For people who don’t care for the three candidates big name candidates that the news media is pushing, Alan Keyes is someone to cautiously consider for president. He may run as either a Constitution Party candidate or as an independent. This is my third post in a series on third-party and independent candidates for president.
At first glance, Keyes seems to be staunch, right wing conservative dedicated to restoring God-given liberties which have long ago been lost. If you look on his website, he says that he is 100% pro-life, against gay marriage, against anti-disciminatory laws for gays, against “health-based” sex education, pro-school choice, pro-second amendment, pro-border security, pro-Fair Tax, anti-Federal Reserve, and anti-globalist.
But Keyes sometimes seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth.
On the one hand, he says that he is against affirmative action, quotas, and in general “preferential treatment for groups defined by race or sex”. But I have also heard him say that he is in favor of reparations.
While talking as an anti-globist on the one hand, he says, “The original purpose of the UN is quite clear, and I don't believe it's blamable…Should this pernicious tendency persist, the United States will have to withdraw from the United Nations…” and that the U.S. should “…firmly maintain our ongoing international responsibilities as a sovereign nation and world leader.” What does he mean should this “pernicious tendency”. Forming a One World Government isn’t “blamable”? Hasn’t the UN already violated our enough by forcing us to go along with corrupt oil-for-food programs and rules for fighting wars and environmental rules which are not enforced on other nations? How are we to be a “world leader”? By being the policeman of the world?
Alan Keyes says about the Iraq war, “…it was not what would have been my choice… [but] after we won the military victory in Iraq …what we should have done was to keep the security aspects to ourselves and turn all the political junk over to the UN.”
Keyes allegedly has CFR connections, and is a member of the supposedly conservative, but secretive Council for National Policy, which was addressed recently by John McCain.
Keyes criticized Hillary Clinton for “carpetbagging” to New York to run for senator. But then he hypocritically did the exact same thing by moving from Maryland to Illinois to run against Barack Obama (of all people) in the wake of the Ryan scandal.
Some people who have worked in his campaign have said that he just runs for office to make a living with no real intentions of winning.
Keyes is a Roman Catholic.
I guess I would vote Keyes if he were the only other candidate besides McCain, Hillary or Obama, and a murder-legalizing Libertarian.
But even if he really does run, I may not get that chance. He has already run as GOP candidate, which disqualifies him to run in states which have “sore loser” laws. This is another reason to hope that he does not get the CP nomination. My state (Ohio) has such laws, but I don’t know if this law applies in this case since Keyes’ name did not actually appear on the ballot here. But I read on Keyes’ website that he is mounting a campaign to change the law in Texas.
At first glance, Keyes seems to be staunch, right wing conservative dedicated to restoring God-given liberties which have long ago been lost. If you look on his website, he says that he is 100% pro-life, against gay marriage, against anti-disciminatory laws for gays, against “health-based” sex education, pro-school choice, pro-second amendment, pro-border security, pro-Fair Tax, anti-Federal Reserve, and anti-globalist.
But Keyes sometimes seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth.
On the one hand, he says that he is against affirmative action, quotas, and in general “preferential treatment for groups defined by race or sex”. But I have also heard him say that he is in favor of reparations.
While talking as an anti-globist on the one hand, he says, “The original purpose of the UN is quite clear, and I don't believe it's blamable…Should this pernicious tendency persist, the United States will have to withdraw from the United Nations…” and that the U.S. should “…firmly maintain our ongoing international responsibilities as a sovereign nation and world leader.” What does he mean should this “pernicious tendency”. Forming a One World Government isn’t “blamable”? Hasn’t the UN already violated our enough by forcing us to go along with corrupt oil-for-food programs and rules for fighting wars and environmental rules which are not enforced on other nations? How are we to be a “world leader”? By being the policeman of the world?
Alan Keyes says about the Iraq war, “…it was not what would have been my choice… [but] after we won the military victory in Iraq …what we should have done was to keep the security aspects to ourselves and turn all the political junk over to the UN.”
Keyes allegedly has CFR connections, and is a member of the supposedly conservative, but secretive Council for National Policy, which was addressed recently by John McCain.
Keyes criticized Hillary Clinton for “carpetbagging” to New York to run for senator. But then he hypocritically did the exact same thing by moving from Maryland to Illinois to run against Barack Obama (of all people) in the wake of the Ryan scandal.
Some people who have worked in his campaign have said that he just runs for office to make a living with no real intentions of winning.
Keyes is a Roman Catholic.
I guess I would vote Keyes if he were the only other candidate besides McCain, Hillary or Obama, and a murder-legalizing Libertarian.
But even if he really does run, I may not get that chance. He has already run as GOP candidate, which disqualifies him to run in states which have “sore loser” laws. This is another reason to hope that he does not get the CP nomination. My state (Ohio) has such laws, but I don’t know if this law applies in this case since Keyes’ name did not actually appear on the ballot here. But I read on Keyes’ website that he is mounting a campaign to change the law in Texas.
I will get to candidates who I would be more likely to vote for in the coming weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment