After insisting that President Obama’s gun policies are “intended to make sure that people will be slaughtered by the thousands and the hundreds of thousands,” Alan Keyes is now warning that Obama is encouraging the “targeted slaughter” of African Americans by supporting legal abortion.
Keyes, who was Obama’s opponent in the 2004 US Senate race, told conservative commentator Stan Solomon last week that “a lot of black folks are waking up and realizing that there is a terrible tragedy that is playing out in the person of Barack Obama,” whom he claimed African Americans have “come close to worshiping instead of God.”
He went on to say that Obama is “implementing the agenda of death and murder” and “represents the open maw of a charnel house into which the future hopes of the Black-American community are to be fed.”
During yet another appearance on the Talk to Solomon Show, Alan Keyes maintained that allowing young people to obtain condoms is like a parent who “handed their child a six-shot revolver with one bullet in it and said, ‘go ahead and play spin the barrel and put the barrel to your head and fire,’ that’s what you’re doing when you tell them that they’re safe using a condom.”
Keyes added that a condom “is not real protection” as it “is not going to protect you over 80 percent of the time,” which is laughably untrue.
“It’s essentially playing a kind of biased game of Russian roulette,” Keyes continued, “We’re pretending that encouraging our kids to do this is consistent with loving them and with having a responsible attitude toward them, that’s insane.”
Alan Keyes is out with a new column opposing efforts to end the ban on openly gay members of the Boy Scouts and it is about as dumb as you’d expect.
He argues that if the Boy Scouts change the policy, then straight Boy Scouts will be forced to acquiesce to the “sexual advances” of their gay peers in order to avoid being “viciously accused of unrighteous bigotry.” Once they deny their faith and turn gay, Keyes warns, they will “slip into a whirlpool of compulsive sensual indulgence, moral guilt and spiritual confusion.”
“What is most disturbing is that it uses the young participants in the Scouting movement as cannon fodder in the battle against the natural family,” Keyes writes. “In the realm of moral contention, this deployment of, and against, children reminds me of the way the strategists of terror exploit kids in their perpetration of deadly acts of physical violence.”
We are in the midst of an historically unprecedented campaign to deny and disparage the rights of the God-endowed natural family. Do the top leaders of the BSA naïvely believe that the emotionally charged, personally confrontational situations their proposal will inevitably foment will not be exploited as part of this campaign? Obviously, the policy being proposed will produce situations the powerful elitist forces pushing for the normalization of homosexuality will portray in the worst possible light.
Ignoring the logic of God-acknowledging moral conscience, they will portray these situations as proof of willfully hurtful personal prejudice and unfair discrimination by the BSA. They will seek to prejudice public opinion in a way that lends credence to civil lawsuits and even criminal prosecution (on civil-rights grounds) against individual BSA leaders and the BSA itself. In addition to the erosion of trust and support from people who have relied on the BSA’s respect for the moral tenets of their faith, the BSA will have to devote financial and personnel resources to defending against these charges. Wrenched between these whirlpools of public reaction, the organization could easily go under.
The residual moral appeal of that façade will be used to attract and indoctrinate youngsters in an essentially self-serving, hedonistic and unmanly understanding of human family life, one that destroys the independent moral basis of the family as the primordial, God-ordained institution of human self-government. This will effectively deny the family’s institutional claim to possess God-endowed authority and rights which all other institutions of human government are obliged, by the Creator, to respect.
Thus understood in terms of its likely consequences, the latest proposal for ending the BSA’s ban on homosexual participation in Scouting is a strategic ploy. What is most disturbing is that it uses the young participants in the Scouting movement as cannon fodder in the battle against the natural family. Some youngsters will be positioned to draw other youngsters into situations where, because they react against sexual advances according to the moral precepts of the faith of their fathers, they will be viciously accused of unrighteous bigotry. Or else their vulnerable adolescent emotions will impel them to betray the tenets of conscience derived from their faith, and slip into a whirlpool of compulsive sensual indulgence, moral guilt and spiritual confusion.
In the realm of moral contention, this deployment of, and against, children reminds me of the way the strategists of terror exploit kids in their perpetration of deadly acts of physical violence. I earnestly pray to God to open the eyes of the BSA’s grass-roots leaders and participants. I pray that He will grant them the wisdom to see past false pretenses of compassion and tolerance, in order to recognize a strategy that intentionally and recklessly endangers the moral lives of the youngsters God has entrusted to their care. These young souls deserve better than to be casualties in the battle to force the American people to surrender the unalienable natural rights endowed by their Creator’s provision for the wholesome life of the human family.
Alan Keyes is out with a new column today arguing that Christians should not shy away from violence in the face of the “gruesome violence [that] is being done to Christians.” He also argues that the U.S. government may soon join in on the anti-Christian “genocidal threats," perhaps as a result of the gay rights movement.
“[I]t's not at all unreasonable to see, in certain recurring reports, signs that the U.S. government is preparing our military forces to do violence against Christian denominations that refuse to abandon God's Word on matters like homosexuality,” Keyes writes, urging Christians to “be prepared to execute God's law” and “release the power of God's Word against the perpetrator of evil.”
Ironically, in these offensively evil times, self-professed Christians who feel outrage at the thought of associating Christ with violence may be playing into the hands of Christ's adversary. After all, incomprehensibly massive, government- perpetrated slaughters occurred with striking regularity during the twentieth century. Today, in various parts of the world, gruesome violence is being done to Christians with frequency. Events in Africa and the Middle East have Christians and Jews being systematically targeted for violence by groups that have seized control of governments, or are poised to do so.
Moreover, it's not at all unreasonable to see, in certain recurring reports, signs that the U.S. government is preparing our military forces to do violence against Christian denominations that refuse to abandon God's Word on matters like homosexuality. Just the other day, I read that "soldiers in the U.S. military have been told in a training briefing that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America....Catholicism and ultra-orthodox Judaism are also on the list of religious extremist organizations."
Given these signs of the times, the notion that "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" is the only accurate, Gospel-authorized example for Christians may ironically lead them to strike a pose of defenseless piety in the face of these genocidal threats. Since the prospect of an easy kill emboldens cowardly bullies, this defenseless pose increases their temptation to do evil. Are Christians required to become a near occasion of sin for those inclined to prey upon the defenseless? Are we required by Christ's example to make ourselves fodder for evil?
Righteous action thus requires, in the first instance, people who are willing, as Christ was, to give their lives in order to release the power of God's Word against the perpetrator of evil. But people of goodwill who witness it are authorized to take action against the perpetrator, on account of their respect for God. But in order to do, in this respect, what the Word of God authorizes them to do, they must be equipped for action, in spiritual and material terms. They must be prepared to execute God's law.
Keyes told Solomon and Davis that he found it “hard to believe” that President Obama, because he supports abortion rights, “was crying anything but crocodile tears” about the deaths in Boston. He also made the bogusclaim that Obama has supported infanticide:
Later in the program, the three turned the subject to immigration reform. Davis alleged that undocumented immigrants are “jumping the border” and “mocking the guards, saying ‘Obama’s going to let us go and give us goods.’” Solomon then suggested that the U.S. accept the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country and deport the president and first lady instead, to which Keyes responded, “Unfortunately, Stan, the way these folks have been observing the law when it comes to immigration, they’d let Michelle and Barack Obama slip back into the country.” Solomon replied with a “joke” about the first lady’s body, a racist meme popular among right-wing commentators:
After arguing that gay marriage will lead to a Communist government that murders the masses, Alan Keyes later told talk show host Stan Solomon that Satan is using gay-inclusive TV shows to destroy America.
Keyes claimed that “a key vehicle” for Satan’s plan to bring about the country’s “destruction” is the use of music, television shows and movies that “promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”
“It is almost as if they are creating programming now with the purpose of luring people into an experience that they can then use to promote these lies,” he said.
Later, Solomon agreed and warned that “homosexuality is destructive of the individual, destructive of the society and every society in the history of the world that has accepted homosexuality has crashed and burned,” before alleging that gay people were behind Nazism.
Keyes: We need to keep in mind that the Devil is not playing; he’s deadly serious about the destruction of America’s character, spiritual nature and the foundations of that way of life which stood against the devilish work in the 20th century and defeated it soundly again and again. I think we are on the shortlist of most hated in the history of mankind and that United States of America, grounded in the principles of the Declaration, is targeted by the Adversary for destruction. The way of destruction is not the way some people think, money and the collapse of the economy, that’s all a consequence of the destruction of the moral understanding and moral character that made the regime possible in the first place and that has sustained our constitutional self-government since it was founded.
All of that is being destroyed and a key vehicle for doing that is what you might call the popular culture of entertainment: music, television shows, movies. I’ve noticed for instance that every form of entertainment now is being programmed to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, every form of it. You watch anything and there’s going to be contained within it this message. It is almost as if they are creating programming now with the purpose of luring people into an experience that they can then use to promote these lies.
Solomon: The fact is, there’s these little innuendos and some direct frontal attacks saying if you don’t accept homosexuality there’s something wrong with you. Well, there’s something right with you. Homosexuality is destructive of the individual, destructive of the society and every society in the history of the world that has accepted homosexuality has crashed and burned. Someone tell me where I’m wrong. Many people don’t know that the Nazi party was born out of a homosexual group; they call it the pink swastika.
Anti-gay activists like Brian Brown have been trying to claim that the case against marriage equality is actually a “libertarian argument” because if you “put a falsehood into the law” then “a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.”
Well, Alan Keyes took that argument one step further during an interview with Stan Solomon, where he maintained that if the government goes against divine law and legalizes same-sex marriage then the state will have limitless power, ultimately becoming a Communist regime that will authorize “the expropriation of all property” and “the murder of the masses.”
“The aim is not compassion for homosexuals, respect for homosexuals and all of this,” Keyes maintained, “the aim in the mind of these hardheaded, calculating, leftist, Communist, totalitarians is to destroy the family and to establish the notion that once you have seized power there is no limit whatsoever to what you can do.”
It returns us to the dark ages of human oppression, which America was founded to remove humanity from, and it is the whole point of the push for homosexual marriage and homosexual rights. The aim is not compassion for homosexuals, respect for homosexuals and all of this; the aim in the mind of these hardheaded, calculating, leftist, Communist, totalitarians is to destroy the family and to establish the notion that once you have seized power there is no limit whatsoever to what you can do. If you want to tolerate abuses then those abuses can be imposed upon the people. Once you establish that, the abuses are then not going to be confined to egregious outrages like this; those abuses are going to be committed against the whole society and they will in the end include the murder of the masses as has occurred in all Communist regimes that existed. That includes as well the expropriation of all property because if you don’t respect the primordial God-endowed belongings that are associated with family life then why on earth would you be constrained to respect any other form of human property claim.
His core argument is that the government can only recognize rights that are compatible with God’s law. Since he believes homosexuality is an affront to divine law, it cannot be approved of in the US.
Paul Fidalgo today noticed a speech Keyes delivered at a college in Michigan, where he made the case that the government can’t recognize gay rights, reproductive rights and the separation of church and state, just as we shouldn’t recognize the right of a person to pick their nose and eat their boogers.
Just because something “feels right” doesn’t mean it is a “fundamental right” in God’s eyes.
That’s what former presidential candidate Alan Keyes said while speaking to a group of 100 people Wednesday, April 10 at Spring Arbor University as part of the university’s Thomas H. Cobb President’s Leadership Speaker Series.
Keyes passionately spoke on the topic of basic fundamental rights that were first laid out in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, he said.
“The Republic is near death and it will die if we don’t wake up," he said. "But wake up to what?”
He answered his own question when talking about fundamental rights, where they came from and how the country needs to recognize that rights come from God.
Abortion, same-sex marriage and separation of church and state are not fundamental rights, Keyes said. If God does not recognize them, they do not exist.
Keyes said while abortion, same-sex marriage and separation of church and state are not basic human rights there are leaders who are trying to “fabricate” rights.
“People who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court take it among themselves to argue that somehow there should be separation of church and state,” he said. “Nothing in the Constitution requires separation, nor could it because we cannot separate the country from its finding premise without destroying it.”
When arguing what a fundamental right actually is, Keyes gave an offbeat example of a young child who had a habit of “picking in their nostrils and “eating what came out.”
As the child grew up they noticed others were disgusted and did not want to be near him. As an adult the individual argued if others have the right to eat what they want, the individual should be recognized as having the same right.
“How many think that is a fundamental right?” he asked the audience. No one raised their hand.
“Nobody in their right mind would suggest it was,” Keyes said. “What makes something a fundamental right that actually trumps the Constitution of the United States? It can’t just be because you feel like it, or want to do it. It can’t just be that you feel badly about what you do because of the opinions of others, these are not arguments of rights...rights come from God.”
He argues that according to the Declaration of Independence, America’s sovereignty relies on respecting God’s law, including the “rights of the God-endowed natural family.” Consequently, if the US doesn’t submit to divine authority, then the country will forfeit its sovereignty and be no more.
Keyes reasons that if the Supreme Court decides “to promote specious rights intended to supplant ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God’ invoked in the Declaration of Independence” and “deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family” by approving of same-sex marriage, it would represent an “assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty.”
Now, proponents of the Defense of Marriage law insist that the present occupant of the White House must simply "obey the law," even if he has reached the conclusion that it violates a constitutional right he is obliged by oath to respect. But their insistence violates the logic that substantiates the Constitution's constraining effect on the use of the U.S. government's powers. In the first instance, each branch has the duty to keep within the boundaries of the Constitution. The issue involved in Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is not, therefore, necessarily about his obligation to "obey the law." It is about whether or not, in this particular instance, his view that the law is unconstitutional is correct.
Because the elitist faction aims to overthrow constitutional government of, by, and for the people, they work to obscure or tacitly deny this fact. They want Americans to accept the notion that those who happen to wield the power of government at any given moment may decide, amongst themselves and without recourse to the people, what is constitutional and what is not. If and when the American people foolishly acquiesce in this oligarchic lie, they will thereby surrender their status as a free people.
As I recently pointed out, we learn the source and nature of these unenumerated rights from another "fundamental law" of the United States – the Declaration of Independence, which ascribes them to the Creator's endowment of all humanity. Most self-evident among them are the rights of the God-endowed natural family "rooted in obligations antecedent to any and all humanly instituted law or government." From this endowment, the people of the United States derive the sovereign authority to establish and maintain their self-government. Unless they are willing to subvert their own sovereignty, they are obliged, in their actions and decisions, to respect the source of authority that validates it.
In the weeks to come, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide to promote specious rights intended to supplant "the laws of nature and of nature's God" invoked in the Declaration of Independence. They may decide, in contravention of the Ninth Amendment, to deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family. It will then be for us, the people, to decide how to respond to their assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty. If we respect the logic that reasonably, morally, and constitutionally justifies what their decision seeks to destroy, we will be able confidently to appeal, as America's founders did in the Declaration, "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." Then, whatever we face, we will have the courage to defend the institution that God made to be the living archetype of all the rest of our belongings.
Alan Keyes onceagain appeared on Stan Solomon’s talk show, this time to discuss their stringent opposition to marriage equality.
After host, Steve Davis, claimed that just because they “oppose homosexual marriage or homosexual adoptions, it doesn’t mean that we’re homophobes,” Solomon insisted that he is indeed a homophobe.
“Speak for yourself,” Solomon said, “I can’t stand the thought, the idea, the concept of homosexuality.”
“I don’t think I’m showing love for anyone if I encourage them or enable them or stand silently while they do something that’s going to kill them; the average homosexual lives half the adult life of the average heterosexual, fact,” Solomon maintained, as he went on to comparing homosexuality to drug abuse, drunk driving and swimming with sharks.
Keyes, who kicked his daughter out of his house after she came out of the closet, agreed with Solomon’s anti-gay statements.
Later, Keyes attacked Sen. Rob Portman’s for endorsing marriage equality after learning that his son is gay: “If you go down a road that satisfies your personal predilections and relationships and sacrifices the common good of the country, including the elementary institution by which civilization is sustained, then you’re not only derelict in your public duty, you are abandoning your obligation as a human being.”
“Frankly, people throw around words like ‘crime against humanity,’ I think that kind of disregard for the God-endowed natural rights of human being is the archetype of all crimes against humanity,” Keyes concluded, “and I think we have an entire elite faction that is now committed to committing such a crime against the American people.”
In his latest WorldNetDailycolumn, Alan Keyes warns that “so-called libertarians” have a “rebellious arrogance that disdains decent self-government” because they are unable to see “the distinction between liberty and licentiousness.”
Keyes specifically pointed to gay rights as a reason to oppose libertarians: “By promoting so-called homosexual rights, they are engaged in a general offensive to disparage, subvert and ultimately deny the constitutional rights” of the “God-endowed family, the primordial institution that is the paradigm, in terms both of liberty and obligation, for natural justice and human community.”
He concludes that the “regressive elitist faction agenda” will discard “the incomparably successful American experiment in principled self-government” and “give way, first to disorder and dissolution and then, in all likelihood, to the most thoroughly totalitarian elitist despotism humankind has ever known.”
Thus, as a logical consequence of the principles of the Declaration, every valid claim of right is associated with the freedom to exercise the right. But in light of those same principles, not every exercise of freedom entails a valid claim of right. This is the essential point forgotten or willfully rejected by many so-called libertarians these days. As a result, they advocate positions that ignore what America’s founders were determined to respect, to wit, the distinction between liberty and licentiousness; and between the wholesome courage wherewith we stand upon our rights and the rebellious arrogance that disdains decent self-government.
As I point out in the essay on Ninth Amendment rights quoted above, the Declaration’s logic in this respect allows Americans to recognize and properly assert rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment exists to provide them with clear constitutional grounds upon which to stand as they invoke these rights, as constraints upon government power.
At the moment, the relevance of this constitutional claim is painfully obvious. The elitist faction forces presently controlling the U.S. government and some state governments (including Republicans as well as Democrats) are moving to deny the constitutional right of individuals or states to oppose the taking of human life, as required by the first law of “nature and Nature’s God.” They are doing so in the context of an insidious, persistent assault on Second Amendment rights. They are also doing so in the context of Obamacare, as they prepare, by force of unconstitutional edicts and “laws,” to deny the constitutional right of individuals and States to refuse complicity in so-called health-care practices that disregard this same life-preserving natural law obligation. In addition, by promoting so-called homosexual rights, they are engaged in a general offensive to disparage, subvert and ultimately deny the constitutional rights – rooted in obligations antecedent to any and all humanly instituted law or government – that are inherent in the God-endowed family, the primordial institution that is the paradigm, in terms both of liberty and obligation, for natural justice and human community.
The Constitution’s Ninth Amendment provides the key to recognizing and justifying legal and other moves to oppose what amounts, on every front, to a wholesale assault on the first principle of constitutional self-government in the United States, i.e., the Declaration’s affirmation of God-endowed individual rights. Next week I plan to post an article at my blog in which I will discuss specific instances in which politicians and other public figures, who claim to be conservatives, are cooperating with this assault. By discussing these examples, I hope to awaken Americans committed to our founding principles, and to the constitutional republic based upon them, to a simple fact: No one prominently associated with, or promoted by, either of the so-called major parties appears to shares this commitment. Unless Americans who do share it rouse themselves and unite against the regressive elitist faction agenda, the incomparably successful American experiment in principled self-government will give way, first to disorder and dissolution and then, in all likelihood, to the most thoroughly totalitarian elitist despotism humankind has ever known.
CBN correspondent David Brody warns “evangelicals all across the country may start walking away from the GOP” if Republicans aren’t “willing to take a stand for traditional marriage.”
Liberty Counsel’s Steve Crampton claims that gay marriage will “lead to the disintegration of the family” and that “when the history of this administration is written, it will be recorded that its deception and aggressive advocacy on this issue were among the most destructive actions of any administration in the history of our nation.”
Scott Lively urges lawmakers not “to arm militant ‘gay’ social engineers with legal weapons to hunt down and destroy the lives of people of faith.”
Jim Garlow predicts that marriage equality will have “horrific” consequences including the abolition of the First Amendment.
Alan Sears of the Alliance Defending Freedom, while quoting Martin Luther King Jr., calls for prayers against same-sex marriage.
Alan Keyes won’t be speaking at CPAC this year like he did intheolddays. Instead, he’s appearing on forums like The Talk to Solomon Show in order to warn Americans that President Obama’s policies will “make sure that people will be slaughtered by the thousands and the hundreds of thousands.” Keyes joined host Stan Solomon again on Tuesday, using the opportunity to argue that Obama is a “communist” with a “narcissistic, totalitarian, semi-psychotic personality” who intends to “move the country in the direction of despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian communism.”
For all you thespians out there, Tea Party Patriots wants you to star in their latest movie as someone either standing “in line at the Food Distribution Center to receive your ration of food” or witnessing “SWAT team arrests some member of the resistance who are protesting the big government control.”
Rick Scarborough of Vision America is angry that “we’ve got an administration that has progressed at lightning speed to an all-out militant assault on marriage.”
Family Research Council is thrilled that Rick Perry and Texas Republican lawmakers have called on the Boy Scouts of America not to lift its ban on gays.
Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times argues that Obama is a weak president who is “asleep at the wheel” while at the same time a powerful “socialist autocrat.”
Alan Keyes warns American elites will not be satisfied “until all are burning in the lake of fire, nourished with bitter ashes.”
Stunningly, this small, extreme faction has for many years succeeded at defeating gun violence prevention efforts at the federal level. A new report from Right Wing Watch’s Peter Montgomery takes a closer look at the activists and groups who are holding up federal gun violence reform, how they have succeeded, and how they can be defeated. Peter writes:
While the White House, governors, Congress and other public officials grapple with policy responses to last month’s mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, many Americans wonder whether the massacre of young children will provide momentum for more effective laws that previous killing sprees – even one that gravely wounded a member of Congress – have not.
Some assume, wrongly, that nothing can be done. Politicians’ fear of the $200+ million National Rifle Association (NRA) is generally cited as the reason for weak gun laws that undermine law enforcement and put citizens at higher risk from gun crimes. The power of the NRA to determine the outcome of elections may well be more myth than reality, but even the perception of such power can give the group tremendous political muscle, along with its aggressive lobbying and strong-arm political tactics.
The NRA is not alone in attempting to prevent effective regulation of guns and promoting reckless policies that leave Americans vulnerable to crime. Its efforts are supported by the same kind of coalition that undermines the nation’s ability to solve a wide range of problems. Corporations, right-wing ideologues, and Religious Right leaders work together to misinform Americans, generate unfounded fears, and prevent passage of broadly supported solutions.
Understanding the extremism and dishonesty at the heart of right-wing obstructionism is crucial to overcoming it.
Today in his column for WorldNetDaily, Keyes claims that if the government repeals laws discriminating against gays and lesbians then it will have to remove laws against rape, incest and pedophilia as well.
Today the elitist faction promoters of so-called “homosexual rights” use and abuse the language of rights even though they reject the logic that, in light of America’s political heritage, invests that language with moral force. By that logic every claim of unalienable right (i.e., a right that trumps the provisions of merely human law) can be tested with a simple question: What is the provision of the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” that obliges and authorizes the action or activity the claim involves? The pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, does not in and of itself correspond to such an imperative (even though, thanks to the goodwill of the Creator, most bodily activities required for our survival, are in some degree pleasurable.) Loving human relations are of course an imperative of our nature. But loving human relations need not involve the particular physical pleasures connected with what we call “sexual relations.” If by natural necessity they must, then the prejudicial prohibitions against incest or pedophilia would be as much a violation of right as those that target homosexual relations.
Absent any God-endowed natural imperative to engage in homosexual relations, doing so is a matter of choice involving a preference for one form of sensual gratification over another. It’s absurd to suggest that government should by law, force others to approve of and accommodate such preferences, especially when doing so requires trampling on proven claims of unalienable right, like the right freely to exercise (put into practice) one’s religion. We may justly penalize the neglect of right that permits some to feast while others are denied the opportunity to glean bare subsistence from their leftovers. But it makes no sense to say that because some people want to eat pork others are forbidden to disapprove of doing so, and that the latter are required to prepare and serve it whenever pork eaters demand that they do so.
Moreover, unless we mean to repeal the laws against rape, no one can by law be forced to respect or cater to the sexual appetites of others. Even temple prostitutes could discriminate against those who desecrated the idols they served. Shall we then submit to laws that require that we violate our obligation to the Author of our nature, the very authority from which our whole people derives its right of self-government, and from which our Constitution and laws derive their claim to our allegiance and respect? As the famous American patriot said, on the eve of the war occasioned by a less egregious travesty of right, “Forbid it, Almighty God.”
Alan Keyes may no longer be the Religious Right superstar he once was, but rest assured, he is still active and remains just as erudite and unhinged as always. Appearing recently via webcam on something called "The Talk to Solomon Show," Keyes declared that everyone knows that our society is on the verge of slipping into lawless chaos and it is therefore "insane" for anyone to be promoting any sort of gun control efforts at this time.
In fact, said Keyes, any government official who supports gun control is doing so because they want average citizens to be rendered defenseless against the "criminals and psychotic folks" who are going to running wild in the anarchy to come because it serves the larger goal of curbing the global population and the effort is "intended to make sure that people will be slaughtered by the thousands and the hundreds of thousands":
Conservative leaders are continuing to rally opposition to a proposed plan to end the national ban on gay members in the Boy Scouts of America with warnings about pedophilia and “indoctrination.”
Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder told Janet Mefferd yesterday that fathers cannot trust their sons to be around gay people.
Mefferd called gay rights advocates “totalitarian” for opposing the ban and lamented that the “violins are playing full blast” in the media when they cover stories about gay youths kicked out of the Boy Scouts.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said in a statement that “people like Jerry Sandusky” would be “permitted to be Scoutmasters” if the policy changes, adding, “To allow homosexual Scoutmasters or homosexual Scouts will put young boys at risk.”
The Texas Pastors Council called on parents to “defend our children” and not “allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender” and stop those who are bent on “forcing their immorality on society.”
Pastors, if the scouts fall, the church is next in the sights of the activists committed to forcing their immorality on society – WILL YOU COME?
Fathers, if we allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender – WHO WILL DEFEND OUR CHILDREN?
Mothers, your voice of courage and protection of the virtue of our children is desperately needed – WILL YOU STAND ALSO?
Florida Family Policy Council president John Stemberger went on another anti-gay rant, alleging that the BSA will “open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus” and “devastate the Boy Scouts permanently.”
If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing openly homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program it could destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.
As an Eagle Scout, former Scoutmaster and a Vigil Honor Member of the Order of the Arrow, I have a deep personal interest in passing on the rich experience of Scouting to my two sons and I pray that the BSA does not open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus from a program that America needs now more than ever to train boys to become responsible men. A change of this policy could transform and devastate the Boy Scouts permanently. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans do not support changing the policy to allow openly homosexual scout leaders, so this proposed change makes no sense on many levels.
2000 presidential candidate Alan Keyes in WorldNetDaily warned of “homosexual indoctrination” and “idolatry” in the Boy Scouts if they change the policy:
The simple words of the Scout Oath were meant to encourage boys in the habit of walking this straight path; hence the endeavor to be “morally straight.” But the oath first of all made it clear that the Scout looked first of all to God as the standard of moral rectitude. Try as they might, the present-day trustees of the Scouting movement will never fit the square peg of God’s standard into the round hole of homosexual sin. Moreover, though they begin by admitting practicing homosexuals into the ranks, they must end in acknowledging homosexual activity as morally correct, else they will involve the whole movement in the perjurious administration of an oath openly violated in practice. For in that moral sense, it is not possible to be gay and morally straight at the same time. Thus what the present trustees of the BSA reportedly may do involves rejecting God’s standard for male sexual behavior. And it involves doing so in a way that willfully abandons the straight path blazed by the footsteps of Christ.
By accepting a humanly fabricated redefinition of the moral standard, the BSA will fall prey to the inevitable logic of such idolatry. “Their idols are … the work of human hands … those who make them become like unto them; so do all who trust in them.” (Psalm 115:8) It will speedily become evident that what masquerades as tolerance is actually indoctrination, seeking to mold boys according to the standard the BSA trustees will have raised above God’s standard. For if homosexual activity is morally acceptable as an expression of love and good fellowship, then those who express their love accordingly do what is right.
But the aim of Scouting is to encourage young men to do what is right in various ways. Therefore, once the moral prejudice against homosexuality is regarded as a violation of right, doing things that habitually assault and break down this prejudice becomes part of “moral training.” Just as, on many campuses now, refusal to experiment with homosexuality is frowned upon as a sign of bigotry, so henceforth in Scouting braking down this prejudice would be recognized as a meritorious activity. Though camouflaged in different words there will be a merit badge for this experimentation as part of the regime of homosexual indoctrination. God knows what that will lead to; and given now widely publicized possibilities, so should the BSA Inc.
Religious Right activists seem to be keen on outdoing each other with their over-the-topdefenses of Todd Akin and his comments on “legitimate rape.” The latest comes from Alan Keyes, who in his latest column “What really drives the GOP's anti-Akin lynch mob?” warns that the “elitist mobocracy” was just “waiting for an excuse to hang Todd Akin from the yardarm.”
Given what Todd Akin went on to say, this is quite clearly the meaning he had in mine, since he was specifically referring to the violent trauma involved in "forcible sexual assault." We all know that Akin's use of the word "legitimate" in this way is not uncommon. (In fact, it has passed into common slang in expressions like "I think he's legit," which crop up all the time.) It's also not hard to see that far from failing to acknowledge the violence inherent in the definitive crime of rape, he was specifically thinking of it. The tribe of elitist pundits and scribes who labor in the GOP's media vineyard can't be unaware of this common usage. I wouldn't disrespect their intelligence by suggesting they are. So why do they abet the slanderous assumption that his words somehow implied that the crime of rape can or ought ever to be considered lawful when, with a little thought, it's easy to show that they do not?
Akin's assertions about the effect of the physical trauma of rape on the possibility of conception are scientifically questionable, and should be questioned. But if one statement based on highly questionable science means that a candidate should bow out of contention, what about Mitt Romney's repeated statements about climate change and global warming? His straddle on the issue includes statements that would be questioned by scientists first on one side of the issue and then on the other. I don't hear the nabobs of the elitist mobocracy calling for his head. To be sure, the speed with which they formed their lynch party suggests that little or no thought went into their chorus of disapprobation. It's precisely as if they were waiting for an excuse to hang Todd Akin from the yardarm.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media also attacked Mitt Romney and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for not standing up for Akin, noting that Limbaugh has no right to criticize Akin since he doesn’t even understand birth control:
Once again, in ganging up on Akin, Republicans and conservatives lost sight of the real extremist, Barack Obama, while ceding ground to the liberals and allowing them to control the parameters of the public debate. It is a scenario that is played out over and over again, as if the Republicans never learn.
Or perhaps a Republican like Romney, who supported abortion rights in Massachusetts, knew exactly what he was doing and where this is all going — the eventual elimination of the social issues from the national Republican agenda. Romney has made it quite clear that he wants no part of them, preferring instead to run on economic and financial matters. He doesn't even want to talk about security problems in the State Department, in the person of Muslim Brotherhood-connected official and Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
We've seen the result of this trend in Britain, where the Conservative Party has become a pale imitation of the socialists. The British Conservative Party has moved far to the left in order to attract votes from the sexually different and now supports gay marriage. "I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative," says Conservative Party leader and British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Another despicable performance in the Akin matter was turned in by Rush Limbaugh, who said Todd Akin's comments on rape and abortion were "stupid." This is the guy who advertised his own stupidity in accusing law student Sandra Fluke of being a slut for demanding birth control services for women. Limbaugh didn't understand that birth control pills have legitimate medical purposes and are not used exclusively to prevent pregnancy. Limbaugh apologized for his remarks.
Thanks to Limbaugh, Fluke became a national and sympathetic figure and is speaking at the Democratic National Convention on behalf of Obama. Indeed, Limbaugh's role in sparking Democratic charges of a Republican "War on Women" helps explain the Republican overreaction to Todd Akin's comments.