Go to: => TOP Page; What's New? Page; ROAD MAP; Shopping Mall; Emmaus Ministries Page; Search Page
[COMMENT: We have
been watching the end of Western Civilization for many decades. One can assign
the French Revolution as the beginning, perhaps. But the American
Revolution threatened to reverse that. Since then, however, the
centralizing forces (whether right or left matters little) have systematically
subverted our Constitutional Republic under God, so that what we have today is
an empty shell.
The attempt by the Democrats, and hardly resisted by the Republicans, to ignore the Constitutional requirement for a President to be a natural born citizen is a symbolic sign that the "living Constitution" is in fact dead. We have a government by persons, not by laws -- persons who can change the laws of the land at will. That is the meaning of tyranny.
I would place the date of the end of America as 1962, with the Supreme Court "Engel vs. Vitale" decision, in which God was told that He could no longer talk to our children in government-run school, nor they to Him. Prayer was not the issue. The issue was sovereignty. Who will be boss? Either Jesus will be Lord, or civil government will be lord.
The government voted in favor of itself, but in doing so divested itself of all right to be obeyed. It lost its legitimacy, which can be had only under the law and grace of God. (See Defining 'Oughtness' & 'Love'.)
What Keyes is saying below is that the Supreme Court must determine whether Obama indeed has a rightful claim to be an American citizen by virtue of natural birth. Was he or was he not born on American soil? If not, then he cannot be the president of the United States. Any presidency would be no legal standing.
If Obama is not a natural born citizen, and if he nevertheless is allowed to take the oath of office, his oath will mean nothing at all, and his office will still be empty of a legitimate sitting president. That will put every official act of Obama in question, and put the oaths of office of every other federal government official in America, of every federal police and military person, in question. How can they obey the commands of a man who is not legally the President of the United States?
The Constitution will have been made a mockery, and Obama will know that he is free to do whatever he likes with it. It is just a piece of paper. That is tyranny, not a democratic republic under God.
Obama is no Christian, he has no testimony of personal relationship to Jesus Christ. He is a smorgasbord theologian, a bit of this and a bit of that, "honoring" all religions.
He is a dishonest man, refusing to give an honest account of his birth or of his college career, and perhaps other things, when asked by the very people whom he is to serve.
He is a power-seeking man, pitting his dishonesty toward getting control of the most powerful military and economic machine in the world.
He is a dangerous man. If he will dissemble to get this power, he will dissemble to keep it -- at the expense of the people. He is not willing that we, the people, should know whether he is a citizen of Kenya, of Great Britain, of Indonesia, or of the United States of America.
If it should turn out that he is a natural born citizen of Kenya, and not of America, then his presidency will be a legal shambles, even if he later gained US citizenship.
But this fact that is the worst of all -- that the people of America have elected into the highest office in the land, Barak Obama, a man who may be a citizen of another country, who will have his finger on atomic weapons, and be in command of the most powerful military ever in history.
Because he will not reveal to the public neither his birth certificate, nor his college records, and shows other signs of being a manipulator, every person in America who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution has the inalienable obligation to call this whole process to a stop until the facts are made clear. Barak Obama is or is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
The American people no longer know how to govern themselves, and are voting themselves into a tyranny from which they will not be able to vote themselves out.
For further items on Obama, go to http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/00Pol.htm#Barack_Obama E. Fox]
By Ambassador Alan Keyes
Worldnet Daily December 04, 2008
The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of
another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by
those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the
transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the
detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance
of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in
fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as
sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.
At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same
occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect
of the first "African-American" president, and the supposed implications of
his election as a breakthrough in the history of "race" relations in the
United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background
and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history,
historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents
the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first
American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the
unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal
history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for
the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore
determined the government of the United States.
Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional
republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the
United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty,
has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself
included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a
merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict,
embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now
this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that
formally preserve its authority.
Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense
the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the
president of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift
of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or
conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age.
It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United
Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan
grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a
natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are,
there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a
conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for
the Constitution's authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the
United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United
States, by what authority will he govern?
Relying on the results of the recent election, some will say "by the
authority of the people," which is to say the majority of the people which
elected him. But until now, the United States has not been simply a
democratic republic (that is, a regime in which the sovereign power follows
the will of the simple majority) but a constitutional democratic republic
(in which the sovereign power follows the will of the constitutional
majority, and is bound by the terms and conditions specified in the
Constitution.) The best illustration of the difference may be taken from the
very history Obama's election is supposed to culminate - the history of
black Americans. In 1954, when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in
the famous Brown v. Board desegregation case, the simple majority of the
American people had repeatedly and continuously accepted or tolerated
segregation, both in their election of representatives and in the
legislation passed by those representatives. The Court held segregation to
be contrary to the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) and therefore
unlawful. Its authority to do so rests on the clear logic of judicial review
succinctly articulated by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers:
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a
fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as
well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the
two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course,
to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred
to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial
to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is
superior to both: and that where the will of the legislature, declared in
its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the
Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the
former. They ought to regulate their decision by the fundamental laws,
rather than by those which are not fundamental. (Federalist 78)
Though the results of any given election also represent the
will of the
people, the validity of those results rests on the substantive and
procedural understanding arrived at by the people and expressed in the
provisions of the constitutional compact. In it, the people have agreed
that, first in its adoption and then in the adoption of any changes in its
terms, a more comprehensive majority is required than that which decides the
outcome of any other election prescribed by it. The need for this more
comprehensive majority makes the Constitution a more permanent and durable
expression of the will of the people than any subsequent action by a simple
majority. In this context, those who compose the simple majority are, like
the members of the legislature, subordinate agents of the constitutional
Almost all the great advances of the civil rights cause in the 20th century
depended upon this argument as to the authority of the Constitution. The
concept of constitutional review has also been crucial in the protection of
individual rights, including the property rights of those who might
otherwise be despoiled by intemperate majorities, roused to injustice by
If Barack Obama is allowed to assume the office of president without
positively establishing his eligibility under the Constitution, it will set
a precedent for exempting the allocation of executive power from
constitutional restrictions on the pretext that majority support overrules
constitutional authority, popularity supersedes the fundamental law.
Obviously, this is a recipe for the establishment of democratic
dictatorship, like that which characterized the revolutionary first republic
in France and licensed its murderous excesses. It is the counterpart of the
"democratic people's republics" in whose name countless millions were
imprisoned and killed by oppressive party dictatorships in the Soviet Union,
Communist China, North Korea, etc.
In an era when the insecurity implied by the threat of terrorist attack
already overshadows our liberties, only one thing may be more dangerous to
our freedom than such a precedent - the fact that it comes about because of
the ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition of those sworn to uphold the
Constitution. If they lack the character to do so now, before abuses of
executive power create an environment of physical fear and intimidation,
what must we expect once those abuses produce their inevitable effect? The
people mesmerized by his tinsel rhetoric may expect Obama to resist the
temptations of demagogic tyranny, but if he assumes office knowing that in
doing so he has already successfully set aside the Constitution, no
reasonable person could agree with them. As Shakespeare wrote, "Things bad
begun make strong themselves by ill." ("Macbeth," Act 3, Scene 2)
Since every government official in the United States is sworn to uphold the
Constitution, all of them, at every level, have a positive obligation to
make sure its provisions are implemented. With regard to the issue of
Obama's eligibility to serve as president, a special responsibility falls
upon the Supreme Court of the United States. Though in the end, the actual
implementation of the Constitution must at this stage be left to the members
of the Electoral College (who will also be bound by oath to respect the
Constitution), the Supreme Court has the duty that falls to the judiciary in
every case, to make sure the provisions of the law are clearly understood,
and that relevant facts are presented and have not been falsified or
fraudulently withheld. Since the case involves a general election, in which
millions of citizens participated, prudence dictates that this be done in a
way that assures those millions that the law has been respected, which means
that relevant facts and evidence must be publicly presented to the fullest
A failure of statesmanship in this matter could obviously have the gravest
consequences. It would be inexcusable dereliction to permit a situation in
which the putative authority of a sitting president is plainly contradicted
by the authority of the Constitution from which the whole government derives
its legitimacy. Citizens, sworn officials of government at every level,
members of the military - all would be put in a position where their sworn
duty to the Constitution is in opposition to their inclination to respect
the decisions and actions of the president of the United States. Both
intellect and conscience recoil at the prospect of such conflicting claims.
I pray that the justices of the Supreme Court, and other officials sworn to
uphold the Constitution, will do and be seen to do their duty. Otherwise
Obama's vaunted promise of change will portend the demise of America's
A high-level Reagan era diplomat, a media personality and a conservative
political activist, Alan Keyes is well-known as a staunch pro-life champion
and a leader in the effort to restore the eroded sovereignty of the American
people by securing our borders, abolishing the federal income tax and
bringing the federal Judiciary back within proper constitutional bounds. He
formally severed his Republican affiliation in April and was the
presidential nominee of America's Independent Party in 2008. More
information and useful links can be found at:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *