To my Friends and neighbors, 

What follows is a political plea. I know that many of you are supporting Obama for President, but I must ask you to please consider the following. Obama is calling for a change in America. A Change that requires us to turn our backs on the principles of Constitutional Government, Individual Liberty and Equality of Process. A Change that rejects an individual’s right of conscience, and an individual’s right to pursue happiness.

"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results" - Madison, Federalist #10

The Difference between socialism, Marxism and communism is only the degree of freedom one is willing to sacrifice for “equality” of results. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH FREEDOM and EQUALITY of results. One MUST be sacrificed for the other.

“ the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph C. Cabell, Monticello, Feb 2, 1816

The Founding Fathers felt it was the first object of government to make sure there was NO SACRIFICE of freedom, and that each would be allowed to enjoy and use the fruits of their own labor, without interference from their neighbors.

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, 1804

"inequalities of mind and body or so established by god almighty in his constitution of human nature that no art or policy can ever plain them down to a level. … Justice for everyone; the golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality that can be supported or defended by reason, or reconciled to common sense." – Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Quincy, July 13, 1813

The Founder's rejected  "equality of results" as impossible for imperfect man to judge and achieve. They felt it would be dangerous to our liberties to let anyone judge  what was “fair”, especially when such “fairness” involved taking from some and giving to others. The Founders instead sought equality of process: the rule of law, and the only reasonable equality that could be achieved.

“ let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge, or the executive power, will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man.” – Jefferson – letter to Edmund Pendleton – Philadelphia, August 26, 1776

Obama openly defies this doctrine claiming he will appoint Judges to the Supreme court who will implement their version of Fairness, rather than the law as duly established by our Representatvies. Before the constitution was ratified, it was feared “ The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous…. In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution" - Hamilton, Federalist 81

The Founders denied judges had the right to change the law and the Constitution to what they thought it SHOULD be, but rather felt judges would be restricted to long established rules of legal interpretation (Blackstone) , which would allow Judges to make law only under narrowly prescribed circumstances where the PLAIN MEANING of the text was not clear. To do otherwise would be to grant unlimited legislative powers to the Judiciary, and break the principle of the separation of powers.

Where the power of judging joined the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator “ - Madison -Federalist XLVII

The Founders were Strict Constructionalists, which is the only rational way a Contract signed by the Citizens of a Nation can be Viewed:

“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the Nation. In that sense alone it is a valid constitution" - Madison – Letter to Henry Lee June 25^th, 1824

This does  not mean that the Constitution would never change, and that future generations were bound to the prejudices of their forebearers:

“It has been the misfortune, if not the reproach, of other nations that their governments have not been freely established by themselves. It is the boast of ours that such has been its source and it can be altered by the same authority only which established it. It is a further boast that a regular mode of making proper alterations has been providently inserted in the Constitution itself . It is anxiously to be wished therefore that no innovations may take place in other modes, one of which would be the constructive assumption of powers never meant to be granted. If the power be deficient, the legitimate source of additional ones is always open, and ought to be resorted to.” Madison, letter to Spencer Roane sept 2^nd 1819.

An amendment is the only legitimate way the constitution may be changed, without breaking the compact between each and every Citizen from which the legitimacy of the Constitution is derived. In 2001 Obama claimed Warren Court failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” and that the  judges instead clung to the construction of the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties” - which restrict the powers of government. For Obama, justice demands the positive case: what government “must do on your behalf." Obama believes in an UNLIMTED government in complete contradiction to the Restrictions set up in the Constitution and in  appointing judges whose job is to create "fairness" rather than to apply the law.  

“A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shews there is no constitution” – Thomas Paine – The Rights of Man

Obama’s interpretation of the Constitution renders It mute and void. His election is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. He would change the Constitution so that he could redistribute wealth, and that is exactly what his tax plan is designed to do. (How else can you give a tax cut to 95% of American families when only 70% of them pay federal income taxes?) Even if one were to think that such wealth distribution was morally right or beneficial in some way, it does not give government the right to do so, without breaking the contract between neighbor and neighbor.   

“That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.. to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on the supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approval or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own.” – Jefferson – A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom

It is not “neighborly” to invade someone’s house and force them to “donate” money to “charitable works” which they disagree with; that is a violation of the right of Conscience. It is even more cowardly and malicious to do so by using the power of a government, whose primary object is the PROTECTION of that wealth. Taxes are to be paid for services rendered by the government, which are enumerated in the Constitution, and the 9^th and 10^th amendments were passed to ensure that it was understood that ONLY those powers qualified. There  is NO POWER to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH in the Constitution. The Constitution  was intended to protect the  minority of rich from the majority of the poor and their "leveling spirit"

" in every community were industry is encouraged, there will be a division of it into the few and the many. Hence separate interest will arise. There will be debtors and creditors. Give all power to the many, and they will oppress the few. If all power to the few, they will oppress the many. "  Alexander Hamilton – Speech before the Federal Convention of 1787. 

When Obama declares the McCain tax plan “gives back to the rich ”, it belies Obama’s assumption that all wealth belongs to the government. The government has no Right to the wealth of others, nor to interfere with their pursuit of happiness through such wealth. It is immoral to punish those who have worked hard, and the economy will not grow if money is taken from the people who have the ambition, knowledge, and ability to take risks and create new jobs and start new Businesses. Making the return on those endeavors lower will ensure fewer such endeavors are undertaken.