CPAC 2004: ALAN KEYES' SPEECH

Renew America website ^ | January 24, 2004 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[joesbucks]

So where is Mr.Keyes or someone like him during this primary? IMHO scared to run against an entrenched incumbent. Rangle too many feathers and there will be no invites to CPAC or other paying events except for the fringe chicken and pea circuit.

[Scenic Sounds]

When I listen to a talk, sometimes I close my eyes and not only hear, but listen.

I know what you mean!!

It doesn't always work as well when I'm reading the speech, though. ;-(

[Huck]

Hey, after CFR, the AWB, Kwanzaa, sitting out the Ten Commandments debacle, the NEA grant, the seniors drugs farce, I am looking elsewhere. Elsewhere, than President Bush, and the current GOP leadership. Matter of fact, it's another mark against the President, that he hasn't found a place for Dr Keyes in DC.

Well, I guess it's never too early to start this debate, eh? You forgot the no child left behind act. Anyway, good luck.

[Huck]

Oh yeah, and amnesty for illegals, 15 billion for "interpersonal skills training" to promote marriage among low income people. If I stop and think, I am sure there's more.

[IronJack]

Hear, hear! It's a hollow victory if it costs you your soul. And if your enemies are laughing at you for doing the work they weren't up to.

[IronJack]

I have had the distinct pleasure of hearing Dr. Keyes several times, and meeting him in person a number of times as well. I'm not sure what there is about his delivery that speaks to you, but his earnestness and cogency are beyond question. Frankly, I'd like to see him as the spiritual leader of the conservative movement. Because we sure as heck need one!

[Amelia]

So you're not voting for GWB? Have you made up your mind on that? As far as wouldn't it be nice, there's lots of things that would be nice, BtA. Shall we make a list? Or maybe we should focus on reality?

The reality is that Byron-the-Aussie won't be voting for Keyes, Bush, or anyone else in the 2004 United States elections.

He likes to tell us what we ought to do, however.

[tcuoohjohn]

Actually no..I was thinking more about a more naturalistic style along the lines of Reagan.

Now whatever bee you have up your butt I suggest you dispense with it. Your assertion that I prefer style of substance suggests to me that you either failed to read my post or you failed to understand it. Either way the problem is yours. Dr. Keyes,is as I said a very well reasoned spokesman for the conservative cause. I might suggest that cause would be further enhanced if Dr. Keyes could get elected to the Senate or House. My point is that as a matter of practical politics his style may well be an impediment to his getting elected. And in the end winning is the measure of poltical effectiveness is it not?

As to the Clinton style?..Smarmy, overwrought, and manipulative?..no thanks.

Now that we have sorted out your puerile post I am more than happy to entertain your following posts provided you can pull yourself together and act like an adult.

Thanks...This Message brought to by the Freeper Committee For the Better Forum Experience.

[tcuoohjohn]

Actually no..I was thinking more about a more naturalistic style along the lines of Reagan.

Now whatever bee you have up your butt I suggest you dispense with it. Your assertion that I prefer style of substance suggests to me that you either failed to read my post or you failed to understand it. Either way the problem is yours. Dr. Keyes,is as I said a very well reasoned spokesman for the conservative cause. I might suggest that cause would be further enhanced if Dr. Keyes could get elected to the Senate or House. My point is that as a matter of practical politics his style may well be an impediment to his getting elected. And in the end winning is the measure of poltical effectiveness is it not?

As to the Clinton style?..Smarmy, overwrought, and manipulative?..no thanks.

Now that we have sorted out your puerile post I am more than happy to entertain your following posts provided you can pull yourself together and act like an adult.

Thanks...This Message brought to by the Freeper Committee For the Better Forum Experience.

[tcuoohjohn]

Think I'll just pass on this bit of silliness all together.

[exmarine]

Amen! Amen! and Amen! Mr. Bush, are you listening? Mr. Bush, are you listening? Mr. Bush, are you listening?

[tpaine]

Keys writes:

There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights --
-- What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment.

Wrong, Alan.. It deals with legislators making no law about "respecting AN establishment of religion".
'AN' establishment, not 'THE' establishment of religion.
Big difference in meaning.

'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.

What it means, therefore, is that if you're sitting on the federal bench, you've got no lawful basis for addressing or interfering with this issue.

Wrong again, -- if some lawmaking body is writing law that favors the principles of one religion over another, they are violating the rights of non-favored citizens by ignoring the 1st.. The courts can redress such violations.

But no, no. [Some say,] "Alan, it's in the Constitution!" Well, as I recall, it's that very phrase they use in the Constitution to usurp their authority. So, frankly, the separation of church and state and this mythology they talk about--scour the document, you'll find it nowhere in there.
What you will find is a clear statement in the First Amendment that this power is withheld from the federal government,

The BOR's applies to ALL lawmaking bodies in the USA, Alan, as you well know..

and a clear statement in the Tenth Amendment that "all those powers not given to the federal government, or prohibited in the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people." --

-- With the clear understanding that the supremacy clause & the 14th both say the States are bound to honor the US Constitution & BOR's. It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[GreatOne]

'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.

Disagree. The phrase refers to making one religion "legal", while any other religion would be outlawed or barred. The Founders were trying to avoid the religous purges that occurred in England (like Bloody Mary), and I believe were talking about Catholics vs. Protestants vs. Baptists, etc. Applying that today, I don't believe that the Founders would have a problem witha 10 Commandments monument on city or county property, or within a county/district courthouse. They would have a problem with rounding up people who worshiped a particular religion they didn't practice - stating that only Christianity will be practiced, and anyone practicing Judaism will be arrested and jailed.

With regard to the 10th Amendment, I know you know that the purpose of the Constitution and the initial amendments were designed to limit the power of the federal government. I doubt that the people who implemented the 14th Amendment, which was to redress slavery issues primarily, would appreciate the fact that it was used to apply the first 8 Amendments in toto to every state legislature.

[ZULU]

Alan Keyes is one of the giants of Conservatism in America.

[onedoug]

I thought his MSNBC show was the best of its type on TV, before or since.

I wish someone would bring it back.

[Itzlzha]

Think I'll just pass on this bit of silliness all together.

Your loss, then.

[tcuoohjohn]

Now That I reflect on it you're right. Idiosyncratic or odd would be a much more accurate choice of words. It is somewhat ironic that I chose an overly dramatic word to describe Keyes' problem of being overly dramatic.

[DrewsDad]

mark for later

[tcuoohjohn]

On second thought I think I will respond. Within your short missive the words castration, gnash, battle, whip, masters, and roughshod appear along with a rather extraordinary number of exclamation points and rather peculiar all caps.

Usually the people that I know who do this tend to take alot of pills prescribed by their physicians at the behest of their wives, to reduce their excitability. Perhaps you may be the exception.