No Thanks, Alan Keyes
Since it became apparent that John McCain would be the nominee of the Republican Party, interest in the Mississippi Constitution Party ( and I assume, the National CP, the Libertarians, etc) has been growing. I get several e-mails/ phone calls a week from folks interested in the party & who our Presidential nominee might be.
A few weeks back, the National Party sent out, & I published to my list/ the state CP site a list of potential candidates :
Dr. Alan Keyes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes
Judge Roy Moore – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Pastor Chuck Baldwin – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin
Senator Bob Smith – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Smith
Dr. Jerome Corsi – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi
Dr. Don Grundmann – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Grundmann
Two of these folks have, since officially pulled their names out of the running ( Chuck Baldwin & Bob Smith). And in the meantime, Alan Keyes has announced publicly that he was leaving the GOP. Much sniffing out between the Keyes camp & the CP leadership — as well as lots of rumors & speculation that Keyes would be our nominee.Let me state, for the record, that I personally would be opposed to Alan Keyes ( to the point that I can say I could never vote for him) and I will do everything I can to ensure that he does not receive the ballot line of the Mississippi Constitution Party.
The Lesser of Three Evils is still evil.
While I am glad that so many folks (at least now, before the GOP “boogey man” propaganda machine gets going ) are recognizing that the “lesser of two evils is still evil” and coming our way. And we welcome not only Alan Keyes & his supporters to our ranks, but all who want to see a restoration of the Biblical foundations & Constitutional limits of our law system & government (and the liberty that would then ensue).
However, while Alan Keyes is a great orator & has made some tremendous defenses of the unborn & family values, he has some very different foundational presuppositions than us and he stands in direct opposition to our platform & principles on a number of issues :
Alan Keyes is an internationalist who is a supporter of the continued involvement of the United States in the United Nations. He has even gone so far as to state that Michael New should have gone to prison for the stand he took in refusing to wear a UN uniform/ disobey his oath of office.
Alan Keyes is an interventionist & a globalist who is a big supporter of continuing & expanding the war on terror — including neo-conservative foreign policy & encroachments on our liberties at home. He has even expressed support for a militaty draft. (which we all know will include our daughters this time.)
When Alan Keyes ran for Senate against Obama, he expressed support for reparations.
All in all, while Dr. Keyes has been a great advocate for the pro-life cause, he is otherwise, wholly in disagreement with the Constitutionalist position. He is not an advocate of non-intervention at abroad or of smaller government at home.
Ultimately, he is a man who became famous for making a tremendous speech on social issues at the 1992 GOP convention — and who has become the darling of the Christian Right 16 years ago. (and has since lost several elections).
That hardly qualifies him to be president.
[...] Leslie Riley Chairman, Mississippi Constitution Party [...]
By: Conservative Heritage Times » No Thanks, Alan Keyes:The Lesser of Three Evils is still evil. on April 5, 2008
at 6:49 am
I have not made up my mind definitely who I will vote for. I have been campaigning for Ron Paul and still plan to vote for him. I would not rule out Keyes entirely, but I lean toward agreeing with you. I have the same reservations about Keyes that you do.
By: Joe on April 5, 2008
at 8:06 am
[...] Read the rest at Riley’s blog. [...]
By: Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » Les Riley opposing Alan Keyes on April 5, 2008
at 8:46 am
Great article about Keyes! Why do so many give him a pass? You have beautiful daughters and sons and none of them should be drafted!
By: Marie on April 5, 2008
at 10:14 am
It would be the biggest mistake the CP has ever made. Keyes is a loser looking for a regular campaign check.
You need to add former U.S Attoney and 4-term GA U.S. Rep, Bob Barr to your list.
By: Freedom Forever on April 5, 2008
at 12:07 pm
I’m not a Constitution Party member or an enthusiast but even as an outsider, I think you’re right to reject this egoist. Freedom Forever has it right, he just can’t set the limelight aside. Like Dobson, Perkins, Neuhaus, Colson and the rest of the so-called “pro-life” leadership, Keyes is more ReichsChurch than Catholic. The man is trying to use your party much as Buchanan sought to use the Reform Party not lng ago. You’d be wise to show him the door.
By: John Lowell on April 5, 2008
at 12:45 pm
You are probably not going to like what I am about to say, but I’m afraid that your definition of “interventionist” is more in step with Ron Paul’s philosophy than that of the Constitution Party.
No doubt, the party is in favor of non-intervention, as are most sensibile people. But the party also recognizes American Sovereignty… the fact that the federal government has a Constitutional obligation to keep our nation secure.
And, quite frankly, when the nation is faced with an issue of common defense, like it or not, the obligation to protect our civilians must always take precedence.
And, by the way, not only is this a Constitutional obligation, but according to the reconstructionist view, it happens to be one of the very few things that the federal government has any business doing in the first place.
As for this nonsense about Alan Keyes expressing support for the military draft, somehow I find this hard to believe. And in particular, I find it somewhat suspicious that you would even make such a comment, without providing any proof as to the veracity of this claim.
You’ve got poor Marie scared to death, thinking that your daughters might be shipped off to the Middle East against their will. Where is the logic here?
If you don’t like Alan Keyes, that’s fine. But let’s keep it real, shall we?
The way I see it, your views are so closely in step with Ron Paul that you have (inadvertently) abandoned the seventh key principle of your own party: American Sovereignty.
Before you sell Alan Keyes down the river, I would urge you to think on the subject a bit more, and perhaps to go back and review those Seven Principles of the Constitution Party.
For what it’s worth, I notice that Chuck Balwin does not seem to share any of your aversions. Just an observation.
By: VALEDICTION on April 5, 2008
at 1:50 pm
John, Perot ASKED Buchanan to run for the RP nomination and then Perot changed his mind and stabbed Buchanan in the back. Pat was not using anybody.
Thanks for writing this Les. I am dumbfounded Keyes is even being considered. More State Chairmen should do the same.
By: Red Phillips on April 5, 2008
at 2:30 pm
Les, I’m not crazy about Corsi or Smith either. I am not convinced either are non-interventionists, even though I keep getting reassured that they “support the platform.” Corsi was at one time obsessed with Iran. I am not sure what can be the point of constantly fretting about Iran other than that the US needs to “do something.”
I don’t understand why the Party keeps flirting with these guys as candidates. The CP needs to be unequivocally anti-Iraq war and anti-intervention, and needs a candidate that reflects those views.
It is 100% sure that Baldwin is out? He would make everybody happy.
By: Red Phillips on April 5, 2008
at 3:12 pm
No matter how you cut it Buchanan destroyed the Reform Party as a viable force. Howard Philips and the US Taxpayers/Constitution Party kept the seat warm waiting for him and he fought for a party that in the end did not want him anymore. Pat Buchanan was ultimately more interested in Pat Buchanan than building a party.
By: theCardinal on April 5, 2008
at 9:50 pm
I read that Roy Moore has already agreed to be Alan Keyes’ VP. It looks like the fix is in.
By: Marie on April 6, 2008
at 6:40 am
Marie, I read that too. I don’t know if it has been confirmed. If so, then Moore is making a huge mistake. I suggest we all e-mail him, and tell him we think it would be a big mistake to run with Keyes. But I don’t see how the fix could be in. Howard Phillips opposes Keyes.
By: Red Phillips on April 6, 2008
at 7:12 am
Red,
I’d never believe that Buchanan’s decision to seek the Reform Party’s nomination depended on Ross Perot’s approval. If that were true, why was it was that he didn’t withdrawal when Perot reconsidered? There was one reason that Buchanan persisted and that was money, plainly and simply. Perot’s earlier performances had guaranteed several million in matchng funds to the next Reform candidate and all of the subsequent squabbling and intra-party law suits concerned these funds. Buchanan eventually won but at a very high cost, going on ultimately to endorse Bush in 2004! The man thinks clearly about half the time. Don’t allow Keyes to use your party in a similar fashion. He thinks clearly about a third of the time.
By: John Lowell on April 6, 2008
at 11:01 am
John Lowell and theCardinal, read the article by Tom Pauken on the subject. Perot was happy to have Buchanan and attempted to woo him to the Party. He knew Buchanan’s positions on the social issues. All the Party was not happy, but Perot was supportive and the driving force behind recruiting Pat. Perot got cold feet, backed out, and stabbed Pat in the back most likely because some Jewish business men that Perot did business with objected. That is speculation for why Perot had a change of heart, but it is by far the most plausible answer. Read the Pauken article.
I agree that Pat should have sought the CP nomination instead. I agree it was partially about money. But Pat was not an uninvited candidate. It was Perot who was at fault and destroyed the Party seeking to deny Pat the nomination. He was willing to endorse a TM guru for the nomination in an attempt to deny Pat. How desperate can you get?
By: Red Phillips on April 6, 2008
at 12:30 pm
Here is the Pauken article.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fe08511701.htm
Les, any idea if the Keyes/Moore rumor is true?
By: Red Phillips on April 6, 2008
at 12:34 pm
Thanks going to read it but I do recall the Perot dealings and his screwing Pat over. That being said it is Pat’s own fault. He could have been among friends but chose to go elsewhere. I know he isn’t a quitter but when the situation changed he should have picked his toys up and gone home. The Reform Party was only going to be a one shot deal – it was never going to remade into a Paleo party. If Pat was interested in the cause then he would have bitten the bullet and gone to the CP. What ended up happening was his taking over a party for an election run – leading the haters in the RP to run for the hills. What you got in the end was a hollowed out party.
By: theCardinal on April 6, 2008
at 2:21 pm
theCardinal, I agree, He should have gone CP when he figured out he wasn’t welcome.
By: Red Phillips on April 6, 2008
at 3:15 pm
Alan Keyes on Iraq:
“I will not for the moment go into the question of whether it was right or wrong to choose Iraq as some kind of strategic priority in the war against terror. I frankly have said in the past and would say now — and not with the wisdom of hindsight either — it was not what would have been my choice.
Having, however, determined that we were going to go to war, and what we said was the best interest of defending the American people against weapons of mass destruction and other terrible elements of terrorism, somebody explain to me why it is that we see fit to then take the question to the United Nations?
When we respond to an attack on the United States and are moving forward with a strategy necessary to defend ourselves, we don’t have to ask a “by-your-leave” from the UN — especially not when the regime established by the UN to keep Iraq under control had collapsed, without any effective action from other member nations.”
Alan Keyes on War:
“It is important for any people to understand the reasons for its wars, and the nature of its enemies. For Americans, the question of why we fight always raises issues as old as our Republic. It requires reference to principles which are the very foundation of that Republic.
The war against terrorism is not a war against Islam. It is not a war against an extreme and fanatical interpretation of Islam. We are not fighting, and must never fight, a religious war. We are in fact a nation founded in the hope and promise of being a bulwark against religious warfare. The peaceful and ordered liberty of America is deeply, specifically rooted in our universal respect for the rights of conscience, and in our exercise of religious freedom. Our principle of religious liberty is a standing inspiration to the world to abandon religious warfare everywhere.
Bin Laden has declared religious war on America, but we are not fighting a religious war against him. We are not bombing terrorists because of their beliefs about God. We are seeking to destroy an association of men who have taken violent, evil action against the innocent in our country. Our actions are in response not to sectarian ideas about God, but to actions which shocked every decent human conscience, regardless of religion.
This distinction — between sectarian ideas about God and the notion of “decent human conscience” — is what makes the combination of liberty and moral order possible. And, in modified form, it guides our relations with the rest of the world as well.
The Declaration principles on which America stands were proposed by our founders to the world as “self-evident.” The most important of these principles is the equal dignity of all men has been established by a power beyond human will, and no political order can be truly legitimate except in the measure it acknowledges, if only implicitly, the equal dignity of all.
The principle of human equality carries with it the corollary requirement that government receive the consent of the governed. Paradoxically, this can mean at times more enlightened citizens must show great patience in awaiting the consent of the governed to measures necessary for the political order more perfectly to embody the principle of equality. As Lincoln’s life taught us, such patience can be a supreme virtue of the American statesman.
The implementation of the Declaration’s self-evident principles can be complicated and long-delayed, even within a regime explicitly dedicated to their fulfillment. It should be no surprise, then, that American foreign and security policy must deal with a world of people and nations for whom effective respect for the dignity of all men is often much more remote. America is, at its best, a patient statesman for the community of nations, seeking to evoke by the authentic consent of those nations a respect for the universal principles of human dignity and self-government which cannot be imposed from without.
What does patience of this sort have to do with avoiding religious war? Religious profession and practice are the source of the most profound commitments to morality, to respect for the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Religion is, accordingly, essential to the possibility of a people’s effort to build a political order which respects human dignity under God. But religion is also, at least in this life, the source of ineradicable disagreements over the specific forms and methods by which the morally good life is to be lived. Religion thus appears both necessary and deadly to the peace of ordered liberty.
The American solution to this dilemma is to acknowledge religion as a principal source of moral goodness, while recognizing the danger of religious sectarianism only and precisely insofar as it appears in the form of actions which are immoral regardless of motive. The ruthless destruction of innocent human life, however it may cloak itself in a false language of theology or religiosity, is always and everywhere evil because it is the most manifest repudiation possible of the principle of human equality. This is one reason our founders listed life first among the rights with which our Creator endowed us.
The American political order exists to advance the attempt of self-governing free people to secure the rights with which the Creator endows them. Those, at home or abroad, who assault those rights by violent action have declared war on the first principles of American life, and must be opposed accordingly.
In calling on the world to assist in the war on terror, we depend upon the fact that the first principles of American life are, implicitly, the first principles of decent conscience in any man. We depend upon the self-evident truth that disregard for the life of the innocent is evil, whatever its motive. And that is why we summon the world to join us in a war not of religion, but of the universal order of natural justice which America has, from the beginning, sought to exemplify to the world.”
Alan Keyes on North American Union / SPP
“We are in a situation now — let me put it this way — where a lot of people are realizing we are being betrayed.
As a people, our sovereignty is being betrayed. Our borders are not being defended. Immigration policies are being proposed and implemented willy-nilly. Policies toward a North American Union are being done in such a way as to undermine our sovereignty as a people, destroy our borders, utterly subvert the demographics that sustain the identity of our people.
And it’s being done by folks who are elected by us, and who profess to be of us, and yet who seem to be serving something else, not the American people. And I think the sense that we have an elite that has abandoned its allegiance to the Constitution, to government of, by, and for the people, and to the best interest of the liberty of this people — that’s pervasive now. A lot of people are waking up to it.
Some of them, sometimes, try to intimidate you, and say, “Oh, it’s a conspiracy theory,” or something similar. And I say to them, “Go back and read the Founders.” Hamilton and others were absolutely clear on this fact — that throughout human history, there has been a struggle between the principles of justice that respect the equity and justice for the whole of the people, and the ambition of those who believe that they’re superior, that they should make the decisions, that they should get the benefits, and that everybody else should be cut out. That’s an old story, and it’s still with us.
As for denials that plans for a North American Union exist — it reminds me of that old saying: the smartest thing the devil ever did was to convince people he didn’t exist. And these people think that they’re going to convince us that nothing’s going on, so that we’ll ignore the evidence of our own eyes.
Thank God, Americans are waking up.
I think, however, we need to realize that this isn’t just about our borders. It’s not just about the Superhighway. It’s not just about this action or that. We are in a situation where the sovereignty of the American people — a phrase you don’t hear them say very much anymore — is being utterly subverted, and we must act across the board to assert and restore our sovereignty, in both a constitutional and a physical and geographic sense.”
Alan Keyes on: Why I’m Running for President
“I’m running for president because I think this republic is collapsing. I think our system of self-government is being replaced by a system in which we will be dominated by foreign powers, by globalist institutions, by self-seeking corporations, instead of having a government of, by, and for the people.
This collapse of our national sovereignty and the sovereignty of our people is taking place because we have abandoned the basic moral principle on which this country was founded: that our rights come from God, and that therefore we must exercise them and apply them with respect for the authority of God.
In every area, we are finding that this retreat from principle is leading to the destruction of innocent life in the womb, the collapse of the family structure, the loss of our self-confidence in the defense of our borders, and finally, a misunderstanding of what the war on terror is about, since our aim must be to defeat the forces that disregard the claims of innocent life, in violation of the fundamental principle on which our country was founded.
And I don’t hear anybody else articulating this vision which makes it clear that we are urgently involved in an effort to save our republic, to save our system of self-government, and that effort especially depends on reasserting our allegiance for the basic founding vision and principles that our Founders put in place for this country.
I’m just sick of all the people dancing around it and acting as if we’re dealing with this issue and that issue and the other issue. There is one issue, and all these other issues are like the fissures and cracks in the wall that bespeak the collapse of the foundations.
It’s time we dealt with the real problem, articulated it with vision, and faced it with moral courage. And that is what my effort is about: to call people together on the common ground of our faith in God and our acceptance of the Declaration’s principles, so that we can once again become a government of, by, and for a people who have reclaimed their active citizenship and reestablished real liberty in this country.”
Alan Keyes on: Terrorism – American Style
June 4, 1999
“Thursday’s announcement of an ambiguous Yugoslav peace agreement shouldn’t obscure the deep damage that the so-called civilized world has inflicted on its own conscience by following the moral leadership of Bill Clinton.
The apparent willingness of Milosevic to accept some version of NATO’s terms may mean that NATO’s criminal effort to break the will of the Yugoslavian people is working. A sustained and punishing attack on the people of Yugoslavia themselves can, no doubt, eventually break their will, and reduce them to a point where they will say “enough, we don’t want to die any more.” At that point, however Pyrrhic the victory, Clinton and his buddies will no doubt stand up and declare a triumphant precedent for benign internationalist intervention. Perhaps that moment will soon be at hand, although given the Clinton incompetence in foreign affairs generally, one would think that Milosevic stands a good chance of pulling a “Hussein” and manipulating diplomacy in ways he can’t manipulate NATO airplanes high overhead.
But whatever kind of “victory” Bill Clinton claims, I think that the rest of us ought to hang our heads in shame. The NATO campaign has followed a strategy that we know to be wrong and deeply immoral. The moral norms that as a decent and civilized people we have worked to establish condemn a strategy that aims to break and destroy the civilian people of a country in order to achieve political objectives. The classic definition of terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to get them to do your bidding as a result of the terror induced in their hearts. And we have been practicing a strategy based on just such a use of force.
Of course, the official spokesmen for our policy have been careful to avoid stating directly what our strategy has been. That has been left to Clinton proxies, like Senator Lieberman, who have been making unofficial, and more truthful, statements of what we are up to. Here are some of the things he has said in recent weeks: “I hope it doesn’t take ground troops to win, because I hope the air campaign, even if it does not convince Milosevic to order his troops out of Kosovo, will so devastate his economy, which it is doing now, so ruin the lives of his people, that they will rise up and throw him out.”
Senator Lieberman has characterized our effort as intending to “bring the war in Kosovo home to the people, the civilians, in Belgrade, so that they pressure Milosevic to break,” and he has admitted that, contrary to what one might expect from the usual distinction between combatants and non-combatants, we are in fact trying to make life miserable for ordinary Serbs. “That’s what we have been doing for the last couple of months. We’re not only hitting military targets. Otherwise, why would we be cutting off the water supply and knocking out the power stations, turning the lights off? We are trying, through the air campaign, to break the will of the Serbian people, so they will force their leader to break his will, to then order the troops — his troops — out of Kosovo. You can’t get troops on the ground out of someplace from the air. And so we are trying to carry on essentially a test of wills, trying to break his will. …”
So our policy has been to make war on a civilian population so that they will produce a political change in their country. Any of the official spokesmen of our military would publicly deny this objective. They would deny it because Americans have long declared that targeting civilians in war is deeply immoral and violates the fundamental norms and conventions of civilized warfare. We have consistently believed that it is barbaric to conduct a war aimed at harming a civilian population. This has been our established standard of moral decency. But if we adopt the Lieberman view of war, then there is suddenly no difference between the American people and the wicked forces that we have fought and defeated throughout the hot and cold wars of the 20th century. Those who realize how precious that difference has been should be deeply anguished as we watch the conscience of the American people being deadened by our complicity in the Yugoslavian war.
But perhaps our national conscience will be saved by the humanitarian sentiments in which this war has been sloppily draped? Aren’t we doing it for the sake of the Kosovars, and doesn’t that make it all right? We should remember that the evil enemies we fought in this century did not consider themselves to be evil any more than we do now. They too told themselves that they were fighting for wonderful and noble goals, and that they just had to do certain terrible things in order to achieve those goals.
The real evil in them was their acceptance of the principle that the end justifies the means. This is how most human beings, in fact, are introduced to evil. They are not pushed into evil by a strong desire to do wicked things, but by people who persuade them that evil is necessary to achieve some greater good, and that the good justifies the evil. And this is what has happened to us with the war in Kosovo.
If we accept the principle that no rules govern the conduct of any war effort as long as its ends are themselves believed to be justified, then distinctions that have been very important in our policy over the last several decades cease to be tenable. Consider in particular the stand we have taken on terrorism during that period, and against governments that are willing to support, aid and abet terrorist organizations. Terrorism is a form of war, and it is one likely to be taken up by those without nuclear weapons, multi-billion dollar economies, and other such things.
Typically, the terrorist “combatants” will be disadvantaged in the conventional assets of war and consider themselves to be oppressed by countries they regard as affluent and powerful. They therefore seek to stop this oppression by disrupting the oppressive country through inducing fear and terror amongst the civilian population. The terrorist goal is to use fear to force civilians to put pressure on their government to change those policies to which the terrorists object. This is the overall rationale behind much of the global terrorism practiced by various groups over the past few decades — some of them mere rogue networks, others more determinately connected to sponsoring states.
The American position has been that the approach to war that targets civilian populations, producing terror aimed at accomplishing political goals, is terrorism, and is deeply morally objectionable. We have proscribed various nations from regular relations with the United States because of their participation in such acts of terrorism. But if the Lieberman account of our strategy in Yugoslavia reflects our new national view, then we are saying that it is justified to adopt a strategy aiming to terrorize a civilian population in order to attain political goals. We will be abandoning the notion that there are norms and rules which put terrorism beyond the pale. We will instead be saying that terrorism is morally acceptable so long as it is practiced by us, but that it remains bad when practiced by others. The message we are sending is that as long as we think what we are doing is right, anything goes.
But how many terrorists believe what they are doing is wrong? Generally speaking, they are very self-righteous people convinced what they are doing is right and necessary in order to deal with injustices perpetrated somehow against groups or causes that they consider important.
In fact, terrorism is usually adopted by the weaker against the stronger, and the United States is usually stronger than its opponents. So the stand we are taking is very likely to reduce our ability to create effective coalitions in the world against terrorist activities, and to police those activities so as to safeguard our people and others in the world. We are also, of course, offering additional moral encouragement to terrorists themselves, who must be emboldened when they reflect that they are just doing what big countries do, even if they have to deliver their bombs manually instead of in fancy aircraft.
So the fruit of the NATO aggression will be a world in which we have dismissed or forgotten all of the high-minded talk of the post-war era supposedly aimed at establishing norms of decency and conscience — even with respect to the awful business of war. But this should break our hearts, because it means that all the tragedies and horrors we have gone through in this century, and the high principles that we have offered the world in explanation for the sacrifices we have made, will have been thrown away to follow Bill Clinton in reestablishing the barbaric concepts of warfare and policy we said we were fighting against.
This deadening of conscience has its roots in our willingness to tolerate, even foster, a culture of death and mayhem right here at home. We have turned our backs on fundamental principles of truth with respect to our moral obligation toward innocent and defenseless human life. The same mentality that says, “It’s OK to bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age because it will achieve our war objectives” can be heard saying that we should do research on human embryos because we can achieve great medical benefits. Present both in the war in Yugoslavia and the war on the unborn is the same dead conscience, the same willingness to act as if there were no governing moral principles that must override our profiteering, materialistic interests, or our war aims, or whatever else may tempt us.
The evil of our effort in Kosovo is the working out of consequences of deeper evils in our national life and conscience. We should keep in mind that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have said that the NATO action in Yugoslavia is just the beginning. They view this war as a precedent for a new internationalism, and expect similar interventions to happen regularly. So while they will no doubt give us a little breather before pushing us into some other perverse adventure, we will eventually taste the bitter fruit the precedent the Kosovo war represents. Our “victory” in Yugoslavia, should it occur, will be worse than hollow — it will be ripe with the seeds of greater evil to come, now that America has begun to teach the world that the end justifies the means.
By: Maureen on April 6, 2008
at 10:00 pm
I continue to pray that God will intervene and Dr. Don Grundmann will be the CP’s nominee for President. It will prove that there are still enough good people left in the CP. A Keyes candidacy will only further validate my decision to leave the CP as unsalvageable. If Tampa didn’t put the nails in the CP coffin, a Keyes Presidential campaign will.
I’m not holding my breath. I will probably stay home Election Night. I still have that option for now.
By: Ben on April 8, 2008
at 8:17 pm
It’s a matter of TRUTH – We need Alan Keyes for President. The Nation belongs to the people as set forth in the Constitution. Get the facts, get informed, vote Keyes and be proud you made the right decision.
By: Joe on April 9, 2008
at 5:36 am
[...] a piece on my personal blog stating my personal opposition to the candidacy of Alan Keyes for the Constitution Party presidential nomination. I posted this on my personal blog and made it clear that this was not an official statement from the Mississippi Constitution Party or the National Committee of the CP. Since then, we have held our state convention & voted in a non-binding poll to support Chuck Baldwin as our first choice & Don Grundman as our second, but we left it to our delegation to the National Convention to vote on our behalf.My [...]
By: An Open Letter to Alan Keyes Supporters « Riley Dad’s Weblog on April 21, 2008
at 5:15 am
As a follower of Christ, like yourself. I respect your belief.
I find it hard to anyone who has suffered and sacrificed so much for the innocent. (unborn children, Terry Schiavo, minuite men, Roy Moore). The Man has been in the front lines.
This witness makes it very apparent that He is a Man of God and deserves my support. He is an instrument of Christ and if God wills Him to save our Government, He will be there.
In Christ,
M
By: Max on April 22, 2008
at 11:37 am