It is becoming apparent that the federal government is mandating the dissolution of states’ rights. In order for this to take place, certain criteria must be met. First, the minimizing or dissolution of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the deception of the citizenry. Third, the enforcement of such enactment.

As for the Constitution, the process has been set forth by past and present administration policies. These policies, and the use of an ever-increasing “Big Government”, have allowed for the deprivation of constitutional guaranteed sovereignty for the several states. Seemingly, the Tenth Amendment is ignored and tread upon by such administrations. It is clearly defined in the Constitution as an authority of the people.

“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.”

A statement of clear concise meaning, “…to the people”. It seems as even an attorney could understand this. Well, apparently not. The bureaucracy is legislated by an over-abundant league of such attorneys. To make matters worse, these politicians have staff attorneys. That’s right. A legation of attorneys and legal clerks for their office whimsy.

This is exactly the reasoning for a need of Tort Reform. What is Tort Reform? Good question. It cannot be seen as a single issue, but rather a plural of issues. Such reform would allow for laws designated to adjust our current justice system. These laws would set limits to the amount and circumstances of such suits of liability. This is just a quick summation of Tort Reform. With liability reforms in effect, the possibility of lower costs and increased quality of care, could be seen to reform our current healthcare system.

The following is an excerpt from S.1796, a bill sponsored by Senator Max Baucus (MT):

Subtitle H–Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice

SEC. 3701. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

It is the sense of the Senate that–

(1) health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance;

(2) States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the existing civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to liability insurance, while preserving an individual’s right to seek redress in court; and

(3) Congress should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the existing civil litigation system with respect to the resolution of medical malpractice claims.

This Sense of the Senate manages to avoid the whole issue of medical malpractice. It merely uses legal jargon to lure the unknowing citizen. It allows for the ignorant to feel the issue is securely handled and settled. Well, the issue statement of healthcare reform presents the opportunity to address malpractice and liability, only sidelines the true issue of their control platform. Where will it end? It could very well end with the vote on the floor of the Senate.

This vote will be rapidly set into motion. A quick and silent dismissal of the true need for reform, and not with the likes of useless resolutions. Let it be understood, this vote is necessary for the completion of the authoritarian agenda set forth by the quiet majority of those in power.

The question is, “Why not allow for Tort Reform, and not useless matters of expenditure on legislation that will only harm our society?” Why won’t the politicians allow us the respect of answers? The answer of them knowing better is not sufficient. They must be made to understand the facts. They work for us, and are accountable to us, in all their actions.

The time is anew for the representative government to oblige us with the performance of their duties. Contact your representatives, and let them know your opinion. That opinion matters. Let them know the people will be heard. If not now, then November 2010 will answer the issues.

The opinion of the people is in affect, the convening authority. Is this one man’s opinion, or the fact of the matter? I will leave you to answer the question.

“REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!”

Once again the elitists on Capitol Hill have set their own agenda above that of the constituency. The Saturday vote on the government-run healthcare bill, should be noted as a blatant disregard for the wants and needs of the citizen. That seems to be setting the stage for “taxation, without proper representation”.

The ever-increasing cost of such legislation can do nothing good for the citizenry. The government-run rationing of healthcare for seniors and veterans, an over-reaching tax hike for small business, and forced coverage with a criminal mandate is just the base of my concern. The very aspect of such a government reach is surely to be seen as an act against the Constitution.

The Constitution is a platform for our very existence, as a nation. Without such accord, we would fall to a dismal standing. In all the writings of this glorious document, I am still not able to understand where the document sets the accordance of the right to healthcare. Further, I can see no legitimacy for such a government-mandated policy. I have taken upon myself to read the Constitution, and it's precedence among the founding of our Republic.

Now, let it be known, I am not a constitutional scholar. Yet, it is found to be educational for the citizen to read the Constitution. I encourage all to enlighten themselves with such readings. My children are fully aware of our founding documents, and are encouraged to read and ask questions about such. It can only secure your status as a citizen. As well as a duty and responsibility for all Americans.

As to the constitutionality of government-run healthcare, I cannot find it. I would like to know what the the constituency thinks on this matter. What do you think? Is it constitutional? If so, why and how?

The great State of Indiana has been burdened by the agenda of the elitists on Capitol Hill, as well as their own State Assembly. The blame has to be laid upon those of guilt, and a measure of that blame can be laid squarely with our local government. Our State Assembly has been nowhere to be seen while the sovereignty of our rights, as a state, has been disseminated. Where are they now? Have they bothered to ask if you needed support from the state level? No, of course not. They use the excuse of, “the federal mandate overtakes that of the state”. Well, all I ask for is representation. Will they stand up and defend the Indiana Constitution?

My door has not had a knock. Nor has my phone rang. The support of the people cannot be seen as coming from our own representatives of the state. They should be polling the constituency on what the needs and wants are. Am I right? We pay our taxes, now we want representation. If our very own legislators aren't there to support our needs and wants, then where is it to come from?

As Citizens' Sovereign, we are the legitimate convening authority. Such authority is inherent in both the U. S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution.

U. S. Constitution:

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.

Amendment IX

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

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.

Indiana Constitution:

Article 1.

Bill of Rights.

Section 1.

WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

Section 2.

All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Section 3.

No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

It can be found especially intriguing that Section One of the Indiana Constitution makes statement of “...an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.” An amazing statement if taken as to the very definition of indefeasible. “Not capable of being annulled, voided, or undone.” That very meaning could be a designation of American Citizen. Am I wrong? If yes, then how so?

It is time to set the stage for a return to our own sovereignty, and therefore the proof shown to our elected officials. This proof is the right of authority to that of the Citizen Sovereign. The duties and responsibilities of our elected officials are to be enforced. The enforcement of such duties will be shown by a simple vote. That vote will set the mandate.

This vote must be shown at all levels of government. The very aspect of our founding was the need for local representation. Thus, through such legation, the people show strong.

Again, I must thank all readers for taking the time to ponder my thoughts on this matter. Remember that I am just one man, and it is all “One Man's Opinion”.

“REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!”

The dissenter's pleas can be heard by all who will give ear. It seems as though all is well in our utopia, or that is how the mainstream media will have us to believe. The bureaucrats of our government seem wanton of the same. To see the truth, all one has to do is open their eyes and see how their neighborhood fairs.

Elitist dreams of a fascist brand of leadership. Leadership, that is a peculiar way to direct their version of thought on how our society should suffice the population. This leadership facet can only take us further from the truth. They seem to govern on how they believe we should live, instead of the way we want to live. What kind of life is that? No life is the answer.

This branded agenda will only be brought to light via the idea of population control. How is this, you may ask? Well, it is like this. The General Welfare clause of their own demise has been usurped to bring Big Brother evermore into the facet of daily life. As in all forms of authoritarian rule they have used general welfare as an all-fairing guide to enlist the citizen to perform the tasks in revolution. The call for General Welfare has an implication of liberty that can be of an unassuming nature.

If the citizen is convinced that such activity will improve such liberties, if only they were suspended for a period of time. Yes, the relinquishing of liberty to perfect society as a whole. Sounds good, doesn't it? If you want government to make the decisions in every manner possible, then that is the plan for you. For me, no. I know that freedom and liberty are derived from the securing of such rights and not the relinquishing of such.

Have you been derided for your expressions of freedom? Are you called a racist because you don't agree with everything your government states? When you speak out in public, are you named a traitor? That is what has happened in the recent debates on legislation. If you spoke in favor of such matters then you were a great American. Now, if you spoke against the legislation you were noted as a political terrorist or a traitor. This is by your elected representatives. With this being stated, who are they representing? As I recall, I didn't vote for anyone that was going to accuse me of being unpatriotic or a terrorist.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I do believe the Constitution calls for the citizen to reform the government. Of the people, by the people, for the people. That is a beautiful statement. Simple, yet assuring of freedom. So, one might think. Our elected government does not seem to see it this way. They are educated and elite in all that they do. That is what they believe. What do you think? After all you are the elector.

Do you feel equally represented? You should, since you pay more than your fair share of taxes. The truth can only be told, "One person, one vote". The representation of the people is totally inadequate. It can be seen when a legal vote of the people is disallowed the administration or courts. At hand, is a matter of who has convening authority? The legal vote of the people or the elitist bureaucrat? What do you say? Oh, I forgot. Your opinion matters, not!

Am I entitled to my opinion? Are you? Does your vote count? If politically correct, then yes. To be politically correct seems to be unpatriotic and immoral. Of course this is just one man's opinion. How would history have changed if this manner of correctness would have been followed? Think about it. The founding fathers were definitely not of the politically correct crowd. Everything they did was illegal, under the laws of the government of the day. Obviously, if they were politically correct they would have supported the monarchy. Apparently they supported the revolution. This should give you something to think about.

As far as politically correct, I am definitely not a functionary. I am an American citizen, and therefore a citizen sovereign. What is a citizen sovereign? The citizen sovereign is an individual that identifies with the inherent liberties and rights guaranteed through that of a constitution. Now that may not be the affirmed definition, but it is one that I will use. As a citizen sovereign you are the elector, and therefore a guarantor of government seat. The government that you elected has not seen it as your right, but their right. They feel that you are not good enough to see to your own being.

Your rights and liberties are being abated as we speak. You are the guarantor of the election, yet you are not represented in your own right. If you are good enough to elect them, it is free to assume that you are good enough to have a job done right. If this is so, why do you still elect the same individual to office that refused to perform the duties of the elected post. These duties meaning the performance based on their campaign platform.

The political platform is invariably, a promise to the constituent. A promise is supposed to be kept. Now it can be reasoned that some promises cannot be completed as stated, yet the mere attempt is expected. The politician tends to show indifference to the the constituent. Thus, the constituent must fulfill their duties as citizens' sovereign. To take the responsibilities of such serious, one must maintain the very citizenship status. In order to invoke their elitism, they must first dissipate with your citizenship.

It must be understood that these usurpers are out to diminish the sovereignty of the states. By doing this they will handily take to the centralization of powers. A central governing authority to undermine what is left of the several states and their authority. It is time for these state legislatures to set their motions toward a sovereignty, all their own. This is not to be taken as an act of secession. To be sure, a backlash will fall upon me for writing this. It is all I can do to protect and serve my nation, and that of my children.

We cannot allow for the usurping of the obligation to our founding. The founding fathers set forth the documents, by which were inherent rights and responsibilities. These responsibilities must be fulfilled. The accomplishments of our great nation will only endure such matters by re-establishing the Constitution as the primal basis of our liberty.

I will end this subject matter with a statement of, "I regret that I have neglected my responsibilities as Citizen Sovereign, and will from this day forward defend this nation. It is my honor to fulfill this service to the betterment of life for my children."

"REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"

In the days of our founding we had enlightened trust in a select few. They were freedom dwellers from the various classes social grace. One and all, the calling of such liberty could only be sought through representation. Representative government was platformed as the method of establishing this great nation.

The founders knew that a pure Democracy could not withstand the human element of self-preservation. Hence, it is the establishment of a Republic, based on democratic values. Yes, a Representative Republic. Thus, allowing for the nation to thrive, unheeded to the present times.

Many do not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. In a Democracy the simple majority overwhelms that of the minority. Therefore the protections of those, in the minority, are absconded in the absence of their rights. The Republic is a representative government governed by a constitution. The Constitution is written and adopted by the people.

"Ours is a representative republic with a Constitution in which is recognized the natural law and the natural rights of man. It is a republic with a spiritual foundation characterized by freedom -- freedom for the individual and for his society."

--Ezra Taft Benson

Our representative system has developed into a "two-party" tyranny. This can be seen in the actions of our elected officials towards that of the citizen. They see the seat as an authority to overlook the people's redress of grievance. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as instituted in the Bill of Rights, grants this right of redress.

"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."

This duopoly has become the detriment that our founders tried to warn against. They are the despotic version of the very reason for our founding. In a sort, they have become like that of King George III. Under their oversight we have fallen to a mere pittance of our origins.

The "Grand Republic" is rapidly losing its luster as the majesty of freedom. The need for reform has never been more evident. The corruption of this duopoly has smeared the Constitution with a dense fog of banishment. We cannot allow for this measure of disparity. This act of reformation is a duty and responsibility of every "Citizen Sovereign".

You might ask, "How do we reform our government?"

The answer is quite simple. Though, not easily applied. It is a mere application of ballot access. In order to get this instated, the sitting duopoly has to legislate this allowance of access. They see this allowance as an end to their squandering of our rights and liberties. In their eyes, they would relinquish their self-aggrandized authority, by doing so. Therefore, it is your duty to notify them that you will no longer allow for their abuse of power.

The legitimacy of ballot access only shows light on our call of freedom. It is truly the very essence of liberty. It would allow for a true representative election. Choice is reason enough to give voice to your governing body. The Citizen Sovereign will render their need for representative government, through measures of reform. Thus, this reform will be that of the voice, and not through uncivil strife. The peaceful reformation will give heed to the people.

George Washington summarized the essence of this freedom in his farewell address.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

"REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"

The "two-party" system has become a mainstay in our current status of governing. Democratic and Republican agendas have set forth a platform of improbabilities for "third-party" candidates. This goes for all levels of government. Even local rules have been set in place to deter these candidates from seeking public office. Such rules could be polling for constituent signatures and the levying of fees for the right to ballot access.

Ballot access has become a major concern on all levels. On the state level the State Assemblies have the duties of putting forth legislation to the qualification standards for allowance of this access. Who runs these assemblies? That's right the "two-party" members. Republicans and Democrats have made it difficult for any minor party candidates to seek office.

Too many legislators are given the right of access by the simple virtue of a vote. Therefore they have secured their own guarantee of incumbency. Now that is job security. How would it feel if you could secure your job just by a mere matter of a vote? It doesn't work that way with lowly electorates. These very same officials would rather secure their own careers than fulfill your rights to proper representation.

Well, you can decide the matters with just a mere vote. The mid-term elections of 2010 are the chance for you to supplant the voice of concern. This voice can set a motion for several objectives. These objectives, if properly mandated, will allow for the authority of the people to reign sovereign. Term limitation, referendum, voter recall, and initiative are a principled goal. With these measures in place, we will again have the proper authority to reform our government.

I will try to outline my ideology in a simple to understand discussion. Let's take the idea of term limitation to a matter of minimizing the "elitist" attitude toward their duties and obligations. What is term limitation? It is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in an elected office. If this limitation is set in legislation, there would be more of a sincerity in the election to such office. Campaign promises would be pretty much assured by the mere idea of right and responsibility, instead of a career. The easiest measure of effect would be single term limits of a set amount of time, then bypassing one election cycle. Thus setting a precedence for future re-election to the same post without consecutive terms. This limitation could be used at all levels of elected office.

Referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to accept or reject a legislative proposal. Other terms for this vote might be that of ballot question or plebiscite. The vote can be as a matter of a simple majority, or even a matter of a super-majority (2/3) of cast votes. The referendum can be used in a binding or non-binding measure. Thus, non-binding would be that of an advisory measure. These matters of voting allow for a more direct role of citizens' direct representation.

Voter recall is a measure of assured government accountability. It allows for special election to be called by the people to remove an elected official from their post. A recent example of a mandated recall would be that of California Governor Davis in 2003. The constituents of the state realized that the elected official had not fulfilled his duties and obligations of office, and voted to remove him by virtue of an election. The following states have legislation enacted to allow for the voter recall: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. Thus, the recall allows for the voice of the citizen to be heard.

Initiative is the procedure by which a specified number of voters may propose a statute, constitutional amendment, or ordinance, and compel a popular vote on its adoption. There are 24 states that allow for the initiative process. They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The various states set standards on the limitations of these initiatives.

The Initiative & Referendum Institute (IRI) at the University of Southern California has a full listing and explanation of the different states and the varying degrees by which these measures are allowed. Some states allow for direct votes in certain instances. Regardless, it is the freedom and right of such measures that allow for government accountability.

The "citizen sovereign" has full authority, and responsibility to reform their presiding government. This right comes as an obligation granted by the Constitution. The goals set forth by the principles of term limitation, voter recall, referendum, and initiative can only assure our liberties. Not withstanding the current affairs of state, our nation is in dire need of reform at all levels of governance.

On the virtues of liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

This statement has always stirred a moment of thought, as for myself anyway. I hope this writing has shown thought on the matter. Again, I must reiterate that this merely "one man's opinion". Take of it what you wish.

The Constitution has presented the inherent right to reform government in the First Amendment:

"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."

"REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"

Destitute in our own liberty, we can only bare our naivete. In stubborn ignorance we have allowed the government to circumvent their own laws. Not illegal, yet unethical. The laws by which they enacted have become the very stay of their governance. In their own liberty, they will subject us to mere servitude.

Have we become blind to the actions of our government? Which branch of government is in charge? Will one banter for control of the other? Only history can answer these questions. I will try to lay out my views on the politics of the day.

Let us first, discuss the different branches of our Federal government. The Executive branch is that of the President and his subordinate staff. The Legislative branch would be that of the House and the Senate. Then there is the Judicial branch, where the Supreme Court explains and applies the laws.

The Executive branch of the Government has the President, Vice President, and all the cabinet members. Through the Constitution, the President is granted certain duties. Of these duties, there are five granted with authority. 1) Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. 2) Has authority to require written reports from the Cabinet departments. 3) Make treaties with foreign nations. 4) Appoint officials of the United States. 5) Uphold and enforce the laws, and make recommendations as needed. These seem to be quite clear, and concise. Though some might try to subvert the Constitution, the duties are set and legitimized.

The Legislative branch consists of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. When both houses convene, they become Congress. This branch writes the bills, which will become enacted into legislation. Legislation can be as simple as that of a mere majority. Once voted upon by Congress, the legislation is sent to the President for signature. The President will then approve or set veto to bill. Seemingly a matter of clear conscience.

The Judicial branch explains and applies the laws, where needed. The Supreme Court is the presiding authority of our court system. This court has nine Justices, one being that of Chief Justice. Together they hear and apply decision on such matters. The Constitution allows for their review and application of legislation. Fair enough.

Together, these branches have molded our nation to its current state. Each one, at times overstepping the constitutional boundaries. One branch negating the authority of the other. The system of "checks and balances" have become more a source of compromise. Behind closed doors they have squandered and pilfered the legitimacy of the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights". The Federal government has become that of "Quid Pro Quo".

Is this the strategy of our Founders? Would they have agreed with our political status? Was this what they had in mind? Or, is this what they fervently warned us against? It was William Penn that stated,

"Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them... Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad... But if men be bad, the government will never be good." That seems to be a thorough explanation of our state.

There can be only one explanation to our state of affairs. There seems to be a power struggle within our government. It can easily be seen and felt. If measures are not taken to avoid such matters, we can only expect the worst. As history will show, the different branches have shown that of discord to the others. We are not the first nation to become agitated in such affairs. The Romans, Ottomans, and even the Soviets saw vast changes in their governments as the dissolution raged.

The abounding signs of revolution from within, can be expected. The standing government will become that of a chaotic being. Not chaos in the sense of violence, yet that of unorganized measures. I suspect that the President's speech to the various UN agencies can elude to nothing more than an alliance of protection from such chaos. Congress has shown its discourse through various committee reviews on the Presidential agenda. In explanation of these reviews, the committees have compromised the bills to that of an illusion of the original.

I am not saying there will be violent revolution. Though there is a chance of a change in how our government convenes authority. There is also a distinct possibility of seeing certain branches or individuals with more "Authoritarian" powers. It doesn't matter how it happens. It is the idea of such drastic change that causes such discord.

I can only surmise as to the assumption of such cause. Will I be proven wrong? I hope that the proof is shown. Can this be stopped? Will the people stand strong on their authority? These questions need answers. Who will ask these questions, and how? My final question, "Will these questions be answered, and by whom?"

It must be remembered that "Revolution" is a founding result in change. It is not necessarily a violent act. It has been effective in different ways throughout history. When mentioning this in reference to government it is only pertaining to that of change. I know that this writing will be scrutinized by readers. It is only asked that you give full reverence to the total opinion. We don't have to agree, but give heed to opinion. For one's opinion may give reason for the greater good.

In closing I will quote John Adams:

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"

The events of the recent months have become enamored by the actions of our President. In the period of his taking of office, he has undertaken the deconstruction of our Constitution. Along with the destabilization of our economic system, we can only wonder he will go next. His campaign of change has shown to be that of different kind of change than we had bargained for.

However, he is the President of the United States of America. Being thus, his office must be shown due respect. Though the person has not shown much reason to be granted such respect. In regards to his office, an oath was given to uphold the Constitution. The constitutional reasoning for such oath is a promise to that of the people of the United States of America. He must be reminded of this promise.

The drama of his agenda must be subsided and brought to order. There is no need for the apologies of international intrigues. These apologies are not necessarily of bad character, yet still not needed. Our actions abroad should be reviewed behind our own walls, and not that of international concern. For, he must know the idea of bringing one’s own house to order in order to undertake issues outside the house.

He has caused turmoil in his dealings with the concern of the “Citizen”. Calling their actions “stupid” and politically opposing, he has platformed the “Elitist” attitude. The matter of “stupid” referring to Professor Gates and the police. The occasional beer will not appease for long. The promotion of alcohol can only bring about other questions, so I will move on.

It should be considered that he spend more time fulfilling his duties, instead of taking company (Citizen) time to push an agenda of an unwanted healthcare policy. His self-fulfilling aggrandizement needs to be ceased. If it is stardom he wants then let him take to screen-acting. The office of President is not that of playtime. It is obliging to that of the Constitution and the “People”. The time for performing the elected duties of office is now.

President Obama, it is time to take issue with the pertaining matters of the Constitution. Where do you stand on this issue? It seems as though the Constitution is seen as clay, and can be molded to fit the situation. Well Sir, it is not! It is the foundation by which this great nation was formed.

The associations of our President, with the likes of Castro, Chavez, Kadaffi and Zelaya, can only bring alarm to the citizenry. Most likely not a major concern, yet how are we supposed to act. The fear of the unknown can only attribute to the actions to dissolve the “American Way” of life. I must admit, the fear is within me. Yet, I am not frightened. Though I am not going to remain silent on the issues at hand. I find it to be my constitutional duty to stand proud and reform my nation.

The President is setting a precedence in history, being the first US President to head the UN Security Council. The actions he has shown recently leads me to wonder what he intends to do with this historical event. In doing so, will he disregard our national sovereignty. It is with deep prayer that I ask him not to allow for the disenfranchisement of my nation. Shall he be granted the strength to show allegiance to his duties to our nation and the Constitution.

In closing, I will quote Patrick Henry:

“When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.”

“REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!”