away by government unless we behave in an irresponsible manner, or harm others.

Amendment X

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.

Obama violates this amendment every day!  His “Obamacare” law usurps the authority of the states and the rights of the individual.  The 10th Amendment establishes an institution known as Federalism.  Under a Federalist system, the states create laws based upon the needs of their citizens.  The alternative is a national government that enacts one-size-fits-all laws from Washington.  Under this amendment, the federal government has absolutely no power to legislate in areas of birth control, abortion, marriage, etc.  These are deeply personal things which the federal government could never fairly regulate.  Yes, this means that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.  It also means that the states have the right to define what “marriage” is, and that the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed.  The federal government should never be involved in deeply personal issues.  These statements do not make me a “social conservative”.  I simply want the federal government to stay out of our lives, and let the states handle their own affairs.  Texas should be able to enact its own laws which best serve the people of Texas.  Let the other states do the same.

The photo above is a picture of my worst fear coming true.  In 1983, ABC aired a made for TV movie called “The Day After”.  The movie depicted a scenario in which nuclear war had broken out between the United States and the Soviet Union.  I was 13 years old then.  The movie gave me nightmares for weeks after watching it.  Almost thirty years after watching that movie, I have never been able to watch it a second time.  The movie helped fuel President Reagan’s policies for nuclear arms reductions, and it helped bring home the consequences of nuclear war.  No matter who “wins”, we all lose.  Nuclear war means the total destruction of not just our cities, the lives of millions of people (possibly billions), but also our culture, and our freedom.  Even though the Soviet Union is no more, replaced by a less hostile regime, the threat of nuclear war still exists.  This time, it comes from radical Islamic countries like Iran.  These regimes care nothing about their own destruction.  All they care about is destroying their enemy.  While the Soviets could be counted on to at least be concerned about their own lives, the Islamists are not.  This makes them a much more dangerous threat.

The September 11 attacks brought back my nightmares of nuclear war.  When a country like Iran who is known to be a sponsor of terrorism gets nuclear weapons, the September 11 terrorist attacks become almost trivial.  Instead of thousands dying, millions can die in a matter of seconds.  Those who don’t die in the initial blast will die in a matter of days from burned flesh and radiation sickness.  Just one nuclear bomb used in an attack will disrupt the entire world community.  Economies will collapse.  National governments will be in disarray, and chaos will rule.  Nuclear weapons change all the rules.  Iran can easily go from a mere nuisance to a world power that could capture the entire Middle East, and totally annihilate Israel.  With this in mind, why has President Obama not done anything about it?

No matter where threats exist, they affect US national security.  The President of the United States is sworn to protect and defend this nation from all threats both foreign and domestic.  This is his primary responsibility as president.  While economic sanctions can have a strong effect on nations who have a desire to get along with other nations, they are useless with rogue nations like Iran.  The US has imposed sanctions on Iran for many years, yet there has been no change in their behavior, or their quest to build nuclear weapons.  It would be unfair to completely blame our inaction on President Obama.  President George W. Bush was also very much aware of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and even warned that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would be a grave threat to the US and its allies.  The difference now is that there has been a rapid increase in Islamic radicalism over the last 3 years.  The situation is now more urgent than ever.  As we head into this election year, I fear that Obama will avoid addressing the Iranian problem in order to stay popular with his political base.  Launching an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would certainly cause him to lose support.  It’s sickening that an American president would put his own political safety in front of national defense.

Here are my ideas on how to end this crisis with Iran…  First, take out their nuclear facilities.  That’s a no-brainer.  If we don’t do it soon, Israel will.  If Israel takes action, the US should immediately support them.  Second, unleash our own oil reserves here at home.  We cannot afford to have our energy supply disrupted by fanatical Islamic terrorist states on a warpath.  Next, we need to begin modernizing our military again, instead of drawing it down. While we may not need large armies, we need to advance our technology.  President Reagan started a modernization program that helped us win the Cold War, and defeat Iraq twice.  We need to modernize so that we can deal with the new threats that have emerged.  In addition, we need to step up our intelligence activities, and stop interfering with the men and women in the field who are working covertly to keep this country safe.  Will President Obama take these suggestions?  No.  He won’t.  We can only hope that he will be defeated in November, and be replaced by a president who understands the threats we face, and take action.