“I thought then that opportunity was all he lacked to be their equals in atrocity,” Keyes writes of Obama. “I am even more certain of it now. For he and all those who collaborate with him have been working hard to supply that deficiency, and they are close to their goal.”
Keyes writes that he was not proud to see Obama elected president, just as he wouldn’t be proud to see “a serial killer elected president just because his skin wasn’t white.” He notes that “comparing Obama to a serial killer” isn’t so far off since modern history “offers ample proof that government officials who conform themselves to evil ideologies are more than likely to produce death tolls so massive that no word or phrase truly expresses the enormity of their crimes.”
“I survey the evidence of Obama’s years in office, and the pattern of activity that emerges confirms my longstanding premonition that, like the hardline socialists of the 20th century, he is a harbinger of death, including the tragic death of the conscience, prosperity and just premises of my country,” he adds, warning that Obama will soon use the Trans-Pacific Partnership “to rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution” and further “his importation of foreign cadre into the United States religiously or ideological committed to the destruction of our people, our unalienable rights and the freedoms (like freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion) without which we will be helpless to articulate and/or organize to defend those rights.”
When people who approach me as fellow “conservatives” ask me who I support or might support for president in the GOP primaries I immediately feel a mingled sense of irritation and anger. It reminds me of the way I felt in 2008 when media types asked me whether I felt proud to see Obama occupy the Oval Office. Would I feel proud to see a serial killer elected president just because his skin wasn’t white (or, more accurately, pink)? In that case I would regard even the temptation to feel pride as duress, which threatened the life of my soul.
Bridle if you like at the effrontery of comparing Obama to a serial killer. The 20th century offers ample proof that government officials who conform themselves to evil ideologies are more than likely to produce death tolls so massive that no word or phrase truly expresses the enormity of their crimes. What I learned about Obama as I prepared to run against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004 convinced me that he was a hardline socialist ideologue, in the ruthless, self-worshiping mold Hitler and Stalin had in common.
I thought then that opportunity was all he lacked to be their equals in atrocity. I am even more certain of it now. For he and all those who collaborate with him have been working hard to supply that deficiency, and they are close to their goal. His facile tolerance for the extermination of Christians and other non-Muslim populations in the Middle East (like the Yazidi) lends credibility to the suspicion that the fatal Benghazi debacle came to pass in the course of covert efforts to supply arms to anti-Syrian Muslims, including the religiously genocidal mass murderers in ISIS.
I survey the evidence of Obama’s years in office, and the pattern of activity that emerges confirms my longstanding premonition that, like the hardline socialists of the 20th century, he is a harbinger of death, including the tragic death of the conscience, prosperity and just premises of my country. The touted leaders of the GOP are supposed to be his opponents. When it suits their ambition for power, they make shift to sound like it. When it is likely to be of no effect, they even support bits and pieces of legislation they can point to as proof of their commitment to the things they were elected to champion and defend.
But like the show trials of the Stalin era, in what was then the Soviet Union, these bills are for show. Since Obama took office, what has actually come to pass, by the GOP’s action or inaction, has reflected, funded or tolerated a wholesale assault on the Constitution and laws of the United States. Now the GOP’s quisling leaders in Congress are working to assure passage of a trade deal that reportedly includes provisions that will give cover to Obama’s ongoing circumvention of the laws on immigration; his persistent will to rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution; and his importation of foreign cadre into the United States religiously or ideological committed to the destruction of our people, our unalienable rights and the freedoms (like freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion) without which we will be helpless to articulate and/or organize to defend those rights.
Abbott has since tried to distance himself from the conspiracy theory, but Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., has demanded — and apparently received — a meeting with military leaders over the matter.
Jade Helm 15 is just the latest in a litany of far-right conspiracy theories about President Obama planning a military takeover of the country. While none of the theories has ever actually panned out, far-right pundits and activists keep inventing new ones, insisting that whoever doesn’t agree with them either doesn’t see the truth or is enabling Obama’s dictatorial agenda.
Remember: Obama’s plot against America goes all the way back to his birth…
1) Barack the Baby Communist
Faith 2 Action founder Janet Porter, who recently worked with Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and several GOP candidates on a film about how the gay rights movement will “criminalize Christianity,” revealed to WorldNetDaily readers just two weeks into Obama’s first term that she had learned through a chain email that the president had been planted as a baby by Russian communists who would use him to take over America.
“I can’t prove whether it’s true or not, but in light of all that is happening, it just doesn’t seem that far-fetched anymore,” Porter wrote, claiming that the letter was “not some e-mail scam” and that she personally reached out to its source to confirm the details.
According to the email’s author, during the early 1990s he met two Russian scientists, spouses “V.M” and “T.M,” who told him that “you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist” … named “Barack.” The Russians continued:
This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your president.
It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America
The female scientist seemed to know a lot about this young man: “She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the Legislature. ‘Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet …. [H]e will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.’ She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism, and Barack was going to pave the way.”
As it turned out, every single word in this chain email was true! Maybe. And now, Obama is on the brink of taking over America with his secret squads of Obamacare militias, immigrants, African Americans and/or foreign troops.
2) Obamacare Squads
Before joining the Family Research Council, retired Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin released a video with the far-right group the Oak Initiative suggesting that Obama is leading a “Marxist insurgency” in the U.S. He claimed that Obama inserted into the Affordable Care Act a measure that would create a personal army reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s Brownshirts, warning that the president was “laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.”
Porter joined in in 2012, claiming that FEMA Corps, which trains young people to work in disaster response, might actually be “a standing army to stifle dissent” and “part of a new civilian security force that President Obama has called for in speeches.” WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, who once alleged that Obama sent a secret signal to Muslims to “finish” the Holocaust against the Jews, similarly warned that Obama would soon “move to shut down and destroy all independent media” and would make sure that “his biggest critics will be rounded up in the name of national security.”
3) About That Executive Order…
In 2012, when Obama issued an emergency preparedness executive order similar to ones issued by presidents since Dwight Eisenhower, some right-wing commentators went ballistic since this time, the president was Obama!
“He is openly implementing martial law in this country,” InfoWars host Alex Jones said about the executive order. The executive order, Jones claimed, declared that administration officials would have the power to “secretly arrest Americans and disappear us any time they want” and build “the domestic security force that’s just as big and just as strong as the military Obama’s always talked about as the ‘FEMA Corps.’”
One congressman, then-Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, suggested that the president would use the executive order to seize total power. In fact, Stockman speculated that Obama may have deliberately brought Ebola to America in order to create a crisis to justify the implementation of his order granting himself “emergency powers to take over control of the economy and everything.”
4) Ebola! Remember That?
Last year, four people were diagnosed with Ebola while in the U.S., two after travelling from West Africa and two after caring for an Ebola patient at a hospital in Texas. In the eyes of conservatives, this was a widespread pandemic that was all Obama’s fault.
According to Stockman, Obama may have had an “intentional” plan to bring Ebola into the U.S. “in order to create a greater crisis to use it as a blunt force to say, well in order to solve this crisis we’re going to have to take control of the economy and individuals and so forth…. [T]here may be an overreaction where the government starts taking away the rights of those that aren’t that necessarily involved or need that to happen. I hope that’s not that case but, as you know, this current government uses crisis to advance their philosophy and their agenda.”
Another far-right radio host, Laurie Roth, predicted that Obama would deliberately fuel an Ebola outbreak in order to “create a guise to declare martial law due to created outbreaks,” giving him the power to “control speech, food, travel and health care” and even “demand adults and children take some sort of mandated/mystery vaccination that kills off even more people”:
My prediction is that a forced vaccination plan from Obama and his administration is on its way. This will not only allow someone put in control (so Obama can’t be blamed) to release something potentially fatal into our system, but also act as a tracker – the complete end of our privacy and freedom.
Prior to the Ebola scare, Porter took to WorldNetDaily to predict that Obama would use swine flu to “round up American citizens” and force them into FEMA concentration camps. She also told WorldNetDaily readers that the president, emulating Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, would create “a food shortage” to see that people are “starved to death.”
5) Obama’s Race War Ruse
Since predictions about Obama’s dastardly plan to infect all other Americans with the Ebola virus in order to seize power didn’t exactly come true, conservative activists have turned to recent demonstrations over issues such as racial profiling as another Obama-orchestrated plot to take control of the country.
Others in the right-wing media took similar views. Wiles claimed that protests in Ferguson, Missouri, were all part of a plot to enable “Emperor Obama” to “start a civil war,” which would give him a reason to implement stringent gun control so people could no longer “protect themselves from tyrants.” His fellow conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson said that Obama brought “chaos” to Baltimore just so “he can federalize the police departments around the country.” WorldNetDaily columnist Morgan Brittany claimed that the Baltimore riots were “planned” by the government, which she said is bent on “stirring up unrest” in order to give Obama the justification “to institute martial law to preserve order, form a national police force and postpone the 2016 elections.”
Savage, the conservative radio host, even went so far as to allege that Obama started the riots as a way to send arms to gang members under the pretext of preserving order: “It’s a race war. These are their shock troops, they don’t have the brown shirts yet, they don’t have the armbands, but soon Obama could deputize them. Isn’t that a natural army for him? Take the Crips and the Bloods, give them a green uniform and give them a weapon and they’ll keep order in the streets.”
In another interview, Pratt accused Obama of hoping to “bring violence” and “some kind of social implosion to America” as a way to keep power, with Solomon warning of “an explosion of attacks on haves by have-nots” and “more specifically on white haves by black have-nots; more specifically on Christian, heterosexual white haves by black, Muslim and/or atheist — not that there’s much difference — black have-nots.”
6) Bundy Ranch Standoff
The short-lived standoff between federal law enforcement and Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher and Fox News darling who refused to pay grazing fees for his cattle or to recognize the legal authority of the U.S. government, gave another opportunity for right-wing commentators to warn of an imminent federal takeover spurred on by Obama-instigated violence.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush pointed to the Bundy standoff as proof that “the federal government intends to control everything,” including “our food supply.” Denouncing President Obama as a someone who “embodies the diabolical Manchurian President, clandestinely working to destroy America,” Rush warned that the Bundy standoff might have been a test case for imminent FEMA camp internment.
“Do we wait until a family is slaughtered because they opened fire on government agents executing an illegal raid on their home?” he asked. “Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest ‘domestic terrorists’ as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?”
Televangelist Gordon Klingenschmitt, who has since been elected to the Colorado legislature, said that the federal government dug “mass graves” near the ranch to hold the bodies of the “cowboys” they planned to murder. Wiles had a similar theory:
Civil unrest is brewing, the Obamanistas have tried a number of tactics to insult and infuriate the American people to respond with violence…. I expect dirty Harry Reid and his Washington sidekick Barry Soetoro will send federal agents back to Nevada this summer and my fear is that federal snipers will take out a bunch of cowboys and militia men.
Not only will Obama have loyal armies of doctors, AmeriCorps members, black protesters and gang members, but he will also, according to several conspiracy theorists, create a force of undocumented immigrants — specifically young Central American refugees escaping the drug war — to do his bidding.
Anti-immigrant activist William Gheen offered his own version of this prediction, alleging that the federal government was “going to give the illegal immigrants badges, they’re going to give them guns, and they’re going to put them in positions of authority over Americans in every way imaginable. So when you step out your door and there’s a knock at the door, you’re going to be looking at the new face of the state, which is the prior illegal immigrants that now have a badge and a gun and dominion over you.”
Gheen added that the Obama administration was “supporting the organized and well-funded illegal alien invasion of our homeland” and therefore has “the blood of many thousands of Americans on their hands that have been killed, injured raped and robbed by illegal immigrants,” warning that “center-right, Christian, heterosexual” men were particularly at risk.
Gheen even told Jones, the “InfoWars” host, that the young immigrants were the pawns and child soldiers of U.S. “elites” who want to subjugate patriotic Christians: “They’re willing to literally say and do anything that their new masters call on them to do to protect their position. Once Obama rams these ‘kids’ in, gives them their Obamaphone, enrolls them in Obamacare, puts them in a public school, pays for their housing, pays for their food…these people will do anything that their leaders call on them to do and I do mean anything.”
Alan Keyes wondered if Obama, whom he thinks wants to become America’s “Führer,” was “importing” immigrants “in order to facilitate what I think is an overthrow of our Constitution.”
WorldNetDaily’s resident health “expert” Elizabeth Lee Vliet claimed that the government would use a “flood of illegals” who carry exotic diseases to “overwhelm and collapse the economic and social systems, in order to replace them with a ‘new socialist order’ under federal control.”
8) Obama’s Atheist/Islamic/Canadian/Alien Army
Building off the birther conspiracy theory that Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen and the general right-wing belief that he is not a real American, several conservative activists believe that the president will use foreign forces, outside of just immigrants and health care workers, to oppress Americans.
According to Bill Federer, a Religious Right “historian,” the Arab Spring was designed by nefarious forces who wanted to create a surge in Muslim refugees who would then settle in the U.S. in order to establish Islamic “sleeper cells.” Soon, these sleeper cells would “get a signal to have Ferguson riots in malls across America,” which would give Obama the justification to “restore order” by setting up a “militarized dictatorship.” Obama, Federer warned, could follow in the footsteps of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot in killing millions of Christians.
Federer cited a man named Avi Lipkin, who apparently heard from his wife, who heard from an unspecified Arabic-language broadcast, about a plot to bring millions of Muslim refugees into the country in order to bring about Sharia law. Lipkin alleged that Obama was “going to bring in 50 to 100 million Muslims” and settle them in national parks and “lands confiscated by Agenda 21” — a sustainable development initiative that is at the center of its very own right-wing conspiracy theory — ultimately forcing America to “surrender its Christianity” in the face of a new “Muslim majority.” Then, Obama would establish a “dictatorship” … with the help of “the Masons, the Illuminati [and] the Trilateral Commission.”
Lipkin and Federer, however, don’t hold a candle to Jim Garrow, a right-wing activist who believes that Obama tried to kill 300 million Americans with an EMP attack for the sake of enriching George Soros and giving him the chance to live in a luxurious bunker underneath the White House. Garrow also believes that Obama will try to improve his poll numbers by claiming that he is able to communicate with aliens, but if they plummet any further and Americans start to revolt, then Obama will “ask [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper to send troops into America to help quell the rioting and vice versa.”
Jones talked to another “real source” about the need to “brace for a nuclear attack in South Carolina,” who alleged that Charleston was the target because of the presence of U.S. submarines: “This is a false flag operation, a major false flag, that is about to occur because if they take out our naval base in Charleston, they will cripple about one-third of our fleet ballistic missile submarine force.”
“Everything they are doing is like trying to set America up,” Jones replied, wondering if “Obama is like a triple agent of the globalists, we know that, and they are maneuvering America towards a set-up to destroy us and then Homeland Security will then detonate nukes in all of our bases as an inside sneak attack.”
“This ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war,” Jones said in another commentary about the matter. “I just wish to God that this wasn’t happening,” he said.
This is the same Alex Jones who launched Jade Helm 15 into the GOP mainstream and led to such a fear that the governor of Texas ordered the National Guard to monitor the U.S. military during the drill.
Of course, when one conspiracy theory fails to materialize, radio hosts like Alex Jones just move on to the next one, and then eventually, Republican politicians just move along with them.
He explained that “if we all woke up tomorrow morning and decided that our sexual preference is homosexual” and “we shall have nothing to do with the opposite sex,” then we would turn to scientists to meddle with DNA in an effort to carry on the species, which would ultimately lead to human extinction.
“Our friends in the ‘global climatological change movement’ or whatever they’re calling it these days” should oppose gay rights, he said, because “they want us to understand that there’s a common good, not just of all humanity but of all creation and if we do something to damage all creation, we’ve done something that’s just intolerable.”
Joining other Religious Right activists who warn that the Supreme Court will spark a civilwar if the it strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, Alan Keyes writes in WorldNetDaily today that a ruling in favor of gay rights will “be just cause for war.”
Keyes claims that such a decision “will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States” that, “like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War,” will “bring the nation to the brink” and represent “a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States.”
The United States Supreme Court may presently make a decision discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right. By defect of reason and respect for the Constitution, the decision will return the people of this country to the condition of constantly impending war characteristic of the human condition when and wherever the just premises of government are abandoned.
A decision degrading the natural right of marriage, endowed by the Creator, to the status of a fiat right, fabricated by government, will be unconstitutional on the face of it, because it disparages an antecedent right, retained by the people, which disparagement is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth amendment. Under present circumstances, the decision will also invite conflict on account of the openly flaunted prejudice of two of the justices participating in it.
If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court’s decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.
Like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War, the Court’s action will bring the nation to the brink, whence “nothing but confusion and disorder will follow. …” If the justices do not tread carefully, their temerity could very well set in motion the death throes of what is still supposed to be their country. “Forbid it, Almighty God!”
Alan Keyes is out with a column today suggesting that President Obama, his opponent in the 2004 U.S. Senate election in Illinois, is using the riots in Baltimore to begin “consolidating dictatorial power” in order to impose “totalitarian central control” over the nation.
“Though many refuse to admit it, the American people are already into the first courses of a new civil war,” Keyes writes, claiming that the nation is divided between those who call “upon the Creator, God” and Obama and the demonstrators in Baltimore who believe in “raw, material power, where justice is the good of the stronger.”
He then compares the current Baltimore protesters to the Confederate sympathizers and Lincoln opponents who rioted in the city in 1861 against the Civil War: “Baltimore is ablaze with riotous violence, as it was in early courses of the last Civil War. This time, too, that violence may come, on demand, from those who hate the premises of America’s Declaration of right, rights and justly delimited government.”
Or worse still for the elitist faction propagandists, they might react by raising such issues in racial terms. They might wonder aloud whether it is merely coincidence that, under the leadership of the man elected as “the first Black American President” the nation has declined in economic terms and in terms of social cohesion and international respect.
They might wonder aloud whether it is merely coincidence that episodes of supposedly race-based unrest fit the paradigm of creatively destructive crises celebrated in Obama’s socialist background as ideal opportunities for consolidating dictatorial power.
They might question the wisdom, and suspect the motivation of people who insist on defining issues that involve respect for fundamental and unalienable human rights and dignity in terms that instead offer excuses for replacing state and local self-government with increasingly totalitarian central control.
The question of what happened to Freddie Gray is first and foremost an issue of justice for an individual human being. In addition to legal and political processes and contacts, non-violent public demonstrations may be needed to make sure that issue is addressed. But riotous acts supersede and distract from it. They make it more difficult and unlikely that simple justice will be served. The individual’s death becomes fodder in a struggle for power in which demands for justice are simply ammunition.
This is, of course, exactly how socialist ideologues look upon individual human beings. Socialism is about impersonal “forces of history”, not God-endowed, uniquely created human persons. Individualism dissolves into the wave of history, only taking distinctive shape again in the dictatorial personalities who signify its leading edge.
Though many refuse to admit it, the American people are already into the first courses of a new civil war. This time it is not about the wound inflicted by an injustice that defies our ground of unity. It about whether we shall continue to stand upon that ground, which is an understanding of justice that transcends human will and power. In this war, one side calls upon the Creator, God. The other evokes no god but History: i.e., the heartless progression of events determined in the end by raw, material power, where justice is the good of the stronger, and no injustice is acknowledged but in the complaints of those too weak and powerless to impose their will.
Baltimore is ablaze with riotous violence, as it was in early courses of the last Civil War. This time, too, that violence may come, on demand, from those who hate the premises of America’s Declaration of right, rights and justly delimited government. Others will twist Baltimore’s present smoldering this way and that to serve their stupid, selfish ambitions. But the true diagnosis of its plight lies beyond political parties, or factional ambition and racial manipulation.
In a WorldNetDaily column titled “Is Iran Deal Part Of Obama-3rd-Term Scheme?,” conservative activist Alan Keyes writes today that President Obama has made a secret deal with Iran that allows the country to “unleash nuclear destruction” since it would give him the justification to launch a Nazi-style “coup d’état” here at home.
Keyes, who was Obama’s GOP challenger in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, alleges that Obama is aiding both ISIS and Iran in order to create an excuse to illegaly remain in power after his second term in office.
“What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?,” Keyes asks.
“Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States?”
A steady diet of meticulously depicted violence, served up in films and interactive video games, has probably brought some Americans to the point where they react to recorded images of beheadings and other mass atrocities from a place of emotional stupefaction. But if Americans want to think clearly about the Obama faction’s role in arming ISIS terror, or their treacherous deal with the moguls of Shiite terrorism in Iran, we must overcome this stupefaction.
The fact that Obama has come to terms with such masterminds of evil ought to produce the sort of revulsion that demands an emetic remedy, lest we die. So does the likelihood that Obama, Hilary [sic] Clinton and their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood had a hand in arming the malevolent Islamic State forces Obama’s de facto alliance with Iran now purports to fight.
The “experts” and pundits reacting with alarm to Obama’s apparently self-contradictory rapprochement with deadly evil speak of his ambition to secure a triumph for his foreign-policy legacy, or his failure to appreciate the real nature of the dangers involved in thinking that Iran can be safely installed as the stabilizing power in the Middle East. Most don’t even hint at what may be his most sinister aim, i.e., “to take America down.”
The Obama administration now appears to include people at the highest level disloyal enough to form a de facto alliance with America’s most outspoken and implacable enemies. They have agreed to look the other way while Iran finishes the work needed to construct weapons that put them in a position to force us to choose between complying with their agenda and unleashing nuclear destruction.
Who among us thinks that, like the generation fresh from the triumphs of the last World War, our current self-serving politicos have the experience, moral probity and courage to face that choice of evils? Who is honestly sure that they aren’t already preparing an exit strategy that leaves their own factional power intact, even if America is no longer free?
What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?
There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?
You may believe a coup d’état “could never happen here.” But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It’s is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler’s faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn’t it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?
Warning that the legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow jeopardize the survival of humankind, Alan Keyes writes today that states like Indiana are right to pass laws which could discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.
Keyes writes in a column at BarbWire that the purpose of marriage is “to perpetuate the human species” since it is “sourced in the authority of the Creator, and therefore antecedent to any and all humanly constructed rights.”
“Given that same sex couplings are, as such, barren,” he adds, they therefore do not have the right to marry: “For if made into a law for all, over time the concrete material manifestation of humanity would cease to exist.”
“This large-scale extinction of humanity now seems to be an acceptable goal for some elements of what I call the elitist faction,” Keyes said. “For the sake of the earth, of ecology, of environmental balance and purity, they seem to have conceived a righteous hatred against the existence of the human species, and therefore against its procreation.”
In recent years, some judges and justices in the U.S. judicial branch have construed the Constitution so as to fabricate so-called “homosexual marriage rights”. In doing so they have supported the demand that same sex couplings and those of people of different sexes be held in the same regard under the law, and be treated the same when it comes to the legal institution of marriage. When regarded strictly in term of the activities of individuals, this may appear plausible to some people. But as an artifact of just sovereign power, the law cannot be exclusively concerned with individuals when it deals with matters that affect the very nature of humanity itself. In that respect, is there a more obviously natural common good than the perpetuation of humanity as such?
There can be no dispute about the fact that, before some judges and justices in the U.S. judiciary launched their insurrection against their will, the people of the United States defined marriage in terms of the natural common good. They respected, in principle, that institution’s special (i.e., of or related to the species) purpose in relation to the survival of the human race. In this respect, marriage exactly corresponds to an activity that is existentially inseparable from the very nature of humanity, in the most common and concrete sense of the term. Thus understood, marriage is self-evidently an unalienable right, sourced in the authority of the Creator, and therefore antecedent to any and all humanly constructed rights, whatever they may be.
The organic law of the United States acknowledges the authority of the Creator as the primordial and highest authority for the exercise of rights, which is to say, for the lawful permission to do what it is right to do. Right is not sourced in human will, but in the will of the Creator. It is, as President Lincoln put it, “right, as God gives us to see the right.” Unless we mean to deny that it is right, in principle, to perpetuate the human species the right of marriage, defined in terms of that purpose, cannot be denied or disparaged by merely human laws and judgments, including the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution’s Ninth Amendment simply acknowledges, in a general way, what the unalienable right of marriage makes manifest in a concrete and specific way. The judges and justices who assert and demand enforcement of “marriage equality” for same sex couplings therefore face the burden of proving that, like the marriage couplings of men with women, same sex couplings are essential to the concrete perpetuation of the species as a whole. Given that same sex couplings are, as such, barren, this burden appears, on the face of it, impossible to sustain; and of course the U.S. courts have not done so.
No amount of reasoning as to the subjective gratification individuals derive from the spiritual, emotional or physical aspect of same sex couplings is relevant to this burden of proof. It has to do with humanity as a concrete fact, not as a subjective abstraction. This explains the general prejudice of mankind against the institutionalization of such couplings. For if made into a law for all, over time the concrete material manifestation of humanity would cease to exist.
This large-scale extinction of humanity now seems to be an acceptable goal for some elements of what I call the elitist faction. For the sake of the earth, of ecology, of environmental balance and purity, they seem to have conceived a righteous hatred against the existence of the human species, and therefore against its procreation. This may seem right according to their will. But the standard of right on which lawfulness depends, according to the declaration and ordinance by which the people of the United States constitute a nation, is God’s will, not theirs.
After Malzberg asked Keyes about Secretary of State John Kerry’s use of the phrase “inshallah,” an Arabic phrase for “God willing” used by Muslims and Christians alike, Keyes said that Obama administration officials have “a commitment not only to Islam and forces in Islam that have been deeply inimical to the United States but they have a particular commitment to one of the most active governmental forces that has been sponsoring terrorism against the United States and organizations that target the United States.”
Keyes, who once called Obama a Muslim, added that there was “a certain dishonesty about the way that this man ran for office: Who knew that he was going to be the first Islamic president? This was not even allowed to become a focus of any interest because he lied about it and is still lying.”
According to Keyes, a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality “could very well be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision in the 19th century, and just as fraught with potentially fatal implications for the future Liberty and Union of the people of the United States.”
After arguing that same-sex marriages are unconstitutional because such relationships will not lead to procreation and therefore contribute nothing to society, Keyes writes that there is no right to marry. In fact, same-sex marriage, according to Keyes, represents a “humanly fabricated right” that undermines “the unalienable right essential for the natural conception and perpetuation of humanity itself.”
All in all, Keyes concludes that a pro-gay-rights ruling from the Supreme Court will be a reason for a new revolution and civil war.
“This would be an attack on the people of the United States more grievous than that which led the first generation of Americans to declare their independence from Great Britain,” he writes. “If even a significant minority of Americans continue in their attachment to the unalienable right of liberty (as opposed to the licentious freedom that has, in some quarters usurped that name) this attack is likely to produce the separation and dissolution of the United States, for like humanity itself the United States is inconceivable apart from respect for God-endowed unalienable right.”
Over the past several years, I’ve written quite a few articles on the subject of the so-called “right” asserted in respect of “gay marriage. So it is only after much thought that I venture to say that the Supreme Court’s decisions could very well be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision in the 19th century, and just as fraught with potentially fatal implications for the future Liberty and Union of the people of the United States. Many Americans feel that this is so. But when it comes to constitutional law, our feelings cannot be the crux of the matter. Rather we must rely, as the young Abraham Lincoln once said, on “Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason.”
This observation is not only directly relevant to any Constitutional judgment, it is, by the plain language of the Constitution itself, unmistakably conclusive. For the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution plainly states that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This language may or may not apply to certain rights under human law (like, for example, the “right” to own slaves in Virginia at the time the Constitution was adopted) but it certainly applies to any and all “unalienable” rights, since they are an aspect of natural law without which the “human” in “human law” would have no distinctive significance.
The way in which this bears upon the issue of so-called “homosexual marriage” is plainly obvious. Whatever else it may or may not be, homosexuality is not an activity inseparable from the concept of humanity itself. On the other hand, marriage between a man and a woman (especially in the true and natural sense of the union of their identities in the child conceived by their commingled information) is not only necessary for the existence of particular human individuals, it is also and especially necessary for preserving the existence of humanity as such.
In this respect, marriage is not a matter of freedom, but of obligation. It goes beyond the tie between particular men and women to encompass the tie between the existence of humanity as a whole and the activity of each and every human being actually capable of procreation. This intersection of the particular and general good is precisely the sphere that calls for the sovereign to exercise the power of civil government. By nature individuals are inclined instinctively to care for themselves and their loved ones. But to care for the general good of all is one of the defining elements of sovereignty. True justice does so with proper regard for each individual’s God endowed responsibility and capacity for right action, but never acts without regard for the common good that each and all are obliged to respect and serve.
This is the main reason the civil institution of marriage exists in the first place. These days people pretend that serving the good of the whole (.e.g, environmental stewardship) and respecting the good of each individual is an either/or proposition. But as endowed by the Creator, the marriage right is the paradigmatic example of just action that serves the whole while care for each individual as a distinctive and particular whole.
But in respect of the premise of unalienable rights, the Constitution makes it plain that this mutual service to humanity takes precedence over subsequent determinations of right in human law.
Whatever this means for the practice of homosexuality without reference to marriage, it certainly means that no humanly fabricated right can be allowed to deny or disparage the unalienable right essential for the natural conception and perpetuation of humanity itself. Such denigration of antecedent unalienable right would not only be unconstitutional, it would explicitly contravene the aim (to secure unalienable rights) for which all governments are instituted in the first place.
This would be an attack on the people of the United States more grievous than that which led the first generation of Americans to declare their independence from Great Britain. If even a significant minority of Americans continue in their attachment to the unalienable right of liberty (as opposed to the licentious freedom that has, in some quarters usurped that name) this attack is likely to produce the separation and dissolution of the United States, for like humanity itself the United States is inconceivable apart from respect for God-endowed unalienable right.
Longtime conservative activist and former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes appeared on Tuesday’s edition of “Trunews” to warn that President Obama is trying to become the next Adolf Hitler.
Keyes told host Rick Wiles that while the government should follow God’s laws, Obama wants to become God and appoint himself Führer: “We are not, as citizens, always supposed to be trying to lift up some Fuhrer the way the Germans thought. Führer was their word for leader. They wanted to lift up some Führer who would dictate to their country the way Obama is trying to do now and tell us what to do.”
Keyes, who was Obama’s Republican opponent in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, has repeatedly warned that Obama is becoming a Hitleriandictator.
Decrying Obama’s “dictatorial actions,” Keyes accused the president of “importing” undocumented immigrants “in order to facilitate what I think is an overthrow of our Constitution.”
“We’re teetering, we’re more than teetering on the brink, I actually think we’re falling through the abyss, headed toward a rock bottom when our institutions will crumble the way the Twin Towers suddenly fell in that terrible day in 2001,” he said.
Wiles, meanwhile, had his own list of the reasons for America’s looming destruction, all of which predate Obama: “Hugh Hefner’s playboy pornography,” “rebellious rock music,” drug abuse, abortion, feminism, political correctness, homosexuality and socialism.
As everybody knows, America is turning into a chaotic terrorist haven filled with race riots that is also somehow a Nazi police state, or at least that is what we learned this week from some of our favorite right-wing activists and politicians.
Conservative activist Alan Keyes, who apparently has been watching White House speeches on Ferguson that never took place in the real world, accused President Obama today of using the protests over Michael Brown’s death to intimidate Republicans in Congress into yielding to his political agenda.
Keyes, who faced off against Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, told Newsmax TV host Ed Berliner that the president is “exploiting this situation by way of threatening the Republicans, saying that there will be massive unrest if they don’t knuckle under to his will and trying to prove that he’s got the power to turn our cities into powder kegs that will explode in the face of anybody who opposes him.”
“It’s a Hitlerian tactic and I think we ought not to as Americans respond to it with anything but contempt,” he said.
Keyes told WND that Obama is leveling a “malicious attack on the people of the United States” by exposing “the general population of our country to dreadful disease,” even going so far as to link the Ebola virus to the 2012 Benghazi attack.
After wondering if “we actually have people who are vested formally with the power of the executive branch of government who have been aiding and abetting open and declared enemies of the United States,” he called on Congress to investigate Obama administration officials for treason.
Keyes then warned that the White House is “forcing people to raise up their children in a way that promotes homosexuality, forcing people to use their money and time and labor in order to promote and approach to marriage that is contrary to the common good of all humanity” and “forcing people to accept as right the murder of posterity in the womb.”
Keyes also told WND’s Paul Bremmer that court rulings in favor of gay rights remind him of slavery and described Obama as a proponent of “communist socialism”:
“He is basically violating his sworn duty, which is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and to uphold and preserve the Constitution of the United States.”
Second, Keyes said, Obama has abused the force of law by coercing people into violating their consciences. He specifically mentioned policies that force people to either accept or subsidize abortion, “gay marriage” and the homosexual lifestyle, saying such policies violate the First Amendment.
“When Obama gets out there and starts abusing, and others like him, they abuse the court system in order to force people to accept the view that something is right, when according to the laws of nature and of nature’s God it is self-evidently wrong. They are abusing conscience,” Keyes said.
He compared this abuse of conscience to slavery.
“When I read about the slavery of my ancestors, what touched me most and what seemed most horrific to me was not that somebody would force you to labor, not that somebody would force you with whips and stripes and things like this to do their bidding, but when their bidding absolutely contradicted your conscientious understanding of what God required. That they could force you to do evil. And that’s what’s happening in our country now,” Keyes said.
“He sees himself in the vanguard of the dialectic that is going to destroy and replace bourgeois, constitutional self-government based on rights and respect for the dignity of the human person,” Keyes said. “He’s going to replace that with his vision of the historical imperative of communist socialism, or whatever he’s about.”
“The facts suggest he is kind of brilliant,” Keyes said. “He’s a brilliant destroyer of everything American, of every right, of every liberty, of every constitutional premise of this country’s life. He’s brilliant at it, and we are now starting to look like stupid fools for letting him get away with it.”
Alan Keyes, however, thinks Cruz’s staffer was on to something, writing in a column for WorldNetDaily today that President Obama is hoping to bring people with the Ebola virus into America, “each of them carrying a biological weapon of mass destruction,” in order to use the health care law to destroy freedom under the pretext of combating “the resulting health crisis.”
Keyes explains that Obama wants to “spread the Ebola epidemic to America” because the president is bent on “suppressing the liberty of people who are accustomed to living in freedom.”
“The Obama faction’s plan to import Ebola-infected persons into the United States maintains the outward appearance of and unarmed invasion,” Keyes writes, adding that “by way of this sly biological warfare, 'Obamacare' morphs into 'Ebolacare.'”
Are decent Americans finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama’s much touted mantra of change serves the advantage of elitist factional interests deeply hostile to the liberty (i.e., constitutional self-government) of the American people? His bizarre insistence on actions that seem calculated to spread the Ebola epidemic to America appear to be scraping scales from the eyes of many. But if the majority’s newfound wakefulness doesn’t lead them to respond effectively to the threat, they will soon be using it to look upon a country no longer their own.
As Election Day approaches, I thought it might be helpful in this respect to follow Christ’s example by inviting my readers to think about Obama’s actions in the context of some intriguing observations by the first and most meticulous modern cartographer of unrighteous thinking. In light of Machiavelli’s observations, Obama’s plans for exploiting the Ebola crisis appear to combine the virtues of colonization – already at work in his efforts to increase and legitimize illegal immigration into the United States – with the deadly aim of utter destruction Machiavelli recommends as the only sure way of suppressing the liberty of people who are accustomed to living in freedom.
The Obama faction’s plan to import Ebola-infected persons into the United States maintains the outward appearance of and unarmed invasion while in fact introducing into the country what amounts to specialized “armies of one,” each of them carrying a biological weapon of mass destruction. If and when the resulting infections get out of hand (which seems to be happening despite repeated, apparently erroneous, possibly deceitful, assurances of effective containment) what will be made of the resulting health crisis? When, by way of this sly biological warfare, “Obamacare” morphs into “Ebolacare” what will become of the (always suspect) commitment of Obama’s ostensible opponents in the GOP’s elitist faction leadership to roll back the government takeover of the health sector?
If the demographic effects of such warfare are intense enough, the policy of importing foreign workers will also morph from a bad choice into a woeful necessity.
Alan Keyes is out with yetanothercolumn calling for Congress to impeach and remove President Obama, arguing that his 2004 U.S. Senate opponent should face impeachment proceedings over his handling of immigration, ISIS and Ebola.
Keyes suggests Obama is enacting “destructive policies” in a deliberate attempt to endanger American lives, establish “tyranny” and “permanently cripple America’s liberty.”
“But from abortion to crushing debt, from dissolute spending to the sinister promotion of specious ‘rights’ that dissolve the natural integrity of family life, the present generation of self-serving elitist faction political leaders has declared war on our posterity,”Keyes writes. “And so have all Americans who tolerate their continual betrayals of the genius of the American people, betrayals that must inevitably despoil our posterity of the blessings of liberty.”
From what I'm reading these days, Obama's response to the threatened spread of the Ebola epidemic is finally compelling other people to question the assumption of patriotic goodwill Americans are naturally inclined to make about the individual who occupies the White House. As WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah wrote in a recent column about Obama's Ebola strategy:
With at least 4000 military personnel...being sent into the hot zone, it's a near certainty some of them will contract the deadly disease. What then? Naturally, they will be brought home, with some risk of furthering the infection in the homeland.... Is this a purposeful effort to destroy the U.S. military? Whether it is or not, that is the effect it will surely have.
This is, of course, not the first time during Obama's White House tenure that Americans have been forced to ask themselves whether incompetence or malice is to blame for the undeniably destructive effect of Obama's policies on the lives, strength, and security of the people and institutions he is supposed to serve.
Though Obama and his collaborators (including many in the GOP's elitist faction leadership) couch it in terms of dreamy jobs and economic opportunity, their push to legitimize illegal immigration into the United State has already damaged the nation's health. It is now being openly admitted that it gives terrorist cadres (including agents of the Islamic State's anti-American terror campaign) opportunities to enter and disperse throughout the country.
The way to stop Obama in his tracks is to use impeachment to call him before the bar of constitutional accountability, and then to conduct the process that will put every representative and senator on the spot, with the choice to remove Obama and his collaborators, or declare themselves complicit in the destructive policies the Obama faction has pursued and the precedents for tyranny they are seeking to establish.
Of course, this proper constitutional proceeding would set the record straight, thwarting those who mean to use Obama's tenure as the excuse and justification for the tyranny they are determined to impose upon us. Such proceeding would serve our posterity, even if it failed to remove a lame duck president. For it would help to assure that his malicious precedents did not permanently cripple America's liberty.
But from abortion to crushing debt, from dissolute spending to the sinister promotion of specious "rights" that dissolve the natural integrity of family life, the present generation of self-serving elitist faction political leaders has declared war on our posterity. And so have all Americans who tolerate their continual betrayals of the genius of the American people, betrayals that must inevitably despoil our posterity of the blessings of liberty. Together they are creating a record for this generation that will make it a loathsome byword in the minds of our posterity, at least for any still capable of remembering what it means to be free.
Alan Keyes has been attempting to rally conservatives to back the impeachment and removal of President Obama, telling them that if Congress doesn’t act, then violence may ensue.
Keyes writes today in WorldNetDaily that just as the Founding Fathers detailed their grievances before launching the American Revolution, the House of Representatives can use impeachment to “to substantiate the morally reasonable basis for their stand in defense of liberty. It allows and requires them to justify, before God and the decent opinion of humankind, why they are conscientiously determined to stand even despite the vicissitudes of war, rather than submit to tyranny.”
He argues that if the Senate “shields the perpetrators of executive abuses, even when, to a large majority of the people, their abuse have become insufferable,” then outright rebellion becomes an option.
In an oft-quoted observation (made in a letter to William Stephens Smith in November 1787), Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“… what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
These days, Jefferson’s words understandably resonate with patriotic Americans disgruntled by Obama’s repeated and tyrannical derelictions and abuses of power. But is the patriotic reaction against them rooted in respect for the merits of the Constitution, reasonably thought through and understood? Or does it result from an unreasoning, blindly habitual attachment which, on that account, violates the logic of the Constitution, as well as that of the Revolution in political thought from which it emerged?
Assuming that Jefferson’s above quoted words are true, we realize that, under certain circumstances, the particular provisions for impeaching and removing the president and vice president may end up being the prelude for armed conflict. This may occur if and when a sufficient minority in the U.S. Senate stubbornly shields the perpetrators of executive abuses, even when, to a large majority of the people, their abuse have become insufferable. The language of the American Declaration of Independence marks this as the point at which the people’s right to resist tyranny becomes a natural obligation. It was the standard the founders of the United States articulated and upheld when they revolted against the tyranny initiated by certain enactments of King George III, which they enumerated in the Declaration.
The U.S. Constitution provides for the people, to investigate and indict intolerable abuses in a peaceful, orderly fashion, through their representatives in the House of Representatives, and with just reasoning and due process, to impeach high officials for their unlawful conduct. It also respects the practical lesson that can be drawn from the history of representative government in Great Britain. That history was known to many in the founding generation. They knew that it was the English House of Commons that provided the institutional rallying point and focus for resistance to tyranny. So, under the U.S. Constitution, the governmental body most immediately dependent on the people’s suffrage is charged with the systematic investigation and articulation of tyrannical injustices.
But by giving a somewhat more independent body, the U.S. Senate, responsibility for delivering the first verdict on any such offenses, the founders aimed to provide a safeguard against distempers occasioned by frivolous or tolerably transient complaints. But in any case, the Constitution’s provisions for public impeachment and trial involve the development of a permanent record of the reasonable deliberations of the people, like the record of deliberate remonstration laid down by the American colonists in the season before they declared their independence from Great Britain.
The impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution give people the means and opportunity to substantiate the morally reasonable basis for their stand in defense of liberty. It allows and requires them to justify, before God and the decent opinion of humankind, why they are conscientiously determined to stand even despite the vicissitudes of war, rather than submit to tyranny.
Clearly, therefore, even if a stubbornly tyrannical Senate minority prevents conviction, as a matter of practical fact the process of impeachment makes an indispensable contribution to the moral cause of liberty. In light of this, have you joined the Pledge to Impeach mobilization? If so, are you doing everything you can to encourage others you can influence to do likewise? In these last weeks before the November elections, the duty involved grows more imperative with every passing day.
Keyes writes in WorldNetDaily that Obama is leaving the southern border wide open for ISIS members, among others, to cross in order “to kill us in our schoolyards and malls,” giving the president the pretext to create a “1984”-style dictatorship in the name of fighting ISIS.
Obama has promoted the view that illegal entrants into the U.S. are only looking for jobs and economic opportunity, not the chance to kill us in our schoolyards and malls.
He has allowed a large influx of illegal entrants, supposedly children but including members of criminal gangs, into the U.S. without careful scrutiny of their health backgrounds, criminal records or possible ties to groups hostile to the United States.
He has, with an unwarranted lack of openness and disclosure, transported such entrants to locations throughout the U.S., including but not limited to U.S. military bases and civilian organizations dependent on U.S. government largesse.
In this respect, management strategy has something in common with the politics of creative destruction. The latter often involves starting a fire in the basement so you can show up at the front door offering “just the thing” to put it out. It’s a concept that helps to make sense of a situation in which someone cast in the role of president of the United States covertly implements a policy that cooperates in arming fanatical forces, which later stir a firestorm of angry reaction with their brutal and well publicized atrocities. Then, playing the role of presiding global strategist in the very war he purposefully neglected, he embarks on a strategy that is not a strategy, in a war that is not a war, against an enemy that … well, may not simply be among his enemies.
“What opportunities would that give rise to?” you wonder. As you ponder that question I invite you to consider what I said about Obama’s real enemy in my column last week, and what I say about his semantic quibbling in my most recent blog post. I also can’t help but refer you to George Orwell’s “1984,” a novel alluded to with great frequency in the era when America’s leadership was still largely committed to the defense of liberty.
Under the oppressive regime therein depicted, perpetual war was the pretext for perpetual tyranny. Enemies were simply the renewable pretext for endless war and for maintaining a regime of domestic terrorism by which “Big Brother” maintained domestic control. They were management tools in the administration of fear, which is the heart of despotism.
With this in mind, perhaps the reason so many people think Obama has no strategy is that they’re not yet willing to enlarge their thinking enough to conceive of his real objective. I pray that those who do will be brought to realize that America can’t afford to let him proceed unchallenged toward his goal. If you’re among them, consider joining the Pledge to Impeach mobilization. And then urge everyone one you know to do likewise, before America passes beyond the point when an electoral strategy still offers any chance of stopping the tyranny Obama surely represents.
Alan Keyes has joined agrowingchorusoffar-rightactivistswhoclaim that President Obama is secretly supporting ISIS, writing today in WorldNetDaily that Obama administration officials believe “the enemy is not ISIS, but the life and liberty of the people of the United States.”
Keyes writes that Obama’s remarks on ISIS are “calculated to obfuscate the charge of treason that ought to be duly brought and tried if and when a serious investigation shows it to be a fact that that Obama and his cohorts aided and abetted the terrorist forces that constitute ISIS.”
He claims that Obama administration officials funded ISIS “because they knew the declared aim of the terrorist forces in question and understood, therefore, that those forces are committed to making implacable war on the people of the United States and their self-government.”
Once we remember this root meaning we realize that, in order to understand what strategy is at work, we must first answer the critical question: Who is the enemy? In light of their declared hostility toward the United States, and the grisly murders they have perpetrated on account of it, we naturally assume that, when someone purporting to be the president of the United States speaks of a strategy for dealing with ISIS we are right to assume that they are the enemy. But the statements and actions of Obama and his cohorts suggest the likelihood that, in the strategy he is pursuing, the enemy is not ISIS, but the life and liberty of the people of the United States.
In his statement after Jim Foley was murdered Obama said disparagingly of the perpetrators that “They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors. …” He was speaking in the context of the gruesomely hostile murder of an innocent American citizen, dramatically enacted and publicized as an act of war against the United States. So what sense did it make to imply that the perpetrators’ claim to be at war with us is at all questionable?
It makes no sense, except perhaps as a lawyer’s quibble. Taken as such, it seems calculated to obfuscate the charge of treason that ought to be duly brought and tried if and when a serious investigation shows it to be a fact that that Obama and his cohorts aided and abetted the terrorist forces that constitute ISIS; that they did so in ways that risked and eventually claimed American lives, including innocent civilians, and military, diplomatic and security personnel, e.g., at Benghazi; and that they did so covertly precisely because they knew the declared aim of the terrorist forces in question and understood, therefore, that those forces are committed to making implacable war on the people of the United States and their self-government.
Alan Keyes has been calling for President Obama’s impeachment since as far back as 2011, even citing support from divinesources. In an interview in May with Randall Terry, the anti-choice activist behind Operation Rescue, Keyes offered hope to those who would like to “snap your fingers and Barack Obama would no longer be president.”
“We don’t need an Arab Spring, we need an American Fall, we need an American Autumn,” Keyes said. “In America, autumn means go to the polls and vote, and this time we need to go to the polls and vote to remove Barack Obama and Biden and all of their collaborators and cronies from office.”
He urged voters to back pro-impeachment candidates for office: “Put the right Congress in and guess what you get? A Congress that will impeach and remove Barack Obama as the Constitution allows for it at any stage in his tenure. Make that the focus, and I’m doing it.”