Alan Keyes
Correcting - - and encouraging - - Rush Limbaugh
Rebuttal of radio host's 'you can't impeach 1st black president' claim
By Alan Keyes
"The elitist faction aims to destroy Americans as a free people. They count it as fact that, thanks to their corrupting machinations, we have become what Holder, Obama, and the rest (including the jihadi terrorists they now work with and promote) arrogantly declare us to be: 'a nation of cowards.'" ("Pledge to impeach? Just do it")
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
It would certainly be the height of tragic irony if the destruction of Martin Luther King's famous dream for his children takes the form of allowing a tyrant to enslave our whole nation because we are impelled by racial fears to ignore the lawless character of his abuses of power. But if, because of the color of his skin, we refuse to curtail, by constitutional means, Barack Obama's dictatorial maneuvers against the U.S. Constitution, that is exactly what we will be doing.
I do not believe that America is a nation of cowards, not when it comes to race or terrorism or the economic challenges brought on by the elitist faction's campaign to destroy America's middle class. But it does cause me great concern when I read that Rush Limbaugh has expressed the view that "You can't impeach the first black president...no matter how corrupt or lawless." Rush's statement makes no sense unless we assume that the color of Obama's skin makes him so fearsome that Americans would rather let liberty perish than risk the consequences of calling him to account for his crimes.
I won't do Rush or any other decent American the injustice of assuming that his assertion is simply a prejudiced reaction to Obama's skin color. But I do believe that the Obama faction's manipulation of the stereotype of "negro savagery" has something to do with it. Opponents of abolition in the antebellum South routinely evoked that stereotype to caricature the consequences of abolishing slavery. With venomous irony, Holder, Obama, and their elitist faction collaborators have implicitly drawn upon it to terrorize America's craven political leaders.
At one time, the "race card" involved playing on America's guilt over what were portrayed as racially motivated injustices (though the root of those injustices was more ruthless greed than racism). Now it involves counting on America's fear of a violent black uprising if anyone interferes with Obama's ongoing campaign to consolidate dictatorial rule. Hitler had his brownshirts. Obama has his black thugs. Tactics like the so-called "knockout game" use random violence to foster a fearful environment of incipient violence against individuals. A pattern of racially selective law enforcement creates an impression of impunity that is intended further to aggravate its fearsomeness.
I and others have called this the era of "gangster government." As Obama and his collaborators take over the neighborhood, the threat of wholesale black violence is being manipulated in the background, buying the time they need to pervert the police, national security, and military forces from local peace officers, responsible agents of law enforcement, and guardians for our defense into compliant enforcers of the elitist faction's dictatorial will.
So when Rush Limbaugh says "you can't impeach America's first black president," his words evoke the specter of black urban neighborhoods ablaze with mob violence, suburbs terrorized by murderous black marauders, and a nation held hostage before the world.
Meanwhile, Obama's cozy relations with the jihadi terrorist gangs (the truth at the heart of the Benghazi debacle) and his selective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws (letting a terrorist cadre slip into the country in the guise of hapless job seekers) add to the mix, raising the possibility of sleeper terrorist cells that spring into action to take advantage of our internal unrest. They might wreak havoc in ways that end up justifying Obama's eventual goal: the overt imposition of martial law, suspending the Constitution the way Congress just suspended the debt ceiling.
The fact that Obama is now so boldly contemptuous of our laws and Constitution should alert us to the likelihood that he is prepared to be bolder still. The reaction of America's political leaders can only encourage his effrontery. His Democratic colleagues openly or implicitly urge on his tyrannical initiatives. The GOP quislings supinely facilitate and collaborate with his abuses. They are more concerned with bridling grassroots conservatives than with restraining Obama's lawless abuses of power.
Even the politicians willing to call Obama's campaign against the Constitution by its right name have thus far done little more than mouth their opposition to his assaults. Even that "little more" chiefly involves purporting to fight the tyrannical abuse of Executive power by accepting and encouraging the tyrannical abuse of Judicial power. So they act as if the ultimate responsibility to act against constitutional abuses is in the hands of an elitist crew of judges.
In fact, the voice that speaks authoritatively on constitutional matters is the voice of "the people of the United States" in whom resides the sovereign will from whom our government derives its just powers. Insofar as they are still willing to act exclusively under the rubric of the current sham two-party system, the nation's whole political leadership (and this includes putative grassroots "heroes" like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, et al.) appears to reject this fundamental premise of America's republican form of government.
The telltale sign of their apostasy is their refusal to back up their denunciations of Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors with an organized, determined, and sustained appeal to the people. Such an appeal would aim to secure a vote of no confidence in Obama and all his collaborators and all his works, a vote expressed by electing a Congress this November filled to the maximum with people pledged to impeach and remove the Obama faction from office, as a matter of first priority.
Thanks to a complex skein of timidity, selfish calculation, and governmental/political intimidation, the current crop of elected political officials hasn't yet shown the intelligence, integrity, and courage to stand forthrightly in defense of America's constitutional republic. Must we therefore, as Rush Limbaugh implies, do nothing to prevent a corrupt and lawless would-be tyrant from achieving his goal?
The example of the revolution that preceded America's founding should be our guide in this respect. Before ever the first shot was fired in defense of liberty, people had first to summon their resolve, and then, in preparation make a gathering on the green (the place where citizens prepared themselves to stand in defense of liberty).
The Pledge to Impeach campaign aims to mobilize people determined to oppose Obama's tyranny for such a gathering on the green, using the 21st century tools that allow millions to take a public stand together, if they will. Perhaps, as things stand, we "can't impeach America's first black president." But we can resolve to show the courage it takes to join together in the demand that any elected officials who want to represent us must pledge to represent our determination to impeach and remove a lawless, would-be dictator from office, regardless of the color of his skin.
"But Alan, what if we can't succeed?"
When America's patriot founders gathered to declare the nation's independence, not one among them was sure they would succeed. That's not what it takes to become and remain a free people. What it takes is the courage to stand: to stand, to fight, and not to yield, though death itself pretends to claim the victory. I pray that Rush Limbaugh, and every other American of good faith, will stand against Obama's tyranny and encourage others to do so. Then let the tyrants who wish to kill our liberty ponder the task of wading through all of us to do it.
February 18, 2014
"The elitist faction aims to destroy Americans as a free people. They count it as fact that, thanks to their corrupting machinations, we have become what Holder, Obama, and the rest (including the jihadi terrorists they now work with and promote) arrogantly declare us to be: 'a nation of cowards.'" ("Pledge to impeach? Just do it")
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
It would certainly be the height of tragic irony if the destruction of Martin Luther King's famous dream for his children takes the form of allowing a tyrant to enslave our whole nation because we are impelled by racial fears to ignore the lawless character of his abuses of power. But if, because of the color of his skin, we refuse to curtail, by constitutional means, Barack Obama's dictatorial maneuvers against the U.S. Constitution, that is exactly what we will be doing.
I do not believe that America is a nation of cowards, not when it comes to race or terrorism or the economic challenges brought on by the elitist faction's campaign to destroy America's middle class. But it does cause me great concern when I read that Rush Limbaugh has expressed the view that "You can't impeach the first black president...no matter how corrupt or lawless." Rush's statement makes no sense unless we assume that the color of Obama's skin makes him so fearsome that Americans would rather let liberty perish than risk the consequences of calling him to account for his crimes.
I won't do Rush or any other decent American the injustice of assuming that his assertion is simply a prejudiced reaction to Obama's skin color. But I do believe that the Obama faction's manipulation of the stereotype of "negro savagery" has something to do with it. Opponents of abolition in the antebellum South routinely evoked that stereotype to caricature the consequences of abolishing slavery. With venomous irony, Holder, Obama, and their elitist faction collaborators have implicitly drawn upon it to terrorize America's craven political leaders.
At one time, the "race card" involved playing on America's guilt over what were portrayed as racially motivated injustices (though the root of those injustices was more ruthless greed than racism). Now it involves counting on America's fear of a violent black uprising if anyone interferes with Obama's ongoing campaign to consolidate dictatorial rule. Hitler had his brownshirts. Obama has his black thugs. Tactics like the so-called "knockout game" use random violence to foster a fearful environment of incipient violence against individuals. A pattern of racially selective law enforcement creates an impression of impunity that is intended further to aggravate its fearsomeness.
I and others have called this the era of "gangster government." As Obama and his collaborators take over the neighborhood, the threat of wholesale black violence is being manipulated in the background, buying the time they need to pervert the police, national security, and military forces from local peace officers, responsible agents of law enforcement, and guardians for our defense into compliant enforcers of the elitist faction's dictatorial will.
So when Rush Limbaugh says "you can't impeach America's first black president," his words evoke the specter of black urban neighborhoods ablaze with mob violence, suburbs terrorized by murderous black marauders, and a nation held hostage before the world.
Meanwhile, Obama's cozy relations with the jihadi terrorist gangs (the truth at the heart of the Benghazi debacle) and his selective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws (letting a terrorist cadre slip into the country in the guise of hapless job seekers) add to the mix, raising the possibility of sleeper terrorist cells that spring into action to take advantage of our internal unrest. They might wreak havoc in ways that end up justifying Obama's eventual goal: the overt imposition of martial law, suspending the Constitution the way Congress just suspended the debt ceiling.
The fact that Obama is now so boldly contemptuous of our laws and Constitution should alert us to the likelihood that he is prepared to be bolder still. The reaction of America's political leaders can only encourage his effrontery. His Democratic colleagues openly or implicitly urge on his tyrannical initiatives. The GOP quislings supinely facilitate and collaborate with his abuses. They are more concerned with bridling grassroots conservatives than with restraining Obama's lawless abuses of power.
Even the politicians willing to call Obama's campaign against the Constitution by its right name have thus far done little more than mouth their opposition to his assaults. Even that "little more" chiefly involves purporting to fight the tyrannical abuse of Executive power by accepting and encouraging the tyrannical abuse of Judicial power. So they act as if the ultimate responsibility to act against constitutional abuses is in the hands of an elitist crew of judges.
In fact, the voice that speaks authoritatively on constitutional matters is the voice of "the people of the United States" in whom resides the sovereign will from whom our government derives its just powers. Insofar as they are still willing to act exclusively under the rubric of the current sham two-party system, the nation's whole political leadership (and this includes putative grassroots "heroes" like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, et al.) appears to reject this fundamental premise of America's republican form of government.
The telltale sign of their apostasy is their refusal to back up their denunciations of Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors with an organized, determined, and sustained appeal to the people. Such an appeal would aim to secure a vote of no confidence in Obama and all his collaborators and all his works, a vote expressed by electing a Congress this November filled to the maximum with people pledged to impeach and remove the Obama faction from office, as a matter of first priority.
Thanks to a complex skein of timidity, selfish calculation, and governmental/political intimidation, the current crop of elected political officials hasn't yet shown the intelligence, integrity, and courage to stand forthrightly in defense of America's constitutional republic. Must we therefore, as Rush Limbaugh implies, do nothing to prevent a corrupt and lawless would-be tyrant from achieving his goal?
The example of the revolution that preceded America's founding should be our guide in this respect. Before ever the first shot was fired in defense of liberty, people had first to summon their resolve, and then, in preparation make a gathering on the green (the place where citizens prepared themselves to stand in defense of liberty).
The Pledge to Impeach campaign aims to mobilize people determined to oppose Obama's tyranny for such a gathering on the green, using the 21st century tools that allow millions to take a public stand together, if they will. Perhaps, as things stand, we "can't impeach America's first black president." But we can resolve to show the courage it takes to join together in the demand that any elected officials who want to represent us must pledge to represent our determination to impeach and remove a lawless, would-be dictator from office, regardless of the color of his skin.
"But Alan, what if we can't succeed?"
When America's patriot founders gathered to declare the nation's independence, not one among them was sure they would succeed. That's not what it takes to become and remain a free people. What it takes is the courage to stand: to stand, to fight, and not to yield, though death itself pretends to claim the victory. I pray that Rush Limbaugh, and every other American of good faith, will stand against Obama's tyranny and encourage others to do so. Then let the tyrants who wish to kill our liberty ponder the task of wading through all of us to do it.
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.)
