Alan Keyes
Whom should we trust?
By Alan Keyes
"... confidence must be placed somewhere;... the necessity of doing it is implied in the very act of delegating power."
– Federalist 26
In response to his mini-filibuster some weeks ago, I omitted to applaud Rand Paul when he demanded that Obama declare explicitly that "noncombatants in America won't be killed with drone strikes." I observed at the time that "it's pathetically easy to conceive of circumstances in which...a decision [involving such casualties], however emotionally and morally difficult, would be required."
Given the prudential requirements of both law enforcement and national security actions, I wasn't surprised to read in a CNN story that Sen. Paul has recently disappointed some of the people who applauded his imprudently articulated demand. He "clarified" his position to take better account of reality. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him," he reportedly said. Of course, he should care, since the policeman's objective in that situation would properly be to arrest the suspect, not kill him. Thus Paul's clarification of his drone policy inspires no more confidence than his original pose (and I use the word advisedly.)
Paul's predicament raises the issue of misplaced confidence I headlined in my blog piece. At the end of the day, government will be no better (and is likely to become much worse) than the people to whom we entrust the use of its powers. Yet Americans keep putting their trust in people whose record simply contradicts such confidence.
Barack Obama is the greatest example of this tragic flaw. Before and since taking office, his statements, actions, and results tend to confirm the suspicion that he and the forces he represents are hostile to the prosperity, character, and safety of the American people. As I pointed out some years ago:
"On any assumption of goodwill toward America and its institutions, Obama's policies appear incoherent, disjointed, incompetent, and self-destructive. On the assumption of hostility toward America's vital interests and its way of life, however, they resolve into the rational, coherent, and indeed directly linear pursuit of its destruction."
From Obamacare to amnesty for illegal immigrants, from his indifference to Kermit Gosnell's morally depraved slaughter of babies to the jihadists' slaughter of innocents on the streets of Boston, we experience the fact that the implementation of Obama's life-long anti-American ideology is contributing to the economic and moral collapse of the nation, and that his practiced admiration for America's adversaries is strengthening their determination to threaten and attack us.
What sense does it make to trust Barack Obama with the safety and well-being of the nation? What sense does it make to trust a medical profession willing to pretend that the murder of babies, or the practice of euthanasia, is consistent with the oath to do no harm (an oath that ought still to be taken seriously, if not by medical professionals then by the people they purport to serve)? What sense does it make to trust GOP politicians, who proclaim their respect for the Constitution but who join with the Democrats to ignore or discard its provisions? Some are doing so with respect to Obama's eligibility for the office of president, the Second Amendment, the constitutional right of all persons to due process, and the unalienable rights of the natural family, which the Constitution's Ninth amendment forbids them to deny or disparage.
In Federalist 26, when he observed that for government to function, "confidence must be placed somewhere," Hamilton pointed out that "schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution." With respect to such a scheme, he went on to say that it would require "a continued conspiracy for a series of time." He asked, "Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?"
When Hamilton posed these questions, they were merely a rhetorical device. But in the past decade, despite consistent opposition from the people at large, we have seen the consistent bipartisan advancement of agendas that attack the unalienable right to life, the Ninth Amendment rights of the natural family, the security of our borders, of our sovereignty as a people, and of our property as families and individuals. They also attack our unalienable right to possess the arms required to defend ourselves and our common liberty, and the rights of conscience that arise from our obligations to respect "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
America has been and is being betrayed in precisely the improbable way Hamilton suggests, up to and including two-thirds of the congressional representatives elected to the Congress in 2010 on the strength of their commitment to the grassroots agenda of the tea party movement, who ended up voting for measures that betrayed their constituents. This betrayal is possible because of the sham two-party system, both wings of which are now controlled by an elitist faction hostile to the perpetuation of America's constitutional government.
America's founders foresaw and warned against the mischief of factions that could pervert the necessary delegation of powers toward abuse and injustice. But like the eye that cannot see itself, the founders did not fully appreciate the vital importance of what they themselves contributed to the success of America's experiment in self-government. They were people of extraordinary talent and accomplishment. But they championed the form of government that respects and encourages the right and capacity of people to be the ultimate arbiters of government's sovereign power. They placed their confidence in the people – but they made it clear that this was possible only because the American people were such as to put their faith and confidence in God, who is the Creator and will be the judge of all.
The American republic is now threatened, and may already be lost. The elitist faction has, for the last quarter century, purposely implemented an agenda aimed at undermining and demoralizing those who still live by the words, "In God We Trust." The only path that might lead to its restoration is a political movement based explicitly on proclaiming, and acting on, not just those words, but the logic of liberty and justice they represent. Are you interested in exploring that logic? That is the purpose of everything I have written for several years at Loyal to Liberty. It may be worth exploring, starting with the articles grouped under the heading "Christian Federalist" in the navigation bar.
April 29, 2013
"... confidence must be placed somewhere;... the necessity of doing it is implied in the very act of delegating power."
– Federalist 26
In response to his mini-filibuster some weeks ago, I omitted to applaud Rand Paul when he demanded that Obama declare explicitly that "noncombatants in America won't be killed with drone strikes." I observed at the time that "it's pathetically easy to conceive of circumstances in which...a decision [involving such casualties], however emotionally and morally difficult, would be required."
Given the prudential requirements of both law enforcement and national security actions, I wasn't surprised to read in a CNN story that Sen. Paul has recently disappointed some of the people who applauded his imprudently articulated demand. He "clarified" his position to take better account of reality. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him," he reportedly said. Of course, he should care, since the policeman's objective in that situation would properly be to arrest the suspect, not kill him. Thus Paul's clarification of his drone policy inspires no more confidence than his original pose (and I use the word advisedly.)
Paul's predicament raises the issue of misplaced confidence I headlined in my blog piece. At the end of the day, government will be no better (and is likely to become much worse) than the people to whom we entrust the use of its powers. Yet Americans keep putting their trust in people whose record simply contradicts such confidence.
Barack Obama is the greatest example of this tragic flaw. Before and since taking office, his statements, actions, and results tend to confirm the suspicion that he and the forces he represents are hostile to the prosperity, character, and safety of the American people. As I pointed out some years ago:
"On any assumption of goodwill toward America and its institutions, Obama's policies appear incoherent, disjointed, incompetent, and self-destructive. On the assumption of hostility toward America's vital interests and its way of life, however, they resolve into the rational, coherent, and indeed directly linear pursuit of its destruction."
From Obamacare to amnesty for illegal immigrants, from his indifference to Kermit Gosnell's morally depraved slaughter of babies to the jihadists' slaughter of innocents on the streets of Boston, we experience the fact that the implementation of Obama's life-long anti-American ideology is contributing to the economic and moral collapse of the nation, and that his practiced admiration for America's adversaries is strengthening their determination to threaten and attack us.
What sense does it make to trust Barack Obama with the safety and well-being of the nation? What sense does it make to trust a medical profession willing to pretend that the murder of babies, or the practice of euthanasia, is consistent with the oath to do no harm (an oath that ought still to be taken seriously, if not by medical professionals then by the people they purport to serve)? What sense does it make to trust GOP politicians, who proclaim their respect for the Constitution but who join with the Democrats to ignore or discard its provisions? Some are doing so with respect to Obama's eligibility for the office of president, the Second Amendment, the constitutional right of all persons to due process, and the unalienable rights of the natural family, which the Constitution's Ninth amendment forbids them to deny or disparage.
In Federalist 26, when he observed that for government to function, "confidence must be placed somewhere," Hamilton pointed out that "schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution." With respect to such a scheme, he went on to say that it would require "a continued conspiracy for a series of time." He asked, "Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?"
When Hamilton posed these questions, they were merely a rhetorical device. But in the past decade, despite consistent opposition from the people at large, we have seen the consistent bipartisan advancement of agendas that attack the unalienable right to life, the Ninth Amendment rights of the natural family, the security of our borders, of our sovereignty as a people, and of our property as families and individuals. They also attack our unalienable right to possess the arms required to defend ourselves and our common liberty, and the rights of conscience that arise from our obligations to respect "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
America has been and is being betrayed in precisely the improbable way Hamilton suggests, up to and including two-thirds of the congressional representatives elected to the Congress in 2010 on the strength of their commitment to the grassroots agenda of the tea party movement, who ended up voting for measures that betrayed their constituents. This betrayal is possible because of the sham two-party system, both wings of which are now controlled by an elitist faction hostile to the perpetuation of America's constitutional government.
America's founders foresaw and warned against the mischief of factions that could pervert the necessary delegation of powers toward abuse and injustice. But like the eye that cannot see itself, the founders did not fully appreciate the vital importance of what they themselves contributed to the success of America's experiment in self-government. They were people of extraordinary talent and accomplishment. But they championed the form of government that respects and encourages the right and capacity of people to be the ultimate arbiters of government's sovereign power. They placed their confidence in the people – but they made it clear that this was possible only because the American people were such as to put their faith and confidence in God, who is the Creator and will be the judge of all.
The American republic is now threatened, and may already be lost. The elitist faction has, for the last quarter century, purposely implemented an agenda aimed at undermining and demoralizing those who still live by the words, "In God We Trust." The only path that might lead to its restoration is a political movement based explicitly on proclaiming, and acting on, not just those words, but the logic of liberty and justice they represent. Are you interested in exploring that logic? That is the purpose of everything I have written for several years at Loyal to Liberty. It may be worth exploring, starting with the articles grouped under the heading "Christian Federalist" in the navigation bar.
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.)
