Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Author! Author!
See other Author! Author! Articles

Title: Alan Keyes and the Neocon Destruction of Third Parties
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 14, 2010
Author: Maggie Bloom
Post Date: 2010-06-15 00:03:19 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Constitution Party*     Subscribe to *Constitution Party*
Keywords: None
Views: 2312
Comments: 32

Alan Keyes and the Neocon Destruction of Third Parties

By Maggie Bloom
Sacramento Central Committee
American Independent Party

I’ve really come to dislike Alan Keyes. He says all the right conservative things but what he does is destructive to the Constitutional movement. I have trouble believing it is not planned.

First time I noticed it was in 2006. Illegal immigration had finally hit the main stream media as an issue. Citizen border patrol groups sprang up and huge amounts of money were donated to build an Israeli style fence along the Mexican border. The money was all funneled through a non profit called Declaration Alliance chaired by Alan Keyes. (see: Alan Keyes and the Minuteman Morass) The money disappeared, the fence was never built and the movement has all but died.

Then Ron Paul decided to run for President in 2008. It lit a fire under Constitutionalists that even the main stream media had to pay attention too. With Constitutional issues being brought to the forefront, third parties were in a good position to become a viable alternative to the Ds and Rs.

The American Independent party, as the third largest party in the nation, in affiliation with the Constitution Party was poised to strike at the heart of the status quo system. The Constitution Party put forth well known conservative Pastor Chuck Baldwin. In steps Alan Keyes to reek his destructive havoc.

The leadership of the American Independent Party pushed for Keyes to be the Constitution Party nominee even though the AIP electorate had chosen Don Grundmann as their candidate. So much for holding a primary. The leadership, in its allegiance to Keyes, felt no obligation to support the rightfully elected candidate.

When the leadership of AIP, now referred to as the Robinson faction, failed to push Keyes’ candidacy on the Constitution Party, they chose loyalty to Keyes over Constitutional principles and split the party in two. The split took Pastor Baldwin off the ballot in California and replaced him with Alan Keyes.

The destruction continues. The King faction of AIP wants to remain with the Constitution Party. This election year they tried to regain control of AIP by putting up a bunch of candidates for office. Not only were the candidates like Chelene Nightengale great candidates but it would have effectively given control of AIP over to the King faction.

Alan Keyes needs to retain ballot access in California though. Mark Seidenberg and Markham Robinson, the Robinson faction, have moved to disenfranchise these newly elected candidates. They plan to have the State Convention prior to the candidates being certified by the Secretary of State keeping them off the State Central Committee and prior to the election code mandated county organizational meetings. This allows Seidenberg and Robinson to fake a quorum by filling “empty” spots with their cronies, keeping the Constitution Party out of California and Alan Keyes on the ballot.

So much for viable third parties.


Poster Comment:

I'm giving blanket permission for anyone to re-post, reprint, redistribute and disseminate at will. Subscribe to *Constitution Party*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#2. To: farmfriend (#0)

The destruction continues

I have never been fond of Alan Keyes and not due to any conspiracy theory of tryin' to keep a brother down.

abraxas  posted on  2010-06-15   0:23:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: abraxas, christine (#2)

I have never been fond of Alan Keyes and not due to any conspiracy theory of tryin' to keep a brother down.

I couldn't vote for him.

Hell, he's even darker than the one we got in there now!

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2010-06-15   1:33:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: HOUNDDAWG (#3)

lol. keyes is not on my list of respectable darkies. ;)

christine  posted on  2010-06-15   12:15:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: christine, James Deffenbach, bluegrass, randge, Jethro_Tull, Original_Intent (#12)

keyes is not on my list of respectable (censored) ;)

You know where he lost me?

Years ago he had me going with his powerful pro-constitution rhetoric and his attacks on his alma mater (Harvard) but where the people empowering constitution leaves off he apparently believes that The Bible takes over.

Any politician who believes (or asserts) that America is/was blessed by GAWD makes me nervous.

If elected he'd no doubt try to codify his religious beliefs into law just as the pain-in-the-ass Danbury Baptists urged President Thomas Jefferson to do in 1802.

Left to their mischief the Christian Jihadists would censor pop culture and without the slightest doubt about the infallibility of their beliefs.

And, dammit, I like Stefani Germanotta's BAD ROMANCE and David Allen Coe's My Wife Ran Off With a (Nigerian)

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2010-06-15   14:42:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: HOUNDDAWG (#15)

I think Jefferson was, as was frequently the case, on the money in maintaining a separation of Church and State. Of course the atheists, and many Jews, try to distort this as a prohibition against religious belief and expressions of it in the public square. The separation simply means that the State has no right, and no place, in supporting any one religious group to the detriment of others. The position was not to eliminate the influence religion nor prohibit its practice but rather to prevent The State from using The Church as an extension and tool for subjugation.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-06-15   14:50:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Original_Intent (#16)

I think Jefferson was, as was frequently the case, on the money in maintaining a separation of Church and State. Of course the atheists, and many Jews, try to distort this as a prohibition against religious belief and expressions of it in the public square. The separation simply means that the State has no right, and no place, in supporting any one religious group to the detriment of others. The position was not to eliminate the influence religion nor prohibit its practice but rather to prevent The State from using The Church as an extension and tool for subjugation.

That's well put.

Sadly, when the IRS and the 501 C(3) tax exempt status was codified all of the major denoms went for it (even though they were already immune to taxation) in the belief that it would be official recognition of "true religions" and suppress the Tony Alamos, The Rashneesh, etc.,.

One of the first "victims" was Sgt Alvin C. York, whose claim of conscientious objector was denied because his little Tennessee hill church was not a "govt approved religion." (Amish and Mennonite men were persecuted before for refusing to serve, but they also held fast in their refusal to seek exemption and were eventually grandfathered in)

But, the main stream churches soon found that they could be stripped of their tax exempt status and put under a court appointed master if they preached anti homo, anti foreign involvement, etc., sermons on Sunday. (BushCo was particularly vicious against preachers who criticized them) And although clearly political in nature John Hagee's mission is not a problem for the govt, though.

If King George had that power the Revolution would have never gotten off the ground.

It was the gutsy sermons by courageous patriots that helped make independence possible.

The "Wall Of Separation" was not intended to keep Pat Robertson from running for the presidency. The media abuses this interpretation whenever a "Christian" toys with a run at the office.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want him as president, either. But, I don't want the media or the govt deciding who is or isn't acceptable, especially at a time when US Servicemen are dying and killing for Israel.

All one needs to hear is a speech by a fanatical Zio-(pseudo) Christian to understand the danger of allowing them to make policy.

Because they're "Gawd's Chosen Peepul" it's okay to murder any heathens' wives and children in their sleep with laser guided weapons. Or our troops may kick their doors in and hose them to death for thinking unapproved thoughts, thoughts that are not allowed in the free country we call America.

The Wall only blocks certain religions, or so it seems.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2010-06-16   18:01:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

        There are no replies to Comment # 20.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest