Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes: Obama Wants Nuclear War To Obtain A Third Term

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?

Alan Keyes: Gay Rights May Lead To The 'Extinction Of Humanity'

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.

Alan Keyes: Obama Is America's 'First Islamic President'

Alan Keyes, the conservative activist who ran against President Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate election in Illinois, took to “The Steve Malzberg Show” today to discuss the Iranian nuclear program negotiations taking place in Switzerland.

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.”

Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage Will Lead To The 'Dissolution Of The United States'

Alan Keyes, the Religious Right icon who thinks that marriage equality will lead to Nazi-style tyranny and “the murder of the masses,” took to WorldNetDaily today with a lengthy column on the dangers of gay marriage. In fact, the column is so long that readers are redirected to Keyes’ personal website to read the second half of it.

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.

Alan Keyes: Obama Will Become America's Hitler, Destroy Country Like The Twin Towers

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 Hitlerian dictator.

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.

Paranoia-Rama: Return Of The 'Libtard'-Loathing Police Chief, Obama's Third Term And Hunger Games Exposed

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.

Alan Keyes: 'Hitlerian' Obama Using Ferguson To 'Turn Our Cities Into Powder Kegs That Will Explode'

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.

Alan Keyes: Impeach Obama For Ebola And 'Promoting Homosexuality'

Alan Keyes spoke yesterday with WorldNetDaily about his campaign to impeach President Obama, telling the right-wing outlet that his 2004 U.S. Senate opponent should be impeached because of Ebola, Benghazi, legal abortion and gay rights.

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: Obamacare Turning Into 'Ebolacare'

In a tweet yesterday, Ted Cruz’s chief of staff linked Obamacare to the Ebola virus, later claiming that it was a joke.

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: Obama Has 'Declared War On Our Posterity'

Alan Keyes is out with yet another column 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: Violent Conflict May Be Necessary If Congress Doesn't Oust Obama

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.

Alan Keyes: Obama Only Fighting ISIS So He Can Become A Dictator

Alan Keyes, who recently argued that President Obama is secretly aiding ISIS in hopes that the group will attack the U.S., today warns that Obama will take advantage of a future attack by becoming a tyrant.

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: Obama Is Funding ISIS To Wage 'War On The People Of The United States'

Alan Keyes has joined a growing chorus of far-right activists who claim 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.

Ex-Gay Awareness Month Returns With October Summit

Following last year’s smashing success of an ex-gay pride event, ex-gay activists are organizing another “Ex-Gay Awareness Month” summit featuring Alan Keyes, Sandy Rios, Matt Barber and Peter Sprigg, along with real-life ex-gays Greg Quinlan and Christopher Doyle.

You can now receive a special early bird rate for the Washington D.C. event, which will disclose its location upon registration [PDF] .

 

Agenda – Friday, October 3, 2014

9:00am – 10:00am – Pre-Event Get Together and Lobbying Education Training, Greg Quinlan, President of Equality And Justice For All (Location to be disclosed prior to the event)

10:00am – 5:00pm – Meetings with your Representatives and Senators (e-mail contact@equalityandjusticeforall.org for assistance in making appointments)

5:00pm – 6:00pm – Dinner (on your own)

6:00pm – 9:00pm – Evening Reception (hors d’ oeuvres and dessert to be served) and Screening of “Sing Over Me” with Dennis Jernigan (Location to be disclosed prior to the event)

Agenda – Saturday, October 4, 2014

8:00am – 9:00am – Breakfast with Ambassador Alan Keyes (sponsorship tickets required)

9:00am – Invocation, Rev. Jayson Graves, LMFT

Welcome -Estella Salvatierra, President of PFOX/Regina Griggs, Executive Director of PFOX

Introduction – Christopher Doyle, President of Voice of the Voiceless

9:15am – 10:00am – Ambassador Alan Keyes, Former Republican Presidential Candidate

10:00am – 11:00am -Breakout Sessions

11:00am – 12:00pm -Breakout Sessions

12:00pm – 1:00pm -Breakout Sessions

1:00pm – 2:00pm - Luncheon

2:00pm – 3:00pm - Panel Discussion with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays Panel, Moderated by Regina Griggs (Panel TBD)

3:00pm – 3:15pm – Break

3:15pm – 3:45pm – Courage Award for Former Homosexuals, Dennis Jernigan (Introduction by PFOX Past President Greg Quinlan

3:45pm – 4:00pm – Break

4:00pm – 5:00pm – Friend of Ex-Gays Freedom Award, Sandy Rios (Introduction by Voice of the Voiceless President Christopher Doyle)

5:00pm – Benediction

Alan Keyes: Impeach Obama As Part Of 'American Autumn'

Alan Keyes has been calling for President Obama’s impeachment since as far back as 2011, even citing support from divine sources. 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.”

Renew America Columnist: Impeach Obama Because God

Dan Popp writes this weekend in Renew America, the far-right outlet run by impeachment advocate Alan Keyes, that Republicans should vote to impeach and remove President Obama from office because God wants them to go through with it.

He says Republicans should take a page from Moses, David and Martin Luther King Jr. and impeach Obama because God is on their side: “If God exists, and if it appears that the President – any President – has misused his authority, then we must do what is right and impeach him.”

Barack Obama deserves to be impeached. He deserves to be tried. And in my opinion he deserves to be removed from office. (So do many of the folks who would be impeaching and trying him, by the way.) If Obama were a Republican, Democrats would think so, too. That's one factor in the discussion on impeachment: the justice factor.



What about God?

What if Moses had thought better of defying his Obama, knowing that the consequence might be a more severe slavery for his brethren, rather than freedom? What if David had come to a reasonable conclusion about his prospects of victory over the nine-foot-tall Obama before him? – or Daniel, or Gideon, or Elijah, or the Apostles? What if the early Christian martyrs had looked at their approval ratings?

If these examples seem too remote, how about George Washington with his frostbitten few facing the greatest military in the world? Or those Christians who dared to try to eradicate chattel slavery, a tragedy that must have seemed like a permanent part of the human condition? How about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s renewal of their struggle? What of the young man in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square?

What if any of these had balked at the insurmountable "political realities" before them?



If there is a God, then what is right should trump any other consideration. He is the One who determines the rise and fall of nations, after all. If God exists, and if it appears that the President – any President – has misused his authority, then we must do what is right and impeach him.



We need a boatload of Esthers today. If I perish, I perish, but this has to be stopped.

Yes, we must be wise about how we go about trying to achieve the right. But we must also have faith. Looking at the polls and not to the heavens is a losing strategy for America.

GOP's Base Clamors To Impeach Obama

Nearly two years into President Obama’s second term, a do-nothing Republican Congress is focusing on its next project: the 2014 midterm elections. But that effort might be complicated by increasing pressure from the party’s base to turn Congress’ energy to impeaching President Obama. The impeachment call, which has existed on the right-wing fringe since the start of Obama’s presidency, has picked up steam in recent weeks as it has been endorsed by right-wing media figures, activists and elected officials.

This has put Republican congressional leaders in a tricky spot as they attempt to placate their base without alienating moderate voters. When House Majority Whip Steve Scalise appeared on Fox News Sunday this week, he continually dodged the question. Ted Cruz similarly batted away a question about impeachment, calling it politically unfeasible. Right-wing leaders including Pat Buchanan and Tom DeLay have urged caution in the impeachment campaign, although DeLay said he would personally “love to impeach him.” Likewise, Karl Rove has warned that when it comes to impeachment, “the politics of it are all wrong.”

Even Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas, who last year distributed to every office on Capitol Hill a book on why the president should be impeached and removed from office and hired an attorney to look into impeachment, is now backtracking and warning that impeachment proceedings could benefit Democrats in the midterm elections.

Now, House Speaker John Boehner is claiming that talk of impeachment is a Democratic “scam” to win voters…an odd claim since it’s members of his own party who have been beating the drum about impeachment.

But it might be too late for Republicans to backtrack on a steady buildup of rhetoric questioning the president’s legitimacy, love of country, and authority to govern, which has led to increasing calls for impeachment from right-wing lawmakers, activists and media personalities... although nobody can quite agree on what the impeachment should be for.

  • In a radio interview last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that she believed the president has "committed impeachable offenses” but that first “the American people have to agree with and be behind and call for the president’s impeachment.”
  • This month, Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania said that there are “probably” the votes in the House to impeach the president for “absolutely ignoring the Constitution, and ignoring the laws, and ignoring the checks and balances.”
  • Also last year, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan said that impeaching the president would be “a dream come true.”

Alan Keyes Says Impeaching Obama Would Be A 'Prayer' For God To Bless America Once Again

Long before Sarah Palin started calling for President Obama’s impeachment, conservative activist Alan Keyes had been consistently urging Republicans jump on the impeachment wagon, even suggesting that Jesus Christ favors impeaching the president.

According to Keyes, impeaching Obama would be the first step toward restoring God’s blessing on America by showing that we are repenting for the country’s sin of electing Obama, who defeated Keyes in the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate race.

“Do this as a prayer to the Creator God whose authority over justice those principles acknowledge,” he writes today in WorldNetDaily. “Do this so that once again our nation may deserve to enjoy the blessings of that God-endowed liberty which has been, and by our faithfulness may yet continue to be, our common hope; our common life; our common good.”

THE COMMENT:

Hello, Dr. Keyes. Even if the House were to impeach … you’d never get the Senate to convict. … What’s the point when the corruption extends into both parties and into both houses? Perhaps the following should be our main goal; we as a people MUST return to a loving relationship with God … we as a people MUST return to virtue. Is this not far more important than “the impeachment field – ripe for the harvest”?

MY REPLY:

In everything I write and everything I do my aim is to encourage people of faith to act like it when it comes to their vocation as citizens. This is why I have constantly emphasized that our first order of business as American citizens is to remember and apply the principles on which our nation is founded, starting with the self-evident truth that we “are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

However, achieving this goal cannot be a matter of lip-service to faith. From the first, Christ preached repentance. If we talk about the need to return to God and yet refuse to turn to Him, even in the hour of our greatest need, we are not repentant. Indeed, we act like an obese person who talks about losing weight but who will not turn away from overeating and idleness and back to the standard of healthy living in order to do so.

Repentance is a work of God’s grace, by which His Spirit renews within us the activity of life, much as it did when it mingled with the man of dust in order that he should become a living soul. By this renewal of life God calls us to return to Him, through the way of truth and life that He has prepared and offered us for our salvation. We signify our acceptance of His offer when we walk in this way, not when we talk about the need to do so and then let the deceitful cavils of fear paralyze our goodwill.



I urge you to visit the Pledge to Impeach website. I urge you conscientiously to ponder the cogent facts and reasoning you will find there. I urge you to commit yourself to the Pledge to impeach mobilization effort. I urge you thereafter to encourage all the like-minded people you know and can influence to do the same.

Do this as an act of good faith, predicated upon the principles of America’s independence as a nation. Do this as a prayer to the Creator God whose authority over justice those principles acknowledge. Do this so that once again our nation may deserve to enjoy the blessings of that God-endowed liberty which has been, and by our faithfulness may yet continue to be, our common hope; our common life; our common good.

Alan Keyes Recorded A Robocall On Behalf Of Gordon Klingenschmitt's Bid For Office

Next week, demon expert, anti-gay exorcist and all around crackpot Gordon Klingenschmitt will be on the ballot in the Colorado Republican primary for a seat representing District 15 in the state House of Representatives and he's trotting out the endorsements from like-minded Religious Right supporters such as Susan Sutherland of Colorado Right to Life and Jerry Boykin from the Family Research Council.

He has even gotten his good friend Alan Keyes to record a robocall on his behalf:

This is Ambassador Alan Keyes calling to endorse my friend Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt for House District 15 state representative.

Gordon is an Air Force Academy graduate honorably discharged after twenty years on active duty. As a whistle-blower, Gordon valiantly defended the First Amendment and our military chaplains' right to pray in Jesus' name.

Gordon's stand cost him his military career and pension, so Congress backed him up. Gordon's left-wing opponent is lying about Gordon's inspiring record knowing that even the Secretary of the Navy was corrected by Gordon and Congress on this one.

Ronald Reagan said trust by verify. Don't be deceived; Gordon is a man of integrity, boldness, and strength of faith and character.

Vote for Gordon Klingenschmitt to defend your Constitutional rights.

 

Alan Keyes Claims Gay Rights Will Lead To 'Self-Inflicted Genocide' And 'Suicide For Humanity'

Alan Keyes, who is apparently under the impression that gay rights laws will turn everybody gay and create a childless society, writes today in WorldNetDaily that gay rights advocates are promoting the “extinction of humanity.”

In a column titled “Homosexual ‘Rights’: Suicide For Humanity?,” Keyes alleges that gay rights have no place in America because “the homosexual couple is not engaged in the act of human procreation.”

“If genocide is wrong for this or that race of human beings, how can self-inflicted genocide be right for humanity as a whole?” he asks.

As individuals, some human beings may find this activity intensely gratifying. But considered on the whole, in terms of its consequences, it implies the nonexistence of humanity. The homosexual couple is not engaged in the act of human procreation. Their activity is not haunted by the possibility of human offspring. It does not imply the reification of their responsibility for the future of humanity as such. The pleasurable satisfaction it involves does not draw individuals away from their particular selves toward a concrete physical union (in the child they conceive) that represents the perpetuation of their being as a whole, their human being. Their ecstasy is more like the highest pitch given off by a guitar string just before the turn of the tuning peg that causes it to break.



This simultaneous respect for the nature of the individual as a whole and the nature constituted by the whole of all such individuals is the hallmark of the natural law. Human sexual activity in the true sense (i.e., the activity of human procreation) is the concrete paradigm of this respect. Respect for the nature of human sexual activity, therefore, implies respect for the authority of the natural law. The special combination of human faculties allows human beings to act without such respect. But just as homosexual activity implies the extinction of humanity as such, so acting without respect for the natural law implies the extinction of humanity as a whole.

This reveals the supreme irony of the contemporary debate over law-enforced respect for so-called homosexual rights. In their clamor about global warming, poverty or an end to racism, those who advocate such respect pretend to be “humanitarians.” Yet they seek to discard our respect for the activity that implements the law (of the Creator) intended to preserve and perpetuate the nature of humanity as, in and of ourselves, we know it to be.

We do not forbid people to fly because they are born without wings. So the advocates of law-enforced respect for homosexuality may argue. But if and when they propose that, as a species, we should, like Icarus, fly into the sun, what then? If genocide is wrong for this or that race of human beings, how can self-inflicted genocide be right for humanity as a whole?
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious