CPAC 2004: ALAN KEYES' SPEECH

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

[tcuoohjohn]

No.. This is it.

Name is John...Howdy.

[tcuoohjohn]

Well...the man who uses his club on his own tribe soon ceases to lead. He fertilizes. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...the man who uses his club on his own tribe soon ceases to lead. He fertilizes...

That may well happen. In November.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..No..

I don't believe you.

Either you're running two screen names, or you're a plagiarist. That 'I'm a southerner, and he reminds me of Elmer Gantry' is identical to a post made with someone of your distasteful demeanour on a Moore thread last year.

[habs4ever]

I agree with all your posts tonight.

I even agree with tpaine, too...for once.

[Amelia]

Either you're running two screen names, or you're a plagiarist. That 'I'm a southerner, and he reminds me of Elmer Gantry' is identical to a post made with someone of your distasteful demeanour on a Moore thread last year.

An advanced Google search (searching only FR) for the phrase "elmer gantry" only gave me 4 hits, and none of them were Moore threads.

Can you find the post you claim John plagiarized?

[tpaine]

Speaking of snide, Bry, did you hear the one that blue shades is back with a new persona?
He's rumored to be a real Hon-ey.

[TigersEye]

The Tenth Amendment is usually used to support an argument in favor of states' rights.

I suppose that might be statistically and historically accurate but the 10th covers a little more than that. I believe it says "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And his opinion was joined in by, among others, Justices Scalia and Thomas.

That's weighty, no doubt about it. I don't know the case and don't know how much weight was carried by the 1st but in reading it it seems like quite a stretch to include "freedom of association." It speaks to the right of assembly and petition for the purpose of redress of grievances. It seems to me that selfish people both left and right have distorted the original intent of the BoR's to cover a multitude of things not meant by it.

That's a shame because I think a narrow interpretation of the Constitution would be sufficient to secure all righteous liberties if applied correctly and honestly. For example; what need was there, in the literal sense, for the 14th Amendment in order to free slaves? An honest reading of the Constitution before the existence of the 14th should have settled the matter. Men are men and all men are free men.

Like Roe v Wade resting on a 'right to privacy' southerners wanted to invent an exception to basic human rights into State's rights. The sovereignty of the individual should reign supreme in both cases. Slavery is deprivation of liberty, abortion is deprivation of life. Every argument laid against those rights are nothing but sophistic lies.

[tpaine]

Habs! 
Please, -- you must lead up to these shocking declarations with a bit of warning. Ulcers form at the very thought that anyone at FR might agree with my apostacies..

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..in advanced Google search (searching only FR) for the phrase "elmer gantry" only gave me 4 hits, and none of them were Moore threads...

Big deal, Sherlock. Heaps of them turned into flamefests, and maybe it was zotted. I distinctly remember someone with just this bloke's sneering elitist delivery telling us Moore supporters that (close praphrasing) he was 'a Southerner, and Southerners can pick Elmer Gantrys.'

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..speaking of snide, Bry, did you hear the one that blue shades is back with a new persona?...

Oh, great. Has he taken up the cudgels against his usual targets, yet? I'm including you and I, of course.

[Arioch7]

Well said.

Dr. Keyes is not trying to persuade the nation in a political speech, he is trying to persuade Conservatives to stand up for what they SHOULD be standing up for because they are Conservative in the first place.

When we were in a position of weakness in 1994, we had conviction and made a difference. We finally won the battle and now we rule from a position of strength but act like weaklings.

Hell, couldn't the GOP at the very LEAST used the incrementalism that the libs favor to advance the right-wing?

That would be weak considering our strength now but the pols have grown secure in their incumbency, they are SCARED to lose power. Thats just GREAT! Once we have the winning hand, the GOP crumbles and can not even offer a watered down conservative agenda. PATHETIC!

WTF!?!?! Am I in the twilight zone? The Dems might actually beat the GOP because of the massive spending increases of the President?

Sure, we all know they would spend more but they lie, so that will not factor in the polls. I must say, I liked the level of Pres. Clinton's spending better the Pres. Bush's record. Like I said, is this an alternate dimension or something?

[Amelia]

Heaps of them turned into flamefests, and maybe it was zotted. I distinctly remember someone with just this bloke's sneering elitist delivery telling us Moore supporters that

Well, then. If you remember it, that's as good a proof as an actual link, isn't it?

[tpaine]

"-- what need was there, in the literal sense, for the 14th Amendment in order to free slaves?"

_____________________________________


The 14th was written, in part, to insure the individual rights of exslaves from state infringments..


THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068014/posts

Read the ratification debates from 1868 for a real education on individual rights as seen by congressmen of the day.

[tcuoohjohn]

Well...you would be wrong again. Somehow this doesn't surprise me. At to your UnSherlock Holmesian deduction. Elmer Gantry is a rather familar name to most reasonably educated people and is a literary archetype for the preacher-conartist

Perhaps you should read it. Sinclair Lewis...1929-30 ( ?)

Failing that, Dear Amelia. Perhaps the Burt Lancaster movie is more to your taste...about 1960-61 I'd guess.

[tpaine]

Maybe it's the 'Elmer' in you that inspires great minds to dis you in this fashion Byron..

[Scenic Sounds]

It seems to me that selfish people both left and right have distorted the original intent of the BoR's to cover a multitude of things not meant by it.

Well, I don't think that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas thought of themselves as distorting the original intent of the Bill of Rights. It's just that, after the Bill of Rights was adopted, we amended the Constitution with the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment specifically designed to limit the power of states vis-a-vis individuals.

That's a shame because I think a narrow interpretation of the Constitution would be sufficient to secure all righteous liberties if applied correctly and honestly. For example; what need was there, in the literal sense, for the 14th Amendment in order to free slaves? An honest reading of the Constitution before the existence of the 14th should have settled the matter. Men are men and all men are free men.

Well, the problem is that when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was recognized to be a legitimate institution. Slaves were counted for purposes of allocating the number of representatives each state should have, but slaves could only be counted as "three fifths" of a whole person. "Indians not taxed" could not be counted at all. "Men are men and all men are free men" was, to say the least, not a principle that had yet received universal acceptance amongst our Founding Fathers. And it was actually the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery and, because of our preceding history and traditions, it was at least felt to be necessary at the time to put an end to the practice.

The long and the short of these decisions is that states have to comply with the First Amendment when dealing with their own citizens. That means that they can't ban speech, they can't shut down the press, they have to permit citizens to assemble, they can't forbid the free exercise of religion and they can't violate the establishment clause. That's the problem that Judge Moore ran into here.

[EternalVigilance]

Words mean things, and our very institutions are based upon the idea that we can talk instead of shoot at one another.

Alan has reminded or taught millions of Americans the founding principles. Republicans whereever I go in America know Alan, and almost all of them love him. The only ones who don't are establishment political types who feel threatened by his straightforward truthtelling, or are from the extreme left wing of the GOP.

In addition, he has traveled literally millions of miles, and done thousands of events, on behalf of crisis pregnancy centers. Absolutely no one has raised more money than Alan for CPCs.

He rendered service to the nation as an ambassador for Ronald Reagan. Spent years overseas serving us.

He ran Citizens Against Government Waste.

There is more, much more.

How does your ACTIVE SERVICE stack up against Keyes'?

You moderates like to TALK about 'changing hearts and minds', but you never really do it. Dr. Alan Keyes does.

In other words, in my opinion, it is you all who are all talk and no do.

EV

[tcuoohjohn]

Suit yourself...I learned long ago that you can never please a fool.

[tpaine]

Not really.. He was outed almost immediatly, so he's keeping a low profile. -- It won't last..