Alan Keyes
Judge Pirro demands Obama's impeachment?
By Alan Keyes
Earlier this week, I read an article on WND with a URL that included the description "fox-news-star-unleashed-impeach-obama." That got my attention. The link took me to a story with the headline "Fox News star goes public: Impeach Obama." People who follow my columns here and on my blog know that I strongly support the growing grassroots effort to mobilize the political will of the American people to produce a Congress, in the 2014 elections, that will act to impeach and remove Obama and his collaborators.
I attentively took in the 90-second video clip in which, as the article describes it, Judge Jeanine Pirro "uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal onslaught of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up." Speaking of Obama's role, Judge Pirro's exact words (which were accurately transcribed in the article) were: "Mr. President, it's called an abrogation of duty.... This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment."
The article's URL and its headline condition the mind to conclude that Judge Pirro called for Obama's impeachment. But her words are actually a description of what's called for, which amounts to saying that Obama's role in the murderous Benghazi affair is an impeachable offense. But Rush Limbaugh and others have stated unequivocally that Obama is guilty of impeachable offenses in this and many other respects. However, they go on to say that he cannot be impeached because he's the USA's first black president.
People familiar with my background know that I spent a decade in the U.S. Foreign Service. I spent most of that time participating in or leading U.S. delegations at a fairly high level. From that experience, I learned to listen to what people actually say, rather than what I expect or want them to say. In this respect, the practice of diplomacy is like that of contract law. Down the line, what the words actually say is what will bind the parties involved.
In diplomacy, one examines an interlocutor's words in light of their motives and agendas. They often include reasons to mislead in order to win agreement or trust from their listeners. I know that WND's readership includes a great many people who desire to see Obama impeached and removed from office, for the sake of America's survival as a free country. They are like the groundswell of people some years ago who wanted to see budget and fiscal discipline established in order to stem America's skyrocketing debt burden.
At that time, voter dissatisfaction led to tumultuous town meetings and other candidate forums in the 2006 congressional election cycle. The dissatisfied voters were mainly in the GOP's electoral base. They were angry because of the party's failure to live up to its perennial platform promises. Because those voters backed off of their usual levels of support, in the 2006 elections the GOP lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
That result was a display of political clout that portended greater independence among grassroots voters and a realignment of the electorate. Such a realignment would have thwarted elitist faction manipulation. To avoid this, the elitist faction media offered focal points for voter dissatisfaction. One of those media focal points invented the label "tea party." It became the rubric under which the energy of what had been an authentic expression of grassroots conviction was reshaped into a manipulable appendage of the elitist faction's sham two-party system.
As I pointed out some years ago, the "tea party" label admitted the existence of a sizable bloc of voters dissatisfied with the GOP wing of the sham party system. It was big enough to foreshadow the emergence of a new party. However, the label corralled these dissatisfied voters into a "party" that was electorally non-existent. Why? Because, in order to identify and nominate candidates, it had to rely on a process that was thoroughly under the corrupting sway of the GOP's elitist faction leaders.
Thus contained under the shadow of the elitist faction's GOP wing, the "tea party" reached a high water mark in the 2010 elections. "Tea party"-labeled congressional candidates undoubtedly made the critical contribution to the GOP's successful effort to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. But because the manner of their election left the structures of elitist faction electoral control intact, the new "tea party" representatives fell prey to arm-twisting by their party's leadership. Roughly two-thirds of them ended up betraying the promise of fiscal discipline that was touted as the primary basis for their support from "tea party" voters.
Thus the GOP wing of the elitist faction seemed successfully to co-opt and defuse the energy that might otherwise have resulted in a party realignment. In the past this involved the emergence of a movement that replaced the party that refused to represent the convictions of its core constituents. Thus the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the run up to the last Civil War.
With Barack Obama as the figurehead, the Democratic wing of the elitist faction is insistently advancing, on every front, the faction's bid to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. This advance is rousing the most intense grassroots opposition since the pre-Civil War era. In terms of the principles and institutions of America's liberty, the stakes are even greater than they were when that terrible conflict engulfed the Union.
Is Judge Pirro's diplomatically phrased reference to the demand for impeachment an authentic personal commitment to the movement to summon the electorate's political will for that purpose? Or is it the prelude to another elitist faction media ploy aimed at corralling disaffected voters so that the elitist faction sham political structure can again channel and fruitlessly dissipate their personal and financial resources?
If Judge Pirro is sincerely advocating impeachment, she will go to the Pledge To Impeach site and add her name. She will use the opinion platform she has on Fox to announce her action and urge others to follow suit. By doing so, she will be helping grassroots voters to develop effective political leverage for the 2014 elections. She will be helping to encourage the independent strength of will American citizens must demonstrate to restore true representation in Congress. Toward that end, the Pledge To Impeach effort is the only game in town.
May 13, 2014
Earlier this week, I read an article on WND with a URL that included the description "fox-news-star-unleashed-impeach-obama." That got my attention. The link took me to a story with the headline "Fox News star goes public: Impeach Obama." People who follow my columns here and on my blog know that I strongly support the growing grassroots effort to mobilize the political will of the American people to produce a Congress, in the 2014 elections, that will act to impeach and remove Obama and his collaborators.
I attentively took in the 90-second video clip in which, as the article describes it, Judge Jeanine Pirro "uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal onslaught of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up." Speaking of Obama's role, Judge Pirro's exact words (which were accurately transcribed in the article) were: "Mr. President, it's called an abrogation of duty.... This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment."
The article's URL and its headline condition the mind to conclude that Judge Pirro called for Obama's impeachment. But her words are actually a description of what's called for, which amounts to saying that Obama's role in the murderous Benghazi affair is an impeachable offense. But Rush Limbaugh and others have stated unequivocally that Obama is guilty of impeachable offenses in this and many other respects. However, they go on to say that he cannot be impeached because he's the USA's first black president.
People familiar with my background know that I spent a decade in the U.S. Foreign Service. I spent most of that time participating in or leading U.S. delegations at a fairly high level. From that experience, I learned to listen to what people actually say, rather than what I expect or want them to say. In this respect, the practice of diplomacy is like that of contract law. Down the line, what the words actually say is what will bind the parties involved.
In diplomacy, one examines an interlocutor's words in light of their motives and agendas. They often include reasons to mislead in order to win agreement or trust from their listeners. I know that WND's readership includes a great many people who desire to see Obama impeached and removed from office, for the sake of America's survival as a free country. They are like the groundswell of people some years ago who wanted to see budget and fiscal discipline established in order to stem America's skyrocketing debt burden.
At that time, voter dissatisfaction led to tumultuous town meetings and other candidate forums in the 2006 congressional election cycle. The dissatisfied voters were mainly in the GOP's electoral base. They were angry because of the party's failure to live up to its perennial platform promises. Because those voters backed off of their usual levels of support, in the 2006 elections the GOP lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
That result was a display of political clout that portended greater independence among grassroots voters and a realignment of the electorate. Such a realignment would have thwarted elitist faction manipulation. To avoid this, the elitist faction media offered focal points for voter dissatisfaction. One of those media focal points invented the label "tea party." It became the rubric under which the energy of what had been an authentic expression of grassroots conviction was reshaped into a manipulable appendage of the elitist faction's sham two-party system.
As I pointed out some years ago, the "tea party" label admitted the existence of a sizable bloc of voters dissatisfied with the GOP wing of the sham party system. It was big enough to foreshadow the emergence of a new party. However, the label corralled these dissatisfied voters into a "party" that was electorally non-existent. Why? Because, in order to identify and nominate candidates, it had to rely on a process that was thoroughly under the corrupting sway of the GOP's elitist faction leaders.
Thus contained under the shadow of the elitist faction's GOP wing, the "tea party" reached a high water mark in the 2010 elections. "Tea party"-labeled congressional candidates undoubtedly made the critical contribution to the GOP's successful effort to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. But because the manner of their election left the structures of elitist faction electoral control intact, the new "tea party" representatives fell prey to arm-twisting by their party's leadership. Roughly two-thirds of them ended up betraying the promise of fiscal discipline that was touted as the primary basis for their support from "tea party" voters.
Thus the GOP wing of the elitist faction seemed successfully to co-opt and defuse the energy that might otherwise have resulted in a party realignment. In the past this involved the emergence of a movement that replaced the party that refused to represent the convictions of its core constituents. Thus the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the run up to the last Civil War.
With Barack Obama as the figurehead, the Democratic wing of the elitist faction is insistently advancing, on every front, the faction's bid to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. This advance is rousing the most intense grassroots opposition since the pre-Civil War era. In terms of the principles and institutions of America's liberty, the stakes are even greater than they were when that terrible conflict engulfed the Union.
Is Judge Pirro's diplomatically phrased reference to the demand for impeachment an authentic personal commitment to the movement to summon the electorate's political will for that purpose? Or is it the prelude to another elitist faction media ploy aimed at corralling disaffected voters so that the elitist faction sham political structure can again channel and fruitlessly dissipate their personal and financial resources?
If Judge Pirro is sincerely advocating impeachment, she will go to the Pledge To Impeach site and add her name. She will use the opinion platform she has on Fox to announce her action and urge others to follow suit. By doing so, she will be helping grassroots voters to develop effective political leverage for the 2014 elections. She will be helping to encourage the independent strength of will American citizens must demonstrate to restore true representation in Congress. Toward that end, the Pledge To Impeach effort is the only game in town.
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.)
