Last year I wrote several columns pondering the great gamesmanship underlying the boisterous President Trump’s edgy exchanges of radioactive rhetoric with China’s North Korean puppet, Kim Jong-Un. In those articles, I eschewed the notion that North Korea’s dictator pursues his nuclear ambition without Chin’s approval. The usual media coverage tends to leave China out of the picture. But North Korea’s Kim dynasty owes its very existence to the Chinese Communist regime. That is an historic and ongoing fact. It seems preposterous to analyze events in what is literally China’s backyard without considering the Communist regime’s deep interest, and likely role, in those events.
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.
President Donald Trump recently signed “an executive order…to establish a faith-based office, the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.” Now, I have never been a fan of government-sponsored faith-based initiatives. The opening paragraph of a blog post I wrote in 2009 (entitled “Obama’s Pietism: Helping faith or enforcing Godlessness?”) epitomizes my longstanding view of such initiatives:
When the claim of right destroys the freedom to do what’s right, is liberty gone?
Given the atmosphere of totalitarian repression being generated by the left wing socialist extremists on many University campuses theses day, I suppose that, as an American, I risk being charged on various counts of “cultural appropriation” for daring to write this article. In it, I criticize the evocation of “Jewish values” by Natalie Portman, a globally renowned entertainment icon, who happens to be a Jewish citizen of Israel. However, I plead, in mitigation of the charge that, on account of an act of our Father God, I am an adopted sibling of Jesus Christ, a Jewish man from Nazareth. I plead further that I am, by birth, a citizen of the United States, and therefore a fellow citizen of that aforementioned cultural icon; and, finally, that I am, by heritage a black American, whose variegated cultural DNA makes “cultural appropriation” the very definition of my way of being.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
What danger will result from not completing a course of prescribed antibiotics?
There's an alarm being raised by the so-called ‘refugee caravan’ presently advancing against the sovereignty and self-government of the American people. I warned of “the strategic threat posed by allowing people to demand entry into the United States as a matter of right, in defiance of our laws. As if to affirm this characterization of the caravan’s intention, “the political outreach group who organized the caravan, released a press statement for the United States, Mexico, and their respective Central American governments”:
In recent week’s I’ve written several articles lamenting the rampant tendency to mistake the meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. Sometimes it’s the result of ignorance. People who haven’t read the Constitution nonetheless feel passionately authorized to invoke its authority. Or people who have read it don’t bother to ponder the significance of its terms or the logic that governs their meaning. Of course, there are also a fair number of people, familiar with their logic, and therefore certain of their meaning, who hate and seek to discard Second Amendment on that account.
For good or ill, President Trump has a reputation for bold talk, particularly about the need to enforce U.S. Immigration laws. But when it comes to enacting his plainly stated constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” his administration doesn’t match his talk. A case in point involves the laws enacted by the State government of California purporting to forbid State officials and private business people to cooperate with U.S. immigration law enforcement efforts.
Since news broke of Kim Jong Un’s “eagerness” to meet with President Donald Trump, some have hailed the prospective meeting as a triumph for Trump’s boisterous policy of maximum pressure against the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Others caution that Kim’s offer may be a shrewdly calculated ploy. They surmise that, whether the meeting takes place or not, Kim aims to confirm his status as a leader on equal terms with the president of the United States.
The U.S. Justice Department’s move to file suit against California’s lawmaking and executive acts seeking to discourage or forbid State officials and private sector employers and businesses from cooperating in the enforcement of U.S. laws regulating immigration raises the specter of civil war.
Last fall, President Donald Trump issued an executive order renewing faith advisory councils for agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. But he did not renew the White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, launched in the George W. Bush administration and extended in 2009 by President Barack Obama. (Trump faith Adviser: We’re in “Heart” of policy conversations.)
Both sides of the debate about the Second Amendment seem purposely intent on ignoring the stated reason and intended result, for its presence in the Constitution. This despite the fact that it deals with what was, as a matter of historical fact, the key to the implementation of representative self-government in Great Britain and the United States. Had Cromwell’s New Model Army proven unequal to the task of winning decisive victories -- in siege warfare as well as open combat -- would America’s patriots have had the presumption to assume that the discipline of their republican creed could prevail against regular professional armies? Without the courage, self-reliance and communal discipline that had to be second nature to families and villages regularly exposed to adventitious violence, would their experience have verified that assumption, time and again?
In an article published last week, I recalled prophetic thinking from America’s Founding generation. It leads one to ponder the ominous significance of the controversy that has the Democrat and GOP wings of the elitist faction duking it out over foreign interference in our government and politics. People on both sides of that brawl are claiming that the activities of the other side are "political." After blocking its release because of national security concerns, President Donald Trump use that word to describe the Schiff memo. Meanwhile, the Democrats say the same of his decision to stifle the Schiff memo, particularly after he released the Nunes memo, reportedly overriding those very concerns.
The Republican governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, sought to read a likely GOP primary opponent out of the Republican Illinois Party for running ads highlighting Rauner’s support for typically Democrat positions on abortion, fiat gender, sanctuary cities and leftist teachers’ unions. In a statement, Rauner observed: “There is no place in the Illinois Republican Party for rhetoric that attacks our fellow Illinoisans based on their race, gender or humanity.” Though the teachers union member portrayed in the commercial I saw happened to be a black female, it’s telling that Rauner’s statement focused on her race rather than her union membership. That makes him seem like the one attacking a fellow Illinoisan on racial grounds.
Aside from the fact that they operate in cyberspace, Facebook and other such social networking sites are no different than theater complexes, trade shows or other establishments whose "operations… affect commerce."
I recently wrote a column in which I pondered the inconsistency between “moral relativism” and the understanding of truth implied by a Christian disciple’s acceptance of Christ’s mind as his or her own. I wrote the article in light of a Washington Post piece by Eugene Scott in which the author contends that Christian support for Donald Trump involves the embrace of “moral relativism”. In defense against this charge, WND’s editor Joseph Farah writes, “If anyone 'converted' from his previous political beliefs, it is clearly Trump. … And, whatever his past suggests, President Trump has demonstrated at least a public respect and reverence for the Creator of the universe and His ways.”
According to a story, bylined for John Bowden that I read at thehill.com last Thursday evening, (drawing on an article by Josh Dawsey at the Washington Post) “during a heated Oval office meeting with lawmakers to discuss immigration, [President] Trump reportedly grew frustrated with restoring protections for immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as part of an immigration deal and suggested the U.S. instead bring in more immigrants from countries such as Norway, the prime minister of which he met Wednesday.” The Washington Post report alleges, of course, that Trump asked: “Why are we having all these people from s***hole countries come here?”
This year Martin Luther King Day falls on January 15, the date of his birth, which it is every year intended to commemorate. President Trump has, fittingly, proclaimed this entire month as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention month. Martin Luther King battled for the civil rights of black Americans who had, ostensibly, been freed from slavery in consequence of the Civil War. But as he waged that battle for America’s decent conscience, he relied on many of the same premises, arguments and moral appeals Frederick Douglass deployed against slavery. In both cases, their logic depended on the principles of God-endowed human equality, justice, and rights set forth in the American Declaration of Independence.