Andrew P. Napolitano is a 59-year-old former New Jersey Superior Court Judge He is a graduate of Princeton University,and Notre Dame Law School. At Princeton he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton along with Justice Samuel Alito. Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey .
Listen to Judge Napolitano’s important message about the current threat to the liberty of all Americans.
August 12,2009 Mr. Barack Hussein Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington,DC 20500
Dear Mr. Obama,
The news of late regarding your push to have citizens report directly to the White House anything they see as “fishy”regarding what is being said about you and your healthcare bill is extremely disturbing. However,this is only the latest of the outrages we have seen coming out of your administration in the short time you have been in office.
For a presidential candidate who promised a better life for all Americans,to bring the races and all Americans together,to do what is “fair”,and to have a transparent administration,you thus far appear to have gone entirely in the opposite direction on all these promises. You can’t promise a better life for all Americans by raising taxes,spending us into bankruptcy,silencing dissenters,over-taxing,over-regulating,and penalizing the very businesses that create jobs,or nationalizing our banks,corporations,and healthcare –this is socialism,sir. You cannot bring people together by pitting citizens and groups of citizens against one another and encouraging neighbors to inform on each other. This smacks of Nazism and Communism. You can’t promote fairness by muzzling those who disagree with you,or giving one class of citizens priority over another as in your healthcare bill. You cannot have a transparent administration by stifling opposing views on the healthcare bill,trying to rush it through before all viewpoints are heard and discussed in an open forum,or labeling those who dare question its provisions as organized right wing mobs and refusing to clearly address their legitimate concerns. This shows me the truly sinister nature of your approach to “governing”. It is ill-suited for a constitutional democracy such as ours,sir. I dread the day you find a way to marginalize or suspend our Constitution in its entirety,as it seems to be a constant impediment to you and your ilk quickly implementing your socialist agenda before we even know what has hit us.
In case you are wondering where I am coming from,I will tell you that I generally vote for Republican candidates but have voted democratic in the past. However,I see the current crop of Republicans as being less and less supportive of my views,including former President George W. Bush. However,and more ominous,I see the current crop of Democratic “leaders”,including yourself,as far less responsible,and substantially less supportive of historic American values than they were as recently as 50 years ago. Most Democrats have been totally hijacked by the extreme radical left within our society and can be considered for all intents and purposes as socialists. I am,by contrast,a principled conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. What I believe is as follows and you can judge any “threat”I may pose to this country accordingly.
As a conservative,I firmly and,without apology,proudly believe the following:
1) That,in general,the best government is one that governs the least,i.e.,that big government means less freedom for everyone. Excessive governmental control is bad for America and Americans.
2) That individual freedoms are God given,not man given
3) That most Americans are inherently competent and should therefore be responsible,and held accountable,for their own actions and choices in life.
4) That government and political corruption and crime,like all other crime,must be exposed and punished regardless of who the perpetrator is.
5) That the rule of law is supreme and that no one,not even the President,is above the law. We have seen far too much of lawlessness and corruption in our political leaders and a reluctance by them to accept the blame for their own failings and misdeeds. Their first instinct,like that of a child,is to blame someone else. This bad example being set for future generations is appalling.
6) That the Constitution of the United States should be the basis of all law and not subject to being rewritten by judicial decree. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and zealously support and protect it and all its amendments. For example,I will not own a gun,but I support the 2nd Amendment which grants that right to those who choose to do so. I believe the Constitution does NOT grant the right to abortion on demand,although at one time I was pro-choice. I now realize this was a prime example of judges changing the intent and scope of the U.S. Constitution by judicial decree to suit their own agenda,and this is a very dangerous precedent. Also,the issue of abortion,along with many others,should be handled on the state level in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
7) That our system of government and democracy itself were established under Judeo-Christian religious principles that acknowledge the existence of God and that are crucial to our continuing success as a free nation. Liberals and socialists have tried countless times to disavow such a heritage and to implement a secular society.
8) That God and religion should be allowed into our lives,not systematically and totally removed from our society based on the extremist views of the anti-God or anti-Christian minority.
9) That parents should make the decisions regarding the raising and educating of their children,NOT the government. Liberal or socialist views,such as yours,as a goal for America’s school children and the way we should all lead our lives would be a disaster in a free society. The programming of children to believe in a government sponsored political ideology brings back the specter of the Nazi youth and their irrational,blind allegiance to a brutal,murderous,and Godless tyrant. This approach has no business being used in any American school system with impressionable school children. People need to be free to make up their own minds on the issues and not to be unduly influenced,coerced,or bullied by those with politically motivated agendas. We must keep the ACLU out of our schools and out of our lives.
10) That traditional moral and family values are important to the success of a free society and need to be protected and preserved,not mocked and suppressed.
11) In free market principles with minimal government interference,control,and regulation. Wealth is created in the private sector,not by government. Far too often government interference and over-control limits job creation and prosperity. Only in a socialist or communist state is individual achievement,success,and prosperity to be condemned and penalized. Spreading the wealth,as you propose,is a socialist concept which inhibits economic growth and promotes individual dependency on others.
12) In the sanctity and value of innocent human life. All human beings should be considered of equal value and deserving of life regardless of their sex,age,race,religious beliefs,national origin,state of health or mental capacity,or political beliefs. We are all God’s children.
13) In peace based on strength,not appeasement,i.e.,we must have a strong national defense based on a strong,well equipped,and well trained military coupled with a defensive ABM shield,if technically feasible. War is never desirable but reality and common sense should tell any reasonable person that sometimes it is necessary to preserve our freedom and way of life. We should never give in to tyrants and terrorists. This approach has kept us free for over 230 years,so why change it?
14) That problems and societal ills are best resolved by the people in the private community and not by government. Government involvement is overly expensive,grossly inefficient,and far too often subject to corrupting political influences. This is undeniable reality.
15) That our economy is best served when money and resources are invested,controlled,and spent by individuals and businesses in the private sector,and not by the government through bailouts,excessive taxation,burdensome regulations,or other controls.
16) That we must maintain our national sovereignty and suppress all efforts by those entities,such as the UN,which would impose international regulations,standards,laws,taxes,etc.,on the American people in contravention of our Constitution and representative system of government.
17) We believe in patriotism and love of our country with an appreciation of the sacrifices of our founding fathers and our fighting military and other heroes to ensure our freedoms. We honor such people –not degrade them or label them as radicals or potential terrorists. Conservatives consider it an honor to be an American and will defend our country and way of life at all costs,and without apology or deference to anyone.
18) Conservatives are against discrimination of any kind,whether it be based on race,sex,religion. national origin,age,condition of ones health or mental capacity,or political beliefs. Every citizen of this great country has the Constitutional God-given right to free speech and to practice their religion anytime and anywhere they choose regardless of who it may “offend”. No one shall be silenced,persecuted,threatened,or inhibited in any way solely because of their beliefs. The so-called “hate crimes”law is an attempt at thought control and would result in some crimes that could be charged only against one class of people and not another. This is a clear violation of equal protection under the law. It is a typical over-reaction to previous inequities,but rather than resolve any inequities,it creates others.
Mr. Obama,you may not agree with most of my beliefs. However,sir,you have no right –in this country –to inhibit in any way my exercising my freedom to speak out and to disagree with you. It is free political discourse that is specifically protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such is the beauty of our country and political system. But as a Constitutional scholar yourself,you sir should know this. There is nothing sinister,radical,dangerous,or extremist about our beliefs. On the contrary,sir,you and those that support your agenda for “change”,as we have seen it so far,constitute a far greater threat to America and to the freedoms all Americans cherish. It is unbelievable that you are so completely out of touch with the vast majority of the American people that you have deceived yourself into thinking that they really want or need all this socialist nonsense forcefully crammed down their throats. However,it does seem that you and your socialist supporters are trying very hard to hide the truth by suppressing any and all discussion,particularly on the healthcare fiasco. I must therefore resist you and your agenda in every legal way possible.
While you may think the above beliefs and my comments make me a “right wing extremist”or a “potential terrorist”that bears watching,in my mind,such beliefs indicate a patriot and one who respects the concept of freedom as a unique and rare blessing to be preserved at all costs. I promise you that I will never commit violence in order to support my beliefs,however,that does not mean that I will not strongly resist others attempting to use violence or other illegal means to suppress my freedoms. Unlike you,sir,I respect the viewpoints of others,even if they oppose mine. I also promise,sir,to do everything legal that is within my power to see that you and your fellow socialists are voted out of office. This is the American way. Unlike you,sir,we will not resort to misinformation,threats,suppression,intimidation,bullying,or surveillance in responding to those with whom we disagree. The truth is the best weapon available to freedom loving people and it will ultimately prevail.
I question your motives Mr. Obama on wanting to be the “leader”of this wonderful country,a country that has withstood the test of time as a democracy. I say this because it seems to me that your primary goal so far has been attempting to destroy everything that has made America the destination of choice for the oppressed and the envy of the free world. Fortunately,two hundred million other Americans,the so-called silent majority,largely agree with me and are now starting to speak up. Although you may try,you cannot silence all of us,or put us all under surveillance or in jail. Free people are not going to give up their freedoms and rights so easily.
You may have noticed that I have not addressed you with the title that customarily accompanies the person who is the primary occupant of the White House. Unlike me and the huge majority of other Americans that are proud to be born in America,I do not believe you are a natural born American citizen according to the Constitution,and therefore are not qualified for the office you are holding. It appears that you have perpetrated,and have so far gotten away with,the biggest hoax ever carried out in the history of our country. I believe this because of your blatant refusal to provide proper proof of your birth,assuming it is available. Why would you not provide it and end the controversy and doubt? Either you have no such proof or you are so arrogant and filled with the idea of your own self importance that you think you are above the law and do not need to comply with it. Either way sir,in my opinion,you are not entitled to the office you hold and therefore not entitled to the respect that normally goes with it.
In accordance with your directive and request,I have reported myself directly to you as,according to your description,a “right wing extremist”. I have fully elaborated on my “fishy”viewpoints and have hidden nothing. This letter is necessarily long and detailed so as to avoid any misunderstanding by you. I am proud to have the conservative viewpoints I have described above and to be whatever you think that makes me. I will apologize to no one for my conservative views and beliefs –and I will never disavow them.
Gerald R. Vanderbilt,American Home:512-502-8667 E-mail:GRVAustin@cs.com
CC:U.S. Senator John Cornyn U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Representative Lamar Smith
A little over a week ago Honduran soldiers arrested President Manuel Zelaya during the night,took him in his pajamas and placed him on a plane for Costa Rica. They apparently did this under orders from the Honduran Supreme Court and with the approval of the Honduran Congress. Now the great world bastions of democracy,the UN,the OAS,as well as Hugo Chavez,the Castro brothers and Barack Obama are clamoring for his reinstatement! Since when has any of this bunch shown any great love for the democratic process or the rights of a free people to protect their constitutional rights?
What right has the UN,the OAS (Organization of American States),or any other nation have to attempt to dictate what is done under the laws of another sovereign nation? This was no coup. This was an arrest and expulsion of a dictatorial leader that had violated numerous Honduran laws. The only problem was they chose to execute it quietly by exiling him rather than incarcerating him with all the fanfare and potential riots from the leftist “Acorns”of Honduras. They chose to quietly remove him,replacing him with the person the law indicated was the second in order,just as our government would do if our president were deceased,incapacitated,or imprisoned for any reason.
Zelaya had been charged with some 18 criminal acts including treason. He had defied the Honduran Supreme court and refused to recognize the law making authority of the Honduras’Congress. He had refused to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since taking office in 2006. Zelaya also refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling against his planned referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing a constitutional provision that was specifically not allowed under the constitution itself. In other words this guy had placed himself above the law and established himself as a dictator in the same style of the Castros and Hugo Chavez.
To date no countries have recognized the new government and they have been ousted from the OAS. This probably has a lot to do with the objection of the US. Obama has jumped in and deplored the action of Honduras demanding that Zelaya be reinstated. Why would an American president have the gall to say on one hand that the US does not want to meddle in the private affairs of other nations and then on the other hand demand that Honduras restore a leftist dictator that has been ousted for violation of their Constitution and his oath of office? Well,perhaps the key is in the word “leftist”in which Obama found a kindred spirit. After all,if one country could oust a president for violating the constitution he was sworn to protect,perhaps another could do the same?
Apparently Zelaya was elected by campaigning as a center-right candidate. He then moved into the dictatorial pattern of Chavez ignoring the laws and defying the Congress and Supreme Court. The final straw was when he attempted to strong arm his way into an illegal additional term by changing the constitution through an illegal election. In Honduras a provision was written into the constitution to prevent dictatorial “presidents for life”as had happened a number of times in the past in Latin America. This provision was one of several that are considered “inviolate”and are not subject to amendments. According to their constitution these provisions can only be changed by a rewrite of the entire document. According to Pat Buchanan,Chavez even provided the ballots for Zelaya to use to accomplish the illegal election.
We should congratulate the people of Honduras for protecting their constitutional form of government,even though done perhaps with a bit less aplomb than we would have preferred. The people of Honduras have not accomplished a coup,but have enforced their laws,without bloodshed and have removed crooked leader before he could destroy their form of government. For that they should be congratulated,not ostracized.
Obama and Hillary Clinton have no business meddling in the private affairs of a friend and neighbor who are implementing their laws in the best way they can to protect their liberties without creating dangerous riots and violence in their streets.
Last month Montana passed the “Firearms Freedom Act”that exempts firearms,and ammunition manufactured in Montana from all Federal regulation. It cites the 2nd,9th,and 10th amendments of the US Constitution as authority and is a direct challenge to the federal government.
Essentially identical laws are currently being acted upon by the legislatures of Utah and Texas as well. The effect of these if upheld are tremendously wide sweeping. There is likely to be a challenge pushed to the Supreme Court very quickly,and with the current configuration of the court it is highly likely that it will be upheld.
This goes far beyond the law’s effect on firearms. The right to “regulate”firearms by the federal government is claimed under the “commerce clause”of the constitution. This clause allows congress to regulate “interstate”commerce. The original intent of that clause was to promote commerce between states,not to control it. Its prime focus was to to prevent states from placing state tariffs on such goods passing between states. That clause has been used as excuse for possibly more than 3/4 of the federal regulations passed since the FDR years. This would put all those regulations under doubt! (See: The Commerce Clause )
The 10th amendments 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.” The rights of the states to control intrastate commerce (within their borders) has always been acknowledged. However,congress has used a very loose definition of what is “interstate commerce”to include virtually anything it wants. The 9th and 10th amendments have been ignored since Rosevelt’s time. Montana is now pressing their claim to what has been their rights under the constitution since they became a state in 1889.
Should this be upheld that would remove the authority of the federal government to “regulate”things such as minimum wage,national speed limits,union regulations,drug laws and a host of other things that have userpted the rights of the states for the last 60 years.