Sunday, February 27, 2011

The Christian Right's Misapropriation of James Madison

The website known as Classical Liberals
provides a synopsis of a brouhaha that happened a few years ago between a David Barton who heads up a group called Wall Builders and an Atheist who was challenging the Constitutionality of Congressional Chaplains. As Classical Liberal quotes Madison:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.

I gotta ask: What is it about us Christians when we see the word "Atheist" connected to denial of someone's being canonized as a Christian, we get our undies in a wad, as if God needs us to go to anyone's defense?

Couldn't it be possible that this person is right on that issue?

And what makes us get so defensive of these things as if our Faith depends on it?


More & more I like the idea of Christians seeing our citizenship as in heaven. Or at least Primarily so!

More information: (Contains links to several of Madison's writings.)

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Sweat Shops are SO wonderful: Why would anyone object?

Someone of the Libertarian persuasion made a comment I noted on the Critiques of Libertarianism blog that Sweat Shops were a great boon to humankind. Well, I won't repeat the exact sorry-assed comment in it's exact sense, but you may click on the previous link and view yourself if you so desire.

I got a problem with assholes who recommend others work in environments they themselves wouldn't want to be in. Call me crazy, but that seems like a Double Standard.

By the way, the
Critiques of Libertarianism Website and the Critiques of Libertarianism Blog are both decent resources for understanding and debunking the Libertarian mindset. Mike Huben has been running it and vexing the Sons & Daughters of Austria for over a decade and a half! And if Libertarians piss you off, it's also a good place to have your frustrations vented. ;-)

Meantime, here's a brief compendium of websites about Sweat Shops I've put together:
Inside China's sweatshops
Visiting a local factory, we were ushered into the director's office and served drinks. Then the man with goofy teeth opposite me began explaining something in impenetrable English. When I failed to understand, he flapped his arms impatiently, knocking over his water. The glass shattered on the tiled floor. Any minute now things might turn nasty. It had taken ages to find this toy factory. There was no sign over the entrance. It's a dirty pink building in Songang, an industrial suburb of China's miracle boomtown Shenzhen.
We had come to follow up a story about a young woman called Li Chun Mei. Apparently the 19-year-old had collapsed and died last November at the end of a 16-hour shift. Like many of the staff, she often had to work past midnight, especially in the run-up to Christmas. The girls who shared her dormitory found her lying on the bathroom floor with blood pouring from her nose and mouth.

Millions of Chinese people have left the countryside for the cities
The bosses, who were Korean, did not deny that Li had died on their premises. They blamed the death not on overwork but on earlier injuries Li suffered when she was hit by a motorcycle. In any case, at the end of last year she was working for a subcontractor. That, they told us, absolved them of any responsibility. They produced a document - the contract of Li's employer - signed with inky red thumbprints.
They even gave us a phone number for the supervisor, one Mrs Wu, but when we tried it later, the line had been disconnected.
Under Chinese law, employees cannot be forced to work more than eight hours a
day and overtime must not exceed 40 hours a month. There's a local minimum monthly wage too of $66. But every single worker we spoke to from many different factories around Shenzhen had at some point either been overworked or underpaid. Usually both.
Feminists Against Sweatshops
The U.S. General Accounting Office defines a sweatshop as an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation. Sweatshops exist both internationally and domestically and the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that over 50% of sewing shops in the US are sweatshops as defined by the above definition. Buying “Made in the USA” clothing often does not mean “sweatshop free”.
Workers in sweatshops are usually young women and immigrant workers that are desperately poor and work long, long hours, sometimes up to 20 hours a day and their wages still do not total a workable wage to feed and clothe their families. The workers are often denied bathroom breaks and forced to undergo pregnancy tests and take birth control so the companies do not have to pay maternity leave costs. The workers often suffer verbal and physical abuse and struggle to complete high quotas each day.
Feminist Against Sweatshops FAQ Header Image

Secrets, Lies, And Sweatshops
For more than a decade, major American retailers and name brands have answered accusations that they exploit "sweatshop" labor with elaborate codes of conduct and on-site monitoring. But in China many factories have just gotten better at concealing abuses. Internal industry documents reviewed by BusinessWeek reveal that numerous Chinese factories keep double sets of books to fool auditors and distribute scripts for employees to recite if they are questioned. And a new breed of Chinese consultant has sprung up to assist companies like Beifa in evading audits. "Tutoring and helping factories deal with audits has become an industry in China," says Tang, 34, who recently left Beifa of his own volition to start a Web site for workers.

A lawyer for Beifa, Zhou Jie, confirms that the company employed the Shanghai consulting firm but denies any dishonesty related to wages, hours, or outside monitoring. Past audits had "disclosed some problems, and we took necessary measures correspondingly," he explains in a letter responding to questions. The lawyer adds that Beifa has "become the target of accusations" by former employees "whose unreasonable demands have not been satisfied." Reached by cell phone, a man identifying himself as Lai says that the Shanghai consulting firm helps suppliers pass audits, but he declines to comment on his work for Beifa.

Inside a Chinese Sweatshop:"A Life of Fines and Beating"
Liu's Dickensian tale stands in stark contrast to the reassurances that Wal-Mart, Payless, and other U.S. companies give American consumers that their goods aren't produced under sweatshop conditions. Since 1992, Wal-Mart has required its suppliers to sign a code of basic labor standards. After exposes in the mid-1990s of abuses in factories making Kathie Lee products, which the chain carries, Wal-Mart and Kathie Lee both began hiring outside auditing firms to inspect supplier factories to ensure their compliance with the code. Many other companies that produce or sell goods made in low-wage countries do similar self-policing, from Toys 'R' Us to Nike and Gap. While no company suggests that its auditing systems are perfect, most say they catch major abuses and either force suppliers to fix them or yank What happened at Chun Si suggests that these auditing systems can miss serious problems--and that self-policing allows companies to avoid painful public revelations about them.
Organizations in opposition to Sweat Shop abuses:

Sweat Free Communities

NMASS (National Mobilization Against Sweatshops)

Rebuttal to Pro-Sweatshop Arguments:

A Consensus Statement on Sweatshop Abuse and MIT’s Prospective Actions in Pursuit of International Labor Justice

Thursday, February 24, 2011

God Has Big Surprises Planned for the Middle East

God Has Big Surprises Planned for the Middle East By J. Lee Grady

This editorial from a recent edition of Charisma Magazine reflects my own personal worldview in a nutshell. My Generation was lied to by Pulpit-pounders who said the End was near and we would never see anything change in the Cold War US/USSR standoff until the Lord came back. Well he hasn't returned yet, and the Soviet Bloc fell without firing a shot. J. Lee Grady is one voice who thinks that the Middle East may be primed for such a transformation.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

"Pentecostals in Palestine" - a powerful and eye-opening documentary

"Pentecostals in Palestine" Documentary: "Pentecostals in Palestine - a powerful and eye-opening documentary"

I gave to the making of this documentary and I hope you will to. American Pentecostals & Evangelicals meet Palestinian Pentecostals & Evangelicals and learn about the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Please visit to support the production of this documentary being made by Pentecostals & Charismatics for Peace & Justice (a 501c3 organization).

How Religious Were the Founding Fathers?

Historian Gordon Wood explains that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington were not "emotionally religious." He outlines the development of religion in the early United States, stating that as American society became more democratic, "the evangelicals took over."

The Tea-Bagger's Jesus?

Saturday, February 12, 2011

How The US Constitution Excluded The Poor, Women and African Slaves

The Call With Bruce Cockburn - Become America on Vimeo.

From the CD: The Best Of The Call

Since many of my fellow Christians have been caught up in the "Back To the Constitution Movement" espoused by many Conservative Fringe groups, I thought a pause should be taken to consider what this all may mean. What type of people originally founded this Country? What were their intentions in doing so? Whom did they say was in and who was out?

In thinking about all of this, I decided to comb the internet for some information. What follows is a compendium of Blogs, Essays and other Websites I deem worthy of consideration. To begin with, let's look at the issue of Voting Rights in the United States, as it has continually evolved over the years, and in terms of how older exclusions were eventually dropped:


During colonial times, the right to vote (also known as being enfranchised) was severely limited. Mostly, adult white males who owned property were the only people with the right to vote. Women could not vote, though some progressive colonies allowed widows who owned property to vote. After the United States gained its independence from Great Britain, the Constitution gave the states the right to decide who could vote. Individually, the states began to abolish property requirements and, by 1830, adult white males could vote. Suffrage (the right to vote) has been gradually extended to include many people, and the U.S. Constitution has been amended several times for this purpose.


In the period from the American Revolution to the Constitutional Convention (1776-1787), the big landowners, merchants, and bankers exercised a strong influence over politico-economic life, often dominating "the local newspapers which voiced the ideas and interests of commerce."1 In twelve of the thirteen states (Pennsylvania excepted), only property-owning White males could vote, probably not more than 10 percent of the total adult population. Excluded were all indigenous First Nation people ("Indians"), persons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males lacking sufficient property. Property qualifications for holding office were so steep as to exclude even most of the White males who could vote. A member of the New Jersey legislature had to be worth at least 1,000 pounds. South Carolina state senators had to possess estates worth at least 7,000 pounds clear of debt (equivalent to more than a million dollars today). In Maryland, a candidate for governor had to own at least 5,000 pounds of property. In addition, the absence of a secret ballot and of a real choice among candidates and programs led to widespread apathy.

The preceding article further details the situation in the Colonies leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and is worth reading in order to understand the type of Class Warfare going on at the time, and the fact that many of the Founders felt threatened by a potential uprising from the restless increasingly indebted populace. As such, they moved to take away the auspices of Democracy from the people, centralize power, protect the Institution of Slavery, and shut the poor and the average citizen completely out of the process. All in the interest of the Merchant Class.


Milestones of national franchise extension

How could the Untied States have taken so long to include so many of it's citizens into the Electoral Process? Further noted in the same article:

At the time of ratification of the Constitution, most states used property qualifications to restrict the franchise; the exact amount varied by state, but by some estimates, over half of white men were barred from voting. [12] In some states, free men of color (though the property requirement in New York was eventually dropped for whites but not for blacks) also possessed the vote, a fact that was emphasized in Justice Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

And for a definition of Dred Scott v. Sanford? Check the relevant Wikipedia entry on that:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.[3] The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

Conservative Websites that attempt to refute what I have just posted, tend to focus on various quotes made by Adams, Franklin et. al against the Slave trade while ignoring the bigger picture; They did nothing to bring an end to the practice by including everyone as a US Citizen from the Get-go, and nothing that prevented the Dred Scott decision from happening. Or countless other incidents of mis-applied legislation as well as Affirmative Action for Whites. More on that, later.

A very intelligent website edited by a Mr. Javier Fernandez and his High School History Students, has a lot to say to supplement our understanding of these issues, as well as many not as often considered ones, as they relate to US History:

"The American identity during this time was not defined by race, nationality, or religion, but mostly by the national ideology floating around during the time period. Although the other factors did contribute, none was an influential as the ideological state of mind going around throughout the nation throughout all nationalities, races, and religions. This ideology that brought the nation together, also helped truly define what it meant to be American during this time."

Furthermore, Javier's class summarizes who was excluded from the Definition of what it meant ot be an American:

A major impact of being excluded from citizenship was the fact that many people could not vote. At this time, the main voters were wealthy white landowners who were obviously male. Slaves couldn't really vote because they were slaves and they were also hindered by the 3/5 compromise which counted 3/5 of the slave population as one vote which in turn didn't have any real effect in elections. Due to immigrants not being considered as American, they were unable to vote, and because of general suspicion they were unable to get jobs as well. Native Americans were not considered "American" even though they inhabited America before the colonists. The result of this was the Native Americans being pushed around by the "real" Americans which can be supported by the trail of tears and treaties that required the Indians to exhange their land to the white men. The results of people not being considered "American" varied depending on which group one belonged to; however, the idea was the same. They would be limited in many aspects of life and looked down upon by those who were considered "American".

OK so it's High school writing and could use some improvement. It's also very concise and easy to understand for getting our minds wrapped around the issues we are trying to understand.

Ideology? Why didn't that stay the defining point of being an American instead of Race or Place of Birth?

One wonders why especially in a time such as ours, when a certain group of people want to overturn the results of the last Presidential election on the simple basis of a piece of paper and the zip code of the hospital you were born in. Perhaps it is time to suggest that all residency/natural citizenship requirements be abandoned for the dated, Xenophobic ideals they really are?

Here's another website that gives us more information that brings the picture into focus. A Sharon Martinas writes in her essay:

How White Privilege has been Perpetuated in the U.S.

I believe that there are five major ways by which the system of white privilege has been perpetuated:

  1. The political economy of internal colonialism which laid the basis for the U.S. capitalist system;
  2. Three hundred years of affirmative action programs for white people, created by federal and state laws;
  3. Political demands of most white progressive movements (I call this *The Strategy of the Slave Owners*);
  4. Reproduction of white privilege in daily life: the treatment of white people because they are white, and the behavioral response of white people to this treatment;
  5. The culture of white supremacy.

"Affirmative Action for White People?" What is that, exactly? Martinas gives the following examples:

  • 1663: In Virginia, English female indentured servants are no longer allowed to work in the fields; they can only work in their master's house. African women still work in the fields.
  • 1680 - 1705: Virginia "servant" codes specify that white servants can testify in court, get "freedom dues," a plot of land, and the right to marry someone else who comes from Europe. (Racial intermarriage is banned.)
  • 1790: The Naturalization Act, the first act of the first U.S. Congress, guarantees that white immigrants can become citizens, which leads the way for them to become owners of land. "Non-white" immigrants are denied the right to be citizens. (This provision was not changed until 1952.)
  • 1830: The Indian Removal Act, initiated by President Andrew Jackson, removes the Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Seminole Indians from the most fertile land in the South. White slave owners take over the land, use enslaved Africans to grow the cotton that creates the wealth for both Southern and Northern ruling and middle class whites. Cotton becomes the major export of the new nation.
  • 1848: In the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, Mexico cedes half its national territory to the United States. Mexicans living north of the Rio Grande become U.S. citizens, but they no longer automatically own the land their families have tilled for centuries. Under U.S. law, the land goes to those with papers. Mexicans do not have papers. White lawyers "representing" Mexican land owners swindle millions of acres by taking land as their legal fees. Mexican-Americans become the first farm workers on lands their families once owned.
  • 1862: During the height of the Civil War, U.S. soldiers are also waging war on indigenous nations in the West. Millions of acres of Native land are taken by blooodshed. This land is distributed to white people only. The Homestead Act makes 50 million acres available, at low cost, to white working class homesteaders. The Morrell Act creates land grant colleges to build a new white middle class. And 100 million acres of Indian land are given free to the railroads.
  • 1880's - 1914: Millions of Southern and Eastern European immigrants come to the U.S. They can bring their families, marry, travel to find work and eventually get citizenship. But during the same period, Chinese immigrants, except for merchants, are excluded from immigrating. Chinese workers are not allowed to bring their wives, nor to marry non-Chinese Americans, so they cannot create families.
  • 1887: The Dawes Land Allotment Act forbids communal land ownership by indigenous people, and encourages Indians to sell their lands to whites. As a result, millions of acres go to white squatters.
  • 1947 on: Under the G.I. Bill, the federal government authorizes the largest affirmative action program for white people in the nation's history. Millions of returning veterans get preferential treatment in jobs, suburban home loans, and college education. But these federal programs do not challenge institutional racism in employment, housing or education, so almost all the benefits go to white men and their families.
  • 1954ff: One of the most significant effects of Brown v. Board of Education is the firing of thousands of Black teachers and principals in southern Black schools, after these schools are integrated with white ones. School Boards say that white parents will not let their kids be taught by Black teachers. So the major beneficiaries of Brown v. Board of Education are the thousands of white (mostly female) teachers and white (mostly male) principals who got the jobs in these newly integrated schools.
  • 1994: The passage of "Three Strikes You're Out" in California leads to imprisonment for thousands of Black and Brown men while providing a major source of well paid jobs for mostly white working class men -- as prison guards.
  • 1996: The passage of Proposition 209 ends a brief interlude of 30 years of affirmative action for people of color. And California, which will be the first state in the nation to have a majority population of people of color, has led the way in returning to a 300 year tradition of affirmative action for white people.
Apparently the Racial Exclusion Practiced at the First Constitutional Convention carried far beyond the borders of the Institution of Slavery. In fact, Exclusion was obviously practiced at many Soicio-economic levels and in many ways. Despite the founders alleged good intentions of ending Slavery as an institution that Conservatives are quick to cherry-pick quotes to try and prove, the Structures of Institutionalized Racism in America were a long was off from being effectively challenged. Whatever their intentions may have been, by not conferring Citizenship on all humans born on American Soil or to American Parents, the American Founders squandered an opportunity to make America truly free for all of it's people. Think of the countless years of bloodshed, court cases, war, oppression and other general Social Injustices that could have been avoided.

So what can we gain from this short, but thoughtful walk through the history of the founding of the United States? Many will object to the unpatriotic picture that I have painted here, and there have been ideologically-driven books written to tried to refute these claims. But perhaps the best way to balance all of this out is to take the view of historians such as Gordon Wood, who have maintained that aspects of Democracy and Egalitarianism have effected and altered the complexion of American Society in terms of how it developed, and in spite of very Republican intentions by the US Founding Fathers.

Nevertheless, and over and against the objections of many Constitution Pimps that seem to populate the political landscape these days, a sober view would seem to at least consider these realities, and not ignore the obvious: 200+ years of history has seen the Civil War, the end of Slavery, the rise of electronic Mass-media and the Internet, two World Wars, the great Depression, Civil Rights movement, Women's suffrage, and a host of other things they couldn't have possibly foreseen.

To Try and lock up every single attempt at change, at doing social good works, at our simply being a people - inside a Prison that says 'You can't fart if it ain't in the Constitution' would be disingenuous at best. As of now, amending the Constitution is a lot more lengthy & tedious process than it was when 13 states were all that was participating.

Alan Keyes: You Just Can't Be Correct Enough For Him!

Check out the following clip. You would think Alan Keyes would feel like he's on friendly ground, since he's being interviewed on FOX news. But he responds as if he's being grilled by Maddow or Olberman. See for yourself:

All the asshole had to do was calmly answer the questions he was asked. Instead, he just showed people why he's an unfit leader who can't keep his temper, and ferociously disagrees with everyone even the slightest degree of difference with him. This his how it's done, Alan: "No I did not say what you claim I did when you said I said _____________, but what I actually said was ___________, and here's my justification for that:___________" Notice he avoided answering the basic question of what Illinois law actually says, and keeps on with his
ad hominem attacks toward his interviewer.

What a wasted opportunity to educate his viewing audience and build consensus, something that should always be first and foremost on the mind of any communicator!

How would you like to have this guy for your father? Well interestingly enough, about 6 years ago Keyes' daughter Maya "came out" and revealed to the world she is a Lesbian. The response of her parents?

(CBS) The 19-year-old daughter of Alan Keyes has a Valentine for the anti-gay rights conservative pundit and frequent Republican candidate. Maya Marcel-Keyes will be making her first public appearance as a gay activist at a Valentine Day's rally in front of the Maryland State House, says Dan Furmansky, the leader of Equality Maryland, a gay rights group. Last summer her father, a conservative pundit and frequent Republican candidate, caused a stir during the Republican convention by labeling Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter a sinner and calling homosexuality "selfish hedonism." "It was kind of strange that he said it like a hypothetical," she told the Washington Post. "It was really kind of unpleasant." Marcel-Keyes told the Post her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is gay. She said she loves her parents.


I have friends who are Christians who have Gay relatives. They make no bones about the fact that it's a sin. But they don't ostracize or disown them. They try their best to love them back into right relationship with God.

Some people feel that Homosexuality is a result of abuse during upbringing. They see it as the result of stern abusive fatherhood, emotionally distant motherhood, etc. If there's any truth to that at all, I think we can see an example here. Just how much garbage has that poor Young Lady had to endure all her life from this man?

(I should be fair here and point out that Keyes has a different take on the matter, and as to whether or not she is actually being "shunned" by him. However, the main source I have for that is the Wikipedia Alan Keyes article, and the source for the quote seems to be on a website that doesn't currently exist.)

I'm writing these words because I have Christian Friends who are big supporters of this guy. One has gotten behind Keyes' involvement in the Obama Birther movement. Alan Keyes has been busy filing lawsuits to get Obama's actual birth Certificate out in the open, claiming that the current President is unfit for office because he allegedly wasn't born in the US.

I don't suppose it matters to Keyes and his Rabid Dogs that Obama has at least 1 verified American citizen parent - his Mother. Or that John McCain was born in Panama. But judging from the way Conspiracy rumors usually go, even if his Birth Certificate was produced and it said "Hawaii" on it, that won't stop the speculation that something was probably done to alter it.

In any case, what should be done is a Congressional Review of the thorny issues surrounding Birth Eligibility, and a decision made for not so much Obama's case, but any case that may arise. Wikipedia points out that some of the issues regarding the Citizenship of children born to US Parents while living overseas have never been fully resolved. In point of fact, since it's not all that clear and a decision that may need to be deliberated on in the event that it is proven that Obama indeed was born outside US Soil, what would be the problem of deciding in His Favor? Why not clarify the law so that anyone born to at least one American Citizen parent can be considered a Natural Born Citizen. If you read the various challenges to eligibility in past American History to different Presidential Candidates, and see how edgy those issue have often been, it would seem like a fair and reasonable decision to make.

There can be only one reason why someone would oppose such a resolution to the problem: They
simply want to use the Court System to override the Will of the People, and get rid of Barrack Obama.

And in Keyes case, it's a reasonable question as to whether he might be delusional enough to think he can reverse the election results in his own favor, since he was a losing perennial Candidate for President in 2008 on a minor-party ticket. In fact, Barrack Obama has squashed Keyes' political ambitions twice. The 1st time was when the two were opponents in the 2004 Illinois senate election.

Can the depths of a bitter, twisted, delusional man such as Keyes be seen by anyone else other than God?

I wrote in a previous blog entry that I though Alan Keyes' treatment in the Republican Party during
the times he ran for President in the GOP primaries was largely the result of latent racism. And maybe it is. But the fact is, even the more staunchly Conservative Christian Constitution Party wouldn't nominate him, and many of his previous supporters want nothing to do with him. He also has Campaign Debts he won't take responsibility for, and has been known to play a little fast and loose with his Campaign Finances. Personally, seeing his behavior on video leads me to only one inevitable conclusion as to why this Gadfly keeps getting swatted away be even Small Conservative Parties more committed to his same cherished principals:

The man is a Complete Asshole.

This country has no need to steep itself in such perennial nonsense. We desperately need to focus on the issues at hand that are on most people's minds: Health Care Reform. US Involvement in the Affairs of Other Nations. Jobs. The Economy. And in debating these issues, it is discovered that any Elected Leader may not properly represent the will of the people, then vote him or her out of office.

There's only one reason for taking any other path: You don't believe you can win the debates over the issues any other way.

Furthermore, the man is a hypocrite when it comes to issues such as this. He openly criticized Hillary Clinton for moving to New York to run for the US Senate. The he did the same thing to run against Obama in Illinois.

I have written favorably of Keyes in the past, due to my belief he would be better than most mainstream Republicans, and his sticking to his own principals and integrity. Today, the picture emerges of quote a different man than what I had assumed. He is involved with a Whack-Job Separatist Movement that bears strong resemblance to a Cult. His 2008 Vice Presidential running mate was Wiley S Drake, who made headlines in his use of the Imprecatory Prayer to ask God to kill President Obama.

He maintains the same delusion held by many Conservative Christians, that the United States was founded on Christina Principles by Primarily Christian men. This despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary:

Extremist views. Bad attitude. Persecution Complex. Poor Scholarship. Financial problems. Alienating past friends and supporters. This is Alan Keyes, face of the Obama Birther Movement.

I will dance on the grave of these kinds of politics, especially to the extent they have infected the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For more info about Alan Keys, check the following:

The Alan Keyes Skeleton Closet

Alan Keyes and The Minuteman Morass

Alan Keyes Connection To Leo Strauss & Bill Kristol