Alan Keyes
The GOP field: seeded with poisoned pills
By Alan Keyes
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, and of 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 ourselves and our rights.
When it comes to elections, the GOP primary season has more and more taken on the "show trial" aspect evident in the congressional legislative process. Just as in 2012, the presently emerging field of potential nominees is salted with candidates who are fatally flawed. Each candidate is committed to at least one view or policy (sometimes more than one) that, taken by itself, undoes the material, institutional, or moral basis for the constitutional self-government of the American people. Yet party loyalty requires the assumption that, despite this poison pill reality, any one of them will make a great president. For constitutional liberty, however, this choice of poisons implies inevitable demise.
It also means that in any given issue area where the Democratic opposition favors a policy fatal to the nation, they can cite a GOP contender who favors the same policy. If a Republican who implements such fatal policy will still make a great president, why won't a Democrat who favors our demise still make a great president? And if each such fatal policy counts for nothing as a conclusive objection to a Republican, why doesn't it count for nothing as a conclusive objection to the Democrat? After all, the negative effect is nullified in either case.
Logically, this refutes the notion that the Democratic candidate somehow represents greater evil than the GOP candidate. On the Democratic side, the presence of some fatally flawed policy in each of the GOP candidates nullifies the negative effect of that policy when considering the qualifications of the Democrat. On the GOP side, it zeros out the positive effect of any given candidate when it comes to the relative merits of the GOP field, since the product of the fatal flaw in each case adds up to destruction in any case.
No matter which side a voter chooses, the election vectors America's liberty toward its end. There is no way to escape that vector except by electing a president wholeheartedly committed to the preservation, in principle and practice, of constitutional self-government, of, by, and for the people of the United States. Instead of tolerating candidates in whom some version of the liberty-killing virus is rampant, Americans committed to the above goal (i.e., conservatives in the true sense of the term) must make for themselves what the elitist faction sham is determined never to offer them: a way to select a president who is entirely free of the deadly anti-Republican infection in any form.
The logic of the U.S. Constitution marks out such a way. Faithful Americans are themselves the means. But are you yet awake and roused enough to start doing politics the Constitution's way?
May 18, 2015
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, and of 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 ourselves and our rights.
When it comes to elections, the GOP primary season has more and more taken on the "show trial" aspect evident in the congressional legislative process. Just as in 2012, the presently emerging field of potential nominees is salted with candidates who are fatally flawed. Each candidate is committed to at least one view or policy (sometimes more than one) that, taken by itself, undoes the material, institutional, or moral basis for the constitutional self-government of the American people. Yet party loyalty requires the assumption that, despite this poison pill reality, any one of them will make a great president. For constitutional liberty, however, this choice of poisons implies inevitable demise.
It also means that in any given issue area where the Democratic opposition favors a policy fatal to the nation, they can cite a GOP contender who favors the same policy. If a Republican who implements such fatal policy will still make a great president, why won't a Democrat who favors our demise still make a great president? And if each such fatal policy counts for nothing as a conclusive objection to a Republican, why doesn't it count for nothing as a conclusive objection to the Democrat? After all, the negative effect is nullified in either case.
Logically, this refutes the notion that the Democratic candidate somehow represents greater evil than the GOP candidate. On the Democratic side, the presence of some fatally flawed policy in each of the GOP candidates nullifies the negative effect of that policy when considering the qualifications of the Democrat. On the GOP side, it zeros out the positive effect of any given candidate when it comes to the relative merits of the GOP field, since the product of the fatal flaw in each case adds up to destruction in any case.
No matter which side a voter chooses, the election vectors America's liberty toward its end. There is no way to escape that vector except by electing a president wholeheartedly committed to the preservation, in principle and practice, of constitutional self-government, of, by, and for the people of the United States. Instead of tolerating candidates in whom some version of the liberty-killing virus is rampant, Americans committed to the above goal (i.e., conservatives in the true sense of the term) must make for themselves what the elitist faction sham is determined never to offer them: a way to select a president who is entirely free of the deadly anti-Republican infection in any form.
The logic of the U.S. Constitution marks out such a way. Faithful Americans are themselves the means. But are you yet awake and roused enough to start doing politics the Constitution's way?
To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe 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.)
