In a word-NO!
In the video posted below you can see Alan Keyes being questioned on several core constitutionalist issues. He gives a mixed-bag of answers. He likes the mis-named “Fair Tax” which supposedly replaces the hated income tax with a GIGANTIC federal sales tax. We say supposedly because there’s no guarantee that the income tax will disappear, leaving us with both an income AND what amounts to a value-added tax or VAT. There are many objections to the “Fair Tax” but that is not the subject of the article.
What the article is about is a practical application of what we have learned from our (incomplete) study of the character of Alexander Hamilton and the tactics he used to achieve his strategic goal of twisting a federal constitution into a mercantilist national government. As the study continues we hope to provide more tools to enable you to understand that Hamilton’s vision is the dominant one in American government and has been since the War Between The States. We also hope to help you develop the skills to recognize what that means to you and how it effects the way your government works.
Chances are if your representative, it really doesn’t matter at what level- city, township, county, state, federal, gets elected by running as a “conservative” but consistently votes for bills which ignore constitutional limits on his particular branch of government while citing the “greater public good” as justification then he is a political descendant of Alexander Hamilton. Especially if the bill in question ultimately creates new powers for government and/or concentrates that power in very few hands, especially un-elected ones especially while granting special exemptions, rights and privileges to common interest blocs, either business or social.
Watch this clip then we’ll discuss specifics.
Alan Keyes is an excellent example of a Hamiltonian in the guise of a constitutionalist. A true Hamiltonian is an extremely intelligent and charismatic political chameleon who has no qualms against assuming the political disguise of having a philosophy that he disdains in order to win the support of those who are adherents to that philosophy. Like all Hamiltonians, Keyes is a master at equivocation. He is able to speak in terms that can be interpreted by both constitutionalists and nationalists as friendly to their positions, depending upon his audience. Only by examining in detail his statements can we get anything like a clear view of his constitutional interpretation.
Take, for instance, Keyes’ view of the “Fair Tax.” This author has heard Alan Keyes make impassioned pleas for the end of the 16th amendment, the amendment that allows direct taxation of individuals by the federal government. We ran a review of a conference where just such a plea was made by Keyes available here. We noted that within 4 hours Dr. Keyes employed two diametrically opposite hermeneutics of constitutional interpretation for different reasons to different audiences, thus bolstering our case.
In the video Keyes’ position on the “Fair Tax” does not comport with his claim at the conference reviewed that the 16th amendment should be repealed. If the 16th amendment is repealed then an authorization for ANY direct taxation of individuals evaporates and the “Fair Tax” necessarily dies since there’s no longer any direct taxation authority. An intelligent man like Dr. Keyes must know this. Why not be truthful about it then? The facts in detail do not fit the needs of the proponents, therefore the facts in detail may be equivocated because it’s for “the common good.” Hamiltonian to the core.
Dr. Keyes also makes a rather absurd claim that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) appropriated his views on the Federal Reserve (Fed) from him. This is nothing more or less than an attempt to “earn his chops” among skeptical constitutionalists who know who Paul is and where he stands on issues like taxation, the Fed, presidential authority, war powers and US sovereignty issues. Many do not know where Keyes stands on some of these key issues so he’s attempting to skim off some of Paul’s supporters to his own camp.
As we showed in our review of our personal conversations with Keyes and what he spoke about at the conference, He and Rep. Paul are on completely different wavelengths regarding presidential power, war powers, US sovereignty, especially as regards the surrender of that sovereignty to the UN via the treaty power. Keyes “stand” against the Fed on the basis of our economy being controlled by “international bankers” flies in the face of his support of the idea that the US has legally surrendered at least some of its sovereignty to the UN via treaty obligation, which he unsuccessfully argues is allowed under article VI of the US Constitution. In short, Keyes is trying to equivocate his way into the constitutionalist camp while remaining firmly in the nationalist camp with feelers out to the globalist camp.
Frankly, no one except some policy wonks ever heard of Dr. Alan Keyes before he was appointed to the UN Economic and Social Council ambassadorship in 1985. His explanation of his opposition to the Fed in the video is, at best, nebulous and appears that it is being developed extemporaneously as he is asked questions. Some of it seems to be a kind of modified Independent Treasury System and some of it is just platitudinous nonsense; ear candy for the uninformed who know that something’s wrong with the economy and the Fed’s the most likely culprit.
Keyes is the perfect example of a politician who is truly pro-life (and we are definitely not questioning his stand on the life issue) and believes that his pro-life credentials is a get-out-of-jail-free card with Christian constitutionalists on other issues as long as he says what seem to be the right things. This attitude is all too prevalent among Christian Republicans who are ALWAYS surprised when their favorite pro-life “conservative” betrays them on taxes, gun control, education, business regulation,campaign finance, free speech, police powers and you name it.
Dr Paul, on the other hand, has been in Congress, with hiatus, since 1976. He has a well-developed stance on economics, being from the hard currency, local control of banking Austrian economic school. He has a well-defined body of work on the constitutional issues that Dr. Keyes is the most ambiguous on. He has never been afraid to tackle difficult constitutional subjects and has always been open and honest about where he stands on issues. He is a strict constitutional constructionist. He isn’t perfect by any means, but he is open and honest. In short, he is a true constitutionalist. There isn’t any question of what Dr. Paul means when he is done speaking or has written a paper. He does not engage in ambiguities or equivocation.
We bring Ron Paul into the picture because Keyes does. It is obvious he is at least trying to compare himself to Paul because Paul has such a loyal base and he wants in on the action. In order to do that he is willing to make ridiculous claims regarding Paul’s position on economics, war powers, presidential authority, state sovereignty, etc and to gloss over his own globalist/interventionist leanings to make it appear that he and Dr. Paul are not that far from one anothers viewpoints. The fact that some have bought into this in spite of the evidence to the contrary that surfaces only when Keyes’ statements are examined in detail bolsters our point about his being a Hamiltonian heir.