Digg - 2-party system: No choice but evil

189 Comments
Who Dugg It?

nuclearcom, on 08/11/2008, -9/+33Thank you, WorldNetDaily, for publishing this thoughtful discourse. Alan Keyes is a much better choice for President than the "None of the above" option. He's already on the ballot in California and Colorado, and there's plenty of time for folks in every state to help see that he wins this election.
- planet87, on 08/11/2008, -6/+2There are other choices...
  
  Bob Barr... consitutuion party...
  
  The fact that keyes is running just divides the few principled voters even further. It is too bad that he does not endorse one of the other parties and get out of the way.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7That's the point of Keyes' essay. As he said:
    
    "...In a three-way race, this means that 35 to 40 percent of the vote should be sufficient for victory – even less if minor vote getters garner more than 10 percent amongst them. This is how Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39 percent of the popular vote. ...In this year's general election, the fact that neither so called "major" party offers a good choice for Christian conscience greatly increases the likelihood that a candidate of proven principle could rally a winning plurality. Of course, in the absence of such a candidate, many voters of conscience will again stay away from the polls. Without their turnout, McCain will undoubtedly lose, but it doesn't stop there. The candidates these conscientious voters would support for other offices will also suffer. Since most such candidates wear a Republican label, it will be a bad day for the Republican Party."
    
    The best man will win if every voter votes for the best man.
  - mattalice, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7Yea, keyes should step aside so we can let one of the two major tickets win right? DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? I am guessing no. Probably too long for you..... just like keyes said.
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8Alan Keyes entered the race in September, 2007 ... long before Bob Barr got in.
    
    Remeber the California Supreme Court opinion made in opposition to the expressed will of the people stating that so-called homosexual marriage was legal in California? It was an example of judicial tyranny. The justices based their opinion on no existing law, no state constitution, nor the U.S. Constitution. They made it up our of whole-cloth.
    
    Yet Bob Barr said of that decision, "That's the way the system's supposed to work."
- TYRONEBR549, on 08/11/2008, -1/+10Are you serious? Perhaps it would be better if the other got out of the race and made way for him? hum...
- SampleX, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Common premise in British politics... dividing the electorate not so that you can win, but so that your opponent can't... More choice equals more variety equals more division.
  
  I hope and pray that America somehow manages to keep the leading sons of internationalist wickedness out of the White House, though somehow I suspect that won't be the case...
  
  We're naive to think that America actually gets what she votes for, and that the future president has not been picked by the financial powers of this world, not for who will do the best job, but for who will bring America to her knees faster and who will drive the nation into forced internationalism.
johnny2k, on 08/11/2008, -8/+12I'll get back to you about this piece sometime next week. It will take me that long to read it all!
- alanhlake, on 08/11/2008, -2/+23This piece is worth analyzing with your dictionary open and meditating upon.
  
  Let me summarize it:
  
  If you are willing to vote for your perceived lesser of two evils, then you do not subscribe to the principles espoused by our Lord Jesus Christ. You are a CINO -- Christian In Name Only!
  
  If either Obama or McCain is elected President, it is because those who profess allegiance to Christ do not act upon Christian principle! The fate of the Republic is in the hands of those who call themselves Christians.
- victorypup, on 08/11/2008, -2/+10So called Christians have been pulling the flush lever on America's future for a long time now. Born again Jimmy was one of note, Judas George the latest of course. This time around it's a toss up as to which Anti Christ friendly candidate they pull for, Obomber or McAmnesty.
- groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -1/+13With all due respect, Johnny, it would take much less committment (say 39 days) to get through Dr. Keyes essay, than some of what you've submitted in the past.
- Salesti, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6HEH! BTW, Johnny, that was a compliment! :D
drmull, on 08/11/2008, -6/+27Many Christian leaders have refused to obey Christ's repeated exhortations to; "fear NOT" by rationalizing to their flock that they will support McCain out of fear of Obama. Alan Keyes said recently; "Fear is the goad of the Devil." How any Christian could read Dr. Keyes' response to Dr. Dobson and ALL leaders suffering moral relativism and NOT be convicted to the core is beyond me! There is a parallel that can be drawn between another clear instruction from Christ [in Matt 6:6], for believers to go into our closet and pray [communicate with God] in secret, and believing voters who should go into the ballot box and vote [communicate with their government] in secret, for the one who BEST represents Christ, who is Alan Keyes in this cycle. We, as Christians, should no more be manipulating and calculating the effect of our vote, trying to get the biggest group 'bang for our buck,' than we should be manipulating and calculating the effect of our prayers. We should instead, in BOTH cases, DO THE RIGHT [i.e.RIGHTEOUS] THING and let our Lord God take it from there.
- KJeffV, on 08/11/2008, -1/+17Thank you!
- planet87, on 08/11/2008, -0/+9It would be nice and more effective though if we didn't split our vote three Ways.
  
  Liberterian... Constitution... Keyes.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8Give this some serious thought. It bears repeating:
    
    "...In a three-way race, this means that 35 to 40 percent of the vote should be sufficient for victory – even less if minor vote getters garner more than 10 percent amongst them. This is how Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39 percent of the popular vote. ...In this year's general election, the fact that neither so called "major" party offers a good choice for Christian conscience greatly increases the likelihood that a candidate of proven principle could rally a winning plurality. Of course, in the absence of such a candidate, many voters of conscience will again stay away from the polls."
    
    The point is, we don't all have to vote for the same third-party candidate in order to boot out the DemoRepublicRats. Let the voters decide, for a change, instead of party bosses. Almost ANY of the third-party candidates would be an improvement over what we have now. Vote your conscience and let the process work as it's supposed to.
  - gmdmartyr, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3IMHO, I think God wants us to vote for the 3rd party. Whether there are 1,2 or 3 of them....we'll leave that part to The Lord on the winner. We must make this Rally successful. Wash DC on the Mall Sept 17th. 24/7 until a response for REDRESS from our Government. Those Petitions for redress have been delivered to every member of state and local Gov. and they all refuse to responde or even acknowledge these petitions. This is our Protest! And we demand Action!
- gmdmartyr, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Very good comment. Simple and concise. Now, If we can just get those Christian's to understand that. The simple realization that All is in His hands! VOTE!
- DOGODSWILL, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1 It will be better to vote for the lesser evil than to vote for total evil at this stage of the election .As I have said earlier, this election has gone to for that a vote for a 3rd party will keep the Muslim out .We Christians should have done something to get these true Christian on the ticket before now. I myself ,realize how I have let Christ down buy not getting more involved before now . But I personally feel at the stage of this election ,it is Gods Will for me to do all I can to prevent a Muslim from becoming Americas president . God gave us common since and expect us to use it. Let us all pray that He will forgive us for allowing McCain and B "HUSSEIN"Obama to get on the ticket to begin with , but lets not continue to displease Him( buy allowing a Muslim to get elected as Americas president) buy trying to correct the mistake we made before the nomination were made.Lets not make another mistake and allow a Muslim to be elected buy voting a 3rd party at this stage of the election. If we will do Gods will at this point , maybe God will give America 4 more years to prepare for the next election as we should have in this one .
Barbary, on 08/11/2008, -6/+26Very convicting article. I was going to vote for John McCain because I too saw him as the lesser of two evils: anybody to defeat Mr. NObama and send him back to Chicago and his Reverend Wright. But yes, that was a fearful response. It is better to do the right thing, vote for the right person.
- cashman57, on 08/11/2008, -2/+21I am glad you came around to voting for the person you want to be president instead of voting against the person you do not want.
  More than half of eligible voters stay home and thus show their disgust with the "choice". If we get them energized enough to vote we can make a very big difference. This election could be the one where Americans stand up and just say no to the D&R gang non-choices.
  - gmdmartyr, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2For real!
pilgrim2497, on 08/11/2008, -12/+5If Mr. Keyes and Mr. Farah are successful in siphoning enough votes away from McCain to put Obama in power, it will not be the first time the devil has used spiritual and intellectual pride in seemingly good men to accomplish his purposes.

The devil's chief objective is bringing Obama to power to finish the job Bill Clinton started---finishing America. The chief objective of all common sense Americans should be to defeat Obama.

John McCain is not the devil, but Obama is the closest thing to Lucifer we have ever seen in American politics. He represents gross darkness of the soul and will bring America to it's end. If he is elected, forget about political strategies for 2012. There may not even be an election in 2012.

Obama must be defeated, and if McCain is our only choice to defeat this radical socialist steeped in Afro-centric pagan spirituality, with deep muslim sympathies---then we must support McCain and pray diligently that God will grip his life.
- Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+12It is evident, pilgrim2497, that you didn't read the article. Here, let me cut out a few morsels for you to chew on:
  
  "...Sen. McCain's backers rely so heavily on the wearisome fallacy that anyone who fails to support him helps Obama to victory. But a little common-sense reflection reveals this as sophistry. ...given the degree to which John McCain shares Obama's big government predilections and his consistent abandonment of moral principle, he is in no position to rally opposition to Obama on these most salient points of his vulnerability. ... If people are obliged to support one person who doesn't represent them in order to stop another who also doesn't represent them, they end up with a government that doesn't represent them.
  
  ...In a three-way race, this means that 35 to 40 percent of the vote should be sufficient for victory – even less if minor vote getters garner more than 10 percent amongst them. This is how Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39 percent of the popular vote. ...In this year's general election, the fact that neither so called "major" party offers a good choice for Christian conscience greatly increases the likelihood that a candidate of proven principle could rally a winning plurality. Of course, in the absence of such a candidate, many voters of conscience will again stay away from the polls. Without their turnout, McCain will undoubtedly lose, but it doesn't stop there. The candidates these conscientious voters would support for other offices will also suffer. Since most such candidates wear a Republican label, it will be a bad day for the Republican Party."
  
  This election may be one of the most important in the history of the United States of America. Please take the time to read and seriously contemplate what Dr. Keyes presents.
  - pilgrim2497, on 08/11/2008, -6/+0If you draw no distinction between McCain and Obama, then you are a fool---and a fool who probably was screaming for Ron Paul six months ago.
    
    You think you know more than you actually know, which is one of the definitions of a fool.
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8Pilgrim: "We must support McCain and pray diligently that God will grip his life ... "
    
    From your posts, it would appear your stance on the issues is more in line with Alan Keyes than with either Obama or McCain.
    
    Obama and McCain both claim to be Christians.
    
    It makes no more sense to say, "We must support McCain and pray diligently that God will grip his life ... "
    
    ... than to say, "We must support Obama and pray diligently that God will grip his life ... "
    
    Either way you are voting for someone with whom you disagree on critical issues ...
    
    Representative government is based upon the notion that we vote for the candidate who will best represent us in office. If all conservative people would do so, we could actually have a Godly man like Alan Keyes in the White House. It only takes 35 - 40% in a tight 3-way race ... and conservatives comprise that portion of likely voters.
    
    We C-A-N do it. The question is: Do we have the W-I-L-L?
- planet87, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5Pilgrim,
  
  Did you watch the Star Wars saga... How do you know McCain is not just another tool of the Sith Lord. The Sith Lord won either way. He wins win the Republic gets too strong and he wins if the Rebellion toppels it.
  
  Not a perfect parallel, but still one to consider.
  
  From a practical stance though, McCain will destroy the Republican party and is just as likely to destroy the republic as Obama will ... only perhaps somewhat more slowly.
  
  McCain will deal with socialists... probably weaken our bodies... leading to another 9-11 attack for which He and Republicans will get blamed and then Obama or some other Marxist will win in 2012.
  
  We survived 4 years of Carter. We survived 8 years of Clinton... We can survive 4 years of Obama...
  
  The fact is the younger generations need to learn for themselves how decstructive socialism is... and the only way to do that is to let it take partial effect.
  
  The real problem with our country BTW is the education system. It endoctrinates all future voters in socialism and moral relativism. Unless you elect someone who is willing to revolutionize that... the best you can hope for is delaying the end of the country.
  - pilgrim2497, on 08/11/2008, -2/+0Delaying the end of the country may be what this election is about---unless you think we can outlaw Islam and deport all muslims, unless you think we can drive out 15 million illegals, unless you think we can outlaw the lie of evolution which creates a savage society, unless you think we can drive the sodomites back into their filthy closets, unless you think the nice and sweet, pansified professing Christians in America will actually turn off their TV's to fast and pray, unless....
    
    I think we both know the answer to these propositions. We only have a few years and I'm not willing to cede them to that socialist carnival barker, Obama---of course, a few million of you big talkers might want to join me in armed overthrow of a reprobate government. That really is the only realistic way out of the diversity worshipping cesspool we now inhabit.
  - michael4lsu, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5pilgrim2497, most of us commenters here are on the same side. Where I think you've missed the boat on this is the fact that McCain would be no better than Obama. McCain is a globalist CFR puppet working to build the New World Order just like most of the rest of our past Presidents and politicians, and just like Obama. Your rational is extremely flawed. As if we should vote for McCain simply because he is labeled as a 99.9 lb bag of crap, whereas Obama is labeled as a 100.1 lb bag of crap, and this while actually trusting that the labels are accurate. How about not voting for either bag of crap, not playing into the globalists scheme of having the media paint us into a corner where we feel like we HAVE to choose between those two bags of crap, and let's vote for a 1000 lb bag of GOLD instead?
PlainlyPut, on 08/11/2008, -8/+12Please re-read pilgrim2497; he is right on target. McCain strong point now is that he is most likely to defend our country. If he can keep enemies at bay, then perhaps we can have an election in 2012 to choose God's man.

Not all leaders in the Bible were godly, but God was in control of them entirely. The prayer of the righteous availeth much.

Yes. Pray for McCain. I do not think to see Keyes for president this year is impossible, but highly improbable. He is, though, a man I'd be privileged to vote for, or help get elected into office. I am a white woman ~ for the record.
- victorypup, on 08/11/2008, -1/+12...Not all leaders in the Bible were Godly, but God was in control of them entirely........then what does it matter whether we pick Obomber or McAmnesty? What difference does it make who we vote for, just vote for any evil piece of human debri, Right? God is still in control Right?
  
  Therefore VOTE For a GODLY MAN and spare yourself from God's Judgment.
  - jp111, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Leaders in the Bible were not VOTED into power. The were called kings, emperors, governors, even tax collectors. If we have a FREE CHOICE we are given the RIGHTS MENTIONED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION........the GOD gave us to make the right choice....and that ain't abortion!
- PlainlyPut, on 08/11/2008, -4/+1It is mid-August; the election is less than 3 months away. And away is not where I will throw my vote. America is already heading for judgement but for the enormous grace of God; what I do with my life blesses America. I am fulfilling the Great Comission in a foreign land which is a most patriotic thing to do. I do not have the fear of God's judgement upon me.
  ... were there a godly man on the ballot to vote for ...
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7"I won't throw my vote away" mentality is the most effective tool of those who would subvert self-government.
    
    What is it's result? Without firing a single shot, you've given up your sacred franchise ... and will cast your vote for someone who, in fact, does NOT represent you or your will for this nation.
  - jp111, on 08/12/2008, -1/+0And you are just a little too full of youself, now aren't you? A braggard, a person letting everyone know they donate much, a proud person, not very humble. Scan the Bible and you are by no means NOT be be judged.
    Good works are just that. It's how they are performed. What good is it for a thief to donate to the church or for Robin Hood to steal for the poor?
- michael4lsu, on 08/11/2008, -1/+4PlainlyPut, how do you expect McCain to defend us from our enemies when he himself is a puppet of our domestic enemies who are destroying America from within and paving the way for the globalist New World Order? You'd probably be better off being forced to accept the Mark of the Beast and receive judgement for it, rather than to actually vote for the evildoers who will bring this New World Order and the mark upon us.
kemojr, on 08/11/2008, -5/+19Obama is a false prophet. Like the Pied Piper of Hamlin he will lead many astray with his pseudo Christian values. It is said "that if sin was not attractive, it would never succeed and by the worlds standards Obama is attractive. On the other hand Alan Keyes has wisdom and a strong moral compass. Moreover he has experience and I believe he is anointed for this task. The reason I like Alan Keyes is because he has the same values as I have, so it is evident that it is a matter of values and not color. Our country is a precious jewel. We should not "cast pearls to swine."
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -1/+10Aptly stated. Your post expresses exactly how I feel. Thanks for posting it.
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1The choice is clear. MAYA FOR PRESIDENT!http://fruitfly.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/lesbians- ...
- jp111, on 08/12/2008, -4/+0"False Prophet" - You probably believe that, too!
  - kemojr, on 08/15/2008, -0/+0You are damned right I do.
ikbrooks, on 08/11/2008, -5/+20I agree with many posting here. Keyes is by far the best choice this cycle there is no doubt. The thing we must do is what we are told in the scriptures. Do the right thing and God will take care of the rest. I do not fear an Obama presidency. Who knows? May God sees the need for another revolution to clear this nation of the garbage we have allowed to prevail? Maybe a revolution is just what we need in one form or another. Keyes makes the point we are at a crossroads where we can return to greatness or continue down the road to destruction. Noting issues such as homosexual marriage even as his daughter declares herself as part of that movement. He stands for truth and loves freedom. What a great president he would be. A statesman! Great man! Great read!
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8... the whole point of politics is to
  resolve issues over which people have normally
  fought in ways that allow us to
  achieve the result by the
  ballot, rather than the
  bullet.
  
  Alan Keyes
  "Ask Alan" Conference Call, July 22, 2008
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -6/+1Alan Keyes is a long winded blowhard,and a carpetbagging, grandstanding hot dog who doesn't pay his bills. He's also a lousy father who threw his own daughter under the bus, because she did not turn out as he wished. Another self absorbed hypocrite masquerading as a Christian.
  - danielttt, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1ThoughtfulWi ... You missed it bud, The discussion is on Alan Keyes...not Bill Clinton... We're pretty much done with that subject and Clinton's pretty much a has been, save for the dirt he's left in his wake. Get with the program.
- flip2trip, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8AAAmen! I have always wanted to cast my vote for Alan Keyes but I had that "throwing my vote away" mentality--I am never going to vote "the lesser of two evils" again when there is a man such as Mr. Keyes who, imho, represents Christ as well as anyone I've seen.
  
  ALAN KEYES '08
pilgrim2497, on 08/11/2008, -10/+0I stood with Alan Keyes and Roy Moore in Montgomery as America ignored it's day of visitation concerning the Law of God, but Mr. Keyes has gone off track since then.

The Bible says to give diligence to make the communication of your faith effectual. In other words, no matter what splendid ideas you have, if you can't effectively communicate them to the common people you are probably doing more harm than good---and Mr. Keyes has proved that he cannot effectively communicate his message to the common people.
- Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -1/+11As Dr. Keyes says of your typical reaction that
  
  -------------------------
  "... People won't have the patience to read it, or the intelligence to understand it. You must make it shorter; make it more accessible, more readable, etc., etc., etc. Can you give me a sound bite? What about a 60 second spot?" It seems that just about the only element of the democratic ethos that unquestionably dominates consciousness these days is a pervasive insistence on lowering the standard of public discourse so that the "common people" can understand.
  
  I see at least two problems with this reaction. It insults and underestimates the common sense of the people. It neglects the possibility that the length and substance of a discussion must respect the nature of the subject being discussed, not just the assumed tastes and capacities of the subjects following the discussion. When the premises of government are at stake, political discourse must involve deliberation about the way in which those premises relate to the issues and circumstances of the time. This requires reasoning. Reasoning involves examining and articulating the premises, then following their implications until we see how they are connected with the issues and circumstances we face. The result is neither a purely academic treatment of principle nor a handbook and call to action. Instead, it relates decision to principle in order to establish a consistent basis for action. This is not the work of an administrator, or even a merely practical politician. It is, however, the challenge of statesmanship in those times when moral upheaval shakes a regime to its foundations.
  
  As for the intelligence of our people, why should we assume that our people can read the Bible or follow the abstruse intricacies of a team's strategy for the NFL draft, yet they can't grasp the rather less challenging discussion of political right and liberty? Why should we assume that the American people, though smart enough to build and maintain the buildings, the machines and the enterprises needed to sustain the most successful material results in human history, have become too stupid to sustain the historically unique hope of liberty their self-government represents?
  -------------------------
  
  Give Americans credit for their intelligence.
- delriaan, on 08/11/2008, -0/+11Seriously, pilgrim:
  You can oversimplify a message to a perceived level of common understanding if you want. You'll then not have a message that says anything to edify the audience (which is party why many are led astray in the Christian faith). I think you underestimate the God-given intelligence that we possess. This article may require the reader to flex the muscles of critical thought, but it's not too difficult to grasp by any means.
- Opanow, on 08/11/2008, -0/+10If the American people cannot read or understand what Dr. Keyes writes, then the success of the NEA's dumbing down program is proven!
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8The new political party is
  America's Independent Party
  www.SelfGovernment.US or
  www.aipnc.com
  
  Their banner quote is by George Washington ...
  
  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
  "Let us raise a standard to which the
  wise and honest can repair; the
  rest is in the hands of God."
  ~ ~ ~ ~ George Washington ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
  - pilgrim2497, on 08/11/2008, -4/+0I will admit the George Washington quote has great allure, but I don't believe Mr. Keyes is the standard. If I support a very weak McCain over a very wicked Obama, I also believe the rest is in God's hands.
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3I believe Dr. Keyes would tell you the STANDARD is Christ.
Nannybell, on 08/11/2008, -11/+6We are electing a President, not a Pastor in Chief. Be realistic. Barack Obama is the most far-left-leaning liberal in the U.S. Senate. The man is a socialist. The harm he can do in four or eight years is immeasurable. He told Planned Parenthood that if elected, his first action would be to overturn the ban on partial birth abortion. Also, it is my understanding that while still serving in Illinois, he did nothing to clean up corruption there but rather worked in the other direction, despite his promises.

John McCain will protect this nation militarily. Do you doubt that he loves America? No. On the other hand, Barack Obama is busy stating that he is a citizen of the world and jetting off to Switzerland to visit with George Clooney.

Until we** are able to get this nation straightened out, and until the sickness of extreme liberalism is in check, we will have to block their candidates from the White House and other areas of power.

(** Note: Actually it is God who is able to straighten it out, and we should be praying fervently for that.)
- Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+11You're falling for exactly what Dr. Keyes is talking about, voting for the lesser of two evils, thus continuing the evil. As I posted in a reply above that is getting hidden, I'll repost it here. Here is what Dr. Keyes says:
  
  "...Sen. McCain's backers rely so heavily on the wearisome fallacy that anyone who fails to support him helps Obama to victory. But a little common-sense reflection reveals this as sophistry. ...given the degree to which John McCain shares Obama's big government predilections and his consistent abandonment of moral principle, he is in no position to rally opposition to Obama on these most salient points of his vulnerability. ... If people are obliged to support one person who doesn't represent them in order to stop another who also doesn't represent them, they end up with a government that doesn't represent them.
  
  ...In a three-way race, this means that 35 to 40 percent of the vote should be sufficient for victory – even less if minor vote getters garner more than 10 percent amongst them. This is how Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39 percent of the popular vote. ...In this year's general election, the fact that neither so called "major" party offers a good choice for Christian conscience greatly increases the likelihood that a candidate of proven principle could rally a winning plurality. Of course, in the absence of such a candidate, many voters of conscience will again stay away from the polls. Without their turnout, McCain will undoubtedly lose, but it doesn't stop there. The candidates these conscientious voters would support for other offices will also suffer. Since most such candidates wear a Republican label, it will be a bad day for the Republican Party."
  - planet87, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2I like Keyes Yobots, but he failed to win the Constitution Party nomination. How will he win the General Election?
    
    We need to unite behind one party. Constitution or Liberterian.
    I prefer Liberterian... Broader appeal.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+6That's great!
    Look, if all of the dissatisfied Americans come out to vote in November, refusing to "choose" the two "choices" being pushed on us, then we WILL have a third-party president. All we're asking is that you think this through, and vote for the person YOU WANT. Of course we aren't all going to vote for the same person.
    
    Let's let the voters decide who they really want. What a concept!
- victorypup, on 08/11/2008, -0/+12I doubt that John MCain has the character to know what loving America really means. McAmnesty is a sell out candidate, lost in the world of Globalism, nothing more nothing less.
- michael4lsu, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5Nannybell, McCain's idea of protecting us militarily will be with UN troops after Martial Law is declared! But before that happens, he'll be sure to bring back the draft to pull out every young principled Christian fighter that Big Brother can find and send them overseas to build the New World Order abroad, so that we are left even more defenseless to the foreign invasion of UN troops who will enforce martial law in our own country to force us to accept the New World Order too.
  - groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5Michael, to put it nicely, you're talking out of your hat. Keyes' essay "In Good Conscience" is thoughful and thought-provoking. Just as he unfolds his ideas here, there is ample evidence in his writings http://renewamerica.us that he is not part of the crowd who is promoting a *New World Order* or globalism of any kind. To state so, in your off-handed manner is calumny.
  - michael4lsu, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2groovsmyth, read my post again, I was referring to McCain. As for Alan Keyes, I have read some of his writings, specifically regarding the war on terror and our involvement with the United Nations, and have found him to be way too ignorant on the matter. He lacks the urgency of those issues to save us from them. That is why I would much rather have someone like Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, who openly condemn the New World Order agenda and the secret organizations that have been planning this agenda.
- Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7Please take a second look at the following. If true, and there is no reason not to think it is, then McCain is unacceptable.
  
  "Similarly, in the course of the Republican primary campaign, the facts about John McCain's retreat from his early commitment to the pro-life position were repeatedly brought to light in ways that included information from one of his Senate colleagues, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, making clear that behind the scenes he time and again opposed bringing pro-life issues to the Senate floor. McCain's unprincipled approach to the marriage issue was also widely known, including support for so-called civil unions and his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment."
  
  he time and again opposed bringing pro-life issues to the Senate floor.
  he time and again opposed bringing pro-life issues to the Senate floor.
  
  McCain's unprincipled approach to the marriage issue was also widely known, including support for so-called civil unions and his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment."
  
  McCain's unprincipled approach to the marriage issue was also widely known, including support for so-called civil unions and his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment."
  
  Got it!
Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -4/+16The well reasoned and thoughtful arguments put forth by Alan Keyes in this essay help to clear away a lot of fuzzy thinking.
The Family is the most basic "socio-economic unit" in any society. It comes first, always, and everywhere. Government comes second.

The natural family is not about power or "choice" but about service to the weak and helpless. When we can understand fully all the implications of this reality we will have a true understanding of what it really means for our Government to protect our Rights. When the least powerful and weak are fully defended and protected then all of us can breath easier. We to can expect fair treatment and justice by our government because we Know it is there to serve us, to protect us and to guarantee Freedom for all people.
gardenerbk, on 08/11/2008, -5/+11In Bedford, Virginia (20 miles east of Roanoke/135 miles west of Richmond); there is an amazing Memorial to D-Day. It is located there because Bedford suffered the highest per capita loss of life on that eventful day.

We went there Saturday. The weather was beautiful and landscaping and flowers in their own glory. However, the most striking features of this place were representations in sculpture. There was a grouping of Rangers rappelling up a vertical cliff, some being shot as they ascended the ropes. Another was a granite landing craft and young men on the beach as gunfire hits the water (special effect produced by air tubes below the water). One man already lay dead, and another yelling and dragging a wounded comrade further up the beach. The dramatic (and realistic) portrayal sparked a discussion of the nature of FEAR and what kind of men these must have been to knowingly, willingly, wade and walk and crawl onward and onward toward almost certain death.

The FEARS politicians face of offending some group etc. are so trivial in comparison ....well, what small small people we seem to have become.

HAVE WE NO MEN (or women) OF COURAGE???
- planet87, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6All too few.
Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -4/+13I may add quite a few quotes. They are just too damn good!

"As for the intelligence of our people, why should we assume that our people can read the Bible or follow the abstruse intricacies of a team's strategy for the NFL draft, yet they can't grasp the rather less challenging discussion of political right and liberty? Why should we assume that the American people, though smart enough to build and maintain the buildings, the machines and the enterprises needed to sustain the most successful material results in human history, have become too stupid to sustain the historically unique hope of liberty their self-government represents?"
- Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -3/+3The discussion of political right and liberty is far more complex than football or the Bible.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -2/+4I guess for you it is. That's perfectly understandable, honey.
  - Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -3/+3Seeing all your Digg comments & http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client ... tells me that you have been doing almost nothing for the past year but campaigning for Alan Keyes, yet you still made this mistake today
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/2_party_system_N ...
    I may be a stunning blond, but even I wouldn't make that mistake.
  - ieee, on 08/11/2008, -1/+2"I may be a stunning blond"
    
    Understatement of the week......
  - Kent4jmj, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2"That's perfectly understandable, honey" Should be retracted with an apology as a condescending and demeaning comment. You don't need them if you got the truth.
- Kent4jmj, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2More complex than football or Bible? That's open to debate :o) But the point that we should not dummy down our discussion is valid. I think raising the bar often has the effect of providing the challenge needed for personal growth. We all tend towards laziness and complacency when left to ourselves.
RSandman, on 08/11/2008, -3/+14Brilliant.
I couldn't agree more.
Now if we could just overhaul the understanding of the general citizenry on the subject of exactly what a political "party" is, and who runs the machine and what their agendas are, perhaps we can overhaul the way good men often do not end up on the ballot!
It is 'possible' that any one of the attempts at a 3rd party could be built, but I can't see it happening from the top ticket down - we would have to have a build-up somewhere of state legislators, then US congressman, perhaps a governor or two, and then see a valid new party able to fund a candidate for President.
Until then, those who care need to keep on the firing line at the RNC (&DNC, though it may be a lost cause).
He who controls your choices controls the outcome - and if you're trying to push everyone off to the bottom of a diamond, it doesn't matter whether you dump the country over the left-side or the right-side. It the duty of the rest of us to keep forcing our elected officials back up to the top of this Representative Republic.
- Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7You're right, RSandman! And that's exactly why we need a totally new political party, not led by party-boss egos, but by the people
  America's Independent Party: www.selfgovernment.us
- groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8Time is of the essence. In a perfect world, building the new party from the bottom, up would be preferrable. However, while you're advocating growing where you're planted, as it were, Tom Hoefling and company are laboring in this less-than-perfect world. Won't you join us?
  http://selfgovernment.us
DuggDowner, on 08/11/2008, -12/+6Alan Keyes couldn't get elected to the PTA.
- Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -5/+10Of course not but that is only because it is run by liberals too stupid to know that they are either socialists or full blown communists that do not understand what a Republic is and how it guarantees Freedom.
- victorypup, on 08/11/2008, -3/+8Quite right Kent4jmj, it is also for this reason that America has been reduced to it's present state of debauchery. The latest inovation 'No child left behind', is like the straw through which the camel sucks it's water, before it breaks it's back. Nothing has been done since Reagan to deal a blow against the Socialist driven NEA. America is getting exactly what they have paid for, a socialist education for their children, and a ride to the proverbial stadium to watch the games play out.
  - groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7Alan Keyes, a Reagan protege if you will, agrees with you. Reagan didn't accomplish the dismantling of the NEA during his administration... but he helped dismantle the USSR.
    Support Alan Keyes for President, and give him a chance to carry on the Reagan legacy of peace through strength, domestically and worldwide.
    
    http://alankeyes.com
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1Alan forgot to pay his bills. What a scumbag.http://www.realchange.org/keyes.htm
delriaan, on 08/11/2008, -3/+14This was a fantastic article. More was said in that discourse than the sum of all speeches you'll have heard by the time the next president has been elected. I hope people take it seriously. Fortunately, the article is full of enough substance that anyone can read it multiple times and ponder the truths, unlike what we normally get in this quick 'n' dirty style age of information.
klingeng, on 08/11/2008, -3/+14Does John McCain have the intellect to write a piece like this?
Does Barrack Obama have the intellect to write a piece like this?
Alan Keyes is brilliant. Dr. Dobson should read this and reply publicly.
Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -3/+12"But the moral premise of our republican form of government, the premise that makes the consent of the people necessary for just government, is the Declaration principle that all human beings are endowed by God with unalienable rights, including first of all the right to life. If the states can pass laws that depart from this premise, it means they are not required to preserve the foundations of republican form of government. But "if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalms 11:3) McCain's position not only discards the Declaration's first principle of justice, it also violates Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government in all of the states."

This quote is the most challenging one for me. It opposes McCains position but also, seemingly, Ron Paul's that abortion is a States issue.
If our Rights are endowed by God as the Declaration states and human life starts at conception and that human being is afforded all the Rights of a Citizen and the Federal Government is mandated by Article 4, sec. 4 to maintain a Republican form of government at the State level Then many of us have been wrong about abortion being a State issue and not a Federal issue.
- planet87, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1The problem is proving life starts at conception. Don't be a single issue voter. There are good arguments on both sides. This shouldn't be a divisive issue.
  
  Leaving it to the states is a good and principled compromise. It honors the republican type of government, states rights. It will reduce the number of abortions but not make them completely unavailable.
  
  We have to unify or our voice will not be heard. Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Alan Keyes, and the dude running from the Constitution Party need to put aside their differences and unite if they are going to have a chance to win.
  - Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5I appreciate your response but it does not answer the questions raised. To say that there are good arguments on both sides is hardly enough to satisfy anyone who is seriously concerned with what is true. Two opposing positions on important matters such as Human Life can't both be right. Coke or Pepsi? Who cares. But Human Life is another matter.
    
    I think the life from conception is the stronger argument but more importantly I've always believed it to be true.
    
    The State's Rights issue is where I was stuck until Keyes argument. In it he shows their is a Responsibility for the Federal Government to make sure the States remain a Republic. That the Rule of Law applies to everyone! Especially the weakest and most vulnerable. If his argument is True, and I think it is so far, then Paul needs to make an adjustment. Does this mean that I Have to withdraw support from Paul because of Abortion? No I don't think so at this time as I know he really is against it and is working for its eradication. I also know he supports the bill that defines human life from conception.
  - groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6I don't agree, planet87. We don't have time to party like it's 1999. We could very well be on the eve of destruction. This is precisely not the time to compromise. Unless of course you mean Baldwin, Barr and other conservatives endorsing Keyes.
  - Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1If their is an argument for all of us supporting Keyes I'd like to hear it. (But not if it is going to be a one sided one.) Because I think the same argument is being used by a Paul, Barr or Paul supporters as well.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+4Can you point me to the similar essays Ron Paul and Bob Barr have written?
  - michael4lsu, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3Ron Paul introduced legislation that would have defined life at conception and voided Roe V. Wade. Such legislation would not have allowed states to legalize abortion. Ron Paul is well aware of the right to life being an unalienable right that should not be taken away even by the states. Ron Paul does not want states legalizing abortion any more than he wants them to legalize prostitution or drug use. He simply doesn't want the Federal Government doing things it was not authorized to do by the Constitution, and has been addressing those issues in that respect. Now, he does realize that the chances of such legislation of being passed are limited to the moral will of We The People. But that is where leaving the battle on the local level makes more sense. We The People have far more of a fighting chance of winning such battels on the local level than we do with battling a monopolized federal tyranny 2000 miles away. Don't worry, Ron Paul had it 100% right both realistically and idealistically.
  - Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -0/+4Yobotz
    michael4lsu has given a beautiful response. Ron Paul's positions are pretty well known and his websites are easy enough to find. Are you being disingenuous?
    
    As for Barr I believe him to be an opportunist of the worst kind. His response to California supreme court ruling concerning same sex unions is enough for any of us to see that he has a serious moral vacuum.
    
    I typed Paul a second time but actually meant to write Baldwin. His position are also very clear and in very close union to Keyes.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -1/+4You make a good point. I agree that human life is a federal issue. We all have so much more in common than in disagreement. The essay is absolutely spot on to what the problem really is: the idea that the media and those in power get to limit us to their two "choices". We need to break out of the pack mentality. Can we agree that we shouldn't be afraid to vote for who we WANT?
  - groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -0/+4We can go round and round on this again if you like. planet87's assertion that we would be prudent to pool our third party votes toward one specific candidate has merit. We know that Kent, Michael, and a myriad of others would like it to be Ron Paul. The sticking point which brought about my initial response is that very compromise that planet87 brought up - the notion of a *States Rights* case for the deciding of Abortion. While Dr. Paul is an obstetrician, and is Pro-Life and has supported a federal amendment to protect the pre-born, as Kent has reiterated, Paul wants the federal government to do it kosher-like, per the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Paul is comfortable with it going either way first. Overturning Roe or getting the federal amendment passed. The problem is that the rabid pro-abort (reproductive *rights*) crowd can prolong this indefinitely with this manner of shell game. They've done it for 35 years already. Unless Pro-Lifers come out unequivocally stating it's personhood that the pre-born deserves, we play into the shell game ourselves. Kent stated that he appreciated Dr. Keyes take on this. It seems to be a matter of semantics, because Keyes believes the Constitution provides for the pre-born in spirit already through that very Declaration of Independence. I'll take your word that Dr. Paul *gets* that, but it's not his main focus. I believe Alan Keyes would gather momentum for the pre-born from the bully pulpit better because of his semantics. In another part of this thread, Michael attributes motivations to Alan Keyes in foreign policy that are just not there. Keyes is NOT a puppet of the CFR. Keyes represents the uncompromising, direct method of protecting the pre-born through a federal amendment. Paul and Baldwin may be sincerely Pro-Life, but we can no more withdraw from the U.N. without hurting our national interests any more than we can withdraw a military presence from key points around the globe. Not because we want imperial colonialism, but because vigilance and strength maintain peace. That, in a nutshell, is why we should rally around Keyes.
  - drmull, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Right out of the starting gate Planet87 reveals much by writing; "The problem is proving life starts at conception."
    
    WHAT do you think starts at conception? DEATH? An idea? It's not only LIFE, it's HUMAN LIFE! With its' very own set of chromosomes and probably a different blood type too. What starts at conception is a unique, individual, human being! Very small, very vulnerable, very needing of protection ...i.e A BABY!!!
    
    Just like you were once. Have you ever thanked mom for her clearer understanding of this? Thank God too!
- groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7BINGO, Kent!!! And that's not meant as an *i told ya so* brother. Hopefully, many of conscience and good will digest this essay for all its worth.
  - Kent4jmj, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7I appreciate the feedback Carl but I hope you also digested the part where I spoke of Paul's complete pro life stance and his support of the Bill to define life from conception. I seem to remember going round and round on that one once upon a time.
    
    As for Keys current political tract I do believe it is brilliant in that he has made the connections explicit for the protection of life and why it can not be just a state issue. It adds to the discussion in a meaningful way as it brings some new insights, or maybe old ones, which show that a the case for the defense of life and family is not only Constitutional but in our best interest. A government that protects the weakest under the rule of law is one that will probably protect our other rights as well.
  - groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5I believe I DO appreciate that now, Kent. I guess where I can't go along with Dr. Paul is the either/or. I really don't believe this country has the time. The longer we play the pro-abort's shell game, the more embedded the lunacy that the pre-born are second class to some perceived reproductive *right*. We play into the stalemate on Roe v Wade by distracting ourselves with Supreme Court appointees. As I said in response to RSandman, I agree that the system has strayed from Constitutionality, but we don't have the luxury of re-building it from the bottom up in time for November. We cannot erase the two-party stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have instituted for themselves. In the meantime, Dr. Keyes, with his Reagan *peace through strength* can keep our sovereignty intact, while guiding the Republic back to its Constitutional roots.
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5I thought that was a particularly compelling passage, too, Kent.
  
  God endows individual people with rights, including the right to life > people lend some of their rights to gov't in order to maintain tranquility, but only with the consent of the governed > this is the basis of our republic.
  
  Elected officials vow to uphold the Constitution.
  
  The U.S. Constitution requires we maintain a republican form of government (based upon the premise that God endowed individuals with rights, including the right to life.)
  
  So, supporting any effort that would violate the right to life also violates the presidential oath of office.
  
  So, a pres. candidate who supports sending abortion to the states, or who supports embryonic stem-cell research, or any violation of the right to life has, in effect, already agreed to violate his/her oath of office.
- drmull, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Yes Kent. Many including Ron Paul have have been wrong about abortion ever being a States Right. Paul has a lot of good points, but when it comes to REALLY understanding our Constitution it is Alan Keyes who is the DOCTOR!
TYRONEBR549, on 08/11/2008, -5/+13Dr. Keyes is the most qualified in this election, no doubt about it. He is by far the most intelligent and knows what is at stake. That is why he was shunned in the GOP primaries and the main stream media. If his message had been brought out to the for front and not suppressed then he would have won hands down and they know it. He shredded Hussein Obama in the debates in Illinois in 2000 and that was why Obama would not debate him anymore then. He only won in a heavy dem state with the huge media machine on his side and barely then. This is the only man that I have ever sent money to in a Presidential campaign and probably ever will.
- Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -4/+3I am sure you think so, but Barack Obama defeated Alan Keyes by 70% to 27% in the Senate election in Illinois.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -2/+6There you go--you're proving that you missed the whole point of the essay.
    
    Voting is not about betting on who you think can win, or worrying that if you don't vote with the pack, you waste your vote. Pack mentality has gotten us nothing but a pack of big shots in our government who don't represent us.
    
    Read the essay, and think about it awhile.
  - Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -5/+3I didn't read the essay. I was commenting on TYRONEBR549 claiming that Alan Keyes shredded Barack Obama. I understand the concept of the essay. I support Obama mostly because of his experience as a Constitutional Law professor, not because of some pack mentality. Alan Keyes, is too religious for me to even consider but I would certainly support Jesse Ventura in the future.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -3/+6Evilena, now that indeed is ironic that you "support Obama mostly because of his experience as a Constitution Law professor." First of all, he wasn't a "professor", and secondly, he obviously doesn't know the Constitution, or thinks that we don't know it. When you read Dr. Keyes' essay, you will discover that. Alan Keyes:
    
    "I realize that some people say they support Barack Obama because they believe in social justice and policies that promote equity for the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised. It is deeply and tragically ironic to see them promoting for the presidency a man who has discarded and disregarded the self-evident truths that oblige conscience to respect the claim of moral equality that justifies this belief. If we care only about ourselves and what happens in our own time, it may be enough to have leaders who choose to do what is right while destroying our allegiance to the principles that make it so. But if we mean to fulfill our Constitution's ultimate goal, and secure the blessing of liberty not only for ourselves but our posterity, then we cannot sacrifice the integrity of our nation's commitment to lasting principle in order to get contemporary results for ourselves."
  - ieee, on 08/11/2008, -2/+3http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391 ...
  - Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -4/+3Yobotz, now that indeed is ironic.
  - Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6I (sort of) stand sort of corrected ... sort of.
    
    Could someone have called Obama a professor? According to FactCheck.org, he could loosely be called that, but his title was not "Professor". It was "Senior Lecturer". It's at least an exaggeration to say otherwise.
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_o ...
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -2/+7Hi ieee,
    
    If you read the Chicago Sun Times article you cited at ...
    
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391 ...
    
    ... in the middle of the article the writer calls Obama a professor and then says, " -- technically 'senior lecturer.'"
    
    So the author acknowledges it's an exaggeration of fact to call Obama a professor, yet continues to do so.
    
    This may demonstrate some of the bias Keyes experienced going up against the "in the tank for Obama" press in Illinois and Daly's corrupt Chicago political machine.
  - Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -3/+3When I was in college, I worked in the law library for a semester. Technically, all the senior lecturers were called Professor by their students. When I said law professor above, I was using it in that way.
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4And it's not like just anybody can be designated "senior lecturer" in constitutional law at the University Of Chicago. You probably have to do something like graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School first.
  - KJeffV, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2"I didn't read the essay." — Evil
    
    Bingo.
  - Evilena, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4I didn't need to read it to make the point that I did Jeff. I have read it now. He brings up some good points about the 60-second sound bite mentality of the 20th century and how we have to move past that today.
    He completely discredits himself by using bible passages to prove a point.
- robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2Alan Keyes has steadfastly refused to support Ron Pauls HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act that would eliminate any and all funding, effectively wihtdrawing us from the Unitied Nations, and ending our participation once and for all. Mr. Keyes says that no matter how 'flawed', the UN is a necessarry institution. You need to wake up my friend!
  - TYRONEBR549, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2While I agree in principle that we need to get out of the U.N. It must be said that if we were out who would stop all the insanity that they try and do. If we were out they might very well gang up on us as they try and do now.
THEROD54, on 08/11/2008, -2/+10It seems to me that Alan Keyes makes the point that I feel is the heart of this matter.
The dumbing down of the American Public. No critical thinking skills, moral guide lines, Americans only have a 60 sec. attention span, and my all time favorite one used on me , your not smart enough to understand the , problem, solution, situation,long term effects, etc. etc.etc.
Everybody needs to be spoon feed information, hence why they look at us in this new media of information as needing to be controlled. Can you say Fairness Doctrine. Once information is readily accessible to people to analyze, discuss ,ponder,it changes everything, every topic.
- Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -6/+2Your not smart enough to understand the problem.
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1Evi. You know his daughter is a lesbian, right?
  - THEROD54, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1?
- groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7Was that supposed to be funny? If you'RE clever enough to clean up YOUR spelling and/or grammar, maybe we'll laugh... maybe
  One of the pitfalls of the so-called *Fairness Doctrine* is that it will force everyone to consume everything. The best analogy: It's better to have a wide range of choices in a pluralistic society. In terms of restaurants, that would mean a multitude of ethnic cuisines. We wouldn't want to mandate by law, that every restaurant MUST serve every known cultural dish. It would be an impossible task from a business perspective, and they couldn't possibly do it all the food justice.
  
  Besides, they're only pushing the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast media as before, which will mainly impact nationally syndicated and local radio. What is good for broadcast time, should be good for print space, but they wouldn't DARE mandate the so-called Fairness Doctrine for newspapers. The Internet is a different animal. Beware anyone trying to regulate it!
- Evilena, on 08/11/2008, -6/+2I am not here to entertain you. I am clever enough to cut and paste someone's words back at them. That one was nothing. Take a look at this one if you want some entertainment. http://digg.com/politics/Obama_panders_to_gays_Tot ...
  
  What is the point of your fairness doctrine red herring? Are you trying to say I care about liberal radio shows or something?
- THEROD54, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3Your not smart enough to understand the problem.
  Your not smart enough to understand the , problem, solution, situation,long term effects, etc. etc.etc.
  Bad cut and paste.
victorypup, on 08/11/2008, -2/+7Undoubtedly, Americans calling themselves "Christians", will vote for one of the Anti Christ friendly candidates. This has been their pattern, why should we expect otherwise. Participating in the NWO as defined by those managing both the Demacook / Republacook arms of the single party, is what it's all about. America's Constitution means nothing as we have seen demonstrated by our very own Judas George. Prepare yourselves people for yet another President who will surpass the evil of his predecessor, all with the blessings and accolades of a Charlatan Clergy, full of compromise and a lust for position and recognition.
Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8NOTE ON "THUMBS DOWN" DIGGS:
I don't know why they do this, but it appears that if a comment receives enough "Thumbs Down" diggs (only 5?), the comment gets buried, ALONG WITH ALL THE REPLIES. They don't even appear if you click "Expand All". The only way to view the buried comment, and its replies, is to click "Show" where it's buried.
Not a very good feature. It would be better to merely COUNT negative diggs; and have a different feature to bury profanity, and even then not the REPLIES.
- Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6"THUMBS DOWN" solution just found:
  In the upper righthand corner above the first comment is a link to "settings" where you can set it to "view all" so that it won't bury them for you.
- michael4lsu, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3What I hate is that when you give a comment a "thumbs down", it hides all the comments below it before you even have a chance to read them or give them thumbs up/down. You have the read the comments from top to bottom, but then you have to digg them from bottom to top. Stupid design that these digg geeks should have corrected a long time ago.
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1Michael, I don't think it is very nice to call these nice young men and women at digg, "geeks." And it's not very Christian either. After all, if it were not for digg, many of us would not have had the pleasure of rolling on the floor laughing, as we read your posts about the Lucifer Project, and other such hysterically laughable nonsense. I think you should say an Act Of Contrition, and apologize to the nice people at digg.
mattalice, on 08/11/2008, -2/+11I was going to write in Chuck Norris, but since Keyes is on the ticket in other states, I am going to write him in. I have always prayed he would make it on the ticket for a major party... now I am glad he isn't.

To be on a major ticket, republican or democrat, means you have sold out your principles and seek power for yourself more than justice for your constituents.

ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8Welcome! Here are some websites, if you've not visited them recently:
  
  Alan Keyes for President 2008:
  Contact@AlanKeyes.com
  www.AlanKeyes.com
  
  America's Independent Party:
  www.SelfGovernment.US
  www.aipnc.com (under construction)
  
  Archival materials available at:
  www.AmericasRevival.com
  www.RenewAmerica.US
  - spinningplates2, on 08/11/2008, -3/+1You were the one born that minute.
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1MAYA KEYES FOR PRESIDENT!http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1468
robertrutger, on 08/11/2008, -3/+1Alan Keyes talks a good talk, but curiously to this day refuses to support any legislation to Get US Out of the Unitied Nations. This opens the possiblity that Mr. Keyes is nothing more than controlled opposition. He cannot be prolife, pro traditional marriage, pro 2nd amendment, por national sovereignty, and pro UN at the same time. Me thinks there is something suspicious going on here,...
groovsmyth, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8The answer is very simple, robertrutger. He is PRO all the things that you listed, except the UN. Many people assume, that because he was an Ambassador to the U.N., that he agrees with it as a globalist, ruling body. Nothing could be further from the truth. When he was there, he was advocating for the United States. If we recuse ourselves from participation, we miss out on any input and warning. Ignorance is not bliss in this form of isolation. It would be like disenfranchising yourself from the process November 4th by not voting. You doom yourself to no voice.
- robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1You are dead wrong my friend. There has been legislation introduced by Ron Paul; HR 1146 National Sovereignty Restoration Act, that would effectively have us withdraw from the United Nations by eliminating any and all funding and Alan Keyes said that he would not support any effort to get us out of the United Nations and that, no matter how flawed, it is a necessary institution. You need to wake up my friend.
- nmaureen, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Alan Keyes on the United Nations:
  
  United Nations
  
  The fundamental goal of American statesmanship must be to maintain an independent sphere of sovereign American interests and principles, and to pursue them in the world with prudence and courage, retaining the awareness that the United States is responsible for its own destiny.
  
  Whatever benefits of international cooperation and consultation the United Nations has made possible, it has from its flawed founding been a source of dangerously naive globalist dreams. Some American politicians have been so corrupted by the internationalist ideal that they cannot resist the temptation to elevate the United Nations into a supra-national entity that threatens American sovereignty.
  
  Should this pernicious tendency persist, the United States will have to withdraw from the United Nations, and yet firmly maintain our ongoing international responsibilities as a sovereign nation and world leader.
  
  Ultimately, it is more important that the United States of America should survive in freedom than that the United Nations should survive at all.
  
  Let me add that I have never supported the United Nations. As a UN ambassador, I represented the interests of the United States at the United Nations, which is a very different thing than supporting the UN itself. And during the course of my time as ambassador, we implemented some fairly tough policies that were considered to be anti-UN — though, in point of fact, they were really aimed at trying to bring the organization back to its original purposes and charter.
  
  The original purpose of the UN is quite clear, and I don't believe it's blamable. At the end of World War II, some folks got together and said, "We mustn't let that happen again. Is there anything we can do?" I don't believe that's a blamable intention. I believe it's a praiseworthy intention. We don't want the world to go up in smoke.
  
  On the other hand, the people who have, since that time, sought to use the United Nations and its instruments to destroy the sovereignty of our country, to betray the principles of our liberty, to sacrifice the keys to our economic survival and liberty are all people I have opposed and strenuously fought. And my purpose for being at the United Nations with the Reagan Administration was precisely that — to defend our interests and to fight the forces at the United Nations that were attempting to destroy us.
  
  I don't believe that we should ever allow the UN any prerogatives that undermine or conflict with the sovereignty of the United States. Rather than do so, we should leave the organization.
Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -2/+7robertrutger, what's suspicious is the oft-repated assumption that Alan Keyes is pro-United Nations because he was America's Ambassador to the organization. Read what Alan Keyes himself has to say about why he was there:
http://www.americasrevival.com/issues_list.php#uni ...
- robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Alan Keyes has steadfastly refused to support Ron Pauls HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act that would eliminate any and all funding, effectively wihtdrawing us from the Unitied Nations, and ending our participation once and for all. Mr. Keyes says that no matter how 'flawed', the UN is a necessarry institution. You need to wake up my friend!
spinningplates2, on 08/11/2008, -7/+1Alan Keyes ran against Obama in my home state in 2004. He lost over 70% of the vote. If you think you are helping Christ by voting 3rd party what you are really doing is helping Satan. You are either a "milk drinking Christian" or a stubborn sinner who like to be "different" so you can think of yourself as a cutting edge genius. Get a life you self important losers. Then go apologize to your family for being so difficult.
- groovsmyth, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Illinois is not the United States in total any more than New York or Los Angeles. You may think you are speaking as an authority for *flyover* America, but the self-proclaimed *blue* state not recognizing the gem of Alan Keyes over Obama is not indicative of ALL of us. Do you mind if the rest of America votes?
  - ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1You mean, Carpetbegger Keyes? What a joke.
  - groovsmyth, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1hmm as long as we're *laughing* anyway...
    McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but he's a Senator from Arizona running for President. lol
    Obama was from Hawaii, but he had to go to Illinois to find a friendlier environment to become Senator. lol
    Hillary Clinton only got a house in New York so she could launch her presidential aspirations. lol
    
    Meanwhile, Alan Keyes *carpetbagged* in Illinois, knowing that it was a hard row to hoe in Liberal Country. He sacrificed political capital in order to draw national attention to the heinous beliefs of Barack Obama. (sorry, can't laugh at that one)
Yobotz, on 08/11/2008, -2/+8spinningplates2, did you read the essay?

Here again is why a vote for a third-party candidate is NOT a vote for one of the pandering, shoe-licking "choices" being forced upon us by the DemoRepublicRats. Keyes:

"...In a three-way race, this means that 35 to 40 percent of the vote should be sufficient for victory – even less if minor vote getters garner more than 10 percent amongst them. This is how Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39 percent of the popular vote. ...In this year's general election, the fact that neither so called "major" party offers a good choice for Christian conscience greatly increases the likelihood that a candidate of proven principle could rally a winning plurality. Of course, in the absence of such a candidate, many voters of conscience will again stay away from the polls. Without their turnout, McCain will undoubtedly lose, but it doesn't stop there. The candidates these conscientious voters would support for other offices will also suffer. Since most such candidates wear a Republican label, it will be a bad day for the Republican Party."

Please sit down and read the entire essay. It's not a "Vote for Keyes" piece. It's a call to thought about how we should vote.

You don't need to be so openminded that your brains fall out, just open enough to hear some truth. Then give it some serious contemplation. Maybe even a little research if you feel like it. Seek truth.
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6It's wrong to do evil to accomplish good. It doesn't work that way. Doing evil accomplishes evil, regardless of intentions.
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -0/+6My last post was in reply to spinningplate's assertion that:
  
  "If you think you are helping Christ by voting 3rd party what you are really doing is helping Satan."
  
  I contend that voting for a candidate whose positions oppose Christ's teaching (McCain/Obama) cannot be good, regardless of one's intentions.
  
  Christ never sinned to accomplish his purposes, although Satan tempted Christ to follow that dreadful path.
  
  We're to be imitators of Christ. We should not follow that politically expedient, lesser of evils path either. (That's why it is called "temptation" -- because it is tempting, even though it's wrong.)
savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -2/+7Alan Keyes is being interviewed now on the Adam McManus Show, 5 pm - 6 pm on Monday, 8/11/08.

CALL-IN Now:
Texas, 340-9585 … (San Antonio)
Toll Free, 877-630-KSLR …

Listen LIVE:
http://www.streamaudio.com/stations/...type=&filen ...
www.kslr.com

McManus: He's running for the presidency. He's not down and out ...
- ThoughtfulWi, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1What does he have to say about his daughter, Maya? How are Al and Maya getting along these days?http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1468
- robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1Alan Keyes has steadfastly refused to support Ron Pauls HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act that would eliminate any and all funding, effectively wihtdrawing us from the Unitied Nations, and ending our participation once and for all. Mr. Keyes says that no matter how 'flawed', the UN is a necessarry institution. You need to wake up my friend!
savvyconsumer7, on 08/11/2008, -1/+5Good link: http://www.streamaudio.com/stations/player/pages/n ...
pilgrim2497, on 08/11/2008, -6/+0The common people heard Jesus gladly, and his sermon on the mount has been the foundation of great cultures---it also happens to be only a fraction of the length of Mr. Keyes dissertation, which is meant to convince people of his brilliance.

Mr. Keyes adores and idolizes his own intellect and demands that others see him in the same light; but the fact is "if you can't explain a thing simply, it's because you don't understand it fully".
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6It seems to me a contradiction to fault Keyes for writings that demonstrate "brilliance" within his field and in the next paragraph conclude he doesn't understand his subject matter.
  
  Which is it?
  - pilgrim2497, on 08/12/2008, -1/+0Do you not understand that trying to convince people of your brilliance does not equate to brilliance?--It's like you thinking you can actually debate with reason and logic when all you can do is parrot what you have heard someone else say.
    
    Stop trying to fabricate something to comment on and save this space for adults. If you dopes wanted Keyes, why did you wait until mid August to start your foolish little campaign? That shows no planning or serious intent to win. You are just stooges for the devil to help put Obama in power.
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6If you have heard expositions like this elsewhere, please share. I found it insightful. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say Keyes is brilliant, in addition to eloquent. And I know I'm not alone in that evaluation. (See Keyes' debate with Alan Dershowitz at www.AmericasRevival.com)
    
    As far as the timing of the campaign goes, unfortunately you are misinformed. I've been involved (as a grassroots supporter) with this campaign since Sept. 2007 working under a MSM/GOP blacklisting of Keyes. Keyes announced his candidacy just 9 days after Fred Thompson threw his hat in the ring. The MSM would not give Keyes or his campaign coverage -- not even on the day he announced. If the Keyes campaign is to come to prominence it will be b/c conservative people rally round the candidate ... and the media will have no choice but to follow the crowd.
    
    Remember, it only takes 35-40% to win in a tight 3-way race. Reagan-Conservatives can win this for a Reagan-Conservative, Keyes, if we have the will to do so. If we squander our votes on a candidate that doesn't represent us (McCain), we'll have 4- or 8- years of Obama because nobody WANTS to vote for McCain.
  - blmurray, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Mr. Pilgrim, the common people heard Jesus gladly but most walked away and went right back to their old way of living. The ones that truly understood and took his message to heart were the ones that followed. And this all was a work of God. Comparing Mr. Keyes sermon to Jesus' is comparing apples and oranges(the Truth vs politics and religion). Not to mention that you are chosing to throw out his message because you think he "adores and idolizes his own intellect and demands that others see him in the same light". You can agree or disagree with what he said but to attack him and his "dopes" instead of the issues is a tactic right out of the liberal handbook. Fear of Obama is your motivation to put Mccain in office.
    
    "You are just stooges for the devil to help put Obama in power". Is it really the devil that puts people in office?? Read Romans 13:1. God on many occasions put heathen kings over his people to draw them back to HIM. I'm tired of voting for the people that t.v., talk shows, the Republicans, or the Democrats hold up as their saviour. I will vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I will fear God not any man. With God's help I will vote my conscience and then if Obama is the next president I will not loose any sleep.
wethepeople1, on 08/12/2008, -1/+7ALAN KEYES, a keen intellect combined with a strong moral compass. Do you think BUSH or McCAIN or OBAMA or CLINTON or any of the candidates could put forth a thesis of this calibre ? Should not our leaders be the best of the best ?
- robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1Alan Keyes has steadfastly refused to support Ron Pauls HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act that would eliminate any and all funding, effectively wihtdrawing us from the Unitied Nations, and ending our participation once and for all. Mr. Keyes says that no matter how 'flawed', the UN is a necessarry institution. You need to wake up my friend!
  - savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Unfortunately, you are misinformed about Keyes' position. This is his issues statement on the United Nations ...
    
    United Nations
    
    The fundamental goal of American statesmanship must be to maintain an independent sphere of sovereign American interests and principles, and to pursue them in the world with prudence and courage, retaining the awareness that the United States is responsible for its own destiny.
    
    Whatever benefits of international cooperation and consultation the United Nations has made possible, it has from its flawed founding been a source of dangerously naive globalist dreams. Some American politicians have been so corrupted by the internationalist ideal that they cannot resist the temptation to elevate the United Nations into a supra-national entity that threatens American sovereignty.
    
    Should this pernicious tendency persist, the United States will have to withdraw from the United Nations, and yet firmly maintain our ongoing international responsibilities as a sovereign nation and world leader.
    
    Ultimately, it is more important that the United States of America should survive in freedom than that the United Nations should survive at all.
    
    Let me add that I have never supported the United Nations. As a UN ambassador, I represented the interests of the United States at the United Nations, which is a very different thing than supporting the UN itself. And during the course of my time as ambassador, we implemented some fairly tough policies that were considered to be anti-UN — though, in point of fact, they were really aimed at trying to bring the organization back to its original purposes and charter.
    
    The original purpose of the UN is quite clear, and I don't believe it's blamable. At the end of World War II, some folks got together and said, "We mustn't let that happen again. Is there anything we can do?" I don't believe that's a blamable intention. I believe it's a praiseworthy intention. We don't want the world to go up in smoke.
    
    On the other hand, the people who have, since that time, sought to use the United Nations and its instruments to destroy the sovereignty of our country, to betray the principles of our liberty, to sacrifice the keys to our economic survival and liberty are all people I have opposed and strenuously fought. And my purpose for being at the United Nations with the Reagan Administration was precisely that — to defend our interests and to fight the forces at the United Nations that were attempting to destroy us.
    
    I don't believe that we should ever allow the UN any prerogatives that undermine or conflict with the sovereignty of the United States. Rather than do so, we should leave the organization.
    
    Archived at: http://www.americasrevival.com/issues_list.php#uni ...
robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -7/+1Alan Keyes has steadfastly refused to support Ron Pauls HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act that would eliminate any and all funding, effectively wihtdrawing us from the Unitied Nations, and ending our participation once and for all. Mr. Keyes says that no matter how 'flawed', the UN is a necessarry institution. You need to wake up my friend!
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6You may have been misinformed. Here is Alan's issue statement regarding our participation in the United Nations ...
  
  United Nations
  
  The fundamental goal of American statesmanship must be to maintain an independent sphere of sovereign American interests and principles, and to pursue them in the world with prudence and courage, retaining the awareness that the United States is responsible for its own destiny.
  
  Whatever benefits of international cooperation and consultation the United Nations has made possible, it has from its flawed founding been a source of dangerously naive globalist dreams. Some American politicians have been so corrupted by the internationalist ideal that they cannot resist the temptation to elevate the United Nations into a supra-national entity that threatens American sovereignty.
  
  Should this pernicious tendency persist, the United States will have to withdraw from the United Nations, and yet firmly maintain our ongoing international responsibilities as a sovereign nation and world leader.
  
  Ultimately, it is more important that the United States of America should survive in freedom than that the United Nations should survive at all.
  
  Let me add that I have never supported the United Nations. As a UN ambassador, I represented the interests of the United States at the United Nations, which is a very different thing than supporting the UN itself. And during the course of my time as ambassador, we implemented some fairly tough policies that were considered to be anti-UN — though, in point of fact, they were really aimed at trying to bring the organization back to its original purposes and charter.
  
  The original purpose of the UN is quite clear, and I don't believe it's blamable. At the end of World War II, some folks got together and said, "We mustn't let that happen again. Is there anything we can do?" I don't believe that's a blamable intention. I believe it's a praiseworthy intention. We don't want the world to go up in smoke.
  
  On the other hand, the people who have, since that time, sought to use the United Nations and its instruments to destroy the sovereignty of our country, to betray the principles of our liberty, to sacrifice the keys to our economic survival and liberty are all people I have opposed and strenuously fought. And my purpose for being at the United Nations with the Reagan Administration was precisely that — to defend our interests and to fight the forces at the United Nations that were attempting to destroy us.
  
  I don't believe that we should ever allow the UN any prerogatives that undermine or conflict with the sovereignty of the United States. Rather than do so, we should leave the organization.
  
  Posted at http://www.americasrevival.com/issues_list.php#uni ...
  - robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1I challenged him personally to support HR 1146, and he told me in no uncertain terms that he would not. Like Ronald Reagan, Keyes is long on rhetoric and short on action.
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3It's my understanding that treaties and agreements the United States have entered into are binding ... to the same extent our Constitution is bindling.
  
  Renegotiations require time and diplomacy ...
  - robertrutger, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1No sir, if you cut off the funding, the filthy organism will die. The funding from the US keeps the beast alive and well.
gsmiro, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2Alan Keyes is definitely brilliant in writing this article. It is really a master piece compared to the other political articles out there nowadays. However, we should concentrate on our support of one candidate. Alan Keyes lost the Constitution Party primary to Chuck Baldwin. Ron Paul is not running outside the Republican ticket. Now Chuck Baldwin is on the ballot of 25 states, and we all can write in his name if we live in other States. I have read Chuck Baldwin's column for awhile now, I can truthfully say that I am following my conscience by voting for him. He and Dr. Keyes agree on many core issues, but Pastor Baldwin is also very understanding of the federal-state right issue, that to prevent tyranny, we need to limit federal power and resort back to State rights.

In any case, I believe that we should prepare ourselves for what is coming. The darkest hour is yet to come. Just as the Bible has prophsied, this world will get darker and darker until the Anti-Christ take all earthly power. So I think I will be focusing on what God wants me to do and get ready!
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6IMO, Keyes' experience in government - at the highest levels - along with his expertise as a Constitutional Scholar (Ph.D. from Harvard in Government Affair) far exceed the qualifications of Baldwin who, to my knowledge, has no experience in government.
  
  Keyes is a strong supporter of states' rights.
  
  For instance, Keyes strongly opposes federal domination of education. Keyes advocates respect for parental authority and control in the education of their children. And would return control to the local level -- finishing what Ronald Reagan attempted by eliminating the federal Department of Education and freeing education from the stranglehold of government bureaucracy.
  
  Alan Keyes has conference calls with supporters every Tuesday and Thursday night (subject to his scheduling.)
  
  For information about how to join the call, email: Contact@AlanKeyes.com or view the discussion board at http://discuss.americasrevival.com/showthread.php? ...
- groovsmyth, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1There is a FUNDAMENTAL tyranny - a contradiction of purpose - to allow individual states to determine personhood, either of the pre-born or the geriatric disabled, or any human in between. I hope you weren't referring to that issue when you said "federal-state right issue."
sportsstar67, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1Who the hell is Alan Keyes ??
- savvyconsumer7, on 08/12/2008, -1/+7Biography
  
  Seasoned statesman. Former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes spent 11 years with the U.S. State Department. He served in the U.S. Foreign Service and on the staff of the National Security Council before becoming Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations (1985-88). In the interim, from 1983 to 1985, he served as ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where he represented America's sovereign interests in the U.N. General Assembly.
  
  Genuine conservative. Keyes was President of Citizens Against Government Waste (1989-91) and founder of National Taxpayers' Action Day. As the two-time Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland, he challenged liberal Democrats Paul Sarbanes (1988) and Barbara Mikulski (1992). In the 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes eloquently elevated the national political debate as a candidate for president. With his unequivocal pro-life, pro-family message, he forced the GOP leadership to address America's moral crisis. His political views are consistently based on America's founding ideals, those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.
  
  Alan hosted his own syndicated radio show throughout the 1990s, America's Wake-Up Call, and a television commentary show, Alan Keyes is Making Sense, during 2002 on MSNBC. He is currently writing books and speaking publicly on America's moral crisis.
  
  Well-educated leader. Keyes has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory. He served as Interim President of Alabama A&M University in 1991. He speaks French and has studied Spanish, Russian, and ancient Greek, and is the author of Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America (1995); and Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America's Moral Destiny (1996).
  
  Pro-life champion. Keyes has unashamedly and consistently raised the standard of unalienable rights — and Biblical truth — in defense of the unborn. He confronts the culture of death with compelling and inspiring reasons why abortion must be banned from our land.
  
  Dedicated family man. Keyes and his wife Jocelyn have three children: Francis, Maya, and Andrew. Alan's stated purpose in life, like that of America's Founders, is to provide a secure future for our posterity.
  
  Alan Keyes talks about his background (on C-SPAN). See: http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=97
  - sportsstar67, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1Thanks, I know who he is now..He's that crazy guy that pretended to be a candidate for the republican presidential nomination
  - groovsmyth, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Who is sportsstar67? not sincere, quite unimaginative
- drmull, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Kinda proves you didn't read the article.
  - sportsstar67, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1That was sarcasm son..keyes is a nobody !!
jp111, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1Libertarian over Constitution, just Keyes's point, the lesser of 2 evils. Even there you picked the wrong one; libertarian = liberty - even when wrong and perverted.
- savvyconsumer7,

2-party system: No choice but evil

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Political Opinion

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Why I Would Vote No on Pot

Newsweek: If Obama is serious, he must get tough with Israelthumb

Hypocrisy From the Party of Pork

From Peace and Prosperity to W. and the Damage Donethumb

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Political Opinion

Related by Keyword