Alan Keyes indicates possible third-party run

Alan Keyes apparently indicated to his supporters, in a conference call yesterday, that he was considering leaving the GOP for the Constitution Party.

87 Responses to “Alan Keyes indicates possible third-party run”

  1. Ted Says:

    That’s assuming of course the CP will take him, which by no means is a given.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    The CP will take him—-but giving him the Presidential nomination is another thing.

    We love to hear him speak and I love to read his writings—but he wont be our candidate. He might be able to capture a VP spot behind Moore or Baldwin though.

  3. Prolifer Says:

    A problem with Alan Keyes as I see it is his support for the “war on terror.” He claims to be pro-life, but supporting unjust war is inconsistent with a truly pro-life view.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Indeed. His pro-war views and pro-UN views are the major reasons he wont get the nomination.

  5. wa Says:


  6. Brian Ewart Says:

    I thought Alan was against going into Iraq?

  7. disinter Says:

    What is the difference between the CP and the GOP again?

  8. jr Says:

    Re: “What is the difference between the CP and the GOP again?”

    CP candidates are required to abide by the platform.


  9. Lester Townsend Says:

    Supporting the fight against Radical Islam is not inconsistent with being pro-life. Radical Islam is an evil ideology which wants to impose a Talaban style of government on the entire world. We all need to oppose the culture of death embodied by Radical Islam.

  10. Prolifer Says:


    What do the rest of the US Taxpayers Party of Michigan folks say about this? Are they in favor of unjust war, or haven’t they got around to bumping you off the candidate list yet? Or have they become an even bigger tent than they were before, under Jerry Van Sickle?

  11. mpj Says:

    “CP candidates are required to abide by the platform.” [jr]

    Only problem is they don’t actually require their candidates and state parties to adhere to the platform. It looks good on paper, but stinks to high heaven in practice.

  12. disinter Says:

    Radical Islam is an evil ideology which wants to impose a Talaban style of government on the entire world. We all need to oppose the culture of death embodied by Radical Islam.

    Radical Christianity isn’t? That statement would be just as true if read:

    Radical Christianity is an evil ideology which wants to impose a fascist style of government on the entire world. We all need to oppose the culture of death embodied by Radical Christianity.

  13. Lester Townsend Says:

    Your response indicates you don’t understand the basic teachings of Christianity. Christians don’t send their children out to kill innocent people and themselves as suicide bombers.

  14. Ben Miller Says:

    It appears that Keyes supporters are flooding the presidential poll on the Constituton Party website.

    He has gone from about a 4 point lead over Roy Moore for first choice to having 50% of the vote. Keyes also now leads in the 2nd and 3rd choice categories.

  15. Tom Bryant Says:

    Lester’s response indicates that he doesn’t understand the basic history of Christianity.

    The religion caught on as a way to unite various peoples under the Roman Empire. Christian Holidays and beliefs are a mixture of the various faiths found in the Roman Empire.

    The history of Christianity is filled with violence. Even if you discount the history of the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burning, you still have the violent Old Testament in your canon. You still have a New Testament which teaches that slavery is okay, to the point of returning any freed slaves you may stumble across to their owner.

    There are a lot of good things in the Christian religion as well. Like any religion, it’s what you make of it. There are going to be violent Muslims and Christians, and there are going to be peaceful Muslims and Christians. The only real difference is what stories each group learns as child.

  16. Red Phillips Says:

    “Radical Islam is an evil ideology which wants to impose a Talaban style of government on the entire world.”

    Lester, even if that were entirely true how, prey tell, are they going to do that? My neighbor’s 10lb mutt wants to beat up my bulldog, but it ain’t going to happen. That is just the kind of hyperbole that discredits the pro-war crowd. I used to argue with guys like you. Now I just roll my eyes and think “How can an intelligent and informed adult spout such mindless hysteria?”

    “...which wants to impose a fascist style of government on the entire world.”

    Disinter, first that is simply not true. Second, please brush up on the accurate meaning of the word fascists instead of using it as a mindless slur word. That is no different than all the pro-war Chicken Little types fretting about all the “Islamofascists” out to get them.

    A Keyes nomination would be a disaster, but I also think a Keyes presence at the convention and any attempt by him to get the nomination is an impending disaster as well. If a significant faction of Keyes supporters show up in addition to the party regulars then things could get ugly.

    Trent, do you have connections? Howard Phillips or Clymer or someone needs to go to Keyes and tell him his views are not consistent with the rank and file and leadership of the party to avoid problems at the convention. It seems to me that Keyes thinks the nomination is his for the asking.

  17. disinter Says:

    That is no different than all the pro-war Chicken Little types fretting about all the “Islamofascists” out to get them.

    No shit. That is the point.

  18. disinter Says:

    Your response indicates you don’t understand the basic teachings of Christianity.

    Your response indicates you don’t understand the basic teachings of Islam. The key word is “radical” for both.

  19. Red Phillips Says:

    disinter, OK sorry. I thought you were making that case.

  20. John Says:

    There’s no way that Keyes would get a similar percentage that Nader got 2000 like that blogger said. His presidential run has been a complete disaster and those who have heard him lately know that he’s an egotistical maniac.

  21. Lester Townsend Says:

    Getting back to the point of the thread on this blog. Why should the CP select someone who is not a CP member instead of someone who is a member of the party?

  22. NewFederalist Says:

    Let’s see here… If the CP nominates Alan Keyes and the LP nominates Bob Barr will the vote totals for either party exceed 2004?

  23. Kevin Says:

    If Keye’s makes the jump I will go with him! McCain just is not a conservative even though he had the leadership ability, he is weak on the moral issues, and no better than his democratic opponents. Go Alan Keye’s

  24. Jared Says:

    I think the CP would lose a large chunk of their membership if they nominated Keyes, just like the LP would lose a large chunk of their membership if they nominated Root.

  25. G.E. Says:

    Lester Townsend is an anticapitalist liberal. “Less usury.” Come on, now.

    US Taxpayers Party = Big Government Statists.

    Constitution Party = Anticapitalist interventionists.

    Both = Suck.

  26. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    “Personally”, I am still a JEROME CORSI fan for President, however, “if” it doesn’t go for Corsi or anyone else , seriously speaking, in the ‘flux’, and Keyes wants it, I WILL SUPPORT HIM AS LONG AS HE SUPPORTS OUR CONSTITUTION PARTY “PLATFORM”.
    READ THE C.P. PLATFORM! The Platform is what the C.P. is all about. It is not all that difficult to figure out. If he does come on board the C.P., this ‘OTHER’ black American will give OBAMA-NATION (socialist) a run for his money! Especially, on the “illegal immigration” issue that all the other ‘gas-bag’ clown candidates are totally ignoring! I say, ‘don’t sweat the small stuff’. -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAFR,

    “retired” Deputy Sheriff (26 yrs.)
    of the Constitution

  27. Ben Says:

    Many Keyes activists are strategising how they might become delegates to the CP National Convention according to the Keyes website. When many state CP delegations are not full, as was the case in 2004, it is very easy for these folks to fill up these empty slots and really cause problems in KCMO.

    Many affiliates are more interested in having full delegations with many brand new members rather than leaving new folks behind and having a smaller delegation. They all want to show how much they have grown since 2004 and the best way to do that is allowing any one interested to hold unfilled delegate slots.

    In 2004, the CPMN almost allowed a practicing homosexual that was very hostile to Peroutka and the CP platform plank on family to be a delegate to the national convention just to fill an empty slot. No one knew him, but he was the only person interested in filling the open slot. One person expected to be a delegate withdrew at the state convention. If it wasn’t for a CPMN activist that found a posting by him on a blog, the CPMN would have never known they had a mole.

    It’s a tough decision every CP affiliate will have to make. Do they exclude some one just because they are new or a Keyes delegate, or do they limit their delegates to those that have been involved for a while (say at least a year)?

  28. Jason Says:

    This was kind of expected. He’ll be in full swing inside the CP circles. Let’s face it, they need a name, any name, that can get them some votes.

    To Larry,

    Does the NVC even exist? I don’t hear of any news and your website hasn’t changed in a year. What happened to General…Jones(?) I believe is his name. I received an email from him when I was in Iraq and he told me of future plans. It sounded so aggressive and organized at first. So what happened?

  29. Stephen Tash Says:

    Alan Keyes decided to join a party that thinks this is a white, Christian nation?

  30. prolifer also Says:

    Alan Keys is for the unjust war in Iraq. He is unqualified for office.

  31. DX10 Says:

    Seems to be a lot of discussion about Islam vs Radical Islam. The germ is the Koran. Has anyone read it to see if says they want to take over the world for Allah? And, if it does, then what is the difference between Islam and Radical Islam? Likewise, in Christianity, the germ is the Bible. Has anyone read it to find where it says to conquer the world for Christian theocracy? If so, then what is the difference between Christianity and Radical Christianity?

  32. Sean Scallon Says:

    If a majority of CP activists area against the war and against Keyes neoconservatism, then they wil reject him outright at the convetnion no matter how many thrilling speeches he gives. If this is not true, and CP activists decide to go someone who is in opposition to their platform just so they can have a “name” candidate, then they will have condemed themselves to irrelevence. The choice is up to them. And so are the consequences.

  33. chris Says:

    I guess I’m confused.

    I like Alan Keyes. but half of the country has never heard of him.
    I personally haven’t heard of many of the other candidates mentioned here, thus there lies the problem.
    There is where my confusion lies. We had a Candidate with Ron Paul that at least got some msm coverage (little as it was).
    He was the only candidate of the previously mentioned ones that may have had a chance to make a splash with his donations and web draw that even comes close to liberatian, Constitutional values.
    Few could argue he was the best candidate from the ones we are left with now.
    So why didn’t the other independent parties try to at least latch onto his coat tails to gain momentum for our views to take place by supporting him. Perhaps many did, but the writings here on the web from third party sites didn’t appear to do that.
    With the political machine and msm media against “us” it seems silly to even hope to gain acceptance now and make a signifigant run at the POTUS.
    While I do think Paul is wrong in not running as a independant or on a third party ticket the Republican party has abandoned him and their true conservative platform to only do battle with the Democrats. Once again leaving the true thinkers of the political process behind.
    Our ability to divide ourselves mimics the large parties nearly exactly.

    If Paul was not right on his platform I have yet to hear why.
    I may not agree with everything he says ,I agree more with him than any of the msm “front runners”.

    I won’t even get into the whole “religion” aspect this thread leaned towards.
    It would just take to long. Oddly enough Rodney King said it well:
    “Can’t we all just get along”?

    just my thinking

  34. David Gaines Says:

    I say go for it…...Alan Keyes has way more nationwide name recognition than everyone else interested in the Constitution Party nomination combined. Then poor Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney will be able to campaign without the S-word hung around their necks like a 50-pouind weight all summer and fall while Dr. Keyes drains support away from Senator McCain. Yummy.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    “Trent, do you have connections? Howard Phillips or Clymer or someone needs to go to Keyes and tell him his views are not consistent with the rank and file and leadership of the party to avoid problems at the convention. It seems to me that Keyes thinks the nomination is his for the asking.”

    I am but a simple blogger. =)
    Keyes most likely DOES think the nomination is his for the taking—but he is definetly mistaken. Unless his people flood the open-delegate positions, he wont even come close. Moore, should he decide to chase it, will take the nomination easily. Sen. Smith is not seeking the nomination due to family obligations—but remains interested in the CP.
    There are also rumors of a new candidate (although he seems to be more of a VP candidate). I’ll post more on that when there is more to know.
    I do have some concerns that Keyes people will flood delegate slots—especially from weak or newly formed states.

    For now, its a Keyes vs. Moore vs. Baldwin kinda thing.

  36. Eric Garris Says:

    That would be quite incredible, if the Constitution Party nominated a former US Ambassador to the United Nations, who is still a strong supporter of this body.

    And will he support the Foreign Policy Plank of the Constitution Party Platform?

    Here are some excerpts:
    —call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;
    —repudiate any commitment, express or implied, to send U.S. troops to participate in foreign conflicts, whether unilaterally, under NATO auspices, or as a part of the United Nations “peace-keeping” operations; and cease financing, or arming of belligerents in the world’s troubled areas.
    —We call upon the Congress to immediately terminate American military presence in all foreign countries where such U.S. presence constitutes an invitation for this nation to become involved in, or further participate in, foreign wars.

  37. Red Phillips Says:

    Thanks Eric for bringing some sense to this debate.

    MSgt B. Ugh! Up until this very moment, Keyes has been a pro-war, interventionist, internationalist uber neocon. So if he magically said he now supports the platform, you would buy that?

    I plan to go to the CP state convention in Georgia. I will personally oppose any Keyes supporters who wants to go to the National Convention. If the convention is covered by C-SPAN, do we really want an ugly floor fight?

    Actually, a floor fight might not be bad as long as we win, but it wouldn’t be that hard for the Keyes delegates to flood the convention. A floor fight repudiating Keyes would show we are not just GOP retreads.

  38. David Says:

    How can anyone that has looked at keyes record of races - 2 senate races in Maryland, 1 in Illinois (which was a disaster against Obama) and how many presidential runs (3 or 4) and not realize that Alan Keyes makes his living from the publicity he gets from running from office. Yes he gives great speeches, but their is no substance - his campaigns end up totally disorganized and highly in debt. He has no interest in the Constitution Party or Conservative principals - his interest is in promoting Alan Keyes. At this point in time the only way I will not vote for the Constitution party candidate for president is if he is Alan Keyes. If keyes is the nominee it will be the end of the Constitution party. Keyes is as much a neo-con as his old college roommate - Bill Kristal

  39. Lyn Says:

    It’s pretty amazing when the most logical post is from a Ron Paul supporter.

    None of the third parties are going to win any elections. The very most you can do is help elect Obama or Hillary.

  40. dariusz Says:

    alan keyes is great man and statesman. i love to see him as our president

  41. Trent Hill Says:


    I share you concerns about Keyes—but im less concerned because im confident he wont win the nomination.

  42. Andy Says:

    “Keyes is as much a neo-con as his old college roommate - Bill Kristal.”

    So Alan Keyes was a college roommate of the neo-con Bill Kristal. Well this explains a lot.

  43. Tom Hoefling Says:

    “Well this explains a lot.”

    Only if you want it to, because of some false preconceived notion.

    In fact, Kristol and Keyes parted ways politically long ago.

    Kristol is a self-serving elitist tool, and Keyes is the greatest living advocate for the sovereignty of the American people and the foundational creed our republic is built upon.

    Some of you folks need to educate yourselves a whole lot more before pontificating.

  44. Red Phillips Says:

    Tom, I am an educated (I hope) paleocon. Keyes may have parted ways with Kristol, but he is a complete Straussian neocon and a Lincoln cultist. Look at his website. It reeks neocon. He says Bloom was his most important influence. His Declarationism is pure unadulterated Straussian poppycock.

    And BTW, America was not founded on a creed. That is the proposition or creedal nation fallacy, and it is pure liberal/neocon historical revisionism. 50 years ago almost EVERY conservative knew that. America is a particular nation founded by a particular people in a particular place at a particular time. If you don’t get how the creedal nation idea undermines that conservative project then it is you who needs to be educated.

  45. G.E. Says:

    “America” as a “nation” was founded by a “particular people” (Republicans) at a “particular time” (the War to Prevent Southern Independence). The united states was a voluntary compact between SOVEREIGN STATES founded on the the principles of classical liberalism and political decentralism.

    Red Phillips sounds like the Lincoln Cultist Revisionist to me. Conservatism has never been concerned with the truth.

  46. Cody Quirk Says:

    Only problem is they don’t actually require their candidates and state parties to adhere to the platform. It looks good on paper, but stinks to high heaven in practice.

    = Especially when ‘religious tests’ are forbidden and every constitutionalist is supposed to be welcomed in the party. Indeed some state parties and members forgot about the Premable completely.

  47. Cody Quirk Says:

    “CP candidates are required to abide by the platform.”

    Correction: they have to agreed with it.

  48. Tom Hoefling Says:

    The “paleocon” and “neocon” labels have never been explanatory of much of anything. Seldom have I found edification from anyone who bandies the terms about.

    So, you don’t believe that America was from its beginning founded on the self-evident truth that all men are CREATED equal, endowed by their CREATOR with the unalienable rights to life and liberty, and that the protection of those rights is the purpose of government?

    Whether you like it or not, this nation was born with this proposition on its lips.

  49. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E., what are you talking about? I have been called a lot of things but never a Lincoln cultist.

    The current American nation is as you say, the result of Lincoln’s destruction of the Old Republic. I disagree with the last half of the last sentence of your first paragraph. My point is that America was not “founded on” principles. It was founded by real particular people. It had principles that derived from all the particulars. But the particulars preceded the principles and came about from them. No particulars, no principles. Different particulars, different principles. You can’t just plop principles down somewhere and expect them to succeed. They have to arise spontaneously. (Witness the “democratization” of Iraq.) This should be conservatism 101.

    Are you a libertarian? Many libertarians are as guilty of the proposition nation fallacy as are liberals and neocons.

  50. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    I will try and answer your questions. The NVC does exist! We get many several hits on our website weekly. Many other “veteran websites” that are in our camp, and other ‘constitutionalist’ sites carry our NVC website on their “links page”. (Go to and VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST JOHN McCAIN as examples.) We will be getting on more as the campaign heats up. We have around 3,000 members so far and it is climbing. I would say, not bad for a NEW POLITICAL VETERANS GROUP! Last April 2, 2007, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force Times
    carried a story on the National Veterans Coalition. This story went out ‘armed forces worldwide”. We in the NVC did not submit the article.
    THEY, on their Army Times editorial staff stumbled on our website and decided to run with it. We got several members and ‘hundreds’ of inquires.

    Last year, when NVC came out and endorsed Jerome Corsi for President, the news website… carried the announcement and gave us (NVC) headline top billing. There are thousands of fellow veterans out there that are NOT jumping on McAmnesty McCain’s phoney band wagon. We in the NVC are planning a saturation of every VETERAN LINK we can think of, to let other veterans know what the NVC is all about.
    The sole pupose of the NVC is to bring veterans, their families and friends into the CONSTITUTION party and run as candidates, support CP candidates and always vote CP, if we are to save this republic.

    NO OTHER POLITICAL PARTY has a clue as to how to properly save our country. General Jones is a great patriot. He founded the NVC. He was our FIRST National Chairman. Unfortunately, due to limitations due to his health (and THAT comes first!) he can no longer be the National Chairman, however, HE will always be our National Chairman “emeritas”!!
    As such, he is our ‘mentor’, and adviser. I speak with him and meet with him on a regular basis. Darrel Castle was the National Chairman until just recently. I am the new appointed National Chairman. I could not give the NVC my full attention until I retired from civilan law enforcement.
    I retired from L.A.County, as a Deputy Sheriff, after 26 plus years of service. There are many things I want to propose for NVC. We are going to update our website and include a “link page”. We are going to update our “contact” section to properly communicate with other veterans on party questions/answers pertaining to veterans concerns. This is all in the works. I would venture to say, after the April CP convention , NVC will be rolling up its sleeves! Other vets can contact me at:

    Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.) USAFR
    American Independent Party-California’s
    P.O.Box 18491,
    Anaheim Hills, California 92807
    cell phone- (909) 238-2625

  51. Red Phillips Says:

    MSgt. B., as an official adjunct of the Constitution Party, how is the NVC able to endorse a candidate? That seems inappropriate to me.

  52. Gregory Poulos Says:

    The home page of the Constitution Party under the heading Constitution Party states: “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.” What other candidate besides Alan Keyes has done this in this election cycle? I have not heard or seen Ron Paul speak of restoring our government to its Biblical foundations. Look at the Pledge for America’s Revival on the Alan Keyes Web site:
    Below this statement on the Constitution Party Web site are the Seven Principles of the Constitution Party. Who has been a better, more consistent, and more capable proponent of these principles than Alan Keyes? The only points some might quibble with are understandings of Points 6 and 7.
    “6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions,” because Alan Keyes does not believe the decision to allow abortion should be left to the states; but this is consistent the first principle: “Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death,” and with itself for as Howard phillips and others from the Constitution Party have argued, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a human life should not be taken without due process of law.” Alan Keyes’ position is more consistent with the historical position of the Constitution Party than that of Ron Paul.
    “7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.” Again there has been no greater proponent of American Sovereignty and “protection of the borders, trade, and common defense” than Alan Keyes. Who has been on the border supporting the Minutemen? Alan Keyes is obviously a stronger proponent for common defense than Ron Paul. The part that some may quibble with is “not entangled with foreign alliances. Here I think the key word is “entangled.” From the time of our War for Independence we were not opposed to help from the French. Even as fiercely independent as the Confederate States of America were, they were not opposed to such help. The key to such relationships with other nations is that we do nothing to sacrifice our sovereignty. From the Pledge for America’s Revival: “Our next president must … Reject all forms of globalism, including its economic beginnings in the form of NAFTA, CAFTA, and the World Trade Organization — all of which threaten our nation’s sovereignty, security, and financial stability and sacrifice the best interests of the American people for the benefit of powerful national and international corporations,” and “Reject all proposals that amount to amnesty for illegal aliens, and focus American policy instead on securing our borders and enforcing existing immigration laws — a stance that is vital to countering terrorism and preserving the long-term moral, political, and economic strength of our nation.”
    Alan Keyes is a Declaration of Independence proponent and a Constitutional scholar. He says the same things about John McCain that Jim Clymer does. I think he should have run as the Constitution Party candidate in 2000, and I think Howard Phillips would have been glad for him to do so. At that time, Alan Keyes thought he could still fight for conservative and constitutional principles within the Republican Party. He has tried, but the leftward decline of the Republican Party leadership has become more and more evident, especially in this election cycle. Alan Keyes and the Constitution Party may be a good fit to bring their principles before the American people. The bankruptcy of the Republican and Democratic Parties in terms of offering the people a responsible choice for president cries for an alternative.;

  53. Jason Says:

    Thanks Larry! BTW, I am a paid member of the NVC. I’m glad to see the numbers moving upwards. Again, thanks.


  54. Tom Hoefling Says:

    A fine post, Gregory. Unlike a few of our friends here, you’ve obviously done your homework.

  55. Phil Sawyer Says:

    The Constitution Party should nominate Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez for president and vice president!

  56. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Why in the world would they want to do that?

  57. disinter Says:

    The “paleocon” and “neocon” labels have never been explanatory of much of anything. Seldom have I found edification from anyone who bandies the terms about.

  58. Tom Hoefling Says:

    “Scientists know that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings can sometimes trigger a hurricane on the other side of the earth.”

    Only in the hubristic imaginings of butterflies…

  59. Red Phillips Says:

    Tom, we may disagree, but you have no grounds to insinuate that I haven’t “done my homework.” I am currently writing an article that will appear on Ether Zone about how Keyes would be a horrible fit for the Constitution Party, and I have already made several posts at my blog above on the subject, so I think I know what I am talking about.

    Now to your comment. I agree that neocon and paleocon are often “bandied” about in a superficial, incomplete, or incorrect way. But for thoughtful people who actually know what they are talking about, the terms are very useful. Paleoconservatism is traditional or classical conservatism and entails the rejection of many liberal assumptions. Neo”conservatism” is a form of liberalism. I am not sure how that distinction is not a useful one. (When I say liberalism, think of the grand idea of Enlightenment liberalism, not modern Hillary style liberalism.)

    First, men were certainly CREATED by God, and they are equal in that we are all equally guilty of Adam’s sin and equally in need of a Savior. Beyond that, the “self-evident” fact is that people are not created equal. People are manifestly unequal. Nor does the Bible anywhere require political equality. But the DoI does not say what you and the Straussians say it says. It was not a universalist creed in favor of political egalitarianism in every way and in every place and every time. If so, then the Founders would have abolished slavery, given women the vote, gotten rid of property restrictions, ended religious tests in the states, set up a unicameral legislature, been fairer to the Indians, etc. What Jefferson was most likely asserting was the corporate political equality of the colonists to Englishmen.

    Second, conservative should generally avoid rights language as it is the idiom of the left. It is fine to speak of political rights (the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a fair trial, etc.), but conservatives should avoid like the plague talk of “natural rights.” (Generally considered rights that are derived from man’s reason.) Now God given inalienable rights is less problematic, but it is really more of a political and philosophical concept than a religious or theological one. The Bible says nothing of God given rights. (If you think it does then chapter and verse please.) It can hardly be self-evident because the idea is only a few hundred years old. No Christians were scouring the Bible and finding inalienable rights for the first 3/4 of the existence of the Church. Strauss himself said that the idea of natural rights is “wholly alien to the Bible.”

    As for the issue of political equality, how is that self-evident since it is rather new on the historical scene? Was Old Testament Israel politically egalitarian? Was God unjust by not making it so? Was the primary purpose of the government in Old Testament Israel to secure rights?

    I am not necessarily arguing for or against anything, and I am certainly not equating modern America or any modern society with ancient Israel. I am just trying to make people who consider themselves conservative and who may well be temperamentally think before they recklessly employ liberal Enlightenment language and put a more modern and liberal spin on it than the Founders intended. This is what Keyes, Strauss and the rest of the neocons do. Although most neocons are not temperamentally conservative at all. They are generally liberal in their sentiments it is just tempered by a touch of conservatism relative to liberal liberals. Neocons are conservative liberals.

  60. Red Phillips Says:

    Gregory, I doubt you will find very many Keyes references to “Biblical foundations” or Christian foundations for that matter. What you will find is references to God and morality and ubiquitous references to the DoI. While Keyes is more overtly theistic than many Straussian neocons, he will generally not appeal to the Bible and Christianity explicitly and if he does he is being a bad Straussian. (I am guessing based on some evidence and a general understanding of how Straussians think. If you can supply me with some examples of him explicitly referencing the Bible and Christianity, I would be glad to see them.) Straussian necons, being defenders of pluralistic liberal democracy before they are defenders of their own faith, appeal to universal and generally applicable “laws” derived from reason. These are theoretically available to all men. To appeal to the Bible, Revelation or a particular religious tradition such as Christianity makes the appeal particularistic and not universal. As good liberals they can’t have that.

    Foreign policy: Read the foreign policy portion of the CP platform. I’m sorry but Keyes does not agree with it. Keyes is an interventionist. He uses the same irresponsible “there is an Islamofascist hiding under every bed” rhetoric that all the rest of them do.

    On State’s Rights. You will find very few people in the CP who are “pro-choice by state.” It can never be legal to kill an innocent human being. But some pro-lifers are sabotaging pro-life activism at the state level because they are so committed to their nationalistic Lincolnian framework. They fear efforts at the state level will jeopardize efforts at the federal level. This plays into the hands of the current liberal/centralist paradigm. Pro-lifers should denounce the liberal myths of judicial review and judicial supremacy instead of hand-wringing about judicial appointments. They should encourage state level activism, laws, and NULLIFICATION as a way to save some babies now, instead of fretting about how those actions might impact things at the national level where nothing is going to happen any time soon.

  61. Trent Hill Says:


    Would you be accepting of a Moore/Keyes ticket?

  62. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Red, two things:

    1) Since you’ve rejected the Declaration principles laid down at the founding, and don’t understand the fact that all are created equal, there’s little I can do to help you understand, unfortunately. It is that very rejection that has destroyed the foundations of our republic.

    2) Your claim that somehow Alan Keyes’ political philosophy isn’t rooted in biblical Christianity and the Bible displays a gross ignorance of Alan Keyes and his decades of work in defending and promoting those very principles. I’ll say it again: You obviously haven’t done your homework.

    Here’s your New Testament verse that lays down the equality of all, by the way:

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

  63. Tom Hoefling Says:


    I love Judge Moore. He has the political scars on his body, so to speak, that prove he’s the real deal.

    But, he lacks Alan Keyes’ personal communication abilities, foreign policy, national security, and executive branch experience, and credentials in fighting for decades for the entire conservative agenda: The unalienable Right to Life, national sovereignty, fundamental tax reform, governmental reform, border security, property rights, marriage and family issues, etc., etc., etc.

    I think he might make a good running mate for Alan, or, in some ways even better, his first pick for the Supreme Court.

    Dr. Keyes has said that himself.

    Actually, though, personally, I’d need to learn more before I would fully endorse that idea, since I’ve never heard Roy’s views on the broad range of issues that concern the crisis our republic is faced with. I’d want to make sure that he hasn’t caught the “Ron Paul” disease that has recently infected so many when it comes to critical things like national security or the moral basis for our laws.

  64. Tom Hoefling Says:

    “The Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny…the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” - Frederick Douglass

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

  65. Trent Hill Says:


    Judge Roy Moore is a non-interventionist and has been since he was first elected as a Circuit judge in rural Alabama. So no, he has not caught the “Ron Paul bug”, he simply agrees with it.
    As for “moral basis of our laws”—Moore is the director of the Foundation for Moral Law.
    The only thing Moore lacks that Keyes has—-is a neo-con world view on terrorism and islam, a pro-UN stance, and a record of 0 and 6.

  66. Gary Odom Says:

    Phil Sawyer Says:

    March 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    The Constitution Party should nominate Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez for president and vice president!

    Tom Hoefling Says:

    March 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
    Why in the world would they want to do that?

    Tom took the words right out of my mouth.

  67. Red Phillips Says:

    Tom, again just because you disagree with me and endorse patently liberal conceptions does not mean I haven’t done my homework. I suspect it is you who haven’t done your homework or are incapable of thinking outside the liberal paradigm and idiom that you have been indoctrinated with.

    I said people are created equal in that all are equally guilty of Adam’s sin and all are equally in need of a Savior. I suspect we agree on that. Are they equal in height, weight, giftedness, talents, (smarts, temperament, athletic prowess, musical talent) etc.? In fact the Bible explicitly says otherwise. What is the point of the parable of the talents and the idea of spiritual gifts? So since we are not equal in the most obvious real sense (surely you concede that), then I assume you are suggesting that POLITICAL equality is both Divinely ordained and self-evident. So show me the verse that requires POLITICAL equality or even suggests it. And why was it an unheard of concept for the first 3/4 of the existence of the Church and has only occurred in the last few hundred years of all of recorded history.

    The verse you supplied is a reference to Salvation. It did not end Jewishness and Greekness as real entities anymore than it ended the distinction between male and female when it says there is now neither male nor female. Paul explicitly endorses the concept of gender rolls. You are not throwing that out on the basis of that verse are you? (BTW, some Christian immigration supporters have tried to use that verse as well. I suspect you reject the use of that verse for that purpose don’t you?)

    “Your claim that somehow Alan Keyes’ political philosophy isn’t rooted in biblical Christianity and the Bible displays a gross ignorance of Alan Keyes and his decades of work in defending and promoting those very principles.”

    Oh really? Show me where Keyes explicitly cites Christianity or the Bible as the justification and anchor of his appeal to moral law. (Again, I will be happy to stand corrected.)

    OTOH, the CP platform explicitly appeals to America’s Christian Heritage and the Bible. As does Moore.

  68. Red Phillips Says:

    Mr. I didn’t do my homework,

    Here is a quote I found after quickly skimming Keyes’ Declaration Foundation website. I just picked a promising looking article entitled “Preaching the Declaration.”

    But, “We don’t want preachers in politics, do we?” This is a comment I often hear. And it is true that since Americans come from many different religious backgrounds, in dealing with even the most important issues of public policy we must draw on sources that are open to support from all the people. But this doesn’t mean that we cannot preach. It means, rather, that the text for our preaching must be the Declaration, for the formulation of God’s truth contained in that great text is indeed open to all.”

    In the article he does reference Christ and partially bases his formulation on the basis of Christ’s command to love our neighbor. This is fine, but this sort of formulation could just as easily be used by a liberal proponent of the Social Gospel. And it is curious that he bases his whole case on this one command, a command that could be judged beneficial even if Jesus wasn’t who he claimed to be. Why stop there? Why not base a case on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the World? This is likely the closest you are going to get to any explicit reference to Christianity and the Bible all while he disses using it as a basis for a political appeal.

    Don’t get me wrong, Straussians are not rigorous secularists, and they do not demand a totally naked public square. But they are rigorous universalists and pluralists. As I conceded, Keyes is more overtly theistic than some Straussians. Strauss was essentially a non-believer but recognized the importance of public faith.

    Note the hysterical reaction of the Straussians to Romney’s Mormonism being an issue and Huckabee’s occasional overt appeals to evangelical identity politics. The Straussians were in just as much of an uproar as were the secularist libs.

  69. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Presidential Candidate Forum, Ohio Christian Alliance
    Alan Keyes
    October 11, 2007

    MODERATOR, CHRIS LONG, OHIO CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE: ...We’d like to welcome Ambassador Alan Keyes. Ambassador, welcome to tonight’s Presidential Candidate Forum.

    ALAN KEYES: Thank you. Hi, how are you?

    MODERATOR: Very good.

    SADIE FIELDS: Good evening, Ambassador.

    KEYES: Good evening.

    MODERATOR: Well, Mr. Keyes, we’d like to get right to it with some of our questions tonight. We want to thank you for taking time out of your campaign to join us. And the Christian Alliance chapters of Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania and across the country as well are all listening in tonight.

    Our first selection of questions is under the title of illegal immigration. What are your views of illegal immigration and border security?

    KEYES: Well, I think we’re actually faced with a crisis of our national sovereignty. One of its major symptoms is the loss of control of our borders.

    To be quite honest, I think we have elites who, in responding to the interests of some selfish cliques and corporations, have essentially sacrificed the sovereignty of the American people, and have set us up in fact for the collapse of our republic under the weight of what amounts to a demographic invasion that will entirely change the character of our people.

    It’s like we’re going to change from one sovereign people to another, only the people who replace the folks who presently constitute the people of the United States will be folks who are not committed to self-government, the Constitution, the godly principles of the Declaration of Independence — that our rights come from our Creator God — but who instead have come to America just looking for material betterment, and they’ll play right into the hands of the people who would like to change this from a country based on moral principles to a country based on selfish, hedonistic materialism.

    So I think we’re faced with a great crisis. Our first priority should be to control that border. I think we have to establish a national border guard, we have to use our technology to seal the border so that only those come across that we want to come across.

    And that will safeguard us from illegal immigration, but more importantly, it will also contribute to our national security: because if folks can come across the border to look for jobs, they can also come across the border looking to take our lives.

    I don’t know why we are neglecting this key element of our national security, pretending that the only thing that’s involved here is economic issues and issues of economic betterment. That’s simply not true.

    So, sovereignty is at stake. Security is at stake. And if we don’t give top priority to restoring our full control of our border, then I’m afraid this country is going to face deep danger — not in the future, but right now — because we are no longer able to enforce our laws and protect our people.

    MODERATOR: If you’re just joining us, you’re listening to the Presidential Candidate Forum put on by the Christian Alliance chapters across the country. With us on the phone is the former Ambassador Alan Keyes, who has declared his presidential candidacy on the Republican side.

    Ambassador, we’d like to follow up that question about illegal immigration and border security with what we’ve seen this last summer, and that an amnesty bill tried to make its way through congress. In 1986, President Reagan did sign a form of amnesty. Two to three million people, I think, is what was granted at that time who were illegal immigrants in this country. It didn’t work then, and there are many who believe it wouldn’t work now.

    What would you do as president to deal with the estimated 18-20 million illegals already in the United States?

    KEYES: I think the first thing we have to do — because, I will be honest. I think even asking that question is premature. We have a situation now where if we simply start legitimizing the situation of the millions who are in the United States we will encourage the continuation of the demographic invasion that has created the problem in the first place.

    The first thing we must do is get control of that border and in the meanwhile we should enforce our laws. If we make it very clear that we intend to be serious — both in terms of those who are coming, those who are here, those who hire them — then we are already seeing signs that when we start being serious about enforcement people go home, because they understand that the free ride is over.

    So I think that we need a period in which we concentrate on getting control of that border, and in the meanwhile we do what we should have been doing in the first place: enforce the law.

    We should realize if we passed the Reagan-era bill, which now Ed Mease and others admit turned out to be a bad mistake, if that didn’t work — do you know why it didn’t work? Because the elites who were sitting in the Congress and had control of the bureaucracy connived to allow the collapse of our border control. They betrayed us.

    So the folks that are now telling us that the only way to solve the problem is that we’ve got to give amnesty to the millions who are already here — they let those millions come in here in the first place. So, they create a problem and then tell us that the only way we can deal with it is by utterly undermining the integrity of our laws through an amnesty program. I don’t agree with this.

    I think the first priority is to get control of the border, enforce the laws, and once we have done so then we might consider alternatives for the people that are left after we have made it clear that the free ride is done.

    MODERATOR: What, in your opinion, should be done with the sanctuary cities that flaunt their disregard of violations of federal immigration laws?

    KEYES: I think they ought to be brought in line with the law, and, if necessary, sanctions ought to be imposed in terms of federal funding and things of that kind. Because if you’re going to flaunt the laws that protect the entire country in terms of our border security, the people of the United States have the right to take steps that are necessary to bring you in line with the national security interests as well as the overall sovereignty interests of our people.

    MODERATOR: Ambassador, joining us from Georgia tonight is the chairwoman of the Christian Alliance of Georgia, that is, Sadie Fields. Sadie has a question for you pertaining to embryonic stem cell research.

    FIELDS: Good evening, Ambassador.

    KEYES: Good evening.

    FIELDS: Thank you for joining us.

    KEYES: Thank you.

    FIELDS: Recently, Congress has passed legislation that would expand embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has twice vetoed attempts by Congress to expand the use of human embryos for research. What is your position on embryonic stem research funding, paid for with taxpayer dollars?

    KEYES: Two things: embryonic stem cell research is a violation of the fundamental moral principle that the country was founded on — that we’re all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

    The same principle that protects the lives of innocent unborn children in the womb protects that human life, whether it’s in the womb or the Petri dish, because in all those situations we are dealing with that life which has been engendered in accordance with the will of God, and that means we have no option but to respect that life.

    To kill the life because we think we’re going to get some research benefits for it, well, I’ll be frank about it. That’s exactly the kind of thing that the Nazis were doing during the Second World War, when they were taking people, killing them, experimenting on them, claiming that they were going to get good out of it. It has been universally condemned by all people of decent conscience, and so should this.

    Second point: embryonic stem cell research — they present it as if it’s going to make some big contribution to advances in science. That’s a lie. The advances in science and the actual therapies used right now to alleviate suffering and treat diseases all come from adult stem cells.

    MODERATOR: Ambassador, our next question is pertaining to marriage. Recently, Judge Robert Hansen in Iowa struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. The following day a Unitarian Minister performed a ceremony marrying two homosexual men.

    What is your position on a Federal Marriage Amendment?

    KEYES: I think it’s absolutely essential. Because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, we’re now in a situation where if one state adopts homosexual marriage, the couples married in that state are then going to fan out all over the country to challenge marriage laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause that exists in the Constitution.

    The only way to protect against that is to have an amendment that makes it clear that the fact that one state adopts homosexual marriage is not going to produce it throughout the United States. So I think that it’s absolutely essential that we have such a marriage amendment.

    I also want to point out that the couple that was involved in that case in Iowa — that marriage would not have taken place if Mitt Romney had not been governor of Massachusetts. He personally took it upon himself, by his executive authority, to force the Justices of the Peace in Massachusetts to perform homosexual marriages.

    The court in Massachusetts that had issued the ruling about homosexual marriage explicitly said that there was no change in the law as a result of their opinion, and that nothing could be done until the legislature acted — which it did not.

    Romney then proceeded to move on his own authority to force the Justices of the Peace to marry, and now he’s going around the country telling everyone that he’s a big supporter of traditional marriage.

    Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and Mitt Romney’s fruits are wandering about this country right now, very bad fruit, being used to assault the traditional family.

    I think people ought to stop being fooled by mere rhetoric and start looking at the truth.

    MODERATOR: As a follow-up to that question, there are those who believe that the marriage issue should be left up to the states, that existing laws are sufficient and that the Constitution shouldn’t be amended to make a provision for marriage.

    What is your opinion on that?

    KEYES: Well, I think I just stated it. Because if the Full Faith and Credit Clause is sitting there, it can be used to take marriages performed in one state — a homosexual marriage — and challenge laws all over the country.

    The laws passed by the states are not a protection against the constitutional clause. In order to protect against that clause you must put a clause in the Constitution that makes it clear that nothing in the document is to be construed as requiring a marriage that is other than between a man and a woman.

    If you don’t make that crystal clear in the Constitution, then the existing constitutional provision will be used to assault and undermine the traditional family.

    MODERATOR: Our next question is from Sadie Fields.

    FIELDS: Mr. Ambassador, I think under the embryonic stem cell research answer that you gave your position on abortion and your views on that, so I’ll just go to — in light of the fact that you’re strongly pro-life, from birth [sic] to natural death, if you’re elected president what type of judges would you nominate to serve on the circuit as well as the U.S. Supreme Court?

    KEYES: Well, I would of course nominate judges who know how to read the Constitution. And sadly, that is not the case with many of the folks, even who are running on the Republican side. Because, they are taking the position that overturning Roe vs. Wade means you return this issue to the states, and that’s nonsense.

    The Constitution of the United States requires respect for the life of the unborn. The Preamble says very clearly that the ultimate goal of our government is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

    That word, posterity, in the Preamble means those who are not yet born; those who come after us; those who are our heirs — including, necessarily and obviously, those who are already in the womb. That means that the Constitution puts them on an equal level with ourselves, and if we are to secure the blessings of liberty for them, how on earth can this be made consistent with taking their lives in the womb? It cannot be.

    The only way that Blackmun got away with Roe vs. Wade in the first place was because he did not read the Constitution.

    So I would make sure we got some judges who could read the Constitution, but I also want to make one thing clear: the ultimate decision about these matters does not lie with the Supreme Court. All the branches have an independent responsibility to uphold the Constitution.

    If the Court makes a decision that the president believes is inconsistent with the Constitution, the president is duty-bound to defend the Constitution as he understands it. So is the Constitutional majority in the legislature, if necessary.

    All three of the branches need to wake up to their responsibility to protect innocent life, and I would do so. First thing if I got into office: I would restore the Reagan-era protections of the personhood of the child in the womb, and I would pursue a policy that made sure that we were not using any funds administered under my authority to violate the constitutional rights of unborn children.

    MODERATOR: Ambassador, from 2000 to 2006, we had a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage president with a likeminded majority in Congress. In 2004, President Bush carried Ohio and ultimately won the election because of the support of our amendment to define marriage as a unit between one man and one woman. Despite this, the federal marriage amendment didn’t move, and we chipped around the edges with the abortion ban with a partial birth abortion ban. The reality is, very little progress was made in Washington.

    What specifically would you do — especially now, considering the new environment in D.C. — to advance a conservative social agenda?

    KEYES: Well, the first thing that needs to be done is we need to break the stranglehold of the godless media — the ungodly media — and the ungodly money on politicians in this country, on both sides of the aisle. We have a lot of Republicans who get the bulk of their money from fundraisers who are abortion-minded and who don’t care about the moral issues. That’s why all of them lose their courage, because they are taking money from these sources.

    You can’t deal with it after you get elected. You have to deal with it in the way you get elected. That means that you’ve got to put together a truly grassroots community of faith that will stand firm in defense of these moral principles, and that’s what we’re doing on the Keyes campaign.

    If folks go to, they will find there something we call the “Pledge for America’s Revival,” pledging support for our return to the godly principles of the Declaration and the application of those principles in every area of policy where we confront crisis.

    People who believe in that need to stand up and start working, not just on election day, but right now. And we ask that they commit to find five others, at least, who will do the same thing until we have built up an army — a new community that is based on commitment and allegiance to the first principle that our rights come from God and must be exercised with respect for the authority of God.

    The grassroots people of this country must again get active — stop acting like politics is a spectator sport, something you watch on T.V. — and get involved again. They must realize that candidates shouldn’t run for office, the people should run them for office.

    That means that the people have to be the active component of every campaign for political office, spreading the word in their families, their workplace, their community.

    We need government of the people, by the people, for the people, but that means that people have to be active in putting together the coalition, so that then you won’t have ungodly money undoing the election result — you won’t have the ungodly media lying and undoing the election result — because we, the people, will have made the choice and determined the choices, rather than letting these people be the gatekeepers of our choices so that all we get are evil choices, and then they tell us we have no choice but to vote for the lesser of evils, which our Lord forbade us to do.

    So, I think that we need to get busy, and that’s what the Alan Keyes campaign is about. I think we have to build the community that is going to advance these kinds of policies and get them moving, but you have to do it while you are doing your campaign. You have to organize people around the country to be active so that they will control the result once the election is over.

    Otherwise, the people who went out and raised the money, that put the commercials on the air that we sit passively by and watch, they’ll run the show. We won’t.

    MODERATOR: Ambassador, our next question pertains to support for Israel. This was emailed in to us from one of our listeners: “Israel is a small nation surrounded by enemies who want to drive her into the sea. Why is it important for the U.S. to remain a staunch supporter of Israel?”

    KEYES: I learned this lesson when I was working with Ronald Reagan and representing the United States in the international arena, at the General Assembly at the United Nations, where all the nations of the world would gang up on Israel and the only ally they reliably had was the United States.

    I went through many battles — at the Women’s Conference in Nairobi, where I fought against the “Zionism is Racism” resolution, and everywhere else that I was heading or helping to head delegations where they were trying to undermine and destroy the legitimacy of our relationship with Israel.

    I think that relationship is important, because Israel is a country that has been committed to representative government and democratic values.

    It is also a country that represents a part of our Biblical heritage, where it is clear that God, Himself, has a plan of which Israel is a part. And we need to be cognizant of that as a people — for, I believe we ourselves are also, if we’re willing to act with consistent respect for God, a part of that plan.

    So I believe that on a twofold level, both the moral level and the level of our interest as a people in working with an effective and strong democracy — the only one that’s out there as a representative government in the Middle East — that we have a strong stake in the U.S./Israeli relationship. I have fought hard over the years in my person to defend it, and as president I would certainly be doing so.

    MODERATOR: A question pertaining to the war in Iraq: currently we have well over 150,000 troops in Iraq in the surge. What is your opinion of how long these troops should stay there at this troop level? What would you do in your administration to downsize the force? What is the ultimate goal for the United States’ interest in the nation of Iraq?

    KEYES: I know that the media and the Democrats have imposed on our discussion of the situation in the Middle East and in Iraq this notion that our goal is somehow to get our forces out, bring the troops home.

    Every time I hear them talk about this I say to myself, “But wait a minute, if bringing the troops home means, in this case, bringing the war home, that means that instead of having our armed forces fighting the armed forces of the terrorists in Iraq, we will have the armed forces of terror doing what they did on September 11: coming to our country to kill our unarmed civilians.”

    Didn’t we spend billions of dollars on a defense budget in order to make sure that we would have an armed, super trained, professional force that could go out in the world to deal with dangers to this country and its people, before those dangers came to our shores and took lives?

    The failure of that arrangement on 9/11 should not have become a precedent for our policy. Instead, we need to pursue an offensive strategy that goes to the heart of where this problem is being created. And it’s being created in the Middle East, and we need to have our forces getting to the terrorists and taking their lives before they have a chance to come to America to take our lives.

    How long will that take? Well, I think that entirely depends on how long we are faced with willful thugs driven by religious fanaticism who want to kill Americans. We’re not in control of that, but we can be in control of our safety and security if we insist on defending ourselves properly and appropriately against them.

    MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, tell our listeners in the next few minutes why you are running for the presidency of the United States of America.

    KEYES: 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.

    MODERATOR: Ambassador Alan Keyes — Ambassador, we want to thank you on behalf the Christian Alliance chapters across the country, thank you sir for taking the time with us tonight and sharing with our listeners.

    KEYES: Thank you for having me.

    MODERATOR: God bless.

    KEYES: God bless you.

  70. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Red, you’re so far off base I barely know where to start. Frankly, your posts are so long, and my time is so limited, I have no hope of ever wading entirely through your misrepresentations of who Alan Keyes is and what he stands for.

    Dr. Keyes’ message concerning the crisis of the republic we find ourselves in the midst of is entirely predicated on the need to return to respect for, and obedience to, the One Who created us.

    If you can’t catch on to that, you’re obviously ignoring most everything the man has to say.

    And I can’t help someone who has their fingers stuffed in their ears.

  71. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Alan Keyes does not “use” God to forward his own ambition, or base his arguments on his own personal faith. He argues from the basis of the national creed, that our rights come from the Creator and are therefore unalienable, and the fact that we therefore have an obligation to respect His commands. As a nation. As a people.

  72. G.E. Says:

    Red - The only “nation” in the modern sense of the word that was EVER founded here was the one founded by Lincoln and the anticapitalist centralists. The Revolution (and it WAS a REVOLUTION) was one of independent, sovereign states against foreign rule. It was a war of secession, and it was most certainly principles-driven. The principles were classical liberalism (NOT conservatism) and political decentralism. The pseudo-nation created by the Articles of Confederation upheld these principles, though they were greatly eroded by the ratification of the Constitution.

    Nationalism, mercantilism, and Lincolnism = conservatism. The Constitution Party’s opposition to Lincoln is based more on how the federal government has been run than on centralism per se. The CP is 100% pro-centralism on matters of trade. It is pro-nationalist. It would be aligned with the Republicans and the North, not the pro-capitalist, anti-protectionist South. Since the CP rejects free trade, capitalism, and anti-nationalism, one doesn’t have to ponder too hard to determine why it is allegedly opposed to Lincoln, or for that matter, Keyes.

  73. G.E. Says:

    And of course, I agree with you in your opposition to Keyes—he’s a neocon Lincolnite scumbag for sure. But your epistemology is all wrong.

  74. Tom Hoefling Says:

  75. Trent Hill Says:

    “The Constitution Party’s opposition to Lincoln is based more on how the federal government has been run than on centralism per se.”

    No, its Centralism. The CP supports Federalism. As for you, GE, 6 months ago you were argueing that those who opposed Lincoln did so with racist intentions, you were pro-Fed, and anti-gold standard—-so your newest opinion doesnt bother me much, it’ll likely change within another month or two.

  76. G.E. Says:

    Good diss!

    You’re right, people shouldn’t learn and develop their ideas. That isn’t very conservative at all.

    What was the point of Ron Paul’s campaign again? To make those who already agreed with him feel good or to educate and enlighten people such as myself? Thank you for the warm welcoming. Then again, I never asked for admission to the knuckle-dragging party… I don’t have any white sheets to spare.

    The CP supports “federalism”... Oh really? Then it should cease calling itself the Constitution Party and demand reinstitution of the Articles of Confederation. The CP’s stance on trade and nationalism is Federalist, not federalist, or in other words, it’s Lincolnian.

    The CP (which is the heir to various explicitly racist state parties) is for centralism when it comes to trade, immigration, and “cultural” issues. The people who founded these racist predecessors are the children of devoted FDR voters. It seems they had a sudden change of heart when the federal government began using its power to desegregate schools, etc.

    Your timeline is off. But what I thought nine months or a year ago doesn’t matter as much as what your party stands for now: Anti-capitalism, collectivism, bigotry, and anti-intellectualism.

  77. Red Phillips Says:

    “The principles were classical liberalism (NOT conservatism)”

    Well that is the heart of the debate among people who actually care about “conserving” what the Founders established is it not? I disagree with your assessment. There were elements of classical liberalism, even significant elements, but the Founders and the American public was too overtly Christian for their “revolution” to be entirely liberal. Recall that the War for Independence took place before the French Revolution. The French Revolution was a much more radical rebellion against both Church and Crown. The States were not rebelling against Church. (Burke understood this distinction.) This is especially true of the South which viewed itself as an heir to the aristocratic and classical civilization of the Old Country.

    Ironically, some of my fellow paleos believe as you do that America was founded entirely on liberalism (mostly certain Catholics and royalists) and hence the mess we are in now. I and other paleos disagree. (Many neoconfeds and Protestants.) But liberalism is certainly the dominant paradigm now even among “conservatives.”

    I agree that the term founding is actually misleading. America was not founded in some magical single act. It was a continuation of our largely British Isle cultural and political inheritance and we sought independence through what you correctly identify as an act of secession, not a Revolution appropriately understood.

    One thing you get wrong is that decentralization is not liberalism. Liberalism sought to centralize the government in order to “secure” rights and establish order. They embraced the Hobbesian (also embraced by Locke) idea of a unitary, indivisible sovereign. Decentralization actually is a return to the human scale government of the pre-modern era. Hence it is illiberal.

    I agree that the CP is not necessarily a paleo party philosophically (I wish), but it does have significant paleo and otherwise illiberal elements. I don’t think it is fair to say the CP is nationalist although it might have some nationalist elements. It is certainly not as inherently nationalistic as the GOP. And I don’t think it is protectionist per se. It opposes trade deals that violate our sovereignty and are unconstitutional as it should.

  78. Trent Hill Says:

    “Good diss!

    You’re right, people shouldn’t learn and develop their ideas. That isn’t very conservative at all.”

    GE—you are more than welcome to change and evolve in your ideas. However, until you’ve fully exploored those ideas and the theories associated with them,perhaps you shouldnt go alledging that others are racist, communist, or sexist—as you may one day be part of the very group you’re insulting. For example, GE of 9 months ago would say you are a racist knuckle-dragging degenerate, and he’d be at least half right.

    “The CP (which is the heir to various explicitly racist state parties).”

    The CP’s Idaho and Georgia parties are both chaired by african-americans. The Virginia party is chaired by a jew. As far as I know, more LP candidates have been explicitly anti-semitic or racist than CP candidates, but that is certainly open for debate.
    I’ll say once again—be sure of your opinions. You were anti-gold standard, now you’re pro. You were pro-fed, now you’re anti. You were pro-Lincoln, now your anti. You were pro-choice, and are now pro-life. All of these things are good, no…Great. And I applaud your change of heart. But before you go lecturing other people like some sort of self-described small government-luminary, try not to display utter arrogance on one opinion and the same insultingly brutal arrogance on an opposing opinion.

  79. Sean Scallon Says:

    Mr. Hoefling I hate to break the news to you but it’s the CONSTITUTION PARTY, not the Declartion of Independence Party that Alan Keyes wants to take over.

    The Declaration is a nice document, very inspiring, but’s also just that, a document. It no more relevent to the Constitution than Emma Lazaraus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty is to our immigration policy. The Declaration is not law. It has absolutly no force of law. We are governed by the Constitution. Our colonial assemblies and governments did not just spring up when the Declaration of Independence was signed. They existed long before then. Such governments sent representative delegates to the Continental Congress convention to ratify the Declaration. What they did was to decide to seceed from the British Empire, not create new law. It was such governments that conducted the war effort, working together through the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was a way to improve upon the Articles (although they went well beyond what they intended to do).

    Heneceforth what Alan Keyes believes about the Declaration of Independence is utterly irrelevent. It is what he believes about the Constitution that’s important and as witnessed in previous campaigns for the U.S. Senate it is clear that Alan Keyes has utter contempt for the document. Any man who supports the continued presence of the Department of Agriculture, slave reparations and conscription, which is what Keyes’ platform when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, is no friend of the Constitution.

    Ergo, Alan Keyes has no business being the Constitution Party’s nominee for President. Period.

    Perhaps Mr. Keyes can set up his own Lincoln-lovers party and name himself the Presidential nominee. Then everybody will be satisified.

    Oh wait a minute, he’s already a member of the Republican Party. Scratch that idea.

  80. G.E. Says:

    It was a change in intellectual reasoning, not a “change of heart.”

    As for being pro-Fed, that was a natural response to actually understanding the Federal Reserve System (unlike most critics) and seeing through the lies, distortions, and bad economics of many Fed-bashers. Take a Lincoln-glorifying movie like Freedom to Fascism or even the statist Creature of Jekyll Island for example. But then I read The Case for Gold and The Case Against the Fed, and the logic is entirely different from those other, more “popular” sources.

    I don’t know that I was ever “pro-Lincoln,” but I was wrong on the issue of the Civil War. Again, that is my fault, but it was in response to legitimate racism exhibited by many on the other side, and the completely illogical pro-South position of the CP —which has Lincoln’s economic agenda!

    Neither positions I held in the past nor how recently I arrived at my current positions has ANYTHING TO DO with the veracity of my logic. Who says something is irrelevant—it’s only WHAT is being said that’s important.

  81. Trent Hill Says:

    Lincoln’s economic agenda,but not his usurpation of States’ Rights (or Federalism, whichever you’d like to call it).

    “Neither positions I held in the past nor how recently I arrived at my current positions has ANYTHING TO DO with the veracity of my logic. Who says something is irrelevant—it’s only WHAT is being said that’s important.”

    Certainly when you came to these conclusions does not effect how sound your reasoning is, but the fact that you are now deriding your opponents in the same manner you used to deride people who thought similarly to how you CURRENTLY do—-shows not only extreme hypocrisy, but also arrogance. Additionally, the fact that claim you only recently read The Case for Gold or The Case Against the Fed demonstrates that you obviously do NOT fully understand the wide scope of these issues. Continue reading,THEN you can arrogantly claim to be chief policy-wonk.

  82. G.E. Says:

    1. There’s absolutely nothing hypocritical about my conduct. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word.

    2. It isn’t so “recently” that I read those books. But it is you who’s being arrogant. I have a degree in the subject matter and I was thoroughly steeped in the establishment’s understanding of central banking, etc. Do you think the average Fed employee has read Rothbard? Some of us have jobs and families to support. We’re not all punk kids. And I didn’t learn a single new thing about the Fed by reading Rothbard or Paul—just a different PERSPECTIVE. I know and knew a hell of a lot more about the Fed than Aaron Russo, for example, who was totally wrong on many counts and advocates an idiotic economic agenda that is NOT in line with libertarianism or Austrianism.

    Some people, like you, have certain “points of view” because they’re fashionable or “feel good.” I have my positions on the Fed, gold, etc. DESPITE my formal education and training. I didn’t just ASSUME that the establishment’s way of viewing central banking was wrong (to be “cool”)—I assumed it was right. But when confronted with SOUND REASONING I turned on a dime. Forgive me for not having the profound insight of Rothbard or Mises on my own. Almost no one does. And forgive me furthermore for not rushing out to read Rothbard or Mises when I had NO REASON to think there was anything to them, considering their proponents online constantly forwarded untruths, distortions, and idiotic misunderstandings about central banking and the Fed System. According to you, if someone says something completely ludicrous (i.e. that a man who never existed was in fact the son of God and walked on water, etc.) then it would be my responsibility to look into the claim. I first read The Case For Gold because I was PAID to do so. If I had not been, I would probably still be in the dark. I know you and your kind hate capitalism, but some one us have to live in the material world with mortgages and bills, etc., and we may need a valid reason to spend our precious time investigating theories.

  83. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    To Mr. Red Phillips,
    The Jerome Corsi draft proposal/endorsement by the NVC, was presented during the past Constitution party National Committee meeting in Boise, Idaho in 2007. It was spear-headed by the then NVC National Chairman
    and founder Brig. Gen. Charles Jones III, USAF (ret.) “and” the “majority” of the NVC sitting executive board of Directors.
    The NVC looked at all the “presidential possibilities” at that time, and Jerome Corsi was the likely choice, due to his expertise on the North American Union scheme/threat to America’s prosperity. Jerome Corsi was interviewed by the NVC Board on many issues, especially the major issue of illegal immigration.
    Jerome Corsi prescribes to the Constitution party’s platform & principles.
    As of late, Corsi has pulled away from a presidential bid, due to mainly financial reasons…he needs to make a living..(he is a columnist for Worldnetdaily). The C.P. does NOT have the big money then or now, to support his “speaking engagements” nationwide. HOWEVER, things can change! Especially at the upcoming nomination convention. Even if he does not run, HE STILL IS VERY PRO-ACTIVE IN THE CONSTITUTION PARTY. He has found a real home with the C.P. We are honored to have him. Until things change at the nominating convention in April, Corsi is still the number one choice of the NVC. If Corsi is NOT the choice of the C.P.,
    the NVC will support whomever, at that time in April. (I would recommend you read the WorldNetDaily article…”ELECTION 2008..CONSTITUTION PARTY VETS TAP CORSI FOR PRESIDENT-WND author prepares to explore
    bid for nomination”....thursday, May 17, 2007.)
    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAFR


  84. Trent Hill Says:

    “And forgive me furthermore for not rushing out to read Rothbard or Mises when I had NO REASON to think there was anything to them, considering their proponents online constantly forwarded untruths, distortions, and idiotic misunderstandings about central banking and the Fed System.”

    For the record, although i’ve read Rothbard—we disagree on a variety of subjects. Im not suggesting you should or should not read certain things, im suggesting you slack up on the arrogance. As iv said before, 6 months ago you were insulting people,calling them bigots and “klansmen” because they held the same opinions you are espousing now. Perhaps you could drop the insulting rhetoric,eh?
    As for the second part of your paragraph, the followers of someone has NEVER had anything to do with that person’s true beliefs or intentions—that is the typical smear by association. If you truly used the incredible reasoning you claim to display, you’d know that.

    “Some people, like you, have certain “points of view” because they’re fashionable or “feel good.” I have my positions on the Fed, gold, etc. DESPITE my formal education and training. I didn’t just ASSUME that the establishment’s way of viewing central banking was wrong (to be “cool”)—I assumed it was right.”

    Once again you are so arrogant as to assume that you know how I came to my conclusions and when. My opinions were first formed years ago aftger reading a massive collection of both liberal and conservative literature. Everything from Marx to Burke, from Rothbard to Buckley, from Rushdoony to Mises—-most of it I despised, but I got a full picture of the political spectrum. And yet you claim IM the one who is following a “fahionable” trend in order to “feel good”? YOU, the one who simply ACCEPTED the establishment teachings and then resorted to insulting people of different viewpoints(the same ones you hold now)? And this makes you right…how?

    “According to you, if someone says something completely ludicrous (i.e. that a man who never existed was in fact the son of God and walked on water, etc.) then it would be my responsibility to look into the claim. ”

    First of all—you just did a disservice to yourself by debasing an entire rleigion with extremely advanced theology into a “myth” of some sort. Secondly, you are again arrogantly claiming to have a specialty in a subject you obviously are NOT educated on (i.e. theology). You arrogantly dismiss Christianity as myth without having done ANY research, yes…you are CLEARLY a student of reason and intelligence (/sarcasm). I can easily dismiss your claim simply because you said, “A man who never existed”. Meanwhile, even viruntly anti-christian people like Richard Dawkins admit that he most likely did exist, and all history books assert that he did.

    “I know you and your kind hate capitalism, but some one us have to live in the material world with mortgages and bills, etc., and we may need a valid reason to spend our precious time investigating theories.”

    Once again you resort to insults, which only proves my point—you’ve no intellectual ground to stand on here. I’v got bills to pay too, im married at 19 and in college. As for hating capitalism, that is rediculous—I was reading Rothbard, Rockwell, Burke, and Mises when you were asserting they were all racists.

  85. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Sean: The Constitution without the Declaration is like a body without a soul.

  86. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Gary Odom Says:

    March 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
    Phil Sawyer Says:

    March 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    The Constitution Party should nominate Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez for president and vice president!

    Tom Hoefling Says:

    March 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
    Why in the world would they want to do that?

    Tom took the words right out of my mouth.

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    Why should they not want to do that? Lack of imagination and rational thought processes?

  87. Shane Hill Says:

    Of course Keyes will run on a third party ticket. As long as the CP’s checks are good then Keyes will run. It is his occupation, “Dubious but eternal candidate”.

    Just ask Tom Hoefling….Keyes’ Sancho Panza extraordinaire

Leave a Reply