Bradlee Dean’s “Influences” »« Romney = McCain = Kerry?

Keyes Outs “Socialist” Republicans

“Which conservatives embrace socialism?” asks Alan Keyes in his latest Worldnutdaily column. Answer: All of them except him.

But for each one of the fatal flaws that Obama brings together, there is a GOP candidate who wraps that same flaw in packaging that appears, in other respects, to be diametrically opposed to Obama. On Israel, the Middle East and the ongoing threat of terrorist Islamic fundamentalism, for example, Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance is indistinguishable from Obama’s. On immigration, border security and the extension of benefits to illegal aliens, Rick Perry’s criticism and opposition to the deep concerns of patriotic Americans is much the same as Obama’s. On so-called abortion rights, the promotion of civil unions and the acceptance of gay marriage, Mitt Romney’s record of active support rivals Obama’s. When it comes to blaming American workers for the government-induced collapse of the most job-productive sectors of our economy, when it comes to excusing, shielding and defending the Federal Reserve System, when it comes to excusing the elite faction’s self-serving manipulation of the banking sector, Herman Cain’s dutiful apologetics are more than a match for anything we have seen from Barack Obama.

When it comes to contempt for the words of the U.S. Constitution, is there even one featured Republican candidate who has broken the discipline of silence, indifference or open contempt for the Constitution’s clear and plain requirements the elitists have imposed on any discussion of Obama’s failure to establish his constitutional eligibility for the office of president? Worse still, is there even one who has had the integrity to make it clear that the constitutional eligibility of Marco Rubio and other similarly situated Republicans is also questionable?

The current sham two-party system offers us a choice of fatal ills. Americans can embrace Obama, and see their country die quickly from general organ failure. Or they can embrace this or that GOP candidate and watch their country die a bit more slowly as external enemies devise and launch the fatal assaults that will complete the work begun on Sept. 11, 2001, or usurping judges and bureaucrats remove its constitutional brain, or aggressively globalist, secularist politicians force the pace of selfish depravity and abdication until the country’s spiritual liver fails or its moral heart gives out, or its financial circulatory system collapses, or invasively alien cancer cells metastasize, spreading deadly malaise throughout its body.

His solution? It’s all about God:

It may be that our demise is so far advanced that no word of warning will do any good, that no effort will avail to pierce the shroud of lies and manipulation being used to herd us toward destruction. But I believe, as America’s prevailing founders did, if we trust in God enough to follow with courage the logic of His self-evident truth, we will regain the confidence to call on Him to help our nation throw off the deadly shroud of this bipartisan sham. And I believe that once we do so, we will have eyes to see and hearts to follow the way by which we can restore our constitutional republic’s once and future strength.

No one tosses a word salad like Alan Keyes. He’s the Thomas Keller of vaguely eloquent-sounding gibberish.

Comments

  1. says

    Great. Now we only need to decide which one of the thousands of Christian sects is correct about the logic of His self-evident truth and we can solve all the problems on Earth!

  2. says

    Not that he makes any more sense, but Keyes is better to listen to than to read. It’s actually a shame that someone who can speak so eloquently is such a nut. Imagine if he used his gift in support of a worthy cause instead of his fundamentalist gibberish…

  3. danielrudolph says

    When I saw him speak back in 1996 (in a church), he talked about the importance of the separation of church and state because you didn’t want the government controlling churches. He seems to have gone off the deep end around the 2000 election.

    What’s odd here is that he isn’t just complaining that other Republicans are less crazy than him, as we frequently see from plenty of people. He’s just wrong. How is Ron Paul’s foreign policy anything like Obama’s, for instance? It seems to work like this: He believes in an imaginary Obama whose views are the opposite of Keyes (and your stereotypical Tea Party nutjob). If a Republican disagrees with him, they must be the same as Obama on that issue, regardless of what their actual positions are.

  4. ManOutOfTime says

    Yeah, he’s tossing salad, alright. His prose is so elegant, he really stands above the usual WND tripe – not that the intent or meaning is any better – it’s the same made-up, hateful bullshit – but it’s a well-tossed salad. But for the fact that he is African-American, his rhetoric is straight out of the late 19th Century playbook – same bloody shirt, same lumping of secular values with the boogeyman du jour. Do you suppose they actually have an actual playbook? I assume not; cons are not written down, they are passed on orally and via apprenticeship. But tell me this guy doesn’t take his queues from Calvinist anti-secularists, the theocrats who inveighed against Ingersoll and suffrage, and Father Coughlin. The tropes are spot-on, as is much of the language. Asshole.

  5. dingojack says

    Is god on the 2012 Presidential ticket?* No? Then I guess Mr Keyes won’t be able to vote for him then. What a shame!
    Dingo
    —-
    * Where is god’s long form birth certificate? Is god a ‘natural born citizen’ of the US? What are the nationalities of god’s parents? (if any, which is suspicious in itself bearing in mind how god likes to ‘pal around’ with shady middle-eastern characters) Where exactly was god born? And which god(s) does he worship?
    Surely no dyed-in-the-wool Republican could vote for god with that level of ‘illegality’ and suspicion hanging over him, right?

  6. d cwilson says

    Keyes attacks the GOP candidates for their views on foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, border security, and for failing to embrace birtherism.

    I always thought socialism was an economic system. But apparently, it now means “whatever policy Alan Keyes doesn’t like”.

  7. jameshanley says

    On so-called abortion rights, the promotion of civil unions and the acceptance of gay marriage, Mitt Romney’s record of active support rivals Obama’s.

    An unusual case of praising with faint damnation.

  8. says

    If you can be a “socialist” by rejecting any single right-wing talking point, it kind of makes the word meaningless, doesn’t it?

  9. Michael Heath says

    Alan Keyes:

    On so-called abortion rights . . .

    I know of only two arguments that support his implied claim abortion rights don’t exist:

    1) A god or gods dispense rights where we are slaves to this god or gods. Since there is no evidence of any gods nor any evidence regarding what these particular gods demand or desire of humans, execution of such a principle would require religious leaders discerning these rights. To do so they’d also require the power of the state to deny the exercise of activity their dogma and leaders claim are not rights. This requires a fascist form of theocratic state.

    2) The state determines what our rights are and are not. This form of government could vary, but all would be authoritarian where the state asserts we possess no rights except numerated “rights” they deem worthy which are practiced more as government-granted privileges than inalienable rights.

    In either case Mr. Keye’s position is wholly the opposite of the principles of the U.S., as always. It’s obvious that fleshing out Mr. Keye’s arguments always leads to example 1 as it does for other wingnuts similar to him, Judge Roy Moore, Ellis Washington, Bryan Fischer, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry. Most of this list are too stupid and shallow-thinking to realize it. Yet Mr. Keye’s position with my obvious conclusion is never brought up by the media when these people are being interviewed.

  10. Ben P says

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance is indistinguishable from Obama’s.

    The hell you say. I’m not 100% certain what Paul’s “Israel” stance is, but Paul’s foreign policy in general is “let the rest of the world deal with its own damn problems, it’s not our job.”

    That’s decidedly not Obama’s stance, although Obama doesn’t quite have the zeal for interventionism that Cheney, Wolfowitz et al. had.

  11. slc1 says

    Re Ben P @ #10

    As best I can tell, Representative Paul is basically an isolationist. As pertains to Israel, AFAIK, his position is that that nation is on its own, just like all the other nations in the world. It is my understanding, his position is that all foreign aid should be phased out, including aid to Israel.

    It will surprise many who read and comment here but I am in agreement with the representative as to aid to Israel. I think it should be phased out, as they really don’t need it any more. Let’s remember that the aid to Israel, to the tune of 3 billion per year (and 2.2 billion per year to Egypt), is a result of the Camp David agreement in 1979 and is really a bribe offered by then President James Earl Carter for the two nations to sign on the dotted line and behave themselves. At that time, the GDP of Israel was about 1/3 of what it is now so the aid today represents a far smaller fraction of today’s GDP of that nation. Not to mention the fact that Israel has come through the worldwide recession in better shape then either the US or Europe.

    The bottom line is that both nations would be better served by phasing out aid to Israel. In particular, the Government of Israel would no longer have to ask permission from the President of the US to defend themselves and the US would no longer be accused of approving actions that Israel’s neighbors find objectionable.

  12. dochopper says

    Mr Brayton

    Mr Keyes is a fine example of if He can’t Dazzle folks with Brilliance ,Then He will Baffle them with BullSh*t.

  13. slc1 says

    Re Addiepray @ #14

    According to Wikipedia, Senator Rubio was born in the US so apparently the question is as to whether either or both of his parents were citizens at the time, or so goes the argument. According to the current interpretations of the 14th Amendment, it makes no difference as he has birthright citizenship but that troubles the Rubio birthers not an iota.

  14. Michael Heath says

    slc1 writes:

    It will surprise many who read and comment here but I am in agreement with the representative [Ron Paul] as to aid to Israel.

    This reader is surprised, pleasantly so.

Leave a Reply