Alan Keyes
November 25, 2014
Emperor, president: either way, we must impeach
Amnesty move 'lends the force of law to a de facto invasion'
Facebook Twitter Google+
By Alan Keyes

Barack Obama says that he is president of the United States, not an emperor. Anxious to prove that Obama is a sociopathic liar (a point plainly in evidence in the wake of Jonathan Gruber's arrogantly frank revelations about the Obama faction's preparation of the Obamacare legislation), Rush Limbaugh counters that Obama lies. He is an emperor.

If we pay strict attention to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (as I assume Rush Limbaugh would, on any given day, want us to do), Obama's statement is, ironically, the more accurate one. With due regard for the Constitution, what Rush Limbaugh should have said is that Obama has been speaking and acting as if he is an emperor. And he apparently intends to go on doing so despite the dressing down he received from his constitutional sovereign, the people of the United States, this past Election Day.

Though Obama goes by the name of Democrat (a word rooted in two words in ancient Greek that evoked the power or strength of the people), he arrogantly ignores the sovereignty of the people. His biggest error is the false oath he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. His Marxist ideology recognizes no power but the resultant force of "history." It openly contemns constitutionalism as nothing more than a malleable artifact of the world historical class struggle.

For Obama, elections have no intrinsic authority. They may be useful if they advance the "progress" of the vanguard of history. If not, they can be swept heedlessly aside. The voice of the people is not the voice of God since history acknowledges no god but material power. The contest of material power determines whose standard shall rule. Thereby history reveals, after the fact, which forces prevail.

When Rush Limbaugh contradicts Obama's statement that he (Obama) is not an emperor, he tacitly accepts the ideological paradigm Obama actually professes. Of course, I'm reasonably sure he does not intend to do so. An emperor is one who commands the law by virtue of his power. So far, Obama has successfully demonstrated his power to do pretty much as he wills. So, according to his Marxist paradigm, he is an emperor.

But the Constitution of the United States is not based upon this Marxist logic of history. It makes sense only in terms of the logic followed by the people of the United States "when in the course of human events" they asserted their existence as a people. They did so in and through state governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." According to this logic, therefore, the standard of justice does not arise in the aftermath of an historical contest material of power. It precedes and transcends history, in order to distinguish "among the powers of the earth" those which are lawful and just, from those which are unjust and lawless.

In the logic that declared their existence as a nation, the American people clearly identified this just standard with "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." In light of self-evident truth, they clearly attributed its righteous substance to their being "endowed by their Creator." The substance of justice is therefore apart from, and antecedent to, the history which follows after creation. Far from regarding any other ruler as their commander (imperator, emperor), the people of the United States made it clear that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute

Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...."

By acting like an emperor, Barack Obama evinces just such a design for despotism. But the logic of justice that defines the American people as such denies the lawfulness of his government. In fact, it makes clear that "it is their right, it is their duty" to "alter or abolish" such government. In the case of their British monarch in the 18th century, this meant refusing to obey laws despotically framed and imposed. Ultimately, it meant an arduous war, against the odds, to vindicate the right of the people to institute a government justly empowered, one derived from their common consent to do right, as God endows us to see the right.

More and more Americans are finally, though belatedly, awakening to the fact that Barack Obama represents forces determined to govern by means that violate, contradict, or simply discard the just constraints envisaged by the U.S. Constitution. By force and deceit, by armed intimidation and emotional blackmail, the elitist faction means to have its way, no matter what violence is done to conscience, life, and liberty, or in general to the whole family of our God-endowed unalienable rights.

This despotic will has been evident in Barack Obama's government since it began. Now opposition to that despotism may come to a head over his intention to abuse executive power in order permanently to colonize the United States with illegal immigrants, without warrant in any law duly enacted by Congress, and therefore in open, contemptuous violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, which requires such warrant. Like the rogues who abused their powers as officers of the law to invade the residence of a homeschooling family, without warrant according to law, the present occupant of the White House means to abuse the power of the office of president to lend the force of law to a de facto invasion of the United States.

Yet the highest crime is not even the invasion itself, which has been ongoing for quite some time, even before Obama took office. The highest crime consists in Obama's openly criminal intent to eviscerate the authority of the branch of the U.S. government exclusively vested with its legislative power. In this he distinguishes himself from previous occupants of the White House, who at least preserved the outward appearance of respect for the intention of laws duly enacted by the elected representatives of the people.

Thanks to the framers of the U.S. Constitution, war is not the only recourse against this attack upon it. The proper constitutional recourse is a bill of impeachment, wherein the people systematically articulate and codify the abuses that justify their conclusion that Obama and his collaborators have placed the U.S. government on a path toward despotism. The next is a constitutional trial, in the U.S. Senate, intended to make clear that a majority of the people are of a mind to block this despotic course, even if a stubborn minority of would-be tyrants insist on abetting it.

In any case, Americans must refuse to accept Obama's edicts, even as the first American patriots refused to buy tea offered at the price of liberty. And if war comes, it must be because Barack Obama and the elitist faction forces that created him foment it, by attempting to enforce his blatantly unconstitutional edicts. Yet and still, it may be avoided, if the constitutional process of impeachment and trial is used to lay down a marker – one that warns Obama and all future occupants of the White House that the people of the United States have the political will and courage to resist those who seek to impose unrighteous dictatorship upon them.

Of course, if Americans in this generation fail to issue this warning clearly, then Obama himself, or else the forces he represents (who are in the control, at present, of leaders in both the major parties in the Congress) will pursue their scheme until they have accomplished the final and permanent overthrow of our constitutional self-government. Our posterity will then live to bear the oppressive moral, political, and material cost of our shortsighted, selfish, cowardly unwillingness "to secure the blessings of liberty" we are supposed to bequeath to them.

To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.

© Alan Keyes

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Alan Keyes

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election – one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism – when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Alan Keyes: Click here

More by this author