Alan Keyes | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
For a long while Alan Keyes has been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. He did service in government as a Foreign Service Officer, and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and later served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. He has been involved in politics, twice as a candidate for the United States Senate, and also as a participant in the GOP primaries for President of the United States. He is Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. He is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and dedicated to preserving the the republican form of government it establishes. He upholds and seeks to reinvigorate the now beleaguered sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, he believes that the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and on the basis of that respect rebuild the moral conscience and character without which the American people cannot hope to preserve their liberty.
People living In the United States and other so-called Western countries, are living with what may be the death throes of the brief but eventful “democratic” age. That age began in earnest when the United States was still growing in the womb. The events precipitated by the successful terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 may, in effect, denote its end—though this remains to be seen. If it is true, the electoral competitions that still formally implement the democratic idea, in the United States and elsewhere, are now the death throes of the age, the precipitating events whereby the irresistible tyranny of history works to dispel the brief delusion that, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, “societies of men are really capable… of establishing good government from reflection and choice, ….”
That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand…. When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country right now is perceived as weak… as being spit on by the rest of the world—….
For Christian conservatives who are determined to respect the discipline of self-government, the daily collection of information about current events has, for many years now, been a strenuous exercise in self-restraint. Hardly a day passes without reading several news reports or commentaries that seed clouds of interior outrage with new kernels of provocation. This gathering storm threatens to overwhelm the clarity of perception and reasoning disciplined thought requires.
Is the decent practice of representative self-government the most precious collective possession of the American people—our common good? The shared preoccupation of the framers of the U.S. Constitution was to sustain the practice of self-government, through institutions that respect its requirements, while producing results consistent with the aims of all good governance (“to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, …etc.”). Since it is the sworn duty of every public official to safeguard the Constitution, respect for the requirements of self-government, in principle and practice, ought to be an ever-present characteristic of their thought and action.
Recently I signed the petition, available at lifesitenews.com, in support of the letter four Roman Catholic Cardinals have addressed to Pope Francis, asking “for clarity regarding his Apostolic Exhortation—Amoris Laetitia.” On account of that document, many Roman Catholics, clergy and laity alike, are asking whether Pope Francis intends for the Roman Catholic Church to embrace a humanly fabricated “moral theology,” which appears to substitute flexible and subjective human consciences, owned and operated by each individual, for the moral faculty of conscience informed by God’s will?
I’m not a fan of media organs of the leftist establishment like The New York Times or The Atlantic magazine. But I believe in thinking through views I am inclined to oppose until I’m reasonably confident that I can make the case in their favor as well or better than their most accomplished advocates. This means I spend a fair amount of time keeping my opinionated viscera in check, to prevent passion from befogging the path of thought as I focus on that endeavor.
It is painful to stand by helplessly as people you deeply care for make decisions that place their good character on the path to extinction. Yet people who respect the premise of each individual’s personal responsibility to God must be content to do so at times, especially when dealing with people they otherwise respect. When every effort to persuade them of the danger that lies ahead has failed, there comes the time for prayer and patience. The first is a function of one’s ultimate reliance upon God. The second is, among other things, a matter of common sense when dealing with events that will run their course no matter how one feels about it.
Not long ago I read a piece by Newco CEO John Battelle in which he opined that “Self-Driving Cars Are not “Five years away”. His premise is that “the technology is pretty good, and will only get better. But self-driving cars raise major questions of social and moral agency—and it’s going to take us a long, long time to resolve and instrument the answer to those questions. And even when we do, it’s not clear we’re all going to agree, meaning that we’ll likely have different sets of rules for various polities around the world.”
Recently I published an article on my blog about what the term “conservative” means to me, as both a member of the Body of Christ (“It is not I who live, but Christ in me.” Galatians 2:20) and a member of the sovereign body of the people of the United States. I make no apology for observing the essential relationship between these two characteristics; or for being clear about what both imply for my actions in this year’s Presidential election. (At the root, both the so-called major Parties have nominated candidates who, in principle, abandon the decent character required to sustain our form of government—of, by and for the people as a whole. Therefore, I must and will reject them both.)
Recently Donald Trump has reportedly been considering the option of making Bill Clinton’s record of sexual misconduct an issue in the 2016 campaign, in order to put Hillary Clinton on the spot for aiding and abetting it. In the context of those reports, is it just a coincidence that a tape has now come to public knowledge that seems to confirm Donald Trump disposition to engage in what appears to be similar misconduct? Is the deployment of the tape a high inside pitch aimed at discouraging the Trump camp from thinking that Clinton does not have the wherewithal to counter any move to crowd Hillary Clinton’s political plate with Bill Clinton’s sexual issues?
[In response to the articles I have done about Donald Trump’s candidacy I occasionally receive comments from people who say that they have supported me in the past, but are disappointed that I refuse to back Donald Trump’s candidacy for President. This article is a synopsis of the reasoning I have offered in reply to these comments. As we have now entered the decisive stage of this year’s election, I thought it would be of interest to my readers here.]
I was wanting Trump to say that the so-called birther issue is not a racial issue, but instead a constitutional issue. (Debating Watching father of three, Boston sales professional in interview with Lifesette.com)
[In a recent article I published a Meditation on Personhood and God’s Creation. The rejection of the very idea of God’s Creation, supposedly on scientific grounds, is necessarily at the root of the identity crisis that now threatens to destroy the self-government of the American people. Our claim to self-government is predicated on an understanding of right that makes no sense apart from the Creator’s authority. Can we restore our confidence in that claim without challenging the rejection of God’s Creation?
Hillary Clinton health problems now appear to be serious enough to raise the prospect of replacing her as her Party’s nominee for President. After all the time, money and human effort invested in the primary election process, the Democrats’ nominee could end up being the result of a last minute deal struck in the 21st century equivalent of the backstage, smoke-filled rooms the so-called “progressives” in the early 20th century saw as the bane of the Party system of their day. High party “leaders” acting on the partisan equivalent of a survival imperative, will look for some familiar name, well known to the Party’s rank and file apparatchiks; and likely to be received favorably enough to assure that the open wound inflicted by Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal doesn’t lead to a tidal wave of defeat up and down the Party line.
This week I received an email from someone who described himself as a “Christian, federalist and part-time preacher of the gospel of Christ.” People familiar with my thought and writings will not be surprised when I say that I found myself in agreement with his view that if “we return our hearts, minds and souls to God He will bless America again.” They will also recall that I have more than once said that I would acknowledge myself to be a “Christian Federalist”, because the term aptly describes what I understand to be the prerequisite character of America’s constitutional self-government.
This weekend I read a Newsmax.com article with the headline “Trump revisits Hillary’s 1996 comment about black ‘super predators’”. In the referenced remark, Clinton referred to packs of roving youths, whom she described as having “no conscience, no empathy”. In his tweet last Friday Trump asked his followers whether Clinton had apologized for the remark. Leaving aside the fact that she reportedly did in fact do so last February, Trump’s tweet raises a question about the sincerity of his much vaunted rejection of “political correctness”.
[I offer this piece in the hope that it might lead some readers to ponder the fact that the Democratic and Republican Parties are neither democratic nor republican. The forces that presently control them both mean to overturn the U.S. Constitution, once and for all.]