When our Constitutional government is implemented according to its terms, political leaders have to develop the habit of thinking in terms of principles and common purposes, instead of just reacting to happenstance. Thanks to the elitist faction’s war against God (which includes the absurd doctrine of a “living constitution” written in rootless terms with no reliable meaning), the good citizens, and those whom they elect as their representatives, are not compelled to justify their views and proposals in terms of the common understanding of justice, right and rights that forms the common ground of their existence as a people.
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.
Rachel Dolezal was dubbed a “race-faker” after “she was exposed as a white woman who had been representing herself as black.” That latter description, found in a CNN report, leaves out the fact that, as an NAACP leader in Spokane, Washington, she not only represented herself, but other people of color. A story in the British press back in February, reported that “Dolezal is jobless, and feeding her family with food stamps…next month she expects to be homeless.”
In public life, the first prerequisite of responsible judgment is to take account of the common good. This does not mean the goods most, or even all people value or possess. It refers, rather, to the substance without which the whole community is moved to extinction, in principle or in fact. In human terms, the common good is never simply a material thing. As material objects, human beings are bodies. But though we all have a body, it is also one thing we cannot actually share with another, except it be in some metaphorical sense. So, when Christ says (Mark 10:8) “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh….”, we are immediately tempted to assume that he must be speaking metaphorically. After all, as a material fact, after coition the man and woman continue to inhabit separate bodies.
I would see you unwearied in activity, aglow with the Spirit, waiting like slaves upon the Lord; buoyed up by hope, patient in affliction, persevering in prayer; providing generously for the needs of the saints, striving to show friendliness to strangers. Bestow a blessing on those who persecute you; a blessing not a curse…. Repay no one evil for evil, having in mind what is noble in the sight of all humanity; if it is in your power, be at peace with all people; do not avenge yourselves, brethren, rather give wrath the place for which it is written: “Retribution is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” But if it be that your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, give him drink. For by doing this, you will heap fire upon his head. Do not let evil win over you; but with good win over evil. (Romans 11-14, 17-21)
James Hodgkinson’s murderous attack on members of Congress last week makes it impossible to deny what has, in other respects, been apparent for some time: that a pall of vengeful violence hangs over the political union of the people of the United States. Who is responsible? GOP partisans quite understandably point to the demonstratively violent tenor of the frenzied antagonism that has characterized organized opposition to Donald Trump since the moment it became clear he would be the GOP’s nominee for President.
Though it is altogether forgotten these days, the health insurance concept was originally intended to help working people (by which I mean all those who depend on income derived from their own personal labor, rather than their wealth, however invested) aggregate resources, so that, by spreading the cost of occasional health emergencies over a large enough pool of relatively small contributions, it would be more than adequate to help individuals cope with health crises without having to disgorge all their savings and/or destroy their livelihood. This is an assurance the wealthy can enjoy as a matter of course, provided they do not spend their substance on carnal dissipation, fruitless or physically injurious luxuries, or inordinate ambitious undertakings.
And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. (Mark 4:14)
We should see the Trump budget as a cultural as well as fiscal initiative.
“Pope slams conservative ‘fanatics’ who make doctrine an ‘ideology.’” When I saw this headline recently, I found myself wondering what Pope Francis meant to convey by the word “fanatic.” The Latin roots of the word referred to people caught up in a frenzy of religious fervor while worshipping in the temple of their god. That meaning still has something to do with the curtailed version of the word “fan”, as it brings to mind enraptured teenagers at a concert for their favorite pop idol: moving to the beat of the music, and mouthing lyrics as religiously as ancient worshippers sung the canticles of praise to their idols. Of course, this week it also brings to mind religious enthusiasts of a different sort, like the jihadist suicide bomber who murdered just such concert goers after pop idol Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester.
Yesterday I published an article that focused, among other things, on the significance of the fact that, according to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, it takes fewer states (a lower supermajority) to propose changes in the U.S. Constitution than it does actually to change it. More often than not people note the difference without bothering to think about what it means. Simply put, it suggests an intent to make it easier to propose Constitutional changes than to make them. Obviously, so-called “originalists” (people who profess to interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of their original purpose or intent) should take this difference seriously.
In Shakespeare’s Macbeth King Duncan reports the execution of the traitorous Thane of Cawdor with words that epitomize the meaning of the phrase “a backhanded compliment”:
This week I read a Walter Williams column in which he questions the assumption that it’s necessarily a bad thing for the United States to spend more buying imported goods and services from any given this country than we make from exporting goods and services to that country. This is called a “current account deficit,” and as Professor Williams points out, China is a well-known case in point. He goes on to explain that focusing exclusively on this account can be misleading, because it doesn’t reflect money the United States receives from “direct foreign investment, such as the purchase or construction of machinery, buildings or whole manufacturing plants” or “portfolio investment, such as purchases of stocks and bonds.”
Yesterday Donald Trump warned his Twitter followers: “Don’ let the fake media tell you that I have changed my position on the WALL. It will get built and help stop drugs, human trafficking etc.”
This week I read a well-intentioned article in support of President Trump’s decision to launch a punitive missile attack against Syria for “using chemical weapons against his own people….” Its author, Siena Hoefling, dismissed Senator Rand Paul’s complaint that the punitive attack was “an unconstitutional rush to war.” She noted that “like his colleagues, the senator made no demand that the House of Representatives impeach the president because “A president who uses executive and military power in the name of innocent human life has a morally defensible cause.”
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1, Chapter XII)
According to one recent report “a top U.S. official warned Tuesday that ‘the clock has run out’ on decades of diplomatic efforts to rein in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs….” He also reportedly said that “It is now urgent, because we feel that the clock is very, very quickly running out.” That nuance of difference leaves a little running room for further diplomacy. But, as the report notes, the warning it conveys lines up with the fact that “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the threat that country [North Korea] poses is ‘imminent.’ During a trip to Asia he said Washington is out of ‘strategic patience’ and that ‘all options are on the table’—a phrase typically understood to refer to military action.”
In the aftermath of the GOP’s failed attempt to overhaul Obamacare, it appears that the man who literally ‘wrote the book’ on deal-making failed to make a deal. The headline of one article I read portrayed it as “the biggest broken promise in political history.” Be that as it may, the predictable spectacle of excuses and mutual recrimination is not lacking. President Trump wagged his twitter finger at the Republican House Freedom Caucus. He also struck an almost professorial pose, speaking like an academic observer—detached, above the fray:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; … shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (U.S. Constitution Article VI)
Government officials who work with highly classified materials are subject to serious punishment if, by intention or negligence, they reveal the information they have acquired in the course of their work, especially if and when it compromises the sensitive sources and methods used to acquire it. I find myself thinking about the implications of this fact every time I read a news report dealing with U.S. government agencies entrusted with for developing such information for use by government decision makers responsible for national security affairs.