web analytics
≡ Menu

Does Brain surgeon Carson think pro-lifers are morons?

Claiming to be "extremely oriented" toward pro-life, he endorses Oregon pro-abort

People started asking me what I thought of Ben Carson early last year, after he gave a speech at the National Prayer breakfast that caught the attention of some moral conservatives.  I read his speech and found it unremarkable, particularly in terms of the deep moral crisis that is destroying just law and liberty in the United States.  Aside from some “God Bless America” rhetoric (the usual posturing characteristic ofSmallLogoLTL the GOP’s elitist faction collaborators) the speech conveyed the “man is made by man” spirit of self-idolatry characteristically associated with the elitist faction’s ideology of (God-denying) scientistic materialism.

As usual with the elitist faction’s fabricated candidates for political leadership, nothing in Carson’s speech relied on, or even acknowledged the logic of America’s Declaration of Independence.  Ben Carson struck me as just another RINO repairman, whose “fix-it” expertise as a skilled surgeon is supposed to pass for wisdom when it comes to the crisis of America’s free institutions.  But like all such elitist faction approved products, Mr. Carson made nothing of the issues of unalienable right (abortion, the attack on the natural rights of the family) that are dissolving the foundations of the nation’s character for self-government.

After taking the time to ponder Mr. Carson’s prayer breakfast speech, I was tempted to publish an analysis making the points I just summarized.  In fact, I did write it, but withheld it from publication. I convinced myself that he deserved the benefit of the doubt.  I admit, though, that ever since then the cogency of the conclusions I reached about the speech had me waiting for the other shoe to drop, as the old saying goes.  Like Herman Cain, Rand Paul, and other such supposedly conservative “great white hopes” for the GOP (excuse the incongruously colorless phrase) I felt certain Carson would inevitably trip over his real lack of principled conviction, dissipating the phony cachet his much touted prayer breakfast speech generated among moral conservatives.

The expected signal came in a rather more clunky form than I expected.  To use his own words, Mr. Carson endorsed “the U.S. Senate candidacy of Monica Wehby.  She is pro-choice, which in the opinion of many makes her unacceptable as a conservative.”  Mr. Carson’s use of the deceitful “pro-choice” label necessarily raises serious doubt about his rhetorical integrity, a doubt more than amply confirmed by the supposedly “pragmatic” argument he makes to justify his casual disregard for the principle that is the bedrock foundation of just law and liberty in the United States.

With dizzying hutzpah Mr. Carson goes on to claim that he is “extremely oriented toward efforts to preserve human life, especially innocent human life that has yet to experience the extrauterine world.”  He then says that he is “not an ideologue who determines a person’s worthiness with a litmus test.”  He praises Wehby for making decisions “based on evidence versus ideology.”  This is all a way of saying that he’s personally pro-life, but that he makes his political decisions based on “evidence”, without regard to moral principle.

But in the absence of moral perspective, what “evidence” supports the view that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?”  If that view has no relevance to politics, what’s is the basis for the view that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?” Apart from that view, why should Monica Wehby or anyone else (including Ben Carson) be true to the oath to support the Constitutional provisions for due dependence on the consent of the people?

Carson ends his flimsy defense of unprincipled pragmatism  by comparing America’s plight with that of a “ship about to suffer massive destruction by sailing over Niagara Falls.”  He suggests that giving priority to the issues of American moral principle is to “devote energy scraping barnacles off the bottom of the ship as it does so.”   With this analogy, Ben Carson discards the principles of justice America is founded upon, including the principle of God-endowed unalienable right.  He asserts that they are no more essential to America than barnacles are to a sailing ship.

But America’s principles of justice are, in fact, more like the seasoned wood the ship’s hull is made of.  Every feature of the Constitution, from periodic elections, to the separation of powers,  to the Bill of Rights, depends on the understanding that government must be constrained by respect for the unalienable rights and the consent of the people.  This is the heart of the idea of justly limited government.  Ben Carson’s “pragmatism” discards these essential principles  Like other scientistic materialists, he thinks getting things done is more important than assuring that what we do respects the standard for rights that justice requires.

Because of this purblind pragmatism, Mr. Carson doesn’t even see, much less have the wisdom to address, the crisis of character Americans must address if the nation’s liberty is to survive.  This kind of ideological blindness, masquerading behind conservative claims, is the only thing more dangerous than Obama’s overt attack on America’s institutions.  Obama’s open assault on liberty rouses opposition, making his success less likely.  Mr. Carson’s transparent masquerade is, like the whole GOP elitist faction charade, pleasant seeming poison.   If and when it succeeds, America will simply wake up and find that its way of life is dead; as dead as the infants Monica Wehby is willing to see murdered in the womb.  Tragically ironic, to say the least.  But if you mean to practice justice, not the least bit pragmatic.

Share
{ 20 comments }
{ 20 comments… add one }
  • Ken Peterson July 22, 2018, 4:02 am

    Dear Alan Keyes,

    You wisely brought the pragmatism to light and here is old pragmatic Ben Carson trumping us with a new power to “help” families.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/32720/carson-new-vision-helping-families-ben-carson

    In the words of our friend The Blue Tail Gadfly, “using unconstitutional socialism to wean people off unconstitutional socialism… Carson isn’t calling for weaning people off federal government welfare in order to eliminate it, all he’s doing is giving a pie-in-the-sky sales pitch for more socialism like all socialists must do.”

  • John R March 6, 2016, 11:11 pm

    Excellent, Alan. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence. Demagogues with false hopes are sweeping away all. God have mercy.

  • Frank (Sandy) Ingersoll September 5, 2014, 2:49 pm

    John 17 comes to mind when I read your harsh critique of Mr. Carson.. Jesus prays “Father that they all might be one , just as YOU and I are one. That they might be one in us. That certainly does not say ‘we should all be the same, but one in HIM! The Body is weak and ineffective when we criticize, rather than build up. Perhaps, we all need to spend more time in the prayer closet, allowing the Holy Spirit to make us one. I love you both, and will pray you become one in HIM!

    • Alan Lee Keyes September 5, 2014, 9:51 pm

      These days when some Christians speak of “unity” they forget that, as you point out, unity must be in God, not for its own sake. To be united in Christ is to be severed from those who will not walk in “the way, the truth and the life” he brings within our comprehension. He says clearly that it is the only way to unity with his father. (“No one comes to the father except through me.” John 14:6)

      Contrary to what you imply, therefore, we do not strengthen the body when we unite with those who reject or step away from this unity in Christ. To the contrary Christ actually says that we must hate them, for His sake:

      “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and child and brothers and sisters and even his own soul (psyche) he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:25)

      “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have come not with peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of is own household. Whoever love father or other more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:34-37)

      So also the Apostle says to the Corinthians:

      “Do not become unequally [differentially] yoked to unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness [justice] with lawlessness [literally anomie]? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” [in the Greek, literally “what portion has faith with faithlessness?”] What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are temples of the living God…”

      The word translated as “temple” may also refer to a ship, as in “ship of state”. I criticize Ben Carson for uniting himself with lawlessness by preferring someone for public office who, as an advocate of so-called abortion rights, promotes as law and justice for our ship of state that which violates God-endowed right and justice. As is clear from the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, this is contrary to the integrity before God with which America’s founders constructed our ship of state.

      Ben Carson professes to be a disciple of Christ. But when he joins in support of such injustice and lawlessness he does what Christ clear declares to be incompatible with that profession. I can and will not unite with him, for to do so I must forgo that substance of faith which unites me through Christ to God.

      Christ nowhere suggests that we should pray to God for unity with those who stand against His will. Rather we should pray for unity in the love of God, which requires obedience to the commands of God (John 14:15- “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”) Christ calls woe upon the Pharisees who “tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect the justice [judgment] and love [good will, agape] of God.” (Luke 11:42)

      Ben Carson prefers what he calls “pragmatism” (which is essentially a Greek word imported into English to hide the pointless tautology in action it implies, for it literally means “the business of doing things”, without reference to the standard of right whereby we are to judge what we are doing. This abandonment of right judgment is exactly what Christ decries in the Pharisees. Christ did not unite with them. He submitted to be crucified rather than do so.

      So I will pray that, if and when the time comes, I will take up my cross and do likewise, if need be. Meanwhile I will not walk with Ben Carson or any of those like him who, following the world’s wisdom, depart from the way of the Cross. And I will pray to God that others who follow Christ’s way will not let themselves be anymore deceived into supporting politicians who do not.

  • NotJim September 5, 2014, 12:46 am

    @ginny: Your comments notwithstanding, I shall continue to greatly admire both Alan Keyes and Ben Carson (and possibly you as well). So far I continue to favor Carson for our 2016 candidate; I hope he’s up to it.

    By the way, I don’t think Roe v Wade should be overturned; it was correctly decided and it is also stare decisis. If something should be overturned, it is the fraudulent 2008 election.

    Alan, I agree with you that “endowed by their creator (God)” is a better formulation of the basis for our rights than any other I have seen. But it is far from foolproof. If “God” is negligent and gives a baby an extra chromosome, should He be sued for malpractice, much as one would sue a surgeon who left an embedded scalpel after an operation?

    I recently read some comments by Sarah Palin, criticizing Richard Dawkins, and defending her son Trig who has Down Syndrome, which she voluntarily accepted. Mrs. Palin is a lady of great integrity and character, and she has made the best of the situation. I am very glad for her and her family. But it’s not what I would have done. I refuse to accept the burden of making that kind of decision for other people. It’s not that I’m irresponsible, or cruel, it’s that I’m not wise enough and I don’t have the right.

    To get back to where we started (more or less), I hope we can avoid a circular firing squad and get our act together enough to kick some butt. We sorely need to.

  • ginny August 26, 2014, 4:24 pm

    I have always admired your drive, candor and principles, Mr. Keyes…until now. You have totally lost my respect by penning this article. There has not been another candidate with Dr. Carson’s sterling character and extraordinary accomplishment since Lincoln…but you are ready to poison his natural constituents against him not because of his own views but because he’s supporting someone ELSE whose views are not identical to his own — or yours! Are you mad?! If he wins the presidency, and I think he will, he will desperately need to have Republicans — any Senators with an “R” after their name — to be in the majority (and Harry Reid GONE!) to have a prayer of getting much of anything meaningful done. And that means getting strict Constitutionalists appointed (and confirmed) for SCOTUS…which would pave the way for overturning Roe v Wade. That wouldn’t make abortion illegal, of course, but it would send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Your arrogance and lack of wisdom in encouraging others not to support Dr. Carson’s candidacy is astonishingly disappointing to me. You have just lost all credibility and influence in my eyes.

    • Alan Lee Keyes August 31, 2014, 11:46 pm

      You obviously didn’t read Dr. Carson’s explanation for what he did (which you can reach by clicking the link I provide in the post). He evokes the “lesser evil”, phony pragmatism that is literally leaving this nation defenseless against the abandonment of the moral truths that are the basis for our God-endowed rights and liberty.

      If you had actually understood and admired my principles you would realize that I have, on principle, always rejected the corrupt reasoning Dr. Carson relies on, as well as those who promote and implement it, as he does. That I should lose credibility in eyes that are not, and apparently were never, open will not discourage me from continuing to do all I can to open them, even though, like the Lord I follow, I end up being crucified for it.

      • keyesforpres September 8, 2014, 10:28 pm

        That’s what I love about you Dr. Keyes….your unwavering character.

  • Scott Evans August 8, 2014, 9:32 am

    If someone wants my vote, they must truly be 100% against intentionally killing womb babies in all circumstances. If that’s not the case, I won’t vote for them even if the candidate and I were to agree 100% on all other issues.

  • Virtual Office Services San Francisco August 7, 2014, 10:16 pm

    My brother suggested I might like this website.
    He was entirely right. This post truly made my
    day. You cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!

  • Chris Farrell August 6, 2014, 4:54 pm

    And oh yeah, “…the “man is made by man” spirit of self-idolatry characteristically associated with the elitist faction’s ideology of (God-denying) scientistic materialism.” lifts its ugly head as well within the cult of Mitt’s Mormonism where it is codified within that cult’s teachings–its doctrines and tenets– that certain elite Men–not women(Big Surpise there! Hah)–will at some time in the future become gods of their own little planets. Now isn’t that special?

    They themselves will one day create their own little realities and be idolized by the inhabitants of their little utopian plantations of new worlds ordered under their ‘Master Thinking’ capabilities.

  • Chris Farrell August 6, 2014, 4:25 pm

    I had assumed without a second thought that because Dr. Carson professes to be a Believer in the risen Lord Jesus Christ that he would of course be staunchly against the murder of the unborn under any circumstances.

    I gave Dr. Carson the benefit of the doubt on some of his comments regarding the God-given, Constitution-protected right to keep and bear arms and allowed him to rephrase his belief on that subject–a rephrasing that would most certainly have been necessary if I or others inclined to defend the Constitution and the God-given liberties protected within the American experiment by that document would have voted for him.

    Clearly, in the case of Dr. Carson a second thought was warranted.

    Back to the drawing board.

    Thankyou Dr. Keyes.

  • jk May 23, 2014, 6:47 pm

    “But in the absence of moral perspetion”
    “perspetion”?

    • Alan Keyes May 23, 2014, 8:48 pm

      Error Corrected. Thanks for the heads up.

    • Chris Farrell August 6, 2014, 5:10 pm

      Always forced to learn the meaning of words when reading the good doctor.

      Thankyou. You’re pointing out the mis-spelling forced me to look-up ‘Perspicacious’ which has a primary meaning of “1 having keen judgement or understanding; acutely perceptive” and is synonymous with ‘shrewd.’

      Now the adverb form reads ‘perspicaciously’ and it has two noun forms: ‘perspicacity’ or ‘perspicaciousness.’

      What a great word to employ when describing Dr. Keyes.

      He must have already caught it ’cause I don’t see it in the piece, but enjoyed adding the word to my vocabulary. Grazie.

  • Cody May 22, 2014, 11:40 pm

    Not necessarily morons but certainly gullible. I still cannot believe to this day how many ‘pro-lifers’ thought Mitt Romney was too.

  • Celia May 22, 2014, 8:56 pm

    Strange, I only listened to the good things he has had to say about unity. Now I will listen with more alert and informed ears.

  • Mark Vorzimmer May 22, 2014, 6:18 pm

    Interesting and thought provoking analysis.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
\"Google