... the argument on gun control is very clear. The Second Amendment is there so that we never lose either the practice or the mentality of defending our liberty. Self-government, government by representative institutions, in human history went hand and hand with the willingness of common people to overcome their fear of weapons and take up those weapons in defense of their own rights. If we lose that mentality in which we are willing to stand fast in defense of our liberties, we will lose those liberties. So, the Second Amendment isn’t just about gun bearing.

And also, gun control is absurd. If the law-abiding citizens can’t carry weapons, and they obey the law, then the only people who will have the weapons are people willing to break the law—that is to say, the crooks. So, you’ll have disarmed law-abiding people and armed crooks. That sounds like a real uneven match, and I think it’s idiotic to suggest that a society should place itself in that position.
—- END OF QUOTE —-

Alan Keyes HATES the Constitution especially the second amendment. He believeS that the 2nd Amendment is not a guarantee of the right to bear arms but instead he believes that it establishes the governments right to conscript the population into compulsory military service. The guy is a SOCIALIST!

And only a COMMUNIST and/or a traitor would cast a vote for Keyes.

What? You don’t believe me?

Just ask Alan Keyes. He’ll tell you exactly what I just told you about the 2nd amendment and compulsory service to the government.

BS!

National Veterans Coalition
Constitution party…www.nvets.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Media contact:

Markham Robinson

Parliamentarian

American Independent Party of California

mark@masterplanner.com

Marysville CA - June 30, 2008

In the wake of a small weekend meeting of members, non-members, and out of state interlopers, the duly-elected and legally-constituted officers and State Central Committee members of California ’s American Independent Party, including Chairman Edward C. Noonan and Vice-Chairman Mark Seidenberg, today clarified the official position of the party.

On Saturday, the party announced its affiliation nationally with the newly-formed America ’s Independent Party of Fenton, MI. The American Independent Party had previously affiliated on a national basis with the Constitution Party of Lancaster, PA.

The State Central Committee of the American Independent Party voted unanimously in its Friday meeting to make the switch, after which the new 2008 national affiliation was duly filed with the Secretary of State’s office in accordance with the requirements of California ’s Election Code.

State Vice Chairman Mark Seidenberg, commenting on the activities of the rogue group, which is falsely claiming to represent the AIP, said, “Edward C. Noonan, our Chairman, was elected to a two-year term, which doesn’t expire until September. The group which met in Los Angeles has no legal standing or right to present themselves as in any way representing the American Independent Party. Any actions they took or will take under the direction of out-of-state political operatives are null and void.”

Dear Ed,

Consider this the last email ever from me to you.

Since you have been our Chairman, I’ve tried to stay out of all in-fighting that has gone on in the Party, thanks to you.

But now I’ve had it.

Ed, you are the WORST State Chair the AIP has EVER had! You have caused more problems then you did build the party! Now there’s only ONE AIP candidate running for this year and AIP registration.

Appointing that moron (D. Clark) and his biker gang to be the San Diego AIP Committee has caused us nothing but hardship, and it did nothing.

Attacking Gary Odom and Nancy Shearer in a deranged manner is definably disgusting and petty of you. Especially since Gary has done more for the AIP in its history then you have, as has Nancy. Gary even has tried burying the hatchet with you and helping you out, but you have rejected his peace offerings.

You have also driven people out from the AIP, just because they don’t see eye-to-eye with you, and have attacked Party members simply for not being active enough. David Christensen was one that you have unjustifiably dragged through the mud.

Endorsing Alan Keyes, to the point of breaking off from the party was a new low for you. Alan killed his chances with the Constitution Party by refusing to reconcile his foreign policy views with the Party and chiding Constitutionalists for not thinking like him on his views.

Alan is nothing more then a political opportunist and a poor debater, even Chris Hansen will not support him. After losing the nomination, his own actions (by bashing the CP), speak louder then words in showing that the CP dodged a bullet by nominating Chuck instead.

And when I went to the IAP state convention in Reno, I found Mark Seidenburg and Markham Robinson there trying to sway the IAP to leave the Constitution Party, with Mark telling me it was going to happen- which it did not.

Man Ed, have you no decency?! any dignity at all?

I guess you don’t, after trying to disrupt the OFFICIAL AIP convention in Los Angeles, first by calling up AIP members, including Jim Griffin, and bashing Gary Odom and telling a distorted history of the AIP and at the convention, having Mr. Seidenburg hang out outside the convention hall and harass convention goers until he had to be escorted out by security.

You haven’t sunk rock-bottom; you’re well below the rocks themselves.

And don’t bother claiming this is a anti-Mormon conspiracy- Nevada, Utah, and Idaho voted for Baldwin, Paul Venable argued against Keyes, Janine and the Fluckigers are backing Baldwin 100%. The man is no anti-Mormon. You can forget about LDS support for your tyranny in the AIP.

And now you’re claiming, after a unannounced meeting you had, that the AIP is leaving the CP and joining “America’s Independent Party” is utterly pathedic. But the most pathetic part is you claim that the CP has never elected anyone to office!

BS!

Besides our office-holders in Nevada, we have city councilmen in Utah and Michigan, town mayors in Florida and Minnesota, a County commissioner in Wisconsin, another office-holder in West Virginia, and of course there’s Rick Jore of Montana.

Well Ed, you did it for me, as of now, I’m leaving CA Mormon Battallion and I’m kicking you out and deleting your posts on Independent- American.

I guarentee you Ed, if you take AIP Chairman Jim King and the Party to court- YOU WILL LOSE!

Thank you for destorying Bill Shearer’s legacy, you Gaddianton Robber! What you have done will count against you in the Book of Life Ed.

-Cody J. Quirk

Larry – you appear to give the Constitution Party much too much credit for influence on what concerns Keyes and Keyes supporters.

I don’t have anything against first principles per se, but Keyes constantly invokes abstract universal principles. Liberals appeal to abstract universals. This is a historical fact. Conservatives appeal to tradition, history, Revelation, the way things are. etc. It is partially his appeal to abstract universals that marks him as a neocon. His rhetoric reeks of Strauss.

“And he does think we should be a force for good in this world.”

We shouldn’t be a force for evil obviously, but to actively believe your nation should be a force for democracy, freedom, etc. especially if that requires military force goes beyond what a nation is supposed to do. The American government is only supposed to be a force for protecting America. To believe otherwise is a set up for ideological crusading. And Washington was on our side on this. I’m sure you are familiar with his Farewell Address. Is Peru, for example, also supposed to be a force for ushering in global democracy? If not, then why is America different? See the danger of hubris is this belief?

You apparently see Keyes as one whose views make him likely to trample liberty. I’m sensitive to the Lincoln implications, and I keep that in mind when listening to what Keyes says. And I’ve heard him a lot over recent months. When discussing issues, he brings first principles to bear, and, from brief look at the website your name links to here, I’d be surprised if you disagree with those principles.

My background is nuclear power, and as part of trying to make nuclear.com live up to its everything-nuclear name, I’ve been especially interested in learning about nuclear weapons in recent years. I respectfully disagree that the threat of Islamic radicalism is being exaggerated, although I suspect we agree that many are using the existence of the threat as a tool to achieve ends you and I recognize as inimical to our liberty.

Keyes does see the USA as having been a force for good in the world, albeit not in every situation. And he does think we should be a force for good in this world. If’s that’s enough to label him a neocon, well, then the label is too broad to be very useful, as it would include folks going back to George Washington and Ben Franklin. I admire Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and I think President Alan Keyes would be every bit as admirable. Keyes does share the notion that a virtuous citizenry is vital to our system of government. I agree with him that we are at great risk of losing huge ground in that regard, and that government policies have greatly hurt us.

Your claim that Keyes is short on foreign policy strategy seems silly to me. He’s got more hands-on strategic national security experience than any of the other candidates.

Mylroie’s conclusions are highly disputed to say the least. She is a neocon hack. Check out the Wikipedia article on her or just Google her. I would not use her to support my arguments. People who wanted to attack Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy and they wanted to usher in American style democracy were clearly interventionist ideologues. Those who wanted to invade Iraq because they thought they were a threat were guilty of advocating pre-emptive war which violates just war doctrine. As I said above, we would not have been justified attacking Iraq even if we knew they had WMDs because they were not a proximate threat to us. If we can just attack enemies because they have weapons that could potentially harm us, then would we have been justified in launching a pre-emptive war against the Soviets? We need to withdraw all our troops from the region and leave them alone to squabble amongst themselves.

Keyes was clearly in the ideological war making camp as well as exaggerating the threat of Islamic radicalism. His rhetoric is full of universals and American exceptionalism hubris, all the marks of a neocon. And it is short on practical strategy. In the article where he advocates declaring war on Syria, he says that any terrorist attack anywhere in the world is an attack on the US. I’m sorry, but that is unhinged.

I recall that, a mere 9 days after 9-11, Saddam’s state-controlled press published unambiguous threat to use biological weapons against us outside of Iraq. Here’s how Dr. Laurie Mylroie, former Clinton advisor, described the threat which Iraq made: “The Iraqi newspaper Babil, published by Saddam’s son, clearly spells out their strategy. The September 20th edition predicted a three-stage American war on Afghanistan: 1) air attacks, 2) escalating air attacks and ground troops, and 3) a Vietnam-style quagmire and growing Muslim counterattacks. Babil says during the first two stages Iraq will not publicly involve itself in the war because ‘[Americans] will watch Iraq accurately and seriously. If we do anything, Iraq will be attacked, not just like the attack of 1998, but perhaps like the attack of 1991 [the Gulf War].’ However, once we reach stage 3 ­ a Vietnam-style quagmire ­ Babil warns, ‘At this stage, it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything.’” The Mylroie excerpt is from an interview with Christopher Ruddy’s NewsMax.com in November 2001.

I looked at the Keyes WND archives. Hundreds of articles over the years. Few of the titles during 2001-3 period seem to indicate anything about the topic you mention. I read a bit. I’m not sure what your complaint about these articles can possibly be.

That post about the Arizona LP factions was sure thought-provoking.

But it is disqualifying if he is seeking the nomination of a non-interventionist party that advocated a Ron Paul style foreign policy before Ron Paul was cool.

I think some people believed that Iraq represented a threat (although war would not have been justified even if we knew for certain they had WMDs), and hence their support of the War was not some ideological crusade, but for Keyes it was. Read his WND archives.

Re. the legal issues, look at the Bill Woolsey explanation on the AIP Part 3 thread. I think that will be similar to the issues in CA. I tried to post a link but it didn’t go through.

I’ve no expertise in California election law, but I have seen a lot of folks discuss a lot of things. Your comments about bikers and such reminded me that folks who have the facts on their side don’t need to bring up other stuff.