|White House - Central Command - War on Liberty|
PLEDGE TO IMPEACH
WHITE HOUSE: CENTRAL COMMAND FOR THE WAR ON LIBERTY
Exclusive: Alan Keyes rips Obama for 'picking and choosing his allies among the terrorists'
Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement. He is well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the constitutional republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He has worked to promote an approach to politics based on the initiative of citizens of goodwill consonant with the with the principles of God-endowed natural right.
In his usual prevaricating fashion, Barack Obama has responded with good-sounding rhetoric to the heinous murder of journalist Jim Foley. "We will be vigilant and we will be relentless," he said, promising to "do what's necessary to see that justice is done." I imagine that, as usual, there are Americans who will simply take Obama's words at face value. They will pretend that his rhetoric can somehow alleviate the bitterness of current events, while giving no thought to the key role Obama's policies have played in bringing them about.
They will blithely ignore inconsistencies like the one pointed out in one article I read that ended with the telling observation that Obama's "determination to protect all Americans ... did not extend to U.S.-Israeli teen Naftali Frankel, 16, who was abducted and murdered with two other teens by Hamas terrorists on June 12; Obama only commented on the teens after their bodies were found."
Of course, Obama's words about Jim Foley also came after the fact, in the overall context of a politically convenient but otherwise ill-advised revelation about a failed contingency operation earlier this summer "to rescue American journalist James Foley and others in Syria," as an unnamed "U.S. official told CNN on Wednesday." I use the term "contingency operation" with malice aforethought. According to Oliver Burkeman's 2009 article at theguardian.com, this is the bureaucratic phrase that signaled the Obama faction's determination to "avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror." Events have decisively proved that this was more than a linguistic shift.
As noted in my column last week, Obama and his cohorts have consistently pursued courses of action in line with the strategic aims of the forces of Islamic Imperialism. For centuries terror has been the systematically deployed vanguard of Islam's territorial advances. In the 1600s the armies of the Ottoman Empire deployed the Tartar horde to raze defenseless villages; slaughter or carry off unarmed civilians, including women and children; and generally do all manner of things intended to foment "paralyzing terror." (cf. Andrew Wheatcroft's "The Enemy at the Gate," Part I, Chapter 2).
Obama's promise to "do what's necessary to see that justice is done" may appear to echo G.W. Bush's strategic resolve in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It may appear to resound with John F. Kennedy's proclamation of America's historic commitment to the defense of human rights in his Inaugural Address. But for Obama such words are just a mask behind which he runs away from the war against terrorism. Some may agree that this is because he "is tired of fighting terrorism," but I think that comparing Obama's words against his deeds suggests something else altogether.
"ISIS speaks for no religion," he contends, "... ISIS has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt." Yet, just as ISIS has perpetrated terrorist atrocities so have self-styled fighters for Islam, including Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian backed forces, and even the Iranians themselves. Do these other practitioners of terror have an "ideology of any value to human beings"? Do they speak for the Islamic religion? Even if they do, does this make their terrorism any less an offense against God-endowed right and norms implied by "any definition of civilized behavior"?
Yet in respect of the Iranian bid for Mideast hegemony, the Libyan morass and the conflict occasioned by Hamas' relentless terror attacks on Israel, Obama has been pursuing policies aligned with the activities and objectives of these other practitioners of terror. Obama is not tired of fighting terrorism. Rather he eschews the strategic commitment to fight terrorism as such, in order to pick and choose his allies among the terrorists, in ways that suit the agenda of the elitist faction he serves.
The Obama faction is playing a role in events in Ferguson, Missouri, that involves the manipulation of fear, as does the crisis they have fabricated along America's southern border. In the latter case, the threat of disorder and humanitarian catastrophe is being deployed to bully the American people into meekly accepting (and even financing), an invasion of their territory that portends the overthrow of their constitutional sovereignty and self-government. As part of that invasion, criminal and terrorist cadres are undoubtedly being infiltrated and distributed (even at our expense) to locations throughout the United States.
ISIS threats against the United States cannot therefore simply be dismissed as idle bluffing. What's worse, the Obama faction has shown its disposition to exploit a violent domestic crisis (such as the riots in Ferguson) as an excuse for the establishment of a dictatorial regime, using military-style police tactics if necessary. This forces us to confront the distinct possibility that any foreign-made threat to American lives here at home now has its counterpart in the Obama faction's pursuit of its domestic goal: to erase our nation's constitutional self-government.
All this raises a simple but deeply troubling question: For how much longer will America survive the possibility that the command center for the onslaught on our way of life may well be located in Obama's White House? The distrust arising from this fact has already created a grave crisis for public confidence in the U.S. government as a whole. That crisis extends to all branches of government and both wings of the sham two-party system. Do Americans sincerely loyal to our nation's heritage of decent freedom have any recourse? Should conservatives heed the advice of Vanderbilt professor Carol Swain, to punish the GOP's quisling leadership for their refusal effectively to oppose Obama, even if that damages the GOP's performance in November?
Wouldn't it be better for them to organize their disaffection in a very visible way before the November election takes place, in order to bring maximum pressure to bear on GOP candidates to commit to the only course of action that can hobble the Obama faction's push toward dictatorship? That's the purpose of the Pledge to Impeach mobilization. In petitions people have nearly 2 million times expressed their support for congressional action to impeach and try Obama and his cohorts for their offenses. But such expressions will likely have no tangible result unless and until they are translated into a visible demonstration of political will, directly affecting the stands GOP and other conservatives take in the last critical weeks before Election Day.
The goal should not be to punish the GOP's quisling leadership, however richly they deserve it. The goal should be to give congressional candidates who care about America the opportunity to strengthen their prospects of victory if they will firmly, unequivocally promise to do what the good of the nation urgently requires. Will you help to achieve that goal? Have you joined the Pledge to Impeach mobilization? Are you regularly encouraging everyone you know to do likewise?
Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact email@example.com.