In an article published earlier this week, I discuss U.S. House Speaker John Boehner's incredibly late awakening to "the boldness of the Iranians." I highlight the fact that this "belated recognition of 'the boldness of the Iranians' is not accompanied by an honest acknowledgment of the boldness of Obama's treasonous betrayals of the constitutional self-government of the American people." I go on to suggest that Mr. Boehner has self-interested reasons for this continued blindness. But self-interest isn't the only reason people remain blind to the greatest dangers threatening them.

People are unlikely to anticipate cataclysmic events because of the stubborn human tendency to look away from what is too painful to think upon. For example, when it came to the strategic consequences of nuclear weapons, Hudson Institute founder Herman Kahn (said to be one of the real-life people on which the title character in the film "Dr. Strangelove" was based) understood that this emotional barrier to "cold, calculating, unimpassioned" reasoning posed a fatal threat to humanity. He rightly concluded that it had to be overcome. So he became known for "thinking about the unthinkable."

When it comes to physical mayhem and destruction, there's little doubt that the American psyche has gotten past the reluctance to contemplate physically horrible, apocalyptic destruction. Indeed, a wasteland future is now routinely the stuff that entertainment dreams are made on, with plenty of pointless, graphic violence to round out the jaunty nightmare. Survival in such bleak circumstances is not only contemplated, it's more or less celebrated, in a motif of resurrection, both literal (zombies, the living dead) and figurative. So also is the prospect that a desolate absence of conscience and morality may be needed to do so. The result might be summarized in an aphorism: "Even that which kills us, makes us stronger." (Machiavellians who see conscience as a source of fatal weakness doubtless think this is an improvement on the madman Nietzsche's adolescent murmurings.)

When Neville Chamberlain came to terms with Hitler at Munich in 1938, there was no need to explain how on earth he could do so, despite gruesome images of Nazi atrocity. Those portraits of evil were not yet hung in the rogue's gallery of human moral perception. But today there is no denying Iran's complicity, support and leadership of groups guilty of terrorist practices as horrendous in their furious religiosity (and hatred of all things Jewish and/or truly Christian) as were the atrocious crimes fueled by the elitist race hatred of the Nazis.

A steady diet of meticulously depicted violence, served up in films and interactive video games, has probably brought some Americans to the point where they react to recorded images of beheadings and other mass atrocities from a place of emotional stupefaction. But if Americans want to think clearly about the Obama faction's role in arming ISIS terror, or their treacherous deal with the moguls of Shiite terrorism in Iran, we must overcome this stupefaction.

TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people

The fact that Obama has come to terms with such masterminds of evil ought to produce the sort of revulsion that demands an emetic remedy, lest we die. So does the likelihood that Obama, Hilary Clinton and their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood had a hand in arming the malevolent Islamic State forces Obama's de facto alliance with Iran now purports to fight.

The "experts" and pundits reacting with alarm to Obama's apparently self-contradictory rapprochement with deadly evil speak of his ambition to secure a triumph for his foreign-policy legacy, or his failure to appreciate the real nature of the dangers involved in thinking that Iran can be safely installed as the stabilizing power in the Middle East. Most don't even hint at what may be his most sinister aim, i.e., "to take America down."

The Obama administration now appears to include people at the highest level disloyal enough to form a de facto alliance with America's most outspoken and implacable enemies. They have agreed to look the other way while Iran finishes the work needed to construct weapons that put them in a position to force us to choose between complying with their agenda and unleashing nuclear destruction.

Who among us thinks that, like the generation fresh from the triumphs of the last World War, our current self-serving politicos have the experience, moral probity and courage to face that choice of evils? Who is honestly sure that they aren't already preparing an exit strategy that leaves their own factional power intact, even if America is no longer free?

What if Obama isn't looking to his "legacy"? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?

There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America's power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?

Note that this question isn't just about Obama. It's about the elitist faction that lifted him to power. It's about their true objective, which is to overturn the exceptional constitutional sovereignty of the American people. It's about the goal of restoring the norm of elitist tyranny characteristic of human governments throughout the history of the world. From this perspective, the only true friends of the American people are those who embrace and strive to implement the principles of right that justify their constitutional sovereignty. Isn't it long past time consider a strategy that unites such friends in its defense?

You may believe a coup d'état "could never happen here." But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It's is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler's faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn't it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?

Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact [email protected].

