Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

After much reflection I have decided to write this letter both as a document of inquiry and protest. An officer of the Secret Service came to my office where I counsel people about the most intimate and troubled details of their lives, and asked me to explain statements made concerning Barack Obama. The officer knew, or should have known, with a minimum of due diligence, that those statements could not possibly be construed in any way as a threat to the physical safety of Obama. Time after time in my statements I have made clear that any action taken against Obama should be done within the bounds of legal process. Yet this agent came into this church, this sacred soil where God dwells, with seven men including members of the New York Police Department, to ask me to explain statements. I made clear that any action taken against Obama should be done within the bounds of legal process. It suggests to me that either your agency is incompetent or that you came with an insidious intent.

Besides the fact that I have openly declared that any action against Obama should be lawful and constitutionally prescribed, you also know that I have done no act that could remotely constitute a crime or justify your pollution of this holy space with your presence. The freedom of speech is, or at least was sacrosanct in this nation. The fact that I made statements, however strong and distasteful to you, does not warrant your agent coming to my office with six other men in tow to ask me my meaning. While your agent “needed” three men by his side to ask me a question in my office there were three other men outside of this house taking pictures. Your time would have been better served guarding the White House from uninvited guests.

Your agent came here because he wanted to send me a message. Your agent wanted me to know that I am being watched. If it were otherwise he would have come and arrested me. You wanted in essence, to chill speech. It is therefore you and not I who pose the danger to all that is lawful.

Now your actions create a presumption, but it is rebuttable, so I give you the opportunity to explain yourself. What specifically did I say that causes you concern and why? Why did he need the New York City Police Department to follow him? Why were men taking pictures of this house of worship? What clippings of my sermons and statements other than the one in question have been reviewed? What specific actions as opposed to speech, have I taken that are illegal? And finally, have you read the Supreme Court cases on inflammatory speech where even the overthrow of the government by violence is constitutionally protected? I deserve answers. Furthermore, there is an old legal doctrine that silence in the face of an accusation which one ought to answer constitutes consent or admission. If you choose not to answer this letter, you have already answered.

In His Royal Service,
The Honorable James Manning

cc: Mark Sullivan, Director of United States Secret Service