Keyes: Obama is a Serial Killing Communist

Alan Keyes writes his usual thoughtful, well-reasoned column for the Worldnetdaily. Just kidding, he’s penned a typically hysterical screed accusing Obama of being a “serial killer” and a hardcore Marxist in the mold of Hitler and Stalin.

When people who approach me as fellow “conservatives” ask me who I support or might support for president in the GOP primaries I immediately feel a mingled sense of irritation and anger. It reminds me of the way I felt in 2008 when media types asked me whether I felt proud to see Obama occupy the Oval Office. Would I feel proud to see a serial killer elected president just because his skin wasn’t white (or, more accurately, pink)? In that case I would regard even the temptation to feel pride as duress, which threatened the life of my soul.

Bridle if you like at the effrontery of comparing Obama to a serial killer. The 20th century offers ample proof that government officials who conform themselves to evil ideologies are more than likely to produce death tolls so massive that no word or phrase truly expresses the enormity of their crimes. What I learned about Obama as I prepared to run against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004 convinced me that he was a hardline socialist ideologue, in the ruthless, self-worshiping mold Hitler and Stalin had in common.

Ah yes, the 2004 Senate election, when Alan Keyes carpetbagged his way into Illinois in order to run against Obama after saying this just four years earlier about Hillary Clinton running for the Senate from New York:

“And I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton’s willingness to go into a state she doesn’t even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn’t imitate it.”

When Hillary Clinton does it, it’s the “destruction of federalism” that he resents so much that he would never do what she did. Until he did, in fact, do what she did. Then it’s totally okay. The difference, of course, is that the people of New York didn’t seem to mind Hillary running from that state as they elected her. Keyes, on the other hand, lost to Obama by a staggering 70-27% margin.

And have you noticed that all these right-wingers who claim Obama is a socialist never actually define socialism or point to his policies to show that he’s a socialist? Socialism means government ownership of the means of production. Has Obama seized factories and businesses? Nope. Has he done anything at all that would be in line with actual socialism, as opposed to the imaginary version that exists in their head? Nope. They just think “socialism” is a magic word that makes the person it’s aimed at undeniably evil.

I survey the evidence of Obama’s years in office, and the pattern of activity that emerges confirms my longstanding premonition that, like the hardline socialists of the 20th century, he is a harbinger of death, including the tragic death of the conscience, prosperity and just premises of my country.

A harbinger of death! The more the right uses this lurid, hysterical rhetoric, the more I just can’t help but laugh at the desperation.

"Also, a pardon essentially removes the ability to take the Fifth (it's impossible to self-incriminate ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"In the other side of the screen, it looked so easy."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"That... doesn't make me feel any better. Of course the state of the nation is ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"Also, you’re replying on the wrong thread on the wrong blog, Boris. Our conversation is ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    If Obama is a serial killer in the mold of Hitler and Stalin, why are you still alive, Alan?

  • Nick Gotts

    Socialism means government ownership of the means of production.

    No, it doesn’t. It means common ownership of the means of production. That could be ownership by the state (which is still not “the government”), or by municipalities, or by workers’ cooperatives. When it comes to socialism, you’re apparently just as ignorant as Keyes.

  • mentalcase79

    #2: Yeah, because Ed using a common abstraction of the complex system of socialism is somehow “just as ignorant as Keyes,” especially when Keyes is completely lying, distorting facts, and being an overall ass. I can see how that might be confusing for you, though.

  • colnago80

    As I understand socialism, the workers in an enterprise own the enterprise. Of course, the so called Communist system in the former Soviet Union was not a Communist system at all but State Capitalism. The workers had no say in the running of the enterprises.

  • grumpyoldfart

    I just can’t help but laugh at the desperation.

    One day they’ll have the numbers and then there will be no stopping them.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Those multiple extra-judicial executions by drone and hit squad do arguably establish Obama as a serial killer, though I doubt Keyes has anything of the sort in “mind” (to stretch that last word quite far).

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Socialism is things I don’t like. That’s why Obamacare is Socialism, while Medicare is not.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Given Obama’s shenanigans with the Pacific trade negotiations, and his support for section 215 of the not-Patriot Act, oh and also his harsh stand toward whistle blowers, I’d be more likely to believe he’s a covert Tea-Bagger than any sort of Socialist.

    Here’s $0.02.

  • eric

    have you noticed that all these right-wingers who claim Obama is a socialist never actually define socialism or point to his policies to show that he’s a socialist?

    Socialist = Democrat. The 2016 election will be interesting is that we will see if Socialist = black Democrat or just Socialist = Democrat. If they call Hilary a socialist, we’ll have our answer.

    Has he done anything at all that would be in line with actual socialism,

    The most cogent (and it wasn’t very) argument I heard was from a few years back: Obama is socialist because he increased the income tax rate of the highest tax bracket, which is socialist in that it is a (selective or unfair) collection and redistribution of individuals’ private wealth to others. Of course, the difference between Bush and Obama on this measure is about 35% vs. 39% respectively. I guess that a 37% individual income tax rate is the dividing line between Yay Yay American Hero Capitalism and Evil Marxist Communist Socialism.

  • A Masked Avenger

    A serial killing communist, eh? What a dumbass. As you’ve cogently pointed out, Obama is certainly no communist! (Ducks head, checks sky for drones…)

    Just kidding. I’m inside the CONUS, and don’t have brownish skin or “al” in my name.

  • lorn

    The “socialist” claim is a dog whistle for the supposed evils of collective action and the common good. For the right the driving myth is that there are individuals, and families, but no “we” as might determine and establish any common good. This also plays out in the way right wingers think of themselves. Their language is sliced with references to hunting, ‘I eat what I kill’, and individual martial prowess, killers and ninjas. They imagine themselves as lone heroes living by will and constant deadly combat. On the surface there is some resemblance but once you dig below that surface the view is of the majority being both lazy and willfully ignorant in even the basics of their own business. Most medium and larger businesses live off of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, government research developments handed off to corporations for exploitation, generous infrastructure grants, public property sold to private industry for ten cents on the dollar, and outright cash grants.

  • Nemo

    He’s not actually calling Obama a serial killer, he’s just comparing him to one.

    The piece is mainly about how he hates all the Republican primary candidates for not being conservative enough, or something.

  • Al Dente

    Hitler was a Marxist?

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Al Dente : Well there was the “Socialist” part of the Nazi name .. But no. Definitely really at the opposite end of the political spectrum ie. fascist and he fought many Communists with a lot of them falling victim to the Holocaust alongside the six million Jews too. You didn’t already know this?

    @6. Pierce R. Butler : “Those multiple extra-judicial executions by drone and hit squad do arguably establish Obama as a serial killer,..”

    There’s crime and then there’s war – these two different categories. Murder is illegal, warfare is legal. Otherwise all soldiers , well,almost all who fight any war would be considered serial killers which is ridiculous. War isn’t murder by definition. Your confusion over something so elementary is puzzling.

    @8. eoraptor : I very much doubt Obama a teabagger somehow! But imagine their faces if he turned up at one of their meetings or announced himself as one of their supporters?

  • dingojack

    Murder: the felonious taking of another person’s life, with malice aforethought, without mitigating circumstances.

    In order for those killed by a drone strike to be counted as murder victims you have to show:

    a) that their deaths were outside the framework of the law

    b) there was an pre-meditated intention to kill those persons

    c) there were no mitigating circumstances, such as ‘defence of self or others’ for example

    Dingo (IANAL)

  • Pierce R. Butler

    StevoR @ # 14: There’s crime and then there’s war – these two different categories.

    “Different” with a huge overlap. Considering how many (thousands) of people Obama has slaughtered by drone, in nations with whom the US is not at war, without trial or any pretext of judicial process, based on flimsy and often wrong “intelligence” – not counting the many, many, many unknown “collateral damage” victims – I see no reason at all to put Obama off in that “war-not-crime” sliver of the Venn diagram which you imagine offers cleanliness and righteousness.

    Note that Obama’s drone butchery, which is quite characteristic of the actions of a classic Bond villain, meets the criteria for murder spelled out by dingojack @ # 15 without, sfaik, any exceptions whatsoever.

  • dingojack

    Peirce – “Note that Obama’s drone butchery, which is quite characteristic of the actions of a classic Bond villain, meets the criteria for murder spelled out by dingojack @ # 15 without, sfaik, any exceptions whatsoever.”

    Ah, no, no it doesn’t. The issue is far from clear, legally.

    Is it ‘murder’, probably not, is it immoral, almost certainly.

    Sure, deplore the action with me, but don’t use ridiculous hyperbole to do it (‘Bond villain’? Really?) It undermines the strong moral argument, luring you into a maze of side-issues (such as this legalistic argument of ‘murder’, ‘manslaughter’ or something else) and allows the detractors to choose the ‘terrain’ that is most disadvantageous to our argument.

    Plus it makes it look like we’re attempting to become a slouch of tinfoil-hat models.

    Dingo

  • Pierce R. Butler

    dingojack @ # 17: The issue is far from clear, legally.

    The courts haven’t weighed in on any of it – at least in the US, and of course all others don’t count.

    … ridiculous hyperbole … (‘Bond villain’? Really?)

    Flying death robots ordered to kill around the world by a soft-spoken, utterly ruthless man in a well-tailored suit with a sexy consort – the only part that doesn’t fit in a 007 movie is the daughters.

    Do you grant the same sort of legitimacy you apparently impute to the Obama-Bush “war on terror” to, say, the 1976 assassination in DC of Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffitt? If not, how do you differentiate the two?

  • dingojack

    “Flying Death Robots”*?

    Yeah, when you find yourself in a hole, the best idea is to keep digging. I’m sure that’ll work. @@

    You really are some kinda ‘Soooper Geeeenius’ aren’t you?

    Dingo

    ——–

    PS: I am so sorry to see your severe reading comprehension problem. I’m sure someone could take you to your local library, there the nice Librarian will be able to find an adult learning program suitable for your particular problems.

    [re-read mine, S-L-O-W_L_Y.]

    * the name of a Japanese Bubble-gum Pop Band of the Nineties, perhaps?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    dingojack @ # 19: You really are some kinda ‘Soooper Geeeenius’ aren’t you?

    Tcch, usually your responses are at least somewhat relevant to the point at hand. Why don’t you take a nice little nap and come back to the question when you feel better?

  • dingojack

    Re-read my post #17 again (or perhaps get a friend to read it to you, S_L_O_W_L_Y) over and over again until you understand it. Then get back to me.

    Dingo

  • Pierce R. Butler

    dingojack @ # 21: Re-read my post #17 again …

    [sigh]

    The issue is far from clear, legally.

    “Legally” seems moot without any attempts at enforcement. The de facto dynamics, on which I think we agree, include that Obama can and does kill at will almost anywhere in the “Third World” (and expanding into the “Second”) with his high-tech gadgets and obedient lackeys.

    Is it ‘murder’, probably not, is it immoral, almost certainly.

    In your legal universe, it’s not “murder” if the state does it?

    … ridiculous hyperbole to do it (‘Bond villain’? Really?)

    Death-by-drone + eyes-in-the-sky would’ve been the perfect weapon set for a Bond baddie a decade or more ago, especially when coupled with a, in effect, license to kill. Running such villainy out of the White House, even back then, would have been cut from the script at the first conference for sheer implausibility. However, the potential for physically-impossible chase scenes appears endless; from now on, expect a continuing increase in drones in the armories of both entertainment and real life.

    It undermines the strong moral argument…

    Which one would that be again?

    … a maze of side-issues (such as this legalistic argument of ‘murder’, ‘manslaughter’ or something else)…

    Try “war crimes”, “violations of Geneva Conventions”, “violations of national boundaries”… clearly multiple charges might apply. Does “manslaughter” encompass “collateral damage”?

    … allows the detractors to choose the ‘terrain’ that is most disadvantageous to our argument.

    Whaddya mean “our”? Me, I got more than one argument regarding our literally atrocious status quo.

    As you have showed by so nimbly moving us onto the terrain of the current legal standing of our friendly neighborhood Chief Executi-ve/-oner (where I had only begun pointing to his known extralegal endeavors), a little comment-fu goes a long way.

    Plus it makes it look like we’re attempting to become a slouch of tinfoil-hat models.

    A nice collective there. (What then does one call a federation of fedora fellows?)

    But what part of known drone capability or kill count* involves tinfoil-hats?

    *Which years ago passed that of 9/11, please recall.