Saturday, March 7, 2009

Slouching Towards Rama

In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. (Matthew 2:18)

The past few days brought news of deeply disappointing decisions by two supposedly pro-life Republicans, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Both seem intent on proving, in their different ways, my contention that the Republican Party's wrongheaded commitment to unprincipled electioneering turns potentially good leaders into bad ones. Senator Brownback stunned and outraged his pro-life supporters by announcing his intention to vote to confirm Kathleen Sebelius as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. She is notorious for her ruthless advocacy of abortion including the very late term abortions that properly defame her friend and financial backer Dr. George Tiller.

Given Barack Obama's infamous willingness to countenance infanticide (the murder of infants who have the temerity to survive an abortion attempt), it's no surprise that he would think her an appropriate choice to head the Department that will implement his plans for the government induced abortion of the U.S. health care sector. But because of his strongly professed personal conviction and his newly professed Catholic faith, Senator Sam Brownback was expected to be in the forefront of efforts to derail the Obama-Sebelius death train. But he has his eye on the gubernatorial seat Sebelius is planning to vacate. With the obtuse logic that typically prevails in Republican circles these days, he appears to have decided that the surest way to win it is to show his contempt for the faithful people who worked their hearts out to carry him to an overwhelming (69%) victory in his 2004 re-election bid. He could have invested some of that political capital to make a strong stand for innocent life. But in tune with what appears to be the Republican ethos of our times, the Senator seems now to believe that a good politician uses principles to get votes. He doesn't risk votes for the sake of principle.

What a contrast with the Democrats who worked over Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and others who refused to tiptoe gently around their immoral sensibilities. How is it that those who advocate the murder of innocents stand with passionate conviction to denounce anyone who questions their depravity, but those who claim to champion God's command that we respect innocent life seem ready to back off the moment some excuse is available for their retreat, or a little opening is offered to their ambition? It seems that Yeats had it right. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

In the same vein we see Sarah Palin elevating a former member of the board of Planned Parenthood (America's chief purveyor of abortion) to the Alaska Supreme Court. She wins headlines from the media claque for bucking the pressure from the faithful pro-lifers whose applause for her supposed pro-life stance helped to overcome that same media's ridicule and contempt in the recent national election. This marks at least the second time she has used her gubernatorial position to take a step that contradicts her supposedly conservative moral stance. When she vetoed a bill passed by the Alaska legislature that would have preempted regulations extending benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees, she mistakenly claimed she had no choice but to obey the liberal Judges who purported to order the change. Now she says that Alaska's constitution left her no choice but to accept the objectionable candidates the Alaska Judicial Council handed her. Unlike her predecessor, Governor Frank Murkowski, she apparently couldn't be bothered to make a fight of it, much less take that fight to the people.

We're told of course that politics is the art of the possible, but that seems to mean only what makes political advancement possible, rather than what might possibly advance the things these politicians pretend to believe. Once upon a time, it was the vocation of political leaders to use their talents and abilities to champion new and better possibilities. That's what Lincoln did as he developed the arguments that attacked indifference to the injustice of slavery. That's what Teddy Roosevelt did as he raised his voice to promote the importance of virtue and decency in America's public life. It's what set Reagan apart in the years when he refused to back away from his rejection of socialist big government policies, or his staunch opposition to communism.

Today we recognize that statesmen like these stand head and shoulders above the crowd of timid timeservers all too common in every generation. Unfortunately, despite what we should learn from them, we are too willing to accept media profile as a substitute for real character and conviction. Whatever their talk, whatever the facade created for them by media consultants and sixty second spots, actions still offer the acid test of political leaders. When push comes to shove, these so-called Republicans disappoint, retreat and betray again and again. Yet judging by the reaction of some of the die hard defenders of their unprincipled (lack of) leadership, it's less objectionable for them to abandon their posts than it is for folks like me to point out that they have abandoned them.

In the end we are forced to accept the possibility that they have taken conservative stands because they thought it would be good for their election chances, not from a sincere conviction that it is vital for the good of the nation whose people they are supposed to serve. The tragedy is that we are in the midst of the kind of crisis, of liberty and economic survival, which cannot be met except by leaders of true conviction, the kind of conviction that inspires people to stand firm against the blandishments and threats of those who are the enemies of both liberty and survival. It is clear we shall not find such leaders any longer in the party that twice raised up their kind to save first the Union and then our free economy, for a time. Those who have the will to conserve the now imperiled principles of liberty must think anew, and act anew to create a political vehicle that will call forth from amongst the people themselves steadfast and truly faithful representation. This alone will revive the hope of lasting freedom, not only for us but for the generations yet unborn whom their pretended political advocates have betrayed more than once too often.

Worth considering? Then don't forget to DIGG IT!!!!


Rivka said...

Great web site! Alan, I voted for you in the primaries in 2000 knowing you were far too principled to win, but I had to vote my conscience. Had you won I really think we wouldn't be on the path we are on right now with the socialist in charge.

I am discouraged hearing about Palin, but as dissapointing as it is, it helps to know these things. I will keep my eye on her.

As a staunch Christian conservative I am tired of the GOP putting up 'outwardly' principled people and then finding out they are moderates who cast aside their principles in a crisis or for political reasons. Such as Bush saying he momentarily put aside his free market principles to 'save our economy'. Free market principles were derived from scripture as were most of the principles our country was founded on and that is why it works. What other righteous principles will so called conservatives 'momentarily put aside'? In Brownback's case it is abortion in order to get elected.

We need someone like Phill Kline or you who will STICK with solid biblical principles no matter what. We need someone who won't allow a supposid crisis to scare them into listening to unwise counsel, or who won't shed their principles in order to get elected.

romaha said...

Mr. Keyes has the moral courage and passion to communicate this message across our fruited plains, from sea to shining sea, Let Freedom Ring.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Keyes, I want you to know you have fans all over the United States. My husband and I from Alabama, and we ALWAYS love to hear what you have to say. You are a brilliant and a dedicated American. I agree with Rivka, I am tired of the GOP catering to moderates and forgetting the foundation for their support which I believe is made up of conservatives. You are one of the few republicans left who truly believes our principles and values and who refuses to compromise them in an attempt to please "everyone." Thank you for being so honest and standing up for our great country.

Unknown said...

I also was one of 4 people in Grant County North Dakota who voted for you in 2000. Amen, and keep up the fight.

Unknown said...

Alan, I love hearing you speak. Amen.

bob strauss said...

Barry Soetoro wants to eliminate as many would be Americans as possible, then flood the country with immigrants,give them all the right to vote. I am convinced he will attempt to become "DEAR LEADER" for life, if he can do away with term limits.

Humble wife said...

Sadly we are continuing this discussion about life. The Left has made it very clear that Life is not their goal, but the destruction of the values that founded this country.

I have written often about abortion and I am told that I am insensitive to those who may have had an abortion. I say that until we can call abortion what it is the dialogue will always be that fundamentalist are wacko and that a woman deserves to do to her body anything at will.

I am so sad and I grieve for those who bought in to this as an option. May God forgive me for not doing, not saying, not protesting enough.

kirbette said...

All I can think everytime I read something that Mr. Keyes has written is this: why couldn't this man have been our first black president?!

mrobert said...

It is really disheartening to see how supposed conservatives in politics repeatedly cave to the Left. In California, it has recently emerged that the Republicans in the state legislature caved to the Democrats and supported a big tax increase, even though they pledged last summer never to support new taxes. Why is it that conservatives are always caving to the Left? Why can't more conservatives have some backbone and stand up to them? It is just so pathetic.

Unknown said...

Is it possible to get the secret service to do a backgound check on obama to see if he is a natural born citizen, after all their job includes risking their lives for the president. if they are protecting a traitor, then they are risking their live for not and not performing their job.
Kind of scary to have a socialist president whose best friend, william ayers, talked about killing 25 million capitalist. Hmm, obama is going to destroy the private sector and our currency, is it a planned route to communism?

we need to find out if he really is the president, if he is not a natural born citizen then committed the one crime in the US constitution: treason.

tjmarz said...

the fox bleeding
humiliation took
1500 hessians on
a frozen dare
a crazed sob led
his troops uphill
thru british &
canadian crossfire
took a hot load
in the boot
molly's husband
looked down from
his perch he knew
well of death &
lesser men know
not of these feats
lesser men govern
this land now
w/ fountain pens
filled w/ blood
& price tags on
their heads like
barbie dolls
on a store shelf
pray to your god
that he is the
most righteous god
pray to your god
that men like me
do not inherit
these misfortunes
-tj marz

tsiya said...

Thank you for your endless efforts, Alan.
I'll be visting on a regular basis.
"Principle", and "politician" both begin with a P, but have little in common beyond the first page. I am no longer willing to vote for the lesser of evils, it is past time to make a stand.

JohnADavison said...

It is unfortunate that so many comments come from anonymous sources. Anonymity is little more than cowardice. Alna Keyes, Jerome Corsi and Philip Berg use their real names and so do I. Why can't the rest of you? Until you do, your comments mean nothing, absolutely nothing.

Sharon Wink Ormando said...

As a grandmother of 5 that are from ages 2 months to six years. I can't even imagine what this world will be like when they are older.
The mind set of this generation is all about them. If things are going their's the heck with whoever. So, So sad.
Our people need to get on the knees and humble them selfs before God and pray. said...

My name is Steve Thompson. I am founder and CEO of

I am writing to inform Mr. Keyes, readers and supporters of an incredible opportunity to bring true change to America, and at the same time allow all Americans to ‘take back’ America by voting on any or all Congressional bills and resolutions at

What is is the only website where all Americans can vote on any bill or resolution in Congress, converting the United States from a republic to a direct democracy. The site allows America to switch the primary focus from the individuals we elect to the legislation itself.

Why build

Our founding fathers explicitly stated that in order for our democracy to work most Americans must be actively engaged in the governmental process on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately today, the opposite is reality. Also, when our country was formed the literacy level and speed of communication prevented a direct democracy. Not today: our education and communications systems have solved those problems.

What am I suggesting?

Engage your supporters and the American public to vote on bills and resolutions at, which is THE one and only tool that has any real chance of taking back America from the pols, special interests, Wall Street and donors in DC. In addition, Americans will be participating in the legislative process of America and exercising true freedom.

What are you thinking Steve: the American public is ignorant?

Only because they’re apathetic. More importantly, contrary to conventional/stereotypical wisdom, crowds are not stupid, they are factually more intelligent than the smartest members of the group. As James Surowiecki has noted in his book “The Wisdom of Crowds,” the fact that cognitive diversity matters does not mean that if you assemble a group of diverse but thoroughly uninformed people, their collective wisdom will be smarter than an expert’s. But if you can assemble a diverse group of people who possess varying degrees of knowledge and insight, you’re better off entrusting it with major decisions rather than leaving them in the hands of one or two people (experts), no matter how smart those people are.”

In the fall of 1906, British scientist Francis Galton scientifically verified the wisdom of crowds by analyzing 787 entries in an ox weight-judging competition to learn that the combined estimate of the crowd was 1 pound off the actual weight (1,197 pounds vs. 1,198). “Many non-experts competed,” Galton wrote later in the scientific journal “Nature,” “like those clerks and others who have no expert knowledge of horses, but who bet on races, guided by newspapers, friends and their own fancies.”

“The analogy to a democracy,” said Surowiecki, “in which people of radically different abilities and interests each get one vote, had suggested itself to Galton immediately. ‘The average competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight of the ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which he votes,’ he wrote.”

The key ingredients to the crowd being successful:
• Diversity of opinion (each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts)
• Independence (people’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them)
• Decentralization (people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge)
• Aggregation (some mechanism [] exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision)

Galton and Surowiecki note the larger the group the wiser the decisions it makes (with the key ingredients above). That means 200 million plus Americans are capable of making far more intelligent decisions than 535 politicians plus the special interests and large donors driving them. More importantly, in fact of paramount importance, the 200 million plus Americans will be making decisions for the good of the country, not the good of the politician’s career or power base.

James Madison, in “Federalist 51,” wrote explicitly that there were two requirements for good government: “first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be attained.” According to Surowiecki, “his fear of ‘factions,’ meanwhile, was predicated on the idea that they made it harder for government to see the ‘public good.’ The problem, though, is that we have no standard that allows to judge a political decision to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ This is in stark contrast to the workings of markets, where we will be able to evaluate (someday in the future) whether a company’s stock price reflects its true present value.

“The reason this question matters is that if we could say that certain policies were against the common good in an objective sense,” Surowiecki continued, “then it’s likely that democracy’s reliance on some version of the collective wisdom—as refracted through votes—would make it ( an excellent decision-making system, and would make any democracy’s chances of adopting good policies high.”

The sooner we have a majority of Americans voting the sooner we’ll have direct democracy; the sooner Congress will be held accountable as ‘public servants’; and the sooner real power will be ripped from the hands of special interest groups/lobbyists, donors and politicians by EVB-voting Americans.

The major advantage, besides actually hearing the collective voice of Americans voting on the legislation, is population-level demographics. You see, in setting up their free voter accounts they enter the same demographic data they provide in the U.S. census. This allows voters to provide far more than just a thumbs-up or down. They can tell politicians about their vote without providing any private information.

Another feature of the site leverages the demographic data to make Congress much more efficient and effective: individuals can not only vote each bill or resolution but they can also provide comments. This would facilitate a new concept or controversial bill introduced and publicized to learn if Americans accept the idea in general and how to adjust the bill in particular to better meet the desires of voters as expressed in the vote and comments. For example, voters can easily say they accept HR1 in general but object to one or two sections—then make recommendations on how to ‘fix’ those sections. The comments, along with the demographics, provide heretofore unheard-of feedback to Congress and organizations sponsoring or supporting legislation, all at a statistical population level vs. sample level (polls).

Feedback of a voter’s actual participation in the legislative process of America is instantaneous: bottom line (Yea and Nay) percentages of voting to-date are provided within 1-2 seconds of each vote submitted. Americans can vote at any time on any bill (once introduced), they're not tied to the voting schedule of any bill. They can even go back at any time to bills/resolutions voted to see the (future) to-date vote count. Also, they can vote bills already enacted.

Why vote a bill already enacted?

Because we’re currently building our Voting Scorecard. This tool is effectively a report card and will list all votes placed along with the votes of the individual’s representative, senators, VP and President, where applicable. The bottom line number for each voter’s politicians will be a percentage indicating how each Congressman voted with or against the individual. For example, 80% means the public servant voted WITH the individual 80% of the voter’s total votes, and 20% the public servant voted AGAINST the individual 80% of the voter’s total votes. This is directly relevant and powerful information every American can use when making decisions for elections in the future.

It will also provide the mechanism to strongly encourage Congress to heed “the wisdom of crowds” (American citizens) instead of the whispers in their ears from special interests and donors (the ‘so-called experts’). Though ‘election results’ from are not binding, Congressmen in the long-term will want to ensure that a significant majority of their votes are in line with a significant majority of their constituents. is the tool to drive the whole system.

The site is easy to use. For a quick tour go to

e is a non-partisan, private and veteran-owned company that assumes a fiduciary responsibility to provide this "public trust" as the only tool for all Americans to participate in the legislative process of the U.S. Congress.

Please consider using to help ‘take back’ America. This is the largest idea in government since the founding of our country 225 years ago and is there for the taking by all Americans. We can think of no bigger form of change for America than

As of Friday (2/20) Congressmen have introduced more than 1,978 bills and resolutions in the 111th Congress and I’ve already voted hundreds of them. Wouldn’t you like to participate directly in the legislative process of the United States of America too?

Thank you for considering

Steve Thompson
Founder & President

Franz said...

Dr. Keyes, I've been following you for 20 years now and I'm glad you haven't given up. Sounds crazily paradoxical, but we're closer than ever.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Alan, right now I am part of the 8.1% of unemployed Americans and I resent it. And when I see the caliousness with which these people turn their backs on human life I am outraged. Reading your passionate words of Life, Liberty and Spirit I am comforted that such a man as you is a strong element in the fight to get our country back!

The problem during the election was everyone who was mezmerized by Obama and the left wing lunacy got obsessed with putting a man of color in the White House, instead of putting "a man of honor" in the Oval Office. I posted on my blog that you had my support and effort, but alas, the mainstream media was in the tank and the love affair with bogus Hope and Change had begun. The mind control kicked in and no one was going to look to someone else.

I still pray that one day you will be in the White House, not because of your race or religion, but because of your wonderful qualifications, heart, and spirit that shows in every word you say. God bless you Alan Keyes.

Anonymous said...

Everyday I try to keep the faith in justice prevailing. Everyday it is getting harder and harder to keep that faith. I am hoping that the Eligibility issues get's it's day in court. I am saddened to sit back and watch the Socialistic ways that Nobama is heading. Universal health care, Bailouts and Open borders are not the way this country needs to be headed. I appreciate Mr Keyes Voice, and wish more would stand up and point our country in the right direction.

Jana said...

This is surprising news about Sarah Palin, I am very disappointed. Thanks for making this blog, a great place to unite.

Unknown said...

Conservative powerbrokers must accept the new reality on the ground: Generation X Conservatives have a different philosophical view of the world. . Do not fear us; embrace us, we are the breath of fresh air the Conservatives so desperately need…

For the most part, Generation X leans to the right when offered Reagan Conservatism; it’s when the religious right shows up, most check out.
Conservatives lose all credibility to fight every nanny state issue because of abortion. Or are Conservatives for a nanny state when the rules play into their preferences? Why alienate millions of women because of our pro-life stance? The pro-life movement has its own inertia, why do Conservatives need to help? It would be great to get some more women in the Conservative tent.
In our battle to advance Reagan Conservatism how does promoting Christian morality help our cause?

Johnny Pronto said...

Alan - beautiful post. I am happy to have found your blog.

It is clear this nation has lost its soul.

As for posting under pseudonym, I recommend it... for any and all who mistrust the government.

it will get much worse before it gets better. I hate to say it, but it is true.

SteveC said...

What Ed and others continue to suggest is that conservatism must embrace a social liberalism in order to succeed--invoking Reagan in the process (as if those of who actually lived through the Reagan years won't remember how he really was). Fiscal conservatism plus social liberalism is the basis of the libertarian party which equals complete failure as an American political movement. If the Generation X conservative has nothing more to offer than the compromised social agenda of the Republican left, we don't want their support and certainly will never embrace their self-centered, ego-driven philosophy. And for the record, promoting Christian morality is our cause--Reagan Conservatism may be, in part, a natural outcome of its advancement.


The contradiction of being informed and withholding information, by which individuals can make decisions of personal self-interest, becomes the concern with regard to pro-life.


Conservatives hold contempt for those who are ill-informed when approaching their polling booths to vote.

Yet, they have no issue controlling information to women regarding the plethora of choices that lay before them with regard to choosing life.

Women will choose more accurately when they can take ownership of their choices and be response-able to those choices, all at no cost to others without their consent.

This cannot advance though while those who invoke fear or withhold information by which women can move themselves toward more accurate choices of life.

Killing life is killing life. All life is equal across the board.

The elevating of human life over any other life is a personal attempt to make one's self "better than others" when, in fact, all life is equal.

The citation of a particular derivation by which placing subjective personal value on human life over any other life, is not objective.

To do so, is to negate the government within the United States and reflective of ALL AMERICANS.

In a Free Market society we uphold the idea that an individual places value upon that which he decides is of worth toward the action of exchange of services and goods. This freedom creates wealth and encourages more freedom as one has the freedom to choose.

Each can decides their religion; their derivations for deciding life; to impose that upon others is to reveal yourself as EXACTLY THAT OF LIBERAL DEMOCRATS as they seek to impose their personal ideology onto the greater nation. If fact, ALL AMERICANS should want personal freedom upheld above all else.

To say otherwise is to limit choice, which inherently is control and manipulation - liberal ideology at its absolute worst.

Unknown said...

Alan Keye's the most eloquent of speakers and writers, puts his beliefs on display for our benefit and edification. A true leader, who should be heeded. Marginalized by the media, one to whom we should turn as a compass out of this morass of liberalism.

IONU said...

Dr. Davison,

Internet anonymity is a two edged sword. In a free society ideas can be expressed with impunity. Regardless of content - truth or falsehood, good or bad, brilliant or incoherent, constructive or destructive - freedom of expression is protected.

Some of us "cowards" fear a knock at the door in the middle of the night - an invitation to visit an Obama gulag.

JohnADavison said...

Verite, whoever that is.

I regret that I have but one life to spend languishing in an Obama Gulag.
paraphrased after Patrick Henry.

If you think remaining anonymous will give you any protection from this power crazed tyrant you are sadly mistaken. Only by signing your real name to the many petitions already in circulation do we have a chance to stop him before it is too late.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Are there any more politicians with morals or is Dr. Keyes the last one?

No wonder America is going to hell in a hand basket. The Republicans have morphed into the Democrats and they will say whatever it takes to get elected, then stick it to us in the end.

cw said...

Verite, while I believe people should have a right to post with a nickname or their real name, don't think for a moment that hiding behind a nickname is going to save you from the Obama Gulag.

Your nickname is generally tied to your email address. From the email address, your email provider most likely has a way to identify you.

In the rare case that the above does not suffice, then the Gulag people could easily use your IP address. Any posting is tied to an IP address. Your Internet service provider could determine who was using the IP address at the time your posting was made.

At most, an anonymous posting will shield you from other people across the Internet who may disagree. But in no way would it shield you from an Obama Gulag, if it ever came to that.

cw said...

Ed, I agree with SteveC's response, not to mention Dr. Keyes' excellent message of March 8th. However, as a Gen X'er myself, I would like to add my own comments...

The conservative view means government limited only to the most basic functions. One of these things is protection of all human life. Human life includes the unborn and people like Terri Schiavo. Each of us was once a fetus and any of us could one day be in the unfortunate situation of Terri Schiavo. The government must not offer support to abortion or euthanasia.

Protection of human life does not mean one must embrace the nanny state. In fact, protection of human life puts an even greater requirement on DISMANTLING the nanny state. A nanny state mentality puts a "cost" on every person alive today. It turns people into dollar figures. Abortion and euthanasia are thus encouraged to reduce costs. Yes, they may be promoted as "freedom" (for others, not the victims), but the real reason is to create an incentive for reducing the costs of a nanny state.

Respect for human life does not mean one is forced to support an endless array of government programs. It does not mean taxpayers have to provide housing, cars, big screen televisions, day care, free medical care (which leads to rationing), free education through graduate school, etc. to everyone. It means we have to live up to what is said in the Declaration of Independence: supporting the INALIENABLE right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all individuals. If the right to life is not supported, the other two cannot happen. By supporting life, we are giving people a chance to live these ideals.

With over 50 million abortions (counting surgical plus chemical), the odds are strong that potential doctors who may have found the cure to cancer have been aborted. Innovators who may have developed all sorts of technology that could provide thousands of jobs were likely aborted. All sorts of others who could have brought about untold opportunities to mankind have likely been aborted. Support for abortion has cheated society out of so much potential.

We know Social Security is a ponzi scheme. It only works if there is a continuous group of workers contributing. Abortion has wiped out 50 million+. Millions of contributors who would be in the workforce now are gone. This means ultimately that the social security money you are forced to contribute will likely never come back to you in your retirement years. You can just consider it yet another tax.

You might also not be aware that there are thousands of crisis pregnancy centers who offer free or low cost help to women who have an unintended pregnancy. The pro-abortion types have tried to harass and/or shut down these organizations since they reduce revenue for abortion mills. Once abortion mills' revenue is down, that is less money they can funnel to Democrat candidates.

Generation X attitudes have largely been shaped by teachers in primarily liberal schools. Many teachers support abortion (in addition to high taxes since their salaries depend on them). If you can see through liberal economics, then why not totally clear the fog and try to see through the liberal social view?

In terms of morality issues, if sexual promiscuity is simply accepted, there are more unwanted pregnancies. There are more STDs. The government gets involved with wasting taxpayer money on contraception. If abstinence is promoted, aside from this being morally correct, it is logically correct. The more abstinence is practiced, the less excuse there is for government waste on contraception. Society is healthier with fewer STDs being spread.

JohnADavison said...

It is my belief that the Supreme Court knows that Obama is not qualified to be President. Why else would they refuse to hear the several cases which have been brought forth challenging his qualifications. Obama may not even be an American citizen for all we know. It is a sad day when the Supreme Court finds it necessary to abandon its Constitutional responsibility. For a possible answer I recommend Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah."

The major heroes in the present crisis are, in no particular order, Robert Bork, Alan Keyes, Philip Berg and Jerome Corsi.

Barack Hussein Obama is the only truly dangerous person ever to occupy the Oval Office.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to