Alan Keyes: Ron Paul's anti-Constitution vote

[RonPaulFanInGA]

h XXp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243145


So Obama has signed the legislation his henchmen pushed through the lame-duck session of Congress, intended to force personnel serving in the United States military to accept homosexual activity as lawful and legitimate conduct. Would this legislation have passed without the support of Republican congressmen like Ron Paul and senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts? Of course, Paul is the guru of some who claim to be staunch advocates of liberty; and without the votes and financial support of grass-roots conservatives throughout the country, Brown would never have won election. He obtained that support because the specious "money not morals" criteria allowed Republican media hacks (at Fox News and elsewhere) to identify him as a "conservative" who would oppose the Obama faction's socialist agenda.

Now, the prime source of visceral conservative opposition to socialism is its proven propensity to expand the sphere of government coercion and control. But no form of coercion is more deeply offensive to human dignity and self-respect than the coercion of conscience. When the force of law is abused to compel people to perform or tolerate actions they conscientiously believe to be intrinsically immoral, this usually announces the penultimate stage of tyrannical oppression.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was intended to circumvent state sovereignty to force all Americans to cooperate in the enforcement of slavery. The angry moral revulsion of anti-slavery citizens in the free states led to actions that matured into the kind of open, organized resistance that announced the onset of the American Civil War. Forced to choose between obeying God's law and submitting to human legislation that violated it, many chose to follow the dictates of natural conscience. In this they acted in the spirit of the American founders, who defied the dictates of the British monarch rather than accept impositions levied without regard for the requirements of God-ordained natural justice.

Proponents of the move to force military personnel to accept homosexuality seek to forestall the moral reaction against it with the argument that they are defending the rights of homosexuals just as Union forces defended the unalienable rights of people enslaved in the Southern States; or the U.S. government the civil rights of black Americans subjected to racial segregation and discrimination. According to America's founding principles, the security of their rights is the overall purpose for which people establish institutions of government. Therefore, they argue, coercion that serves this purpose does not destroy liberty. It preserves it.

But by invoking the doctrine of unalienable rights, the proponents of coerced tolerance for homosexuality are assuming that homosexual conduct fits the paradigm for right action that alone makes sense of the notion that justice requires respect for unalienable rights. In everyday parlance these days, we use the term "right" as though it is synonymous with the freedom to act as we choose. But if the choice is wrong, it makes no sense to assert that the chooser has the right to act on it (i.e., has right on his side as he does so.) What someone can do (has the physical capacity or opportunity to do) logically differs from what they ought to do. This is in fact the rationale for all criminal laws. It's what allows us to recognize that simply because an armed assailant has the opportunity and power to take someone's life or goods that does not grant the right to do so. It doesn't make it right.

Every time we assert a right, we are making a statement about what is right. Implicit, therefore, in the enforced legitimization of so-called sexual relations between people of the same sex is the institution of marriage between homosexuals a matter of right. This is, in fact, the reason the homosexual lobby pushed so hard for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The tacit, de facto tolerance of homosexual conduct was not enough. It had to be recognized as a matter of enforceable right. Only as such did it constitute the basis for the next logical step, which is to demand equal protection of that right under the law. Enforced acceptance of homosexual conduct must lead, as a matter of logical necessity to enforced provision for homosexual marriage. Since military chaplains are permitted by law to marry heterosexual couples, homosexual couples will demand the same privilege. The campaign to legitimize homosexual conduct in the military is thus a strategic maneuver intended to place the U.S. government in a position under federal law that directly opposes and supersedes strong opposition to homosexual marriage among the various states. The military services thus become national agencies for fundamental social change, metastasizing homosexual marriage throughout the body politic.

When Republicans like Scott Brown voted to support the movement to coerce our military personnel to accept homosexuality, did they consciously cooperate in this strategy, or was it the result of thoughtless incompetence? If done with due deliberation, such a vote gives the lie to the specious advocacy of states' rights those like Ron Paul use to cloak their refusal to defend the authority and rights of the natural family. It reveals them as fellow travelers in the movement intended to redefine the doctrine of rights in a way that promotes the pernicious notion that they are invented by government rather than authorized by the Creator God. Their action is not some minor disagreement with right-wing religious zealots. It is a decisive break with the understanding of right that is the basis for the U.S. Constitution, and the idea of limited government it implements. Is that conservative? Is it American? Is it even remotely consistent with the self-evident truths America's claim to freedom was justly founded upon?

Anyone here actually like this kook?

[sailingaway]

/// dup post

[sailingaway]

Previously he said Ron was 'homosexualizing the army', you can find it in hot topics.

He doesn't interest me, one way or the other. Keyes is jealous of Ron's popularity, or seems to be. He is unreasonably furious at everything Ron does, for someone who claims to be both Christian and a Constitutionalist. The fact is, no one would even known this article were there if it weren't about Ron, to draw clicks.

However, given recent copyright cases against blogs where more than a few paragraphs of an article were pasted, you might want to just put in a paragraph and the broken link.

[specsaregood]

you gotta remember, this is the guy that has disowned his daughter because she came out as a lesbian.

[james1906]

Alan Keyes is that drunk guy at the bar who won't leave you alone.

[freshjiva]

Just read his article. I'm impressed at Keyes linguistic sharpness.

Unfortunately for him, I don't think he properly understands the implications of personal liberty.

By repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell", the government isn't coercing anyone to accept nor reject any sexual preference whatsoever. It simply allows ALL individuals to be open about their orientation. The government isn't intruding on anyone's liberty. It's doing its job by equivocating liberty for all individuals.

It's clear to me Alan Keyes doesn't understand that you cannot pick and choose what civil liberties to protect. Liberty cannot be chopped up into pieces, and if it is, you run into inconsistencies. That's why you have the Left/Right paradigm we see today.

No one seems to understand liberty as a whole, contiguous philosophy of government.

[teacherone]

he says the right things once in a while

[Philhelm]

Alan Keyes sucked my dick once. True story. It isn't gay if I get my dick sucked, right? Or if we didn't kiss and cuddle?

[Sola_Fide]

If I could read in to this a little bit:

There is a debate going on right now (mostly because of the Tea Parties) between the old guard moral majority conservatives and the new liberty wing conservatives.

Because of Ron and Rand, these ideas are beginning to surface again and the moral majority wing is trying to fight back intellectually.

But Alan sometimes says some good constitutional things sometimes (when he isn't hanging like a dingleberry off Ron's behind):)

[Athena]

What an asshole.

[Churchill2004]

you gotta remember, this is the guy that has disowned his daughter because she came out as a lesbian.

I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me at all.

This is nothing more than the angry flailing of bigotry's last gasp, hiding (as it usually does) behind bitter and nonsensical complaints that tolerance is being "coerced". At least Mike Gravel had the dignity to quietly retire when he couldn't even get a minor third party to accept him after being laughed out of the major-party primaries. And it takes some serious crazy to be rejected by the most misleadingly named party in American politics, the "Constitution" Party. He's been making a fool of himself for years- I highly suggest watching the Obama-Keyes US Senate election debates for entertainment value (and also to understand the early appeal of Obama- like most Presidents, his public speaking was at its best before he started running for the Oval Office).

I second the notion that he's obviously bitter and angry at Ron Paul's success, too.

[agar]

Sorry guys, but nutjob Keyes is 100% correct on this one.

Ron's inexplicable support of this pro-homosexual law is a deep disappointment.

Ron is wrong on this one, constitutionally, morally, militarily AND politically....dead wrong.

The 2012 primary was already an uphill battle for us, but now his candidacy is dead in the water.

[angelatc]

he says the right things once in a while

Yes, and he's a gifted orator as well. But he's a ultra-religious social conservative - scary, scary, scary.

I think this is the first thing I've ever seen from him that didn't end up as an abortion rant.

[sailingaway]

Sorry guys, but nutjob Keyes is 100% correct on this one.

Ron's inexplicable support of this pro-homosexual law is a deep disappointment.

Ron is wrong on this one, constitutionally, morally, militarily AND politically....dead wrong.

The 2012 primary was already an uphill battle for us, but now his candidacy is dead in the water.

You're new. Were you ever on Ron's side to begin with? Just wondering.

[angelatc]

Sorry guys, but nutjob Keyes is 100% correct on this one.

Ron's inexplicable support of this pro-homosexual law is a deep disappointment.

Ron is wrong on this one, constitutionally, morally, militarily AND politically....dead wrong.

The 2012 primary was already an uphill battle for us, but now his candidacy is dead in the water.

Before this passed, I would have guessed you to be right, but really, the only people who are having serious conniptions about this are the same people who we distanced ourselves from a few years back.

[angelatc]

You're new. Were you ever on Ron's side to begin with? Just wondering.

Maybe he's a banned Freeper. Let's hold his hand a little. Or I will - it might be considered too gay if you did it. :)

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry guys, but nutjob Keyes is 100% correct on this one.

Ron's inexplicable support of this pro-homosexual law is a deep disappointment.

Ron is wrong on this one, constitutionally, morally, militarily AND politically....dead wrong.

The 2012 primary was already an uphill battle for us, but now his candidacy is dead in the water.


I didn't agree with the vote. I take Keyes position as well. But I don't think RP 2012 is "dead" at all. It is just a vote we will have to explain to conservatives, kind of like the tax bill.

[sailingaway]

Maybe he's a banned Freeper. Let's hold his hand a little. Or I will - it might be considered too gay if you did it. :)

Go for it. But with attitudes like this I'm not seeing where he would have been banned from Freep.

[specsaregood]

Go for it. But with attitudes like this I'm not seeing where he would have been banned from Freep.

I'm glad agar is here for reeducation. :)

Please argue with this logic:
Paul said...


I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."


DADT was awful legislation both from a standpoint of fiscal sanity, discrimination and national security. Why should we support legislation that wastes money spent on training, keeps people that want to serve their country from serving or offers a very powerful way to potentialy blackmail our closeted military members?

Dr. Paul will lose no support because of this. Those having conniption fits most likely already hated paul for plenty of other reasons. On the otherhand it goes a long ways to combat the charges of collectivism against Dr. Paul and may just help him get new support.

[Imaginos]

you gotta remember, this is the guy that has disowned his daughter because she came out as a lesbian.
Yeah, I remember that story.
He's crazy.

[Imaginos]

Alan Keyes is that drunk guy at the bar who won't leave you alone.

+1

[agar]

You're new. Were you ever on Ron's side to begin with? Just wondering.

Is this some sort of Ron Paul cult? In which if we don't agree with everything Ron does we are deemed to be heretics / trolls?

If Ron starts to gain traction in 2012, a single attack ad from the Palin or Huck camp, will sink Ron in the Bible Belt because of this vote.

Why wasn't DADT good enough for them? Now they want to openly come out and force others to accept them in the barracks, shower with them etc.

This is a slap in the face to our servicemen. What about their rights? Ron says he against "force" - but this vote forces troops to accept homosexuals into their everyday lives.

I'll still support Ron, but only with a token $50. I doubt I'll kick in $500 like I did in 2008
I'm pissed about this.

[Sola_Fide]

Is this some sort of Ron Paul cult? In which if we don't agree with everything Ron does we are deemed to be heretics / trolls?

If Ron starts to gain traction in 2012, a single attack ad from the Palin or Huck camp, will sink Ron in the Bible Belt because of this vote.

Why wasn't DADT good enough for them? Now they want to openly come out and force others to accept them in the barracks, shower with them etc.

This is a slap in the face to our servicemen. What about their rights? Ron says he against "force" - but this vote forces troops to accept homosexuals into their everyday lives.

I'll still support Ron, but only with a token $50. I doubt I'll kick in $500 like I did in 2008
I'm pissed about this.


Methinks you're overreacting.

Would you rather support a big government war-monger in 12? No? Then relax.

[specsaregood]

Is this some sort of Ron Paul cult? In which if we don't agree with everything Ron does we are deemed to be heretics / trolls?

Sometimes. :)



If Ron starts to gain traction in 2012, a single attack ad from the Palin or Huck camp, will sink Ron in the Bible Belt because of this vote.

I doubt that.



Why wasn't DADT good enough for them? Now they want to openly come out and force others to accept them in the barracks, shower with them etc.

I just listed 3 good reasons why. how about you address those?



This is a slap in the face to our servicemen. What about their rights? Ron says he against "force" - but this vote forces troops to accept homosexuals into their everyday lives.

They have a right not to volunteer to serve. It doesn't force them to get something put in their butt. Dr. Paul has said many times he thinks it should be a no-fraternization policy.



I'm pissed about this.
Get over it. He has been correct on so many issues, perhaps he is a step ahead of you on this one.

[RM918]

Is this some sort of Ron Paul cult? In which if we don't agree with everything Ron does we are deemed to be heretics / trolls?

If Ron starts to gain traction in 2012, a single attack ad from the Palin or Huck camp, will sink Ron in the Bible Belt because of this vote.

Why wasn't DADT good enough for them? Now they want to openly come out and force others to accept them in the barracks, shower with them etc.

This is a slap in the face to our servicemen. What about their rights? Ron says he against "force" - but this vote forces troops to accept homosexuals into their everyday lives.

I'll still support Ron, but only with a token $50. I doubt I'll kick in $500 like I did in 2008
I'm pissed about this.

So signing up to risk being blown to smithereens for no good cause is totally acceptable, but being around homosexuals is 'punishing' the troops? I agree with Ron's stance. Let anyone in, and ANYONE who behaves badly no matter what gender or orientation should be disciplined according to the rules in place.

Is making a white guy serve with a black guy 'forcing' him to accept black people? No, you join the military and you accept what that means. You have to work with people even if you don't like those people, if you can't do that then don't enlist. You must not really care about being in the military if simply being around a homosexual 'punishes' you.

[sailingaway]

Is this some sort of Ron Paul cult? In which if we don't agree with everything Ron does we are deemed to be heretics / trolls?

If Ron starts to gain traction in 2012, a single attack ad from the Palin or Huck camp, will sink Ron in the Bible Belt because of this vote.


Just to explain my comment, no, I have no problem with people arguing when they disagree with Ron. But coming to a supporter site and multiple times in your first month here saying 'no use supporting him, he's already lost' sure smacks of concern trolling to me. The vote already happened. So you are suggesting we just give up our candidate? Doesn't sound very promising for you, from what I know of the people here....

[Sola_Fide]

I wonder how effective an all gay regiment would be?

[sailingaway]

I wonder how effective an all gay regiment would be?

From what I understand it worked pretty well in Greece, but perhaps I have my history wrong.

[JohnEngland]

Apparently she's a socialist and believes that housing, healthcare etc. are human rights. Looks like trouble, too:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Face7yc.jpg

[Icymudpuppy]

How is anyone being coerced to accept homosexuality? If you don't like that some of your coworkers might be gay, go find another job. This works regardless of what the job is, including federal military service. The postal service, forest service, national park service, fbi, cia, irs, etc ad nauseum all have openly gay employees. Why should the DOD be any different?

[Brett85]

Repealing "don't ask don't tell" doesn't allow "homosexual behavior" in the military. That is already banned. It simply prevents gays from being outed and getting kicked out of the military. So Keyes has his facts wrong throughout this entire article.

[agar]

Just to explain my comment, no, I have no problem with people arguing when they disagree with Ron. But coming to a supporter site and multiple times in your first month here saying 'no use supporting him, he's already lost' sure smacks of concern trolling to me. The vote already happened. So you are suggesting we just give up our candidate? Doesn't sound very promising for you, from what I know of the people here....

With regards to Ron's chances in a GOP primary, Im just being a realist.

The neo-cons and the war-Christians will never give up on their "Holy War" against terror. A peace candidate is very unlikely to ever win a GOP presidential primary.

What I hope to see is Ron Paul get up to 15% and a shit load of media publicity - and then throw it all behind an charismatic Independent run by someone like Jesse Ventura.

Ventura is not perfect, but I admire his courage on 911 truth, and he has treated Ron with great respect. Ron Paul would certainly have the ear of a President Ventura.

[specsaregood]

With regards to Ron's chances in a GOP primary, Im just being a realist.

You mean the same GOP that had a gay chairman during bush's years?

[agar]

You mean the same GOP that had a gay chairman during bush's years?

A gay chairman who was a warmonger Im sure.

Ron is not a warmonger, so he will not win a GOP primary. I used to belong to GOP clubs so trust me, I know. Yahoo chicken-hawk antiMuslim bigots dominate the GOP.

[silentshout]

Sorry guys, but nutjob Keyes is 100% correct on this one.

Ron's inexplicable support of this pro-homosexual law is a deep disappointment.

Ron is wrong on this one, constitutionally, morally, militarily AND politically....dead wrong.

The 2012 primary was already an uphill battle for us, but now his candidacy is dead in the water.

......... I have no words.

[Brett85]

With regards to Ron's chances in a GOP primary, Im just being a realist.

The neo-cons and the war-Christians will never give up on their "Holy War" against terror. A peace candidate is very unlikely to ever win a GOP presidential primary.

What I hope to see is Ron Paul get up to 15% and a shit load of media publicity - and then throw it all behind an charismatic Independent run by someone like Jesse Ventura.

Ventura is not perfect, but I admire his courage on 911 truth, and he has treated Ron with great respect. Ron Paul would certainly have the ear of a President Ventura.

Ron Paul has a better chance of winning a GOP primary then Jesse Ventura does of winning an independent bid for President. The only people who would vote for Ventura would be the nutty 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

[johnrocks]

He's an idiot, homosexuals have served in our military since before our founding, he's just the black version of John Hagee ,iow's, an idiot that's using the Bible to further his cause, nothing at all to do with the Constitution.

[Churchill2004]

Ron Paul has a better chance of winning a GOP primary then Jesse Ventura does of winning an independent bid for President. The only people who would vote for Ventura would be the nutty 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

I think, TC, we've found something we can wholeheartedly agree on! Ventura is a smarmy ass and an unprincipled attention whore.

[Sola_Fide]

Apparently she's a socialist and believes that housing, healthcare etc. are human rights. Looks like trouble, too:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Face7yc.jpg
Ewwwwww! She looks like Alan!

[sailingaway]

With regards to Ron's chances in a GOP primary, Im just being a realist.

The neo-cons and the war-Christians will never give up on their "Holy War" against terror. A peace candidate is very unlikely to ever win a GOP presidential primary.

What I hope to see is Ron Paul get up to 15% and a shit load of media publicity - and then throw it all behind an charismatic Independent run by someone like Jesse Ventura.

Ventura is not perfect, but I admire his courage on 911 truth, and he has treated Ron with great respect. Ron Paul would certainly have the ear of a President Ventura.

So in other words, you DO have an ax to grind in trying to persuade people here they 'might as well throw their support elsewhere'....

Again, I don't think you will have much luck, and if that is your main reason for being here, it is a lousy one.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ventura is not perfect, but I admire his courage on 911 truth, and he has treated Ron with great respect. Ron Paul would certainly have the ear of a President Ventura.

So DADT is apparently a near deal-breaker for you, but 9/11 truther crap earns a thumbs up? :rolleyes:

Sorry to break the news to you: but the GOP primary would much sooner make a peace candidate like Ron Paul its nominee than the American people as a whole would vote in a national general election for President for an independent truther candidate.

[agitator]

Alan Keyes is that drunk guy at the bar who won't leave you alone.

Google "local straight bars" before you go out next time.

[agitator]

Alan Keyes sucked my dick once. True story. It isn't gay if I get my dick sucked, right? Or if we didn't kiss and cuddle?

Did you know it was a dude at the time?

[Zatch]

It's not like the military was a bastion of morality and chastity before the repeal of DADT.

[Eric21ND]

Keyes is a theocrat. He's 10X worse than Huckabee in this regard. Keyes wants to go back to the Puritanism of the Bay colonies. His holier-than-thou attitude got old in the 90's...now he's desperately trying to stay in the spotlight by attacking RP.

The guy is a clown and cut from the same cloth as that Rev Phelps douche bag.

[cindy25]

a neo-con that wants to bring back slavery (the draft) and wants reparations for blacks; big deal-he can read a teleprompter, so can the socialist

[Ricky201]

The military is full of fornicators, adulterers, and non-Christians. I'm still quite confused why there so much emphasis on the homosexual issue. If we're talking of terms in morality that Mr. Keyes describes, than we've been fucked from the get go. Everyone is a sinner, but not everyone gets kicked out of the military for being a fornicator, an adulterer, or for denouncing God.

The only two military men I am close with are gay and have served in Iraq for multiple tours. They never supported the war, but they were there for their fellow troops (both were medics) and didn't want to leave them out on the battlefield to die. Tell me how many of these bible belt elitist such as Mr. Keyes hold that type of honor? I rather we debate about the immoral ways that the US uses it military instead of chastising the men and women who are used to fight it. Otherwise, we have exhausted a minor issue in exchange for a more moral and important one.

[freshjiva]

Is making a white guy serve with a black guy 'forcing' him to accept black people? No, you join the military and you accept what that means. You have to work with people even if you don't like those people, if you can't do that then don't enlist. You must not really care about being in the military if simply being around a homosexual 'punishes' you.

+1. This is what agar doesn't seem to understand. Repealing DADT isn't forcing anyone to accept or reject anything.

When are people going to understand that we're all individuals rather than members of groups...

[Zap!]

I don't like the way he is singling out Ron Paul, but hey...Alan is a lot better on this issue than Paul is, what can I say.

[Daamien]

Why wasn't DADT good enough for them? Now they want to openly come out and force others to accept them in the barracks, shower with them etc.

If you don't think that gay people already serve in the military in which they live in barracks and shower with heterosexual troops then you're both naive and wrong. Those in the military are expected to act professionally and make sacrifices for their unit and country. Any examples of unprofessional behavior will not be tolerated, regardless of the troop's sexual orientation. Do you believe that homosexuals are incapable of serving professionally? Evidence proves otherwise given the fact that they already do while closeted in our military and openly in many other foreign militaries. You're just being a bigot, I'm not going to sugar-coat it.


This is a slap in the face to our servicemen. What about their rights? Ron says he against "force" - but this vote forces troops to accept homosexuals into their everyday lives.

Again, not all existing servicemen are heterosexual, so this isn't a "slap in the face to servicemen", it's a slap in the face to bigots who don't want to associate with homosexuals who are capable of serving professionally, willing to die for their country, and like every serviceman must sacrifice their individuality to the group.


I'm pissed about this.

You have a right to be pissed about whatever you want. Anyone else has a right to logically ignore your overreaction or call you out for your prejudice.

[ForeverAlone]

Alan Keyes sucked my dick once. True story. It isn't gay if I get my dick sucked, right? Or if we didn't kiss and cuddle?

It's not gay if your balls don't touch. So you're cool.

[amy31416]

Why do so many people obsess about gays?

How about this: Don't Ask, Don't Care.....

[specsaregood]

Why do so many people obsess about gays?

I think you know the reason.

because deep-down they really want another man's penis in them.

[RonPaulCult]

Sadly, a few people here hate gay people more than they love liberty and equality. The government may never single out any group. DO YOU HEAR ME? Not ANY group. That includes the ones that you hate, and the ones that go against your religion. Choose liberty or choose hate, you can't have both.

[Imaginos]

Sadly, a few people here hate gay people more than they love liberty and equality. The government may never single out any group. DO YOU HEAR ME? Not ANY group. That includes the ones that you hate, and the ones that go against your religion. Choose liberty or choose hate, you can't have both.
+1

[torchbearer]

http://catholickermit.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/muppetspartycruise_kermit.jpg

Alan Keyes. "It ain't easy being a fucking retard."