Still Crazy After All These Years
By John K. Wilson, AlterNet
Posted on August 16, 2004, Printed on June 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/19552/
The new Illinois candidate for the U.S. Senate, conservative Republican Alan Keyes, may be most famous for a liberal act: jumping into a mosh pit while Rage Against the Machine performed, body-surfing the crowd, and exchanging body slams with a spiky-haired teen as a means of getting filmmaker Michael Moore's endorsement for president in 2000. As Moore put it, "We knew Alan Keyes was insane. We just didn't know how insane until that moment."
"Insane" is an adjective that may be tossed around a lot regarding Keyes because he has been saying a lot of kooky things for a long time. Mostly, his extremist ideas have been overlooked. In the 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential contests, no candidate saw Keyes as a threat or wanted to risk criticizing one of the few prominent African-American Republicans around.
Last week, Keyes accepted the Republican nomination to run against the Democratic nominee Barack Obama — and immediately railed against Obama’s support of abortion rights. Abortion is Keyes' number-one issue: He wants a total ban, with an exception only as a "collateral and unintended consequence" of saving a woman's life (not the health of a woman, rape, or incest). In 2002, he said, "This issue alone, which I believe dominates our moral decline as a people, should decide this and every election cycle.”
[...]
Keyes on race
Keyes is legendary for playing the race card. He quit his State Department job in 1987, blaming it on a racial snub by Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead. (Keyes accused Whitehead of looking past Keyes and speaking to subordinates; Whitehead called the charge "outrageous" and "inaccurate.")
In 1992, when he wasn't given a prime speaking spot at the Republican National Convention, Keyes blamed the decision on racism. He ended up speaking twice at the convention, including once in primetime. Because the Republican National Committee withheld financial support for his losing cause, Keyes accused them of racism and complained that in the GOP, "colorblind means that when a colored person walks in, you suddenly go blind."
Running for president, Keyes accused the media of "a blackout to keep the black out." When the media attention to African-American Republican J.C. Watts was pointed out to him, Keyes responded, "The very question is a racist question!" Keyes told the media, "You do to me what you did to my ancestors! You ignore my successes, just as you ignored my ancestors' successes!"
Keyes told USA Today in 2000 that his exclusion from media coverage was racially motivated. “And it's racially motivated not in the sense of just being against blacks but being against black conservatives, who would threaten the base of left-wing liberalism in America." When an interviewer praised his oratorical skills, Keyes called it racist because it denigrated his ideas.
When it comes to race, Keyes rejects the idea that any black person – except for Alan Keyes – suffers discrimination. He told Larry King in 2000 that if he were the victim of a "driving while black" police stop, he would fault the "black folks out there disproportionately committing certain kinds of crime."
Although Keyes is opposed to affirmative action, his selection was itself a case of affirmative action. Before choosing Keyes, the Republican State Central Committee interviewed 13 candidates for the U.S. Senate job. They picked two African-Americans as finalists: Keyes and Andrea Barthwell. Faced with an African-American Democrat, they acted affirmatively on race.
Sex, marriage, and Nazis
Keyes' extreme views touch on most hot-button social issues, from gay marriage to the separation of church and state.
Gay marriage, Keyes warns, will cause "the destruction of civilizations," and he has equated the "homosexual agenda" as "totalitarianism." In fact, Keyes claims, "Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals." To Keyes, "The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions," leads to totalitarianism, Nazism, and communism.
Says Keyes, "Since marriage is about procreation, and they can't procreate, it is a logical requirement that they can't get married." Never mind that heterosexual couples incapable of or unwilling to have children can get married, or that many gay couples have children. Keyes seems oblivious to this reality: "Homosexuals are not haunted by the prospect or possibility of procreation – because they're simply not capable of it. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it?"
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
At a May 14 rally in Boston against gay marriage, Keyes even declared that gay and lesbian couples don't have sex: "It's not entirely clear to me you can call them sexual, because in point of fact, sex is no part of what they do. Real sexuality is about the distinction between male and female, as expressed in the body and its differences."
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 21 Jun 2006 22:16 Post subject: I agree
Quote:
Gay marriage, Keyes warns, will cause "the destruction of civilizations," and he has equated the "homosexual agenda" as "totalitarianism." In fact, Keyes claims, "Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals." To Keyes, "The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions," leads to totalitarianism, Nazism, and communism.
Says Keyes, "Since marriage is about procreation, and they can't procreate, it is a logical requirement that they can't get married." Never mind that heterosexual couples incapable of or unwilling to have children can get married, or that many gay couples have children. Keyes seems oblivious to this reality: "Homosexuals are not haunted by the prospect or possibility of procreation – because they're simply not capable of it. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it?"
I agree with this guy!!!
After all, Hitler was an homosexual. He enjoyed gay sex in the battlefield Perhaps his histerical reactions got something to do with it.
I also agree with his remarks about marriage. Yes, gays have the right to make comercial contracts between them, I guess. And to live their lives the way they want.
But marriage is, by definition, the natural union between a man and a woman to form a family.
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Perhaps this is not responsive to Omar's argument? I think he is talking about the definition of marriage.
Logically, I think the definition, the very meaning of "marriage" is heterosexual -- pertinent to its role in the success of our species.
I think I completely agree with Omar's remarks, especially his opinion that gays are already free to contract a homosexual partnership. I think changing the definition of marriage in law, as the Gay Lobby wishes, would probably destroy the word, its legal meaning (i.e., destroy marriage) -- because making marriage irrelevant to the sex of "spouses" destroys the defining meaning of the word -- as a special heterosexual partnership contract.
Homosexuality per se is not the point, I think. Such conduct use to be illegal. Now it is legalized. Criticism of homosexuality, of such acts, and the religious, scriptural protests against homosexuality by religious objectors is a red herring, I think. It only diverts the conversation away toward irrelevancy.
George
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Where are they now? Many famous people are labeled as 'gay' but they are no longer here to defend themselves (just like blackwashing of former Americans of supposed mixed descent).
Why should we cater to the demands of 2% of the population who want 'special treatment' and not "equal rights" as they love to claim. One has every 'right' to engage in whatever turns them on and their willing partner (excluding children and animals), but I do not have to embrace or acknowledge it. I also should not be FORCED to accept it - nature doesn't!
And winwinkel is also correct. See Europe. Once they made 'social contacts' for gays, actually heterosexual couples used them more instead, their marriage rates and probably fertility rates plumeted. They are now ripe picking for the Muslims and their traditional family's.
'Gay marriage' is just another attack on Western Civilization. Oh, and another thing, countries that have allowed this have also strengthened their hate crime laws and made it illegal to object (for whatever reason, religious, social, etc) and the first people rounded up and sued were, yep, you guessed it - Christians. Our culture's foundation.....
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 14:15 Post subject: Where
Salsassin wrote:
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Well, classical Greeks had a fascination for homosexuality, but how long they remained free after more "standard" people came to compite? Actually, Romans and Barbarians did not shared Greek prefferences.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 14:46 Post subject:
It's rather odd that the people who tout themselves as "progressives" or the proprietors of "tolerance", are they themselves, intolerant. This article is nothing more than the lefts attempts to punish a "black" who has escaped from the plantation of leftism. As most good leftists know, ALL "blacks" are suppossed to be on that plantation because they cannot provide for themselves, they need good leftists to provide and think for them. Anyone who deviates will be demonized. E.g. Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Ward Connerly (a favourite target of both the "black" and "white" left).
Quote:
Gay marriage, Keyes warns, will cause "the destruction of civilizations," and he has equated the "homosexual agenda" as "totalitarianism." In fact, Keyes claims, "Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals." To Keyes, "The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions," leads to totalitarianism, Nazism, and communism.
Completely agree here. Political Correctness is right from the Marxist playbook. The elmination of freedoms is happening right before our eyes. And it is the proprietors of tolerance that are leading the charge. We do not need "hate crime laws". ANY violent crime should be severly punished, regardless. Adding homosexuality into the notion of "hate crimes" will eventually lead into "thought crimes", like they have in Canada and Sweden. This is the slippery slope into communism, fascism, or totaliltarianism. They first start with de-arming the citizenry, then they attack religion, particularly, Christianity. Hmmm, sort of reseembles what the ACLU and other far leftists are trying to do today. I'll tell you what, they have mastered the BIG LIE propaganda machine. They have exceeded Joseph Goebbels.
Last edited by DChapman on Thu 22 Jun 2006 20:46; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 19:24 Post subject: Re: Where
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Well, classical Greeks had a fascination for homosexuality, but how long they remained free after more "standard" people came to compite? Actually, Romans and Barbarians did not shared Greek prefferences.
Omar
Romans also showed a lot of bisexuality. What about the Japanese, plenty of bisexuality there
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 20:36 Post subject: Re: Where
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Well, classical Greeks had a fascination for homosexuality, but how long they remained free after more "standard" people came to compite? Actually, Romans and Barbarians did not shared Greek prefferences.
Omar
Romans also showed a lot of bisexuality. What about the Japanese, plenty of bisexuality there
I wasn't aware of a culture of bisexuality in Japan at any time in history or today.
As for Greece and Rome didn't these civilizations value the male more than the female? From what I've read they got up to, its a wonder they managed to reproduce themselves for a couple millennia.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 20:49 Post subject:
Quote:
Sure. If you go to the OneDropRule Forum Index Page, right under the forum, Improving U.S. Society you will see this:
Current events, political activism of all kinds, and topics that do not fit anywhere below.
That does not explain what everyone's opinions on homosexuality, and the history of homosexuality, have to do with the one drop rule. I guess that means we should discuss everything and anything in this forum. I was under the impression that this site had some sort of focus.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 20:59 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
Could someone please explain what any of this has to do with the ODR?
Maybe like me, your a little taken a back by how strongly members are expressing themselves in regard to Keyes' uncompromising stance. I'm also a little confused to as to who exactly it is who is hell-bent on destroying Western civilization—"progressives", proponents of gay 'marriage', the "left"—but its all interesting reading.
The thread on Barack Obama brought up issues to do with the media's role in disseminating bi-racial/multiracials as such, or one-dropping them as "black". Frank has written how those who have studied it say it is members of the left-wing media who propogate the ODR, and I thought adding the views of Keyes on the media (how he is received as a Black Conservative), gay marriage, and "race" might add something to the discussion.
These are other hot potato subjects which "society" struggles to resolve. And, I suspect homosexuality/lesbianism and "race" will continue to travel together for some time yet.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 21:03 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
Quote:
Sure. If you go to the OneDropRule Forum Index Page, right under the forum, Improving U.S. Society you will see this:
Current events, political activism of all kinds, and topics that do not fit anywhere below.
That does not explain what everyone's opinions on homosexuality, and the history of homosexuality, have to do with the one drop rule. I guess that means we should discuss everything and anything in this forum. I was under the impression that this site had some sort of focus.
Yes this site does have some sort of focus. But this particular forum is for "everything else" so to speak. For instance, if this was originally posted in the The History of the U.S. One Drop Rule forum, it would be out of place. This particular forum can contain posts that are independent from ODR and the history of the endogamous U.S. color line, and racialism in general. Hence how everyone's opinion regarding homosexuality fits in here, that wouldn't any place else on this site. I hope this helps.
Could someone please explain what any of this has to do with the ODR?
I think I see pretty strong connection in the Gay Lobby's lawyers holding up Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) for authority claiming their equal protection right to same-sex "marriage" analogously to interracial marriage.
Equal protection (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1) is construed as being "equality" limited to similarly situated parties. In this way convicted felons in prison are denied most rights, which the rest of society are free to enjoy -- on the theory that prisoners serving their sentence are not similarly situated as everyone else. The homosexual "marriage" putsch appears, I think, to be an attack on the similarly situated parties constraint. That is, if equal protection were applied with maximum breadth of its implied meaning of "equal" -- as total social equality -- then it would authorize a Communist/socialist "paradise" in which no one would be allowed to rise above the lowest common denominator. (I.e., ambition, self-interest, profit making, etc. would need to be forbidden.)
In order for same-sex "marriage's" citation to Loving v. Virginia to make any sense, sexual gender (apparently in total denial of biological sex organs) needs to be proclaimed similarly situated as racial categories of heterosexual interracially married persons. It amounts to declaring that sex and "races" are similarly situated. Perhaps both are mere social constructs? However, judging by the strong trends in identity politics, our Law may be close to regarding sex difference a social construct (the PC noun nowadays is "gender"); at the same time "races" are anointed with immutability commiserate with species or endogamous caste. Aging justices in high courts (e.g., Supreme Judicial Ct. of Mass.) are falling for these lines. Legislatures in some other Western countries have already swallowed the line that "marriage" can be "same-sex." We have seen the power of Multiculturalism to silence the West's presses printing innocent cartoons. With our other worries, should we start worrying that our constitutional right to marry interracially, declared by Loving in 1967, may be threatened with future "anti-miscegenation" bans because interracial procreation (biological facts on the ground) undermines the "color-lines" demanded by politically empowered "races" enjoying their ultraliberal coming society that lacks any special definition of marriage?
George
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Fri 23 Jun 2006 17:24 Post subject:
Quote:
sexual gender (apparently in total denial of biological sex organs) needs to be proclaimed similarly situated as racial categories of heterosexual interracially married persons.
It is the individual or class of people, not the classification that must be similarly situated. Is a white man who wants to marry a black woman simalry situated to a white man who wants to marry a white man? Most reasonable people would objectively say no...one wants to marry a man and one wants to marry a woman.
Furthermore, the government must have a basis on which to descriminate; how compelling that basis must be depends on the "right" that is being impinged upon. The right to marry is a fundamental right. So, does the government have a compelling reason to discriminate between a man who wants to marry a man, and a man who wants to marry a woman?
Even this is likley a legal fiction. What is really being decided is whether the justices have a problem with gay marriage or not. All the legalities are simply the framework in which the courts and lawyers are required to debate the real issue.
My opinion--I'm really not sure. I have mixed feelings. Permitted or Banned, I know there will be no effect on me personally. I will tell my children the same thing. Homosexuals are abnormal, and have some sort of abnormaitly-physical or chemical-that causes them to be the way they are. Does society have to accomodate their abnormality which they cannot control? No. Should we accomidate their abnormality? Depends on the costs-economic and otherwise.
Thats my take on what you are debating. What are the costs of gay marriage?
And Melani23, where are you going to go to get away from all the islamists and liberals, and non christians who are attacking western society? What is your plan for a counter attack? And what are we going to do about the communists!!!?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 23 Jun 2006 17:43 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
Even this is likley a legal fiction. What is really being decided is whether the justices have a problem with gay marriage or not. All the legalities are simply the framework in which the courts and lawyers are required to debate the real issue.
My opinion--I'm really not sure. I have mixed feelings. Permitted or Banned, I know there will be no effect on me personally. I will tell my children the same thing. Homosexuals are abnormal, and have some sort of abnormaitly-physical or chemical-that causes them to be the way they are. Does society have to accomodate their abnormality which they cannot control? No. Should we accomidate their abnormality? Depends on the costs-economic and otherwise.
Thats my take on what you are debating. What are the costs of gay marriage?
Homosexual marriage will have no affect on me personally. That's not the point. The affects will not be seen for a generation or so.
Some could argue that criminals are abnormal. Does that mean we must consider accomodating their behaviour because of economics?? No it doesn't. I am in no way comparing homosexuals to criminals. I quite frankly could not care less what they do in the privacy of their homes. The issue I have with the agenda is that it is being forced upon us as a matter of a civil right. Homosexuality is a behaviour. A private one at that. I am not for discrimination against homosexuals. But what is increasingly happening is discrimination against those who oppose the homosexual agenda, particularly in the work place. This is wrong. Already in Canada and Sweden as I mentioned, it is against the law to oppose homosexuality. This will lead towards the slippery slope into the loss of our Republic...our freedoms. This is just a start.
I do not think the justices should be deciding this issue. This should be left up to the people to decide. The Founding Fathers original intent was to have a Constitutional Republic, not a judicial dictatorship.
The people have spoken loudly in every state that this isssue has come up for a vote, much to the chagrin of the left and ACLU types. So they shop it to a "friendly court" that will have no problem usurping it's authority by over turning the will of the people. This will have disasterous consequences eventually.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Perhaps his histerical reactions got something to do with it.
