The following editorial was written by a concerned citizen. We need every citizen who is concerned about the future of our country to write clear, direct editorials to evern paper they can reach and flood the news with a call for sensibility and a return to Constitutional law.

Gay marriage/DOMA: On February 23, 2011, Obama instructed the Department of Justice to disregard the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. OK, I just checked again to confirm this, but there are still three separate and distinct branches of our government, Judicial, Legislative, and Executive, each designed to provide checks and balances over the others. The Legislative branch writes the laws. The Executive branch either agrees with it and signs it into law or sends it back to be re-written or struck down entirely. The Judicial branch enforces those laws passed by Congress and rules as to the Constitutionality of a law. The Executive branch does not write the law. Yet we the people have not raised our voices, or at least not enough of us, to let our Senators and Representatives know that we will not allow our Executive branch to rule as a king over this nation and because he does not think that a law is correctly applied, that he will not enforce the law. Now wait, didn't he just assume the duties of the Judicial branch? And this doesn't even touch on the use of our military for social engineering purposes. Now the Democratic platform has a plank supporting gay marriage. Never before has a national party supported an issue which will affect such a small segment of our society. Surveys find that fewer than 2% of our population identify themselves as gay. Do we live where minorities rule? So, vote Democrat? NOPE!

Abortion: This case, legally, began in 1970 (remember where you were and what you were thinking then?). A woman known as Jane Roe (a fictional name used to protect the identity of Norma McCorvey) brought federal action against Henry Wade, the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas. It was litigated and eventually reached the Supreme Court in 1972. On January 22, 1973 (a day that SHOULD live in infamy) this landmark decision was signed into law giving women the "right of choice". On January 22, 2009, coinciding with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama repealed the Mexico City Policy put in place by Bush that prohibited abortion mills in other countries from receiving aid if abortion was given as an option. In other words, under President Bush, the United States would no longer sponsor abortions around the world. Remember, Obama had only been in office 2 days! Funding abortion around the world was a top priority of Obama. I know there is much discussion on this subject and especially with women of the 60's and 70's as to why they should have the right to kill their own child because the child is still in the womb and not outside the womb where the law would give this new person full protection. Only a thin membrane separates legal from illegal. With over 50 MILLION abortions performed, the most dangerous place for a person to be is in the mother's womb. Shame on us for supporting, either outwardly or tacitly, such a policy. Again, there is a plank in the Democratic platform that supports abortion disguised as a woman's right to choose. Personally, I agree with a woman's and a man's right to choose, but this choice should come months before the unborn child is involved. So, on this issue do we vote Democrat? NOPE!  BTW, there is a Ray Comfort documentary, "180" that everyone, whether pro-life or pro-abortion should see. www.180movie.com

The economy and national debt: I don't watch Letterman or Matthews. I don't get a "tingly feeling down my leg" when talking to or about Obama. I do pay attention to what is said by liberals. While refusing to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, our ally in the Middle East, due to his (Obama's) "scheduling conflicts", he (Obama) has plenty of time to appear on a talk show and attend fund raisers. In comments on the Letterman show, the president of the United States said he didn't know how much the national debt is. This was after Letterman's leading that it was around $10 trillion. In fact on January 20, 2009 when Obama took office, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. That includes a 700 billion dollar financial bailout in the waning days of the Bush administration. Today (and counting) the national debt is over $16,000,000,000. SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS! Am I to believe that the guy that holds the credit card doesn't know what the balance is? And I know that there are many of you out there (you probably don't read the Landmark) who believe that O inherited a bad deal. Well, I agree that things (the economy) were looking pretty bad when Bush left office, however, let me offer a little insight. Our country had been attacked, on our home soil no less, by a loosely knit group of terrorists with no native country, no government, and no capital. Bush didn't try to arrest, negotiate, or jail in Leavenworth the suspected accomplices of this attack. As I recall, neither did Roosevelt, but I digress. Bush didn't apologize for our past or attempt appeasement. He went after the countries and rulers supporting Al Qaeda, and that costs money. But here we are nearly 4 years later and this president is still blaming what he inherited for his own poor performance. Let's equate this logic to a relay race (we're not yet to the anchor man, this country has many more good years ahead of it) in which the second or third man on the 4 man relay team takes the baton and falls farther and farther behind because he is always looking backward blaming his teammate for a poor hand off, putting the TEAM in a worst position and causing the TEAM to lose the race. How long would he be on the relay team? Never again! The racer looks ahead, not to sink the team but to make it a winner. But let's bring this down to your own house. Please give your best guess, your life in this country may depend on it. How long could your personal finances last if you borrowed 40 cents of every dollar you spent? Can you remember way, way back in January of 2009? The nationwide average price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline was $1.87. Now it is averaging around $3.87. Do you think that has anything to do with the price of groceries and everything else that has to be trucked to a store so we can buy it?

So, since we are talking economy, the bottom line question is, "Can we vote for Obama on his record?" The answer is NOPE!

Lawlessness: Maybe this is a stretch but you will have to decide. Executive orders, refusal to enforce the law, refusing to sentence the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation (remember they had already been found guilty in court), found in contempt of Congress, an HHS Secretary found in violation of the law for electioneering (no action taken), allowing an Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin to spend 6 months in Fort Leavenworth detention because Obama wouldn't show his birth certificate. Remember these? Then as Dr. Lakin is about to be released from prison, Obama presents to the world a birth certificate proven to be a forgery by Sheriff Arpaio, couldn't Obama have shown that to the world 6 months earlier and prevented the miscarriage of justice against Dr. Lakin? How many presidents have we had that have sealed their records and spent millions of dollars preventing their past to be investigated? How many presidents have we had that have had more than one name? How many presidents have claimed to be born in a foreign country when it was helpful for selling a book and renounced that fact as "copy error" when running for president? A copy error for 15 years? Come on!

And, again, can we vote Democrat? NOPE!

Unemployment: Let me ask you a question. If you were going to consider starting a new business, would you choose this economic time to launch it? Only the uninformed would. Businesses don't know what is going to happen with taxes, health care, the value of the dollar, the Euro, the Middle East, and even our own transportation and fuel costs! Printing more money by the FED with the QE3 with no end defined could cause an acceleration of all the above mentioned costs. So... Unemployment continues to climb. In January of 2009 the rate stood at 7 percent, which continued to grow to 9.4 percent in August 2010, a three-decade high. Now it (the rate) has come down to 8.3%. Well, not exactly. The OFFICIAL rate as reported by the Department of Labor is 8.3% but that is because millions have stopped looking for work over the last 3 and a half years. Without all the people off the official report, the unemployment rate would be north of 11%, many say it would be much higher. So... What would your solution be? Of course, you would do everything to get this economy energized. Make it business friendly, LOWER taxes, CLOSE the EPA, approve drilling rights, stop the endless regulations coming out of Washington. This administration has done the exact opposite of this...and it shows.

ILLEGALS are now called "undocumented" by this administration, a supposedly gentler nomenclature. This administration is approving more work visas, Irish, Indian, saying that we need their talent. Why? Don't we have highly trained and educated workers in the USA? I submit to you that this administration wants to keep everyone it can on some sort of government assistance in order to control their vote. We all know someone who is out of work, under-employed, or has simply given up. Hope? NOPE!

Siding with the enemy: This one is the most serious and scares the h___ out of me and should scare the "Democrat" out of every American citizen whether you pay taxes or receive a check from the government. When a sitting president pats the leg of our enemy (yes believe it or not Russia does not have our best interests at heart) and tells him (to tell his president) to give him a little more time because after the election he will have more "flexibility", we should demand to have an explanation as to what that caught-on-an-open-mic comment meant! We know they were not discussing dinner plans. Our embassies are under attack and being closed, our foreign policy IS pro-Islamist, our president meets with the "elected" leader of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, yet refers to Egypt as "not our ally", while refusing to meet with Israel's (our ally) Netanyahu, and as reported attends less than half of the daily foreign policy briefings (Bush rarely missed one), we must let our voices be heard! Can we vote Democrat on this issue? NOPE!

In conclusion, the best statement I have seen lately is this, "Voting for Obama again is like backing up the Titanic and running into the iceberg again." NOPE!

Jim DeJarnatt
Weston, MO