Posted on 09/15/2007 4:08:21 AM PDT by Man50D
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – After two previous runs for U.S. president, former Reagan diplomat Alan Keyes has announced he's again seeking the White House in the 2008 election, and he'll take part in Monday night's Republican presidential debate here.
Keyes told syndicated radio host Janet Parshall he's "unmoved" by the lack of moral courage shown by the other candidates, among whom he sees no standout who articulates the "key kernel of truth that must, with courage, be presented to our people."
He added, "The one thing I've always been called to do is to raise the standard ... of our allegiance to God and His authority that has been the foundation stone of our nation's life" – and he decried the lack of "forthright, clear, and clarion declaration" from the current crop of presidential contenders.
As a result, Keyes said, "We're putting together an effort that's not going to be like anything before, because it's going to be entirely based on citizen action. We're going to be challenging people to take a pledge for America's revival," and elevate them from spectators in the political arena to participants.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
“Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Keyes ran such an utterly inept race for his Senate run that his opponent didn’t need to campaign against him to be assured of winning. This freed up his opponent to run around the country headlining fundraisers for other Democrats and sending his own previously non-existent name recognition into the stratosphere. If we end up with Barack Obama as President, it will be thanks to Alan Keyes.”
Yup. Had we run a Republican nobody, it would have been 60%/40% race, but Keyes managed it so well he turned off almost 1/2 the Republicans and it became a 70%/28% race in favor of Obama. Obama owes his career to Keyes. I hope he sent a thank you note.
I am still waiting (understandably) for you to identify the specific constitutional grant of authority to Lincoln and his co-conspirators to militarily invade the Confederate States to overturn their decision to secede or to bombard NYC or to murder, rape, loot and pillage Confederate civilians or military within the Confederacy or to levy an income tax or to draft free citizens for military service against their will. It does not matter that Washington raised an army to attack Captain Shays in Massachusetts (again without constitutional authority as well). There simply is NO AUTHORITY and that is why you cannot answer the obvious challenge that the Tenth Amendment prohibited the assault on the seceded South. Then again, you are also arguing that "might makes right." I think we had gotten beyond accepting that argument even in 1865.
As to the argument that the boogie man would have gotten us without Father Abraham's massacre of the constitution, what kind of argument is that??? If Hitler had "saved" Germany from Allied devastation, would that have made him a hero? All that argument amounts to is that the end somehow justifies unconstitutional means. It does not.
Other than the late unpleasantness of 1861-1865, we are in general agreement. I have voted for Keyes in the past but we do NOT need him in this race and he ran an extremely poor race in Illinois for the Senate. I have my disagreements with Oberweis but he would have done a LOT better. In the 2008 race for the nomination, the tedious pile of fringe candidates needs to be substantially culled starting with paleoPaulie.
Now, to keep on message as to the constitution. Patrick Henry did not approve of the crushing of the states. He warned of it. He was an anti-federalist. The Tenth Amendment says what it means and means what it says. The default position established by the Tenth Amendent of the Bill of Rights makes clear beyond question that, the fedgov having no express constitutional right to attack militarily any state for dissolving the bonds that bind it to the "Union" (somewhat familiar language from another document, eh?), would violate the constitution by doing so. Secession being unreferenced as to any fedgov power specifically delegated by the constitution was left to the STATES and the PEOPLE respectively. Eleven states took that option and seceded (twelve if you count Wisconsin in 1859 "seceding" in protest and not wanting to be unified with slave states). In at least Virginia, the matter was ALSO popularly voted by the citizens.
Other than Lincoln's massacre of the constitution to preserve his power, NOTHING was ever done to the constitution, before or after the late unpleasantness, to deny to any state the right to secede.
It does not matter what the CSA constitution said as to secession or did not say since Lincoln, a resident first of Kentucky in his boyhood and thereafter in Illinois, never was subject to the CSA constitution.
Article I, Section 10 references "States" which, for purposes of the constitution, the seceded states ceased to be upon secession: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas and Arkansas. If they had not succeeded in seceding, Why would those states need to be readmitted to the "Union" with "conditions" no less like ratifying the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as "conditions of re-admission" and where did Congress get off imposing "reconstruction?" By 1877-1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes proved a far better president and a far better Republican than Lincoln by redeeming the greenback "fiat money" at FULL FACE VALUE, abolishing the unconstitutional personal income tax AND putting an end to the tyranny known as "reconstruction." I believe that he also balanced the budget and then went home to Ohio with a sense of having accomplished all that could be accomplished.
Alan Keyes...a good man, but the Don Quixote of the GOP.
” Next Gingrich will announce that he will run. Then what are we gonna do?”
Continue to ignore all the bottom feeders, and decide between Fred, Rudy, Mitt, and John.
God help America.
Very good summary. Their lies go quite a bit deeper. But, you provided more than most here deserve.
“Reason and reflection”? Most today are not interested in that. They want their bread and circuses and their ears tickled.
It may already be too late to save this republic.
But, some of us will keep on fighting as though it isn’t.
Indeed, Obama's record-breaking senate win against Keyes gave him the chutzpah to run for President. Nevermind the lopsided result was more a vote against Keyes than a vote for Obama.
Aw come on now!
You must not have read Jefferson's own Inaugural address, in which he stated that the differences between the Federalists and Republicans were not over principles.
They just disagreed on how to defend individual liberty, in other words, which took precedence, government stability or individual autonomy.
Each side could move to too far in each direction and it was the system of checks and balances that righted the ship of State when it went off course (e.g.Alien-Sedition acts), so that America did not go either into tyranny or anarchy.
And what finished off the Federalists as a major Party, was their support of secession during the War of 1812.
Here you will learn that The Declaration Foundation, just one of Keyes' charities, admitted to state authorities in Pennslyvania that it:
Curiously, the Keyes sycophants have no response to this revelation. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The Know Nothings were not Whigs.
What destroyed the Whig Party is what split the Democratic Party-slavery.
The GOP never gave up 'Hamiltonianism', strong Federal government, if you don't believe it, look at the policy of TR.
Yes, and he statedt that once the States entered into the Constitution they were bound by it.
He never thought they could secede whenever they felt like it.
The Tenth Amendment says what it means and means what it says. The default position established by the Tenth Amendent of the Bill of Rights makes clear beyond question that, the fedgov having no express constitutional right to attack militarily any state for dissolving the bonds that bind it to the "Union" (somewhat familiar language from another document, eh?), would violate the constitution by doing so. Secession being unreferenced as to any fedgov power specifically delegated by the constitution was left to the STATES and the PEOPLE respectively. Eleven states took that option and seceded (twelve if you count Wisconsin in 1859 "seceding" in protest and not wanting to be unified with slave states). In at least Virginia, the matter was ALSO popularly voted by the citizens.
The 10th amendment does mean what it says and it doesn't say a thing about any State being able to leave the Union.
So, stop reading into something that isn't there, like a liberal would do!
The States entered the Constitution of their own free will and there was no provision of any State being able to leave on its own accord.
So, when those states attempted to leave the Union, they were in a state of Rebellion, and Lincoln had every Constitutional right to put down the rebellion.
Other than Lincoln's massacre of the constitution to preserve his power, NOTHING was ever done to the constitution, before or after the late unpleasantness, to deny to any state the right to secede.
Lincoln upheld the Constitution by crushing the rebellion, no different than Washington did in the Whiskey rebellion.
And since nothing was done to the Constitution to say anything regarding secession, do you think a State has a right to do so today?
It does not matter what the CSA constitution said as to secession or did not say since Lincoln, a resident first of Kentucky in his boyhood and thereafter in Illinois, never was subject to the CSA constitution.
What does Lincoln have to do with the CSA constitution?
The issue was that even the CSA knew that it couldn't have a State just leave whenever it felt like it.
Article I, Section 10 references "States" which, for purposes of the constitution, the seceded states ceased to be upon secession: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas and Arkansas. If they had not succeeded in seceding, Why would those states need to be readmitted to the "Union" with "conditions" no less like ratifying the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as "conditions of re-admission" and where did Congress get off imposing "reconstruction?"
Those States were allowed to have ex-Confederates placed back in the Government (since Lincoln had been murdered) and where re-enslaving the blacks with 'black codes'.
The GOP Congress put forth more stringent requirements for those to be seated in Congress and the Senate from those states to ensure that the war had not been in vain.
By 1877-1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes proved a far better president and a far better Republican than Lincoln by redeeming the greenback "fiat money" at FULL FACE VALUE, abolishing the unconstitutional personal income tax AND putting an end to the tyranny known as "reconstruction." I believe that he also balanced the budget and then went home to Ohio with a sense of having accomplished all that could be accomplished.
I believe the Income tax had ended before that.
The Gold standard had returned.
Hayes compromised with the Democratic controlled Southern States after they threw another election into the Courts crying foul (sound familiar) and thus ending reconstruction and putting the blacks under Jim Crow, which had to be dealt with the Federal government in the 50's by yet another Republican President, Eisenhower.
“As if Tancredo, Brownback, Romney, Gilmore, Huckabee, Guiliani, McCain, Hunter, Thompson, and Ron Paul havent brought enough out there?”
You have a point there. What’s one more at this point though...LOL
He has virtually no chance of winning the primary. BTW..I like your tagline.
That sums it up very nicely.
As for the Greenback and gold, in 1875, the Congress voted to make it a law that Greenbacks be redeemed with Gold.
Much of that redemption did occur under the Hayes adminstration.
I noticed that too.
Watch out, you are going to be denounced as a liberal,ACLU troll.
Every once in a while, we need a reinforcement of central gummint power. Not in the sectional crisis, nor in the late unpleasantness of the rogue "Union" conquering the Southland, not in perpetuating the New Deal or getting all glassy eyed over the likes of Eisenhower or JFK or LBJ but definitely in defense of the nation's power to wage foreign wars and to stop substantial interstate criminal activity of the (malum in se) traditional criminal variety rather than the (malum prohibitum) "wrong just because we prohibit it" variety.
As to Eisenhower, not only did he irrationally restrain Patton from finishing various vital jobs in WW II and undermine the efforts of Joe McCarthy and many others like him, but he advocated what he hilariously referenced as "modern Republicanism" which amounted to Harry Truman in GOP drag with less public attitude. It turned out thankfully that "modern Republicanism" was neither as demonstrated most forcefully by the success of Ronaldus Maximus.
What killed the Federalists and the Whigs and will probably eventually kill off the GOP is a slavish devotion to the interests of financial elites at the expense of everyone else. Cost of labor too high? Send the jobs to Bangladesh where willing five-year olds can be enslaved at 10 cents an hour with no benefits. Need a better bottom line, ditto. Join GATT and WTO so that there will be like-minded money peple governing our economy internationally rather than populist politicians. No more elections having an impact on keeping the steel industry and other defense industries here when other nations will take our investments and protect us from the public.
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of centralized gummint power was exercised in favor of nationalism, the Great White Fleet, the emergence of the US as an international force to be reckoned with. He created national parks (not constitutional but big deal!) His trustbusting sided with the public against the usual elitist gang of suspects. If you think he was a Hamiltonian, you are wrong. Nonetheless, if one GOP POTUS can define the party, then we offer Andrew Johnson, U. S. Grant (to a limited extent), Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Ronaldus Maximus as defining counterexamples to your thesis if not to TR who was a rather good president.
Did you know that George McGovern in his ranting against the Vietnam War, plagiarized large sections of Lincoln's speeches ranting against the Mexican War without attributing the quotes to Lincoln: "This chamber stands knee deep in innocent blood," blather, blather, blather.... Lincoln and McGoo were in some respects political blood brothers. It is highly ironic in that Lincoln launched the most savage illegal war in American history and one that killed only Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.