The lack of proper recognition of the average citizen’s

 grievances causes me to raise questions that
 have led me to the Declaration of Independence.

It states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed

 by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the

pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,
 governments are instituted among men, deriving their

 just powers from the consent of the governed.”

At this point, dear Justices, I see nothing in place

 today within our government which remotely
 resembles the above passage. In fact, in my opinion,

had things been as they should have been,
 perhaps Mr. Stack would still be with us today.

Faced with an impossible situation where many of

us see we are in danger of being deprived of
and denied our unalienable rights and can no longer

 easily secure our rights of life, liberty
 and the pursuit of happiness, we again turn to the

 Declaration of Independence, which then states,
“That whenever any form of government becomes

destructive to these ends, it is the right of the
 people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new

government, laying its foundation on such
 principles and organizing its powers in such form,

as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed,

will dictate that governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes;

and accordingly all experience hath shown
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while

evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
 abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
 pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design

 to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such

government, and to provide new guards for their
 future security.”

So here we are, dear Justices. I fear many of us

loyal citizens are beginning to reach the point described
 above.

 We have been patient; we have been persistent.

In return, we have been denied proper access to redress

our concerns. We have been denied our
First Amendment rights as freedom of the press

 has been compromised.  Government domination
 over the television networks has also marginalized

our free access to news and information, and we
are routinely subjected to propagandized influence

biased by both government and foreign interests.

As citizens, we have been subjected to a manner

 of character assassination, personally delivered
 by high-ranking members of Congress.  For example,

 Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, presented
 in the form of public criticism, ridiculing and vilification,

right out of the Saul Alinsky book “Rules for Radicals.”

Homeland Security has issued the following:

 WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of
Homeland Security report warns against the possibility

of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists”
concerned about illegal immigration, increasing

federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the
loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning

war veterans as particular threats.

I take exception to this condemnation from people

 who purportedly work for the citizens of this great nation.
Is this indeed the proof that the inmates at Homeland

Security are running the asylum? Wouldn’t any reasonable
person be concerned about the issues raised in this notice?

 Is this to be taken as a declaration of war upon
 any citizen who dissents against the current government

 policies? Is this Constitutional? Oh, excuse me, dear
 justices…I must have missed something on this, too.

Isn’t this another attack on everyday concerned citizens?

 Isn’t this simply a continuation of an earlier effort to
 vilify anyone seeking to restore the Constitution and the

 rule of law? Is this part of a preconditioning strategy
 to brainwash citizens to accept an ever-increasing

threat of martial law by a government bent on replacing our
 free society with socialism?

How much are we citizens expected to endure at the

hands of this oppressive government? How many of
 these abuses to our Constitution are considered reasonable?

It does not seem to get better. Our Tea Party citizens

 have been described as Nazis; our returning veterans
 have been classed as possible terrorists; those who

 staunchly support the Second Amendment have also been
branded and vilified as right-wing fringe elements.

Those demanding the eligibility issue be resolved are ridiculed.
There are many more examples of legitimately concerned

 citizens being denied rightful recognition of their
 respective grievances.

Concurrently, along with other quietly-executed

administrative activities, clandestine executive orders

issued
 in the dead of night dramatically affect the sovereignty

and security of this nation. International agencies
 are provided excessive access to U.S. interests

and immunity from U.S. authority. This has produced
 a dire set of circumstances, presenting the specter

 of international police elements potentially exercising
controlling authority over American citizens.

The creation of special administrative organizations

 has provided sweeping new collective authority to
 the office of the president, a position currently

occupied by an individual with unknown credentials
and possibly conflicting loyalties. This poses a

clear and present danger to the vested interests of this country.

Under the guise of forming protective units

against terrorism, Homeland Security has extended its authority
 to encompass the coordination of local and state police

authority. Many see that a danger exists for
 potentially planned government incursions to violate

 the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Add to all of the above, we have so many folks out

of work, the economy is rapidly failing, the stability
 of our currency is under attack and the daily revelation

 of gross government corruption make for a very
unstable view of our prospects.

Under these potentially explosive conditions, it is hard

 to imagine just how much more tolerant our loyal
American citizens will remain.

Meanwhile, dear Justices, I still have no answers for

my family, but in researching all of these concerns,
it appears that things are far worse than I had ever anticipated:

• In summary, we have three branches of government
•  that all swear oaths to faithfully execute their
•  responsibilities, but don’t.
• We have three branches of government that take an
•  oath and swear to protect the Constitution,
•  but don’t.
• We have a case where we the people are ignored and
• denied due process by a judicial system that also
•  fails to honor its oath of office and to deliver equal
• justice under the law.

Excuse me, dear Justices, please tell me…am I out of line?

Granted, I know little about the legal status of the above

 issues, but even as a simple unsophisticated citizen,
I find the very existence of these conflicts to be very

disturbing. Tell me, your honors, how do you sleep at night?

To attempt to tie all of this together, it appears to me that

collectively, as a group of like-minded citizens,
we create a government that follows the tenets of the

Constitution and the founding documents. As part
of this process, we empower our representatives to

 provide a system of administration by which to guide our
 daily lives.

We voluntarily agree to obey the reasonable rules and laws

created for us by our servants in the government.
However, if those empowered to make the laws and

maintain the system of justice do not abide by the very
 same laws, then by what manner of hypocrisy can

those to be governed be expected to continue to agree to
 obey laws of such a corrupt system? What incentive

is there to continue to live by laws that pertain only to
those who are governed but not to those empowered by

the governed?

Given today’s circumstances, it would seem very clear

 to me that once the question of responsibility to
insure compliance to the Constitution was answered,

then we could begin ferreting out the violations
and the violators and begin to apply the principles of the

rule of law.

This would seem to offer a path by which to restore

the values and ideas of the original Constitution, 
values and concepts that would encourage a stable and

 vibrant nation with an equally enthusiastic financial
and economic outlook, a nation capable of regaining

 its former glory to again take its rightful position as
 America, the home of the free, the home of the brave;

the leader of the free world.

As I see it, the burden of proof is on Obama to prove his

eligibility, not the responsibility of the people to
prove he is not eligible. Why have the courts ignored this

 critical part of the legislative process? This is a
matter of law, not politics.

As I see it, the Supreme Court is responsible for resolving

 this crisis. Every citizen is involved; therefore,
 the issue of standing has been made.

So, dear Justices, the question begging to be answered

is, simply, “When do the members of the Supreme
 Court do the job for which they are being paid?” If not the

 Supreme Court, who is in charge of protecting
 the sanctity of the Constitution?

Sincerely,

Arnie Rosner

Copies to:

John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless
otherwise specified.
 To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice
on the subheader of every page,
along the left margin.