Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page

A Profound Act of Love
Open, Honest Discussion

[COMMENT:   This is another email to someone in response to their reply to my critique of Obama.  The original piece below is from another respondent.   So  you might want to read it first.       E. Fox]

Dear XXX,
        Yes, my comments [see the piece below] are shocking, right in tune, I think, with the state of America.  But I do not plan to be shocking, only truthful.  Sometimes truth is shocking.  You complain that my utterances are not fact but opinion.  Well, they are certainly my opinion, but that does not make them less than fact.  Whether they are fact or not is, surely, a matter to be tested by an open discussion between us and others on the matter.  Any one of us could be wrong.  Hopefully, all of us are willing to be tested in that. 
        You are, in my humble and very fallible opinion, wrong about Obama.  My opinion is that he is deliberately hiding his past from the public.  He could resolve the whole issue by letting the public see his alleged real birth certificate.  My understanding is that the certificate which people can see is of a type which can be given out to persons who are not natural born citizens, so it proves nothing at all. 

        Why has he spent something approaching $1,000,000 in legal fees (funded by the Globalists or the Democratic Party?) to hide his birth certificate, his education history, and his military history -- if not to keep something secret?   Why do the American people trust anyone to handle the levers of massive US power who will not open the vaults of his relevant past to public view?   That is insanity, cowardice, gross ignorance, or ......  on our part.
        Why do the courts, over and over, refuse to honor petitions to have the matter reviewed in an open and honest way, where both sides would have to present their evidence?  Why do the courts say that these petitioners "have no standing".  No standing!?  Any American citizen has standing to petition the government for redress of grievances (see first amendment in the Bill of Rights).  Especially on any issue which affects us all.  One more trashing of the Constitution. 
        I am not myself a constitutional scholar, but am becoming one.  I am in conversation with some folks who are constitutional scholars, some of whom are professors and argue cases before the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has indeed been changing laws, but not legally.  They began that practice during the 1950's, and pulled off an act of treason in 1962 with the Engle v. Vitale case, in which they outlawed prayer.  That was just for starters.  One of them said, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."  That is treasonous grab for power.  The Constitution means no such thing.  (By "treason", by the way, I mean a clear violation of their oath to protect, defend, and be submitted to the Constitution in their governing of us.)
        The Constitution means what the people under God (not the Court) say it means.  They gutted the legitimacy of the government -- according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and of common law for centuries (as per the Magna Carta which is part of the common law in America).  The Declaration asserts that our rights come from God.  That is the most basic foundation of our government.  Inviting God to butt out means that our rights are determined by the government, which can then take them away.  They are no longer unalienable.  And the government is taking them away.   As with "hate-crime" laws -- violating the very heart of our Constitution, the providing of a level playing field upon which any issue could be debated freely, with candor, mutual respect, and in the search for truth. 
        Treason is a nasty word, but that describes what the Court did and continues to do -- gathering autocratic power to itself, throwing out all checks and balances which it could get its hands on.  And we ignorant Americans have let them get away with it.   Engle v Vitale was the first decision in Supreme Court history for which the court cited no precedent -- because there was none, none at all.  They made up the 'no prayer' nonsense whole cloth.  And we the people bought into the lie that they can change the law.  The president should have said what Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln said in similar cases, "NO!".  They refused to enforce a court decision because they were independent of the judiciary and could, when necessary, come to their own opinion about what is and is not constitutional.   Ditto for the legislature.  It is not bound by an opinion of the Supreme Court about what is constitutional. 
        The same malfeasance has been repeated in Massachusetts and California in the illegal mandating of homosexual marriage.  The courts were used to set up a scam, which allowed the governors to say, "The court made me do it."  They lied.  The courts made them do nothing at all.  Both state constitutions are rock solid clear about who can change the law, and the courts are not included.  Read them.   Romney and Schwarzenegger were not ignorant.  They were treasonous liars. 
        There is nothing, nothing at all, in the national Constitution which says that the US Supreme Court can on its own throw out a law.  If  you want to know what American government is about, I would suggest reading the Declaration, Constitution, and a good dose of original source document early American history.  CBS will not tell you. 
        You dismissed and reviled the facts which I proposed, but then you quote what you believe to be facts as though they were infallible.  From where do you get the idea that 97% of Americans trust Obama's eligibility?  I was at a meeting of some 3000+ people recently, probably all of whom would have agreed with my statements. 

        My statement about Obama may have been offensive to you.  I am not intending to offend.  If I speak the truth offensively, that is my problem.  If truth offends, that is the hearer's problem.  But I am sure enough intending to speak the truth as I understand it.  I say nothing but what I am willing to put up for open discussion.  I am not interested in being told that my words are venal (my dictionary links that to bribery), or devoid of balance.    They are written in plain English and are open for testing. 
        That kind of truth-testing is what courts are for.  But Obama is not allowing we, the people, to pursue that course.  That is another act of malfeasance.  So I hope that America will wake up before it is too late to stop the drift toward totalitarianism without, sooner or later, another civil war.  The issues before us are that deep. 
        Having said all that, please understand that I love you and the others who disagree with me.  But loving does not mean abandoning what I believe the truth to be.  It does mean insisting on an open arena in which all persons can express their views, on the condition that we are each willing to let the others critique our view -- with a hope of arriving at the truth of the matter.  That is precisely what our Constitution was written (as directed, yes, by God) to provide for America.  Any one of us could be right or wrong, and the only way to find out is to have the open discussion -- which is, surely, a profound act of love, and for which we should be willing to die (thank you, Patrick Henry). 

        Addenda:  No one has yet responded to my challenge from below....

If you were building a bridge over a chasm, and advertized for a 
contractor to build it, and if the contractor said that he had a license 
to do so, and degrees for an education which supported his claims, 
but that he would not allow you to see any of that, what would you do?
Blessings, Earle  


Original Email Critiquing Obama
I am responding in fuchsia to the email in black,
which is a different correspondent from the one above..  E. Fox

> i think it's wonderful to live in a country and time where people are free
> to throw up any possible objection they can come up with to current
> programs, ideas, trends, and personalities--even when so many of those
> objections, upon investigation, turn out to be unfounded.   
        Agreed.  Is what I say below unfounded? 
> i think it's strange to live in a country and time where someone who calls
> for changes in a system that we all know has got problems should be so feared.
        If you are referring to Obama as the "someone", I disagree.  We rightly fear a man who promotes the unfettered murder of babies in the womb.  We rightly fear a man who, for all practical purposes, lies to the people about his birth and eligibility to be president.  We rightly fear a man who continues to centralize government rather than disperse its power back to the most local authority possible.  We rightly fear a man who trashes the very covenant document by which he is to be kept under the control of the people who elected him. 

> i think it's sad to live in a country and time that has developed the best
> system that mankind has yet known for expressing the people's will, and yet
> should be so mistrusted.
        Agreed, but probably for opposite reasons.  My sadness is the reasons for the mistrust, as partially given above.  If Obama and his handlers have their way, we will shortly be under the dominion of persons we do not elect, who will have a monopoly on all coercive power, who will control the money and economy of America from outside America, our globalist friends.  Is that not a reason for sadness?   We indeed used to have the best system in the world.  But it has been coopted by persons who have no use for it, mainly the Wall Street financial folks who have bought out the system and run it through control of our money system (Fed Reserve, etc.).  
> i'd like to be able to let the courts work all this out, and trust in their
> judgment.  if i couldn't do that, i'd give up my complaining, for my own
> peace of mind, and think about moving to another country.
        What have the courts to do with working this out?  Our constitution does not give them the authority to do so.  They have no authority to change the law, no authority to rewrite the Constitution.  Only we the People can change that document.  Their authority extends only to the case at hand, not to the general law.  Beyond the case at hand, they have only advisory authority.  Both the legislature and the executive powers have the right and duty to ignore the court on a decision which they consider to be contrary to the Constitution.   That is part of the meaning of having three independent branches of government, separation of powers. 

        The actual, de facto ruling powers in all three branches are pretty much in cahoots on the issues, and so can cooperate on working out their schemes, such as the enforcing of illegal marriage document changes in both Massachusetts and California.  
But America is so deeply brainwashed that it cannot stand up and protect its own freedom from scam after scam. 
        I repeat my query for one and all:        
If you were building a bridge over a chasm, and advertized for a 
contractor to build it, and if the contractor said that he had a license 
to do so, and the degrees for an education which supported his claims, 
but that he would not allow you to see any of that, what would you do?
        If a man cannot come clean about his past when applying for the authority to rule over us, then his attempts  deserve nothing but contempt and rejection.  We are not talking about fun and games, we are talking about holding the levers of power which affect the lives and futures of millions of persons, really billions.  What kind of people have we become?  Have we lost our minds?  
        We, the People, are  not obligated in the least to respect Obama's privacy on the matters of meeting the Constitutional requirements to stand for President.  He is under the highest obligation to the people to be open and honest with us.  He has not done that.  He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiding his education, military history, his birth cert, just about every relevant aspect of his personal history.   
        There will be bloodshed in our streets if this kind of behavior persists at the highest levels of government.  We are right back to 1776, with little significant leadership to lead us out of this moral and spiritual morass.   Except God Himself and His servants.   (You might take a look at www.aipnews.com, and Alan Keyes.)
        Read the Declaration of Independence
and Patrick Henry's speech (http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/PatHenLbDth.htm)  in Virginia as the British were devastating Boston.      
        And while  you're at it, the Constitution:
        Every American ought to know these three documents.  And ought to know the Biblical basis upon which alone they could ever have been written.  
        The good news is that Montana, Texas, and several other states are beginning to tell the Fed that they will no longer honor the Fed's misuse of the Constitution beyond the stated limits of the Fed's power.  Thanks be to God! 
Love, again....    E. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Apologetics;   Obama;   Constitution;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  05/06/2009   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012