The latest update from ConstitutionParty.com, featuring statements from their supporters on what drew them to the Constitution Party. As far as I can tell, this latest installment does not feature the author’s name, unlike past posts in this series.
I am from Nashville, Tennessee and graduated from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Political Science (focus on International Relations). I later obtained my Masters degree from New Mexico State University in History (specialty in U.S. Foreign Relations).
A Monarchist myself at heart, I was founder of College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom at the University of Tennessee, but ceased affiliation with them after Gulf War I and President Bush’s (and the Republican Party’s) abandonment of basic conservative beliefs. I became a supporter of Patrick Buchanan at the time. Later I became a supporter of Ron Paul.
I pursued an academic and educational career abroad, teaching at the University and high school levels in Central America, and have been doing so for 15 years. Besides teaching, I have collaborated in historical research and books.
I always felt these United States and its two-party monopoly in politics turned its back on me, especially since 9-11. If Bush and the Republicans were awful and crass, President Obama and the Democrats have proven to be worse.
It’s time for me to man up and honor my ancestors as they stood up for these United States during the War Between the States — do my part to save it before it’s too late.
I plan to return to Tennessee and hopefully, through The Constitution Party, we can play a part in turning things around.
I look forward to joining the party and work together to save these United States.
County: Davidson
As long as it is a good constitutional monarchy, would it be such a bad thing?
A good article.
That’s no reason not to mock monarchy 🙂
@ Andy #37
It have heard it speculated that Keyes ran for President in 1996 as a stalking horse to hurt Buchanan, which he probably did on the margins. Kristol and his ilk would have likely been behind this if true. I haven’t really heard that sort of speculation about 2008 as much, but it is possible.
@ Gary #34
Thanks for that explanation. I don’t want to re-open old wounds so don’t answer this if you don’t want to, but what bothered many of us leading up to the convention is that Keyes’ name was still being tossed around in polls and letters well into 2008. So the perception was that the CP leadership didn’t get it, and people were getting increasingly frantic.
I too thought that once it was clear that the numbers were against him, Keyes would have dropped out of the race to avoid defeat. I don’t know what he was thinking.
All,
Don’t knock monarchy. While I prefer a truly republican form of government, I’m not sure that monarchy isn’t preferable to the mess we have today (which has long since ceased to be a republic).
My point is not how a restoration happens or who should become the monarch. My point simply is that countries with little or no constitutional and/or democratic traditions but long national histories could benefit from the re-institution of monarchy. I believe it can serve as a check against unlimited power being seized by a politician like a Stalin or a Putin. My reference to Juan Carlos was purely allegorical since he did, in fact, quell an attempt to overthrow an elected government at personal risk to himself. I don’t follow European royalty nearly as closely as you apparently do. As I said from the outset, I am not a monarchist.
New Federalist
Thank you for post # 55, However, I would like
your answer to my question #43 to your #42.
Again why do you think King Juan Carlos from of restoration is better to a form of restoration that
the Russian Orthodox Church advocates?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
“I think what New Federalist is doing is trying to…”
Nope. Not even close.
Harry V. Joiner
At your post # 35, you commended on the future if Putin appointed himself Tsar. Lets look back in
history, In 1881 Ignacy “Kotik” Hryniewiewiecki
under the direction of Sofia Perovskaya of the
Executive Committee to Narodnaya Volya, threw
a bomb at Tsar Alexander II of Russia and killed him. That gave the idea to the Stalwart Charles
Guiteau to kill James A. Garfield so he could be
replaced by Chester Arthur. Arthur was the first
person claimed not to be a natural born citizen
of the United States that took control of the
White House. It wasa claimed that Chester
Arthur was born in Canada to a British Subject
father.
Now Obama a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar from birth is in control of the White House under
no authority of law.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Gary Odom
At post # 34 you stated you were going to send me a private message. That sounds OK. When will you send me the private message and how
will it arrive to me. My suggest is you have not
come up with the how and where is address it
to me as private and send it to me c/o the
Law Office of Gary G. Kreep, 932 D Street, Suite 2, 932 D Street, Ramona, CA 92065
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
“Hopefully, 2012 alt party presidential candidates will get ahead of the curve and get busy in Ron Paul meetups around the country marketing themselves as Plan B candidates for the general election and gathering contacts while actively helping numerous local meetups.”
I haven’t seen anybody doing all of the things that I think need to be done. I’ve got a bad feeling that the situation will turn into another big mess like what happened in 2008 in that the potential will be squandered.
“The Art of the Non-Sequitur” by Mark Seidenberg. Coming soon to fine bookstores everywhere.
@49 LOL, what else is new?
Okay, that…has nothing to do with what I wrote, Mark.
…And for Russia as much as anywhere else.
@46 Thanks for the entertaining fiction.
Of course, I oppose any type of monarchy, whether limited or absolute.
JT
In 2004 the illegal alien Barack Obama ran for
the United States Senate in Illinios. Obama was
taken across the British Columbia border into
Washington States in September, 1961. His mother entered Canada on a flight from England
at Montreal on a BOAC flight. I believe she took the direct train from Montrael to Vancouver without leaving the train with baby
Obama.
She started classes at the University of Washington Extension at Seattle on September
25, 1961. Barack Obama was living with his mother on Capitol Hill in Seattle during the
academic year 1961 – 1962. Obama did not
show up in Honolulu until June, 1962 as a ten
month old baby.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
I’ll say that one thing that totally baffles me about Keyes is why he doesn’t seek a U.S. Senate seat in a conservative-leaning state. I mean, Maryland and Illinois?!?! In those states, a socially conservative candidate for U.S. Senate is just pleading for a severe beating–which is exactly what he got. If he got an inexpensive residence in a Mountain or Southern state, he’d have a very good shot of winning the election as a socially conservative Republican.
I think what New Federalist is doing is trying to
bring this on what type of monarchist is Mr. Rosenberg of the Constitution Party of New York and Gary Odem long time friend. We know that King Juan Carlos I is a “Monarquia
Parlamentaria” form of king and that Maria
Vladimirovna of Russia (which the Russian
Orthodox Church supports) is an Autocrat.
My understanding in talking to Mr. Rosenberg
of New York with Gary Odom standing next to
us, was that Mr. Rosenberg of the Constitution
Party of New York State wanted Maria Vladimirovna of Russia as an Empires and Autocrat of All of the Russias.
I am not puting down one form of monarchy over another. It just goes to how that form of
goverment is set up.
In the case of Barack H. Obama II, his loyality
as a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar is to the
“Manarquia Parliamentia” under the terms of
United Nations recognation on December 16,
1963.
This is because, Obama’s grandfather became
a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar in a natralization decree in the year 1919. Because
of that decree Obama’s grandfather got out of
prison in 1951, after being convicted in 1949
as one of the first 19 Mau Mau terriorists, because he was not a Subject of George VI
of England, under the British Nationality Act
1948. [Please note it is the British Nationality
Act 1948 and not styled British Nationality Act
of 1948, as some of the “Birther” misuse the term.]
I think if Mr Odom can get Mr. Rosenberg to
comment of Autocratic vs. Monarchquia Parlamentaria it would be a most interesting
thread.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
NewFederalist
At post 42 you stated “I would be more in favor of a restoration along the lines of Juan Carlos of Spain.” My question is why? I met then Prince
Juan Carlos once in 1971 at the Madrid Airport.
He was sharp and spoke English well. I have not
met Maria of Russia, even though she also came
from Spain.
My suggestion is to first read THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL SUCCESSION by Brian Purcell Huren, (formally the head of the legal section
of the United States Embassy at Paris, France)
After read then please re-make your comment
again.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
http://www.chivalricorders,org/royalty/gotha/russlicw.htm
“How exactly would Russia be better off if, say, Putin appointed himself Tsar, instead of shadow president?”
I am not a monarchist myself . I actually consider myself to be a libertarian and I believe in a constitutional republican form of government. I am also a federalist in the true sense of the word which to me means specific (and not overlapping) responsibilities for the three levels of government… national, state/provincial/regional and local. Having said that I believe that a nation with no history of anything but strong central government, little or no democratic traditions and certainly no constitutional traditions would be better off with a monarch who is basically trained from birth to be a symbol of national unity and the person to whom the people can turn when their government gets out of control. I am not advocating a royal or imperial autocracy but a limited monarch as the symbol of the history and traditions of nationhood who can step in if needed to take the reins of government and dissolve the Duma and call for new elections if a Putin-type prime minister decides to become another Stalin. In the absence of a constitutional tradition and any other meaningful checks and balances it does not seem all that bad an option to me. And to your other point, I would not think Putin would make a good Tsar because he is more interested in wielding power which would be the role for the prime minister. I would be more in favor of a restoration along the lines of Juan Carlos of Spain. Hey, just my $.02 worth!
Keyes has been flirting with an alt-party run of some sort for a while. I seem to recall that a number of years back he wanted the Libertarian nomination for US Senate in New York.
I also recall Justin Raimondo criticizing the LP for helping to oust Barr from Congress, and saying Barr had libertarian tendencies, back in 2002/3.
It’s not really so surprising to me that a movement of mostly politically inexperienced and/or naive people many of whom actually believed Ron Paul had a real chance to win the Republican nomination did not unite behind one candidate in the general election. They came from different backgrounds and supported Ron Paul for different reasons. It’s true that Barr was an uninspiring candidate.
Hopefully, 2012 alt party presidential candidates will get ahead of the curve and get busy in Ron Paul meetups around the country marketing themselves as Plan B candidates for the general election and gathering contacts while actively helping numerous local meetups.
” Question for you Constitution Party people out there: Do you all think that Alan Keyes was sent in to the Constitution by some entity (say the government or the Republican Party or something else) to intentionally sabotage it? ”
Response : Andy – Yes, Alan Keyes is a, and certainly the best and most well known, double agent within the conservative movement. I believe that the proper term is ” cutout;” someone who appears to be one thing but, when ” the chips are down,” represents and fights for the total opposite of what they appear to be. In this case Keyes is an agent of those forces which are behind Republican Party ” moderates,” the Anti-Defamation League, and The Southern Poverty Law Center. These are his behind the scenes controllers/benefactors while more openly he is part of the neo-con scene. As the Constitution Party is against the continous war/interventionist policy of the neo-cons it had to be stopped by the forces behind Keyes lest there be a viable alternative to the Republican Party for those who were sick of its interventionist/pro-war and anti-morality ( ” Big Tent “/pro-homosexuality ) positions; to name only 2 prominent out of many other possible reasons for leaving them. Hence, as a dual track attack plan, at the national level Keyes was dispatched to destroy the CP under the cover of seeking its nomination while at the state level Mark Seidenberg, as an agent of the same forces, was assigned to destroy the CP via an attack upon the AIP. The overall objective has been/is to destroy minimally the 3rd party conservative movement within the nation and this as a sub-structural part of doing the same on the national level; i.e.; the war within the Republican party between true conservatives and the neo-cons and their many allies. Keyes, to this day and despite any of his surface acts and cover scams ( like getting arrested at a pro-life demonstration at Notre Dame ), is an ADL/SPLC/” moderate ” mole, and one of their most effective agents, within the conservative movement. The great majority of conservatives have been/are successfully fooled by this back stabbing traitor for hire.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
I second everything Gene said.
And it should have been apparent Ron Paul wasn’t going to win the Republican nomination WAY before the GOP primaries even started.
@ #37 – I don’ t think the Establishment takes either The Libertarian Party or The Constitution Party seriously.
Bob Barr had serious disagreements with the Bush Agenda, and was writing critiques of it from a civil liberties point of view for several years before he joined The Libertarian Party.
However ineffective his campaign, I have no reason to believe that Barr had any other goal than to build The Libertarian Party.
Alan Keyes is a legend in his own mind. After several failed attempts at the Republican nomination for President, it was inevitable that he would seek a third party nomination.
Question for you Constitution Party people out there: Do you all think that Alan Keyes was sent in to the Constitution by some entity (say the government or the Republican Party or something else) to intentionally sabotage it?
I’ve wondered the same thing about Bob Barr in the Libertarian Party. This is just speculation, but perhaps Bob Barr was sent to sabotage the Libertarian Party and Alan Keyes was sent to sabotage the Constitution Party. This were the two most logical places for the Ron Paul r3VOLution movement to go after it became apparent that Ron Paul wasn’t going to win the Republican nomination. Is it possible that in order to derail the r3VOLution Barr and Keyes were sent in as plants/sabatuers? We may never find out the anwser to this for sure, but one has got to wonder…
When President Clinton was overseeing the bombing of Serbia, Alan Keyes did write at least one antiwar column, which we ran on antiwar.com.
The substance of the column was that “war means killing people.” So when someone tells you that a war is justified, it means they are saying that “killing people is justified.”
It seemed for a brief moment that Alan Keyes took his pro-life rhetoric serioiusly. But it turned out that he only opposed a war because a Democrat was in the White House – the same principle that pushed Tom Delay into the antiwar camp in 1999.
Once a Republican was in office, Mr Keyes became an outspoken supporter of the War on Terror and the Iraq War.
I guess party affiliation is an important principle for some people.
How exactly would Russia be better off if, say, Putin appointed himself Tsar, instead of shadow president? Maybe if he sired inbred, developmentally challenged progeny 100 years from now, Russia would return to the lost glories of the 18th and 19th centuries?
Mark,
I will be sending you a private message which I sincerely hope will do some good in helping to forge a fresh start in California and begin the process of healing wounds. The question in California now, in light of this court ruling and Prop. 14, is whether the AIP will be run by fair and democratic procedures that will allow all of the members of the party to participate in the organization, or not. That was really my main concern all along. It is still my concern.
I am, therefore, fairly reluctant to now risk creating more bad feelings by taking issue with you on this matter concerning Keyes. You really should have been in the room in Council Bluffs, Iowa in the fall of 2007 when Keyes spoke to the Constitution Party Executive Committee. I can’t remember if you went to the general meeting, but I know you were not at the executive committee meeting. Keyes was invited to speak and answer questions. Hofling was here with him as his aide de camp.
Keyes did two memorable things at that meeting: 1) He attacked Ron Paul to a group of people who revered Ron Paul, and 2) he went on at length about how important it was to continue to fight the “war on terror” everywhere in the middle east so as “to fight them over there so that we wouldn’t have to fight them here.” I have never heard a more silent response to a political address… ever. You literally could have heard a pin drop. I looked over at Mary Starrett and she looked absolutely stunned. Everyone did. He said the reason we had a military was to use them and we should use them to advance American interests. There was nothing remotely non-interventionist in Keyes message.
If Bill Shearer had been alive and had been
present, knowing his positions on foreign policy, I can only imagine what he would have said about Mr. Keyes’ performance. He was probably rolling over in his grave as it was. You profess to have been a friend of Bill. You must realize that he was never very fond of Alan Keyes and that his foreign policy position are diametrically opposed to the historic non-interventionist positions of the AIP.
It was this performance in Council Bluffs and nothing else that sealed Keyes fate as a potential Presidential nominee for the Constitution Party. After that meeting he never had any chance to be nominated. That is something that does not seem to be very well known to many people.
Alan Keyes was never going to get the 2008 nomination after that shocking performance (and I haven’t adequately described it, I am sure). I had as much chance to be nominated as Keyes and, of course, I had no chance whatsoever. Perhaps our mistake was not in make that fact clear enough to Mr. Keyes, though Howard Phillips really did try well before the convention.
Later Keyes told Darrell Castle that, if he were elected President, he would appoint William Kristol to a cabinet position. That is about as “Neo-Con” interventionist as a person can get! Keyes also said that he was against eliminating foreign aid and that the US could not get out of the United Nations and remain a world power. He opposed tariffs as means of protecting industry or raising revenue (which may not have been a killer with everybody, but it was for me) His policies on many, many issues, aside from abortion and illegal immigration, were simply way out of line with the platform of the Constitution Party and the views of its membership.
At the Convention in Kansas City, the Keyes forces (and there were not enough to ever have a chance to win) tried repeatedly to make major changes in our platform, because they knew that Keyes was totally out of sinc with much of the CP platform. Red Phillipa and Trent Hill were both there and I am sure that they would confirm that to be the truth.
Again, I cannot overemphasize the fact that Howard Phillips pleaded with Keyes, who he considerd a friend, not to seek the CP nomination. He knew he was not a good fit for our party on many issues. Keyes, with his supreme ego, ignored Howard Phillips’ admonitions.
Keyes certainly never had even the slightest chance to receive the nomination once Chuck Baldwin announced his candidacy. I kept wondering why Keyes bothered to push forward with such a futile effort. Surely Keyes people had a count. I had my runners going all over the building and there was absolutely no question, as far as I was concerned, that Baldwin would win easily, which he did.
To act like Keyes was treated unfairly grossly mistates the facts. We bent over backward to accomodate him including allowing one delegate with no prior Constitution Party experience, Steve Shulin, to have three votes to give to Keyes, primarily because he came from Keyes home state and because the former affiliate (Peroutka’s group) had flown the coup.
So Howard Phillips got up and told the truth as he saw it. So what? Are you saying that he didn’t have the right as the founder of the party and a three time nominee to speak his mind?
The California delegation had always been the largest delegation at the CP national conventions when the people you claim to be “hijackers” (a term you stole from me, but I forgive you) were in control. However, under the magnificent leadership of Noonan, Seidenberg and Robinson, the California AIP was able to bring a total of 12 stinking delegates to the National Convention. Even Wiley Drake was recruited by me. Most of them supported Baldwin (except for you, Robinson, the Hills and Drake), but after you forced Deemer out as Delegation chair you were given the right to cast the balance of California’s 60 odd votes for your candidate, Keyes, which you did. Fair enough. Keyes still lost in a landslide. Anyone with their eyes open would have seen that he never had a chance. He should have seen it. Hofling should have seen it and you should have seen it.
One final thing. I joined the AIP in 1971. I have served one three different county central committees and as county central committee chairman in both LA and Riverside Counties. I have served as state youth chairman, state organizational liaison, twice in the now apparently holy position of state vice chairman of the American Independent Party (’82 and ’86) and state chairman in 88. I served as campaign manager for several state candidates. I was an AIP nominee for Congress in 1990 and 1992. I have attended more California state meetings in 40 years than I can ever hope to remember, (but I do remember that George Wallace spoke to the first state meeting that I attended in LA in November of 1971–the same day of the LA “Wallace Appreciation Dinner.” I don’t remember seeing you there, probably because you were a big supporter of Richard Nixon) Anyway, I also attended the national conventions of 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 (though we were not connected with a national party that year), 1996, and 1999. During that whole time I never met you, Robinson or any of your group even once (though Noonan may have surfaced in about 1999). Finally at the 2004 convention in Valley Forge in good old PA I finally met you.
I would just like to know Mark…do you consider ME to be a “hijacker” of the American Independent Party?
You will soon receive a message from me that is in the spirit of the Lenten Spring. The ball will soon be in your court, Mark. Quo Vadis?
Gary
PS Yes, the friend of mine you refer to, Don Rosenberg of New York, is a member of the Russian Imperial Union. He supports a monarchy in Russia, not, of course, in the United States.
Andy @ 32 Exactly.
“paulie // Mar 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Most all of the non-Arab monarchies you list are strictly only ceremonial; the actual power in government is not inherited.”
Some people say that these Monarchs still exert power behind the scenes. Regardless of whether this is true or not, monarchies should be placed in the dustbin of history. The concept of monarchies says that certain families should be born to rule and/or granted special priviledges. This is completely anti-liberty.
It will be difficult, but time heals all wounds, and eventually this too shall pass 😛
“Most all of the non-Arab monarchies you list are strictly only ceremonial; the actual power in government is not inherited.”
I did not see that as a qualifier to Richard’s statement. My point is that monarchy gets a bad name because of people equating it with dictatorship. I believe there are many countries today that would be better off as limited monarchies since they have no constitutional history. I actually include Russia as one of those.
I should also amend my previous statement to say: “then 80% of the delegates from California went against the strictly non-interventionist Constitution Party Platform on what was/is an extremely important issue.”
Paulie: “He said 80% of the AIP (california) delegates, so naturally most states voted otherwise. And Trent clarified that further, those were actually proxy votes cast by one person.”
Oh, I forgot that the AIP affiliate of the CP was only in California. And I didn’t see Trent’s post. You forgive me…right, Paulie??
Further, if 80% of the delegates backed Keyes, how did he not win the party’s nomination for President?
He said 80% of the AIP (california) delegates, so naturally most states voted otherwise. And Trent clarified that further, those were actually proxy votes cast by one person.
Most all of the non-Arab monarchies you list are strictly only ceremonial; the actual power in government is not inherited.
“Most of the monarchies in the world today are in Arab countries.”
Really? Let’s see… Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Spain and perhaps The Vatican. That’s just Europe. In Asia there is Japan, Thailand and until recently Nepal. I am quite certain that there are monarchies in some Pacific island nations and lest we forget Canada, Australia and New Zealand are monarchies as well. None of the above mentioned nations are Arab.
Paulie: “He is apparently selectively interventionist.”
That does appear to be the case from those quotes. But some of them contradict each other.
I admittedly don’t know all Keyes has said about foreign policy, but I do remember him saying the U.S. can’t just withdraw from the U.N., that some U.S. troops must be kept in foreign countries, and that the U.S. must fight a vigorous war on terrorism. If the latter doesn’t imply foreign war and violation of civil liberties, I don’t even know what it would mean in practice.
Mark: “80% of the AIP delegates to that convention backed Alan Keyes for President of the United States.”
If that’s true, then 80% of the delegates went against the strictly non-interventionist Constitution Party Platform on what was/is an extremely important issue.
Further, if 80% of the delegates backed Keyes, how did he not win the party’s nomination for President?? Does the CP have a nominating system where someone who has 20% or less of the delegate votes can win the nomination?
They’ve already said there will be more lawsuits.
Not even close. It’s extremely interventionist. But then again, you have reading comprehension problems….
For example, when Richard Winger said that most of the world’s monarchies (that is nations ruled by monarchs) are in Arab countries, you though that he said monarchists, and considered it germane to point out that most (at least according to you) monarchists in the US are in Hawaii. Other people, naturally, know the difference between monarchies and monarchists, and between the world and the United States, and most of us even realize that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, USA, and not an island off the coast of Kenya (LOL), so we can likewise tell that the quoted platform plank from A’sIP is in fact interventionist.
Mark–80% of those delegates meaning…one man, who had collected lots of in-abstentia votes.
He is apparently selectively interventionist.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Alan_Keyes.htm
Click here for 21 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.
* Commitment to Israel is a moral obligation. (Oct 2007)
* No troops to Darfur; but support regional aid. (Sep 2007)
* Don’t pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
* Monitor the eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
* Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
* Work with indigenous elements in Iran. (Oct 2004)
* Renounce interference with affairs of other nations. (Aug 2004)
* Routine military intervention is wrong. (Feb 2000)
* Africa: No money for AIDS, because money won’t cure AIDS. (Jan 2000)
* South Africa: Venture capital instead of foreign aid. (May 1996)
* Rwanda: Humanitarian grounds 150x more than in Bosnia. (Jan 1996)
China
* Panama Canal: Keep US in; keep China Out. (Jan 2000)
* Clarifying commitment to Taiwan avoids Chinese attack. (Dec 1999)
* Military intervention to ensure Taiwan’s self-determination. (Dec 1999)
* Call to account those responsible for Chinese espionage. (May 1999)
* China is an egregious abuser of human life and human rights. (Sep 1995)
United Nations
* United Nations: source of dangerously naive globalist dreams. (Oct 2007)
* I’ve never been a supporter of the UN, even while Ambassador. (Sep 2007)
* Against paying UN until they reform. (Oct 1999)
* Fostered policy of withholding UN funds; UN wastes US taxes. (Oct 1999)
* If the UN undermines US sovereignty, we should quit. (Jan 1999)
Alan Keyes on War & Peace
Click here for 22 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
* Would not have chosen Iraq; would not have asked UN either. (Oct 2007)
* After military victory, should have had UN nation-building. (Oct 2007)
* Bush focuses on democracy for Iraq; not security for America. (Sep 2007)
* Our efforts in Iraq defend against a deep & terrible threat. (Sep 2007)
* Autonomy for Christians in Iraq’s Nineveh region. (Sep 2007)
* Withdrawing before your enemy stops is called “defeat”. (Sep 2007)
* War on terror is about survival; war in Iraq is about morale. (Sep 2007)
* Needed greater effort to bring in others to Iraq. (Oct 2004)
* War on Terror requires both intelligence and discretion. (Oct 2004)
* Iraq War reduced probability of attack from Saddam to zero. (Oct 2004)
* Naive to think Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda. (Oct 2004)
* Troops should stay in Iraq until they get the job done. (Oct 2004)
* Preemptive strike in Iraq is a right decision. (Oct 2004)
* There is no distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq. (Oct 2004)
* Bush didn’t have the wisdom of hindsight in the Iraqi War. (Oct 2004)
* Respond to facts, not Serb intentions. (Dec 1999)
* Kosovo sets precedent for more future intervention. (Jun 1999)
* NATO strategy against civilians is terrorism. (Jun 1999)
* “Ends justify the means” is the path to evil. (Jun 1999)
* Kosovo not based on human rights policy nor precedent. (Apr 1999)
* Support Israel on moral grounds, not economic nor strategic. (May 1996)
* Bosnian intervention MUST be approved by Congress. (Nov 1995)
Alan Keyes on Homeland Security
Click here for 23 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.
* Peace through strength: supremely strong & prepared military. (Aug 2008)
* Stand unalterably opposed to all who commit terrorist acts. (Aug 2008)
* Killing innocents by terror is same evil as by abortion. (Sep 2007)
* Protect military chaplains’ right to pray in preferred faith. (Sep 2007)
* Allow Christian symbols in national war memorials. (Sep 2007)
* No student visas to citizens of terrorist states. (Sep 2007)
* Doctrine of terror is killing innocent people. (Sep 2007)
* Develop a plan that will get us away from our oil dependence. (Oct 2004)
* Don’t use Patriot Act to take away freedoms. (Oct 2004)
* Send a clear message to the entire terror network. (Oct 2004)
* Take preemptive action only if a probable threat exists. (Oct 2004)
* Greatest threat is not external, but what we do to ourselves. (Nov 2003)
* Set aside the ABM treaty and build SDI. (Feb 2000)
* Rapidly develop & deploy an anti-missile defense system. (Feb 2000)
* What you see is what you get over “don’t ask, don’t tell.”. (Feb 2000)
* Ban homosexuals in the military. (Jan 2000)
* Missile defense umbrella including Taiwan. (Dec 1999)
* Keep some forces abroad, but avoid globalism. (Nov 1999)
* Defend human rights & self-govt within national interests. (Nov 1999)
* Kosovo sets precedent for more future intervention. (Jun 1999)
* Supports missile strikes against terrorists abroad. (Aug 1998)
* Citadel and VMI should remain all male. (Feb 1996)
* No women in combat. (Jun 1995)
Paulie
The above statement is not interventionist. We
support the non-interventionist view of George Washington.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Video of that speech:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4879860832730250338
From wikipedia article on Keyes; you may recognize some of these names:
JT
You correct that is what Howard Philips called
Alan Keyes That however is not true.
80% of the AIP delegates to that convention backed Alan Keyes for President of the United States. The AIP joined the America’s Independent Party on June 27, 2008. Then
spent the span of time until the ruling by Judge
Mattie of the Superior Court of Solano County in
Fairfield, CA on March 11, 2011 gave his order.
Now the Hijacker lawsuits have finished (I hope.).
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman
American Independent Party
OK.
http://www.selfgovernment.us/platform.html
And now you know…the rest of the story.
Yes, they are interventionist. Thanks for the suggestion to read the platform, Mr. Seidenberg.
Howard Phillips even called Keyes a neocon from the podium at the 2008 Constitution Party national convention.
Mark: “You are wrong. The America’s Independent Party does not support an interventionist foreign policy. It platform is non-interventist.”
If that’s true, it’s odd that you’d embrace Alan Keyes. My understanding is that he’s as interventionist as you can get.
Andy
You are wrong. The America’s Independent Party does not support an interventionist foreign policy. It platform is non-interventist.
Please read it. It states in part “We completely
oppose any action that surrenders the moral, political or ecomomic spvereignty of the United
States and itrs people, and demand that immediate restoration of that sovereignty where ever it has been eroded.”
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg’
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Doesn’t America’s Independent Party support an interventionist foreign policy? That is contrary to what the Founding Fathers supported.
Andy
Why do you think the Constitution Party supports
the founding fathers? On June 27, 2008 the State
Central Committee of the American Independent
Party voted to join the America’s Independent Party of Alan Keyes.
From then until the ruling of Judge Mattie of the
Solono County Superior County on March 11, 2011, the AIP had to go through 3 lawsuit to try
to force the AIP into the Constitution Party.
If the CP leadership believed in the Founding Fathers view they would have tried to work with
the AIP and form a Constitution Party of California. Now they have such a party, however,
they only has to September 5, 2011 to get 103,004
California Electors registered and they currently
as of February 10, 2011 have 157 electors toward
that goal.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Richard Winger
You stated that most of the monarchist in the world are in Arab countries. What is your proof
of that asseveration?
I believe that most of the monarchists in the
United States are Hawaiian.
Back in Valley Forge. PA at the Constitution Party Connvention in 2004, I meet several
monarchists as delegates. Even Gary Odom
has a monarchist friend from New York State.
Barack H. Obama II is a subject of the Sultan
of Zanzibar from birth. He was born on Mombasa Island in the Indian Ocean, off the
coast of Kenya. Obama’s Sultan now lives in Portmouth, England, Therefore, Obama has
a legal loyalty to the current Sultan of Zanzibar
from birth, when he was born a British Protected Person under the terms of the British Nationality Act 1948.
His grandfather was naturalized in 1919 as a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar and that Naturalization was multi generational. His grandfather got out of Prison in 1951, because
that 1919 Nationalization proved he was not a
Subject of George VI and therefore did not commit all parts of the crime he was convicted
of in 1949, viz., a Mau Mau terrrorist.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
“A Monarchist myself at heart”
I’d hope that this is a misprint. My guess is that the person indentended to say minarchist.
The Constitution Party supporters the Founding Fathers who revolted against a monarch, so I doubt this guy would be in the Constitution Party if he were a monarchist.
Wow! Were you at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga when Robert Barnes attended?
I note you were in the same department. It has
been almost two years since, I was at your campus checking out the background of Robert
Barnes.
Have you been in Loudon County, Tenn. on March 10, 2011? Specifically the City of
Philadelphia, Tenn.? The City of Philadelphia
is located on US Highway 11 (just south of TN highway 323.
Where you the reason that reason that Robert Barnes did not call Gary Kreep between 1:40 p.m. and 4:30 p.m on March 10, 2011?
My guess is that Robert Barnes not making that
telecom with Gary Kreep was very upsetting to
Jim King, because of the ruling of Judge Mattie
of the Solono County Superior Court in Fairfield, CA on March 11, 2011.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Which US Party, if any, would a Monarchist line up if a Monarchist were to line up with a US political party?
I guess the Republican Party (Bush dynasty)?
Perhaps the Democrats (if Hillary and/or Chelsea go on to grab the brass ring)?
I’m sure he meant minarchist. The CP wouldn’t be much of a fit for an anarchist or a monarchist.
Anarchy for the UK
It’s coming sometime and maybe…..
Most of the monarchies in the world today are in Arab countries. Suddenly, monarchy doesn’t seem to be working very well for people on the Arabian peninsula.
Hard to say. Monarchist? Anarchist? Minarchist?
Should that be anarchist?
Monarchist? Really?