Alan Keyes is stillvery, veryupset with President Obama, who defeated Keyes in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, as he told Stan Solomon that Obama’s recent comments on race prove that he shouldn’t be president…and is a Muslim.
“So Obama, thirty five years ago, would have been a burglar, prone to assault people and do other kinds of things that were outside the bounds of the law, that’s interesting, that’s kind of telling.” Keyes, “He would have been walking the streets of Indonesia being stalked by his fellow Muslims? I don’t know.”
No matter how you cut that remark, it’s an absurd, ridiculous remark, except for one thing: it suggests that in his own mind, Barack Obama realizes that even though he thinks Trayvon Martin shouldn’t be dead, he knows that Barack Obama shouldn’t be president.
Alan Keyes believes the fringe group “Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment” represents a popular wave that will elect congressmen committed to impeaching and removing both President Obama and Vice President Biden. Please do check out the myriad/insane reasons “Overpasses” seeks Obama’s impeachment (hint: alleged gay lovers and FEMA camps are on the list).
Keyes predicts that “Overpasses” will bring about a “sufficiently strong political movement” that will realize a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. He calls them “the bucket brigade,” as their first job will be to elect a Speaker of House who “they believe best suited to take over the Office of President of the United States,” then to impeach and remove Biden, and finally to impeach and remove Obama.
“The key to success is to demand that candidates take a solemn oath to impeach and remove those who are conniving to overthrow our Constitution, trample our unalienable rights, and rape us of our national birthright, which is God-acknowledging liberty,” Keyes writes. “Find and swear-in ‘the bucket brigade.’ And once they're elected, sit on them to make sure they get the job done quickly.”
WND.com is reporting on the activities of people who have been gathering on highway and other overpasses in different parts of the country with signs advocating the impeachment of Barack Obama. Practically every day brings fresh evidence that Obama and his appointed henchmen have abandoned their oath to uphold the Constitution.
The GOP leaders are likely to get away with this dereliction of their duty to the Constitution because most Americans have never taken the time to think through the electoral significance of the constitutional process for impeachment and removal. They don't realize that every two years, Americans who vote in the general election have the chance to cast a vote of no-confidence in the National Administration, including all the civil officers in each branch of government. A sufficiently strong political movement, clearly focused on achieving a Congressional majority to impeach and remove the offenders, could throw them out, like a janitor pouring out a bucket of dirty suds. And starting at the top, they could replace them with people ready to clean up the government's act.
Let's say that when the smoke clears after the 2014 election, people who have pledged to vote for impeachment and removal of the offenders have been elected, in sufficient numbers, in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Let's call them "the bucket brigade" for short. As the Congress organizes itself for action, the first step of "the bucket brigade" would be to elect, as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the person they believe best suited to take over the Office of President of the United States. This could be any qualified person in the U.S., since the Speaker does not have to be a member of the House.
The bucket brigade's second step would be to impeach and remove the Vice-President of the United States, in order to assure that the President of the Senate cannot delay the proceedings. They would then impeach and remove the President of the United States. According to existing law, the Speaker of the House then assumes the Presidency. The bucket brigade might then proceed to remove all the civil officers implicated in the President's malfeasance. However, assuming that the new President asks for and receives the resignations of all current Presidential appointees, this step would be unnecessary in most cases. In this way, the vote of no confidence achieved at the polls in the Congressional elections would translate into a complete change in the national administration, including recalcitrant members of the Judiciary, if the need be.
The key to that movement has nothing to do with sham party labels. The sham party system is a carefully-constructed diversion. The key to success is to demand that candidates take a solemn oath to impeach and remove those who are conniving to overthrow our Constitution, trample our unalienable rights, and rape us of our national birthright, which is God-acknowledging liberty. Find and swear-in "the bucket brigade." And once they're elected, sit on them to make sure they get the job done quickly.
Alan Keyes believes that Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go far enough in his dissent in Windsor, the decision which struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act, maintaining that he should’ve argued that gay marriage, which Keyes called a “tyrannically defined fabrication,” is unconstitutional.
According to Keyes, gay marriage advocates are using the same line of reasoning of slavery proponents who argued that “the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people” and did so “by denying black people their share in human nature.” “In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage” and “override right and justice as endowed by the Creator.” Since same-sex unions violate God’s laws, Keyes reasons, it is therefore unconstitutional and allow government to undermine unalienable rights.
The advocates of slavery in the United States often attempted to justify that institution by denying black people their share in human nature. On this account, they pretended that the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people, and that they therefore had no rights government was obliged to respect and secure. In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage. They do so on the excuse of promoting equal treatment for homosexuals. But the necessary and intended result of their advocacy is to deny the family's functional claim to be an expression of human nature, indeed the primordial expression of its social aspect. This, in turn, allows them to deny that the individuals who make up the family are engaged in an exercise of right, according to the laws of nature and of nature's God. Once this is successfully denied, the activities arising from their exercise of right need no longer be respected as unalienable rights, antecedent to all human governments, which it is government's aim to secure.
In what amounts to an effort to overturn the whole idea of unalienable rights that gives rise to constitutional self-government, some elements of America's judiciary have moved to proclaim as law that marriage must be redefined in a way that accommodates homosexual relationships. But this means that a human relationship in no way rooted in the Creator's provision for our nature must be allowed to usurp the name, authority, and rights of the God-endowed institution.
Once this effect upon the unalienable rights of the natural family is understood, it becomes clear that the Constitution is not neutral with respect to the approval or disapproval of same-sex marriage, in the name of law. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition against denying or disparaging rights unenumerated in the Constitution but retained by the people. Since the unalienable rights of the family arise from the individual's commitment to fulfill the natural law by propagating humanity, they are certainly among these unenumerated rights. Therefore, Congress simply did its duty, in accordance with the 9th Amendment, when it moved to prevent the denial and disparagement of the rights of the natural family by judges and justices seeking to replace the natural family with a tyrannically defined fabrication.
Why did Justice Scalia fail to take note of this constitutional justification for DOMA, utterly ignored by the Windsor majority? Why, instead, did he pretend that the issue involved can simply be decided by majority vote of the people in their respective states, as if the human sovereignty that constitutes government, at any level, has authority to override right and justice as endowed by the Creator? In this respect, neither the Windsor majority nor Justice Scalia's dissent shows any respect for the premises that informed the deliberations of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Yet without those premises, the declared purposes and essential features of the constitution they devised cannot be properly understood.
Michael Brown fears conservatives are too busy “wasting hours a day playing silly games” while America is “spinning out of control in a deadly spiral, plunging rapidly into moral and spiritual anarchy.”
Les Kinsolving seems to be under the impression that the Supreme Court endorsed bestiality, necrophilia, incest and pedophilia.
Alan Keyes, who previously warned that openly gay Boy Scouts will peer pressure their fellow scouts into being gay, today argues that the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to lift the ban on gay youth now means that scouts will be able to engage in “sex, drugs, lying, stealing, and beating people up for the heck of it” and join “street gangs” so long as it is not during scouting activities.
This is why scouting has had such an enormous and lasting impact on the lives of so many men. It was not just a way of passing the time. It was training for life, intended to become a way of life. The scout oath wasn't a pledge to behave a certain way during scouting activities. It was a commitment to respect the scouting standard of virtue in every aspect of life. That's why "being such a boy scout" became the proverbial term for someone who refused to go along with the crowd when doing so involved engaging in wrong activities, activities like lying, or bullying, or stealing, etc. That's why so many young men who accepted and tried to live by the scout oath became outstanding leaders in other walks of life, especially those that required individual moral courage, and/or the physical stamina and bravery it produces.
As it stands, the BSA's decision formally abandons the notion that scouting is a way of life. It puts the movement in the position of saying that you can adopt one standard during scouting activities, and another for your other life activities, as if scouting is simply a game where certain rules apply while you're on the field. If this is true with respect to the fundamental obligations of love and respect that are the basis of family life, what of the other aspects of the scouting oath and ethos? Will being a boy scout now mean that you are trustworthy during scouting activities, but lie and cheat in other respects? Will it mean helping old ladies across the street as a troop exercise on Saturday, after a little exercise in purse snatching with the gang on Friday night?
To be sure, "he's a real boy scout" will no longer be available as a sneering term of disapproval from the worldly wise. And youngsters who join the scouts will no longer have to feel torn between the choices they are supposed to make as scouts and the choices they are pressured to make by their peers. So long as they refrain from sex, drugs, lying, stealing, and beating people up for the heck of it during scouting activities, they can feel free to admit that they engage in those activities in the street gangs or school cliques that once shunned and ridiculed "real boy scouts."
Sadly, the people who have shunned "real boy scouts" in this way have a better sense of integrity with respect to their vicious ways of life than the so-called leaders who just voted to abandon the integrity of the scouting way of life. They know that the effort to mix their vices and the virtues of scouting is a problem that has no solution. "Choose you this day whom you will serve" will always be the challenge that demands separating the one from the other. The BSA once stood clearly on the side of the right choice. Now they stand for the deceitful notion that you can serve God and mammon.
As the Boy Scouts of America consider lifting a ban on openly gay scouts, here’s a look at Right Wing Watch’s collection of recent claims from the Religious Right on what might happen if that shift were to occur. Relying on outlandish predictions and harmful lies, right-wing personalities are linking gays in the Boy Scouts to everything from sexual abuse to North Korean nuclear threats.
Here are highlights of Right Wing Watch’s recent reporting on right-wing opposition to lifting the ban on gay members in the Boy Scouts:
There was no way that Generations Radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner were going to miss out on the debate over whether the Boy Scouts should allow openly gay members. Allowing openly gay Boy Scout leaders, Swanson says, is no different than letting convicted child molesters or serial killers teach preschool. The Boy Scouts, Buehner warns, are not far from “opening a new summer camp called Camp Sandusky.”
Former ambassador and perennial presidential candidate Alan Keyes 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.”
Talk show host Buster Wilson, formerly of the American Family Association, claims that gay men sometimes have “as many as a hundred or more partners” and will put Boy Scouts in “compromising” situations. He even argues that a ban on gay scouts is a good thing because excluding them will prevent them from being bullied and contemplating suicide. Wilson warns that if the U.S. continues to “succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda,” then God may “rain down destruction” on America as he did to Sodom.
Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warns that ending the Boy Scouts’ national ban on gay members could kill the group, and the group’s board would have “its fingerprints on the murder weapon.”
Fred Luter, president of the Southern Baptist Convention: “I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying.”
Speaking with Stan Solomon on Wednesday, Keyes maintained that Obama “could very well be working a strategy that collaborates with and comports with the strategy of the very people who are trying to kill us,” with the goal of bringing America down and “destroying our way of life.”
By collaborating with terrorists to allow these attacks, Keyes continued, Obama will be able to consolidate “the tools and instruments that would be needed to fasten the structure of martial law and totalitarian tyranny on this country by force.”
He concluded that the “implementation of a terrorist strategy [is] aimed at producing the very kind of disorder, confusion, fear and anger that would then provide an excuse for that fastening on the country of martial law.”
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.”