Alan Keyes sues Obama over citizenship proof

 

 

 

AIP News

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=973&posts=1

 

Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, AIP leaders sue in CA court to obtain Obama citizenship proof, stop Secretary of State from certifying Electors

 

Fenton, MI

November 14, 2008

 

Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, vice-presidential candidate Wiley S. Drake, and the Chairman of the American Independent Party, Markham Robinson, have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento seeking to bar Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the names of Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain.

 

In addition, they have asked that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Senator Obama’s California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified.

 

In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Ambassador Alan Keyes commented, “I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office. Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation.”

 

Former Reagan administration official Ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake were the 2008 presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the American Independent Party, which is the California affiliate of the new national America’s Independent Party.

 

Mission Viejo, California attorney Dr. Orly Taitz and United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep are representing the plaintiffs in this case.

 

Advertisements

17 Responses to Alan Keyes sues Obama over citizenship proof

  1. Ted says:

    Unavoidable scenario: If SCOTUS disqualifies Obama BEFORE 1/20/09 inauguration, McCain is POTUS per remaining electoral college electors; if SCOTUS disqualifies Obama after 1/20/09 inauguration, Hillary likely becomes POTUS per vote of Dem controlled House of Rep. Either way, is clear Obama will NOT be or remain POTUS.

  2. MikeF says:

    This spurious claim about Barack Obama not being born in Hawaii has been debunked.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

  3. KYLE TRAGER says:

    Poor Alan. Still can’t digest the Obama victory. Why don’t you take the next decade off. It’ll probably be the best thing you can do for your blood pressure. And your dignity.

  4. Allan Erickson says:

    Kyle,

    Snopes is apparently not the final word given actions by Philip Berg in Pennsylvania, and Andy Martin in Hawaii, and now this from Keyes.

    http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/

    Also there is this concerning his selective service registration which may have some connection to the birth certificate issue:

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

    So, in the interests of making sure we are following the Constitution, and we are proceeding legally, people are making inquiries and asking questions, which have been posed for a long time. All Obama has to do is present an original birth certificate and this all goes away. I wonder why he refuses to make all this go away?

  5. Mycos says:

    The ability of conservatives to delude themselves in an effort to justify the shortcomings of the status quo never ceases to amaze me! Here we have a meltdown that happened as the direct and clear result of leaving a market economy fully in the hands of profiteers. And yet somehow the lack of regulation that allowed this to happen is seen as the answer to fixing the problem. You get that? He wants to fix deregulation — by deregulating!

    The conservative compulsion for maintaining the status quo has been noted by researchers working for DHS. A panel was formed to look at the causes of terrorism, obviously with an eye to countering this threat. But in an irony so rich that it alone proves God exists (and is hysterical as a comedian), the panel quickly zeroed in on the conservative ethos as the ideology most likely to give rise to politically motivated violence. But among a number of character traits signaling conservativism, one in particular is germane to this article.

    As shown in “Political Conservatism As Socially Motivated Cognition”, the syndrome wherein they will seize on any information that resonates with their preconceptions on the subject while freezing out data that might prove uncomfortable were it integrated into their consciousness, is also a mindset that prematurely closes down on matters that are more complicated than they are willing to acknowledge. The result is a President who can say things like “I don’t need any more facts to make up my mind. I know what I know and I know that it’s right.”, and still have a significant part of the electorate – his fellow conservatives of course – openly cheer and admire his “decisiveness”.

    But what if a President doesn’t have all the information neccesary to make an informed and accurate decision? What if he…as someone whose preconceptions on capitalism were that the unregulated, laissez-fare approach was correct… was able to completely ignore the words of Alan Greenspan as he declared that he had always thought precisely the same as GWB on the matter, but that he now knows he was profoundly mistaken about it? How then, is a man who is working with partial, incomplete information on a variety of subjects, supposed to be trusted with the Presidency? What about CO2? Nuclear War? WMDs? Holy War?

    In fact, it is precisely this same character flaw that allows creationists to disregard all the science in all the universities in all the world because of the cognitive dissonance involved in believing that facts are synonymous with truth. It is this very mechanism that allows them to disregard everything social scientists say on matters like this, brushing them off as mere “opinions”, beliefs of which their own bear equal weight. And despite the current WSJ article that dismisses the data showing higher education (read “more facts”) as leading to leftist worldviews, it is this very syndrome that accounts for the dearth of conservatives in academia. Clearly, the scientific method does not work well with people having a penchant for denial and self-delusion.

    Clearly someone suffering from such a serious personality deficit cannot be trusted to perform the duties of his office. But suffer it, he does. And there’s a plethora of media ready to take advantage of such a mindset by feeding him information that resonates with his beliefs, but that isn’t entirely accurate…if at all. On that matter, I’d love to see how WSJ editors manage to turn the DHS research on it’s head. It should prove to be about as interesting as my first few Ab-Norm psych classes were!

    [url]http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/conservatism.html [/url]

  6. Janet Mitchell says:

    President -elect Barack Obama produced his birth certificate which was examined and declared legitimate. In fac, he had it published on his web all during his campaign so anyone could see it. I read that it was the RNC who had initially filed this lawsuit in California and I believe it is their money behind it.
    Their purpose is clear. If they can’t win fair and square, they’ll try to throw a monkey wrench into the mix to create doubt and cause irritation for the new President in any way they can.
    Whether President-elect Obama has citizenship with any other country makes no difference as a lot of Americans have joint citizenship but they are still American citizens. President-elect Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and his mother was a citizen of the U.S. at the time which makes him a natural born citizen.
    I hope the judge has the intelligence to see this lawsuit for what it is and to throw it out. Shame on Alan Keyes and the Independent party for allowing the RNC to use them in this manner. Shame on him for pretending they are doing this to help Obama, the people, or support the constitution. We the people see through this and find you lacking in any semblance of morals or ethics.

  7. audrey says:

    Oh my goodness! Alan Keyes, you are still allowing the Republicans to make a FOOL of you! Obama kicked your pathetic butt in Chicago after the Republicans used you to move to Chicago and run against him as another black candidate. You are as pathetic as they come. Slavery is over Alan, wake up, step into the light! As a matter of fact where is your birth certificate? Willie Lynch, you have left your mark on black america, you research(?) is still alive. It is people like Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Fox News and this flunky that continue to flame the fires of racism that fuels the racial hatred that possibly cause the threats against President-Elect! Wake up America, enough we are all one country, one people, we just happen to be a rainbow of colors. Stop the hate, the bitterness, the divisiveness and put Alan Keyes out of his misery, he certainly doesn’t speak for any blacks I know. Tell him SHUT UP and tend to his own misery! He whupped him in Chicago which I still can’t understand how he was able to run so quickly after being a citizen of Maryland. He whupped McCain-Palin in the Presidential Campaign, simply because he was and is the better candidate and America has had enough of this type of division and dirty political tactics!

  8. Allan Erickson says:

    Janet:

    Birth certificate presented is a copy, not an original.

    Audrey:

  9. Allan Erickson says:

    Mycos:

    You know you are simplifying in the extreme, and so does anyone who reads your comment thoughtfully. (What it has to do with Keyes I’m not sure, other than he is a conservative, and apparently Mycos believes Keyes is attacking Obama because he is one of the folks fingered by DHS and the “Study”, all of it leading Keyes inexorably to engage violence which his political philosophy fosters more than any other, including that of Osama bin Laden presumably.)

    Taking an opponent’s position, simplifying it, and misrepresenting it, then attacking the simplified misrepresenation is an old trick (Straw Man ploy), but it won’t wash for several reasons.

    The economic downturn cannot be laid at the door of any one party or sect or group as you attempt here. Yes, profiteers, both private and public, overstretched, took unsecured risks, borrowed rapaciously to invest unwisely, and the house of cards fell.
    Westerners in Europe and America have been on a spending binge running up debt more and more, with less and less to pay back. The Bill Came Due? Everyone who has run up debt these last few years is responsible.

    Didn’t the leaders of the G-20 just meet to take resopnsibility for, and solve, global economic difficulty? Oh, yeah, but I forgot, it is all the fault of Bush and conservatives, that’s the academic conclusion, the multi-dimensional analysis rendered after careful, systemic and unbiased inquiry.

    And what was that about the federal deficit and the national debt and the harm done globally by birds on both sides of the aisle?

    But no, Mycos tells us the ones to blame exclusively are the profiteers (aka conservatives), you know, the people who are too simplistic and ideologically bound to see and explore complexity and nuance. Mycos, are you blind to your own prejudices?

    Fannie and Freddie and ACORN twisted bankers’ arms to foul up the mortgage markets. That a Republican conspiracy? I thought Carter started those outfits, and Clinton set them loose, and Barney Frank and Schumer, and Dodd, and Obama, and Raines and Gorelik turned them inside out in the name of social engineering and fairness and the “American Dream” delivered by the American Taxpayer, not the sweat of one’s brow. I guess I missed the real story.

    Wall Street took huge risks, playing short, spreading risk globally, sure, but was that a Republican conspiracy? As I recall hedge fund players were some of Obama’s biggest contributors, and didn’t Rahm Emanuel make a fortune after his tenure with Clinton, working his contacts to scoop up $16M in mergers and acquisitions?

    You all know about mergers and acquisitions right? Corporate raiders nab struggling companies at rock bottom prices, lay everyone off, and selling the infrastructure at a huge profits. Rememer Hillary’s beef futures deal? Or was that pork futures? We never hear a word about liberal profiteering do we? I wonder why?

    Oh, and then there’s the dimension of the economic problem with America losing it’s manufacturing base and associated employment downturns thanks to the government and unions making the cost of doing business so high here it forces companies to seek overseas locations. That a Republican conspiracy too?

    Regulation, deregulation. Vast, complex subject. A few strands: Republicans called for tightening regulations on Fannie and Freddie for YEARS, but the Dems stonewalled.
    Why? Too many votes being bought with taxpayer-secured toxic loans! Golden vote Goose for Democrats! No way they were going to kill the Goose, so Freddie and Fannie continued to mess with the banks, mess with the financial markets, setting up the poor for failure, and the collapse of the housing market (in part), but all those Dems who ran those organization scooped up hundreds of millions of dollars, and gave out campaign contributions too, and who was the second highest paid? Yes, sire, Mr. Barack Obama. But all that was a Republican conspiracy?

    Does Mycos like regulation of the auto and oil industries? Would he deregulate the airlines all over which led to competition and lower fares? How about telecom, or pharmaceuticals? Where is the best regulatory line to be drawn to provide the maximim economic stimulus and the maximum protection and fairness? That is a runnig debate, industry to industry, during a time of rapid change world wide. It is obviously not a simple question of regulate, don’t regulate.

    As to creationism, I’d urge people to break out of their prejudiced and iron-clad presuppositions favorable to Darwinism and check out Ben Stein’s “Expelled,” and then read more on the subject concerning holes in Darwinian theory, and the differences between creationism and intelligent design. Amazing how leftist professors will defend Darwinian evolution to the death, even though new evidence proves conclusively it is a severely lacking theory wholely incapable of explaining origins much less development of new species. Interesting to find so-called intellectuals ignore the findings of applied scientific method because to do so shoots holes in evolutionary theory, which, by the by, is the main strut to supporting atheism and humanism, and we can’t have those houses made of cards fall now can we?

    Interesting too how academics will encourage people to rely on the “science” of psychology, or the findings of social “science,” when there is very little science involved.

    Mycos is likewise hilarious to suggest we rely on DHS for insight into the foibles and follies of demented conservatives, ignoring the fact liberals are motivated by social and political cognition as well, eh?

    Mycos directs us to the DHS Study:

    ‘Funded by a $12 million, 3-year grant from the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, START is one of seven centers that will be set up by the DHS across the country to research terrorist-related issues. But START is the only center focused on the behavioral and social sciences. “This is going to be like the Manhattan Project for the social sciences,” said LaFree.’

    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1780

    This is rich folks. $12 M of taxpayer money spent to help us understand the why of terrorism. Can it be poverty? Do these people have meaningless lives and so find meaning in murder? Why are they so mad? Did the West oppress them so much they decided to strap on a suicide belt? Perhaps it’s the Christians and their oppressive ways. Certainly the establishment of Israel is driving these guys crazy and they only way they can fight First World domination is with terrorist acts.

    And last but not least, the conservative mind-set, ideology and ethos is MOST LIKELY TO PROVOKE POLTICAL VIOLENCE. Why? Because obviously conservatives are greedy, selfish simpletons who resist post-modern solutions to global justice and tranquility because we are irrationally enslaved to outdated fairy tales about Jesus and capitalism.

    Right.

    And this has nothing to do with it:

    Take 90 minutes and listen to real scholars explain what is happening globally with regard to terrorism and all the whys and wherefores. It didn’t cost the tax payers $12M, and you’ll learn something, but be prepared, it is not politically correct, and SUPRISE, it is not partisan, conservative, or liberal, just analytical, and compelling.

    Mycos: try freezing out this data, which effectively confronts your preconceived notions!

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

    PS: Conservatives believe in small government, which tends to preserve freedom, individual responsibility, which tends to promote harmony and make everyone more prosperous, low taxes, which tends to keep government small and preserve freedom and promote prosperity, and a strong national defense, to keep the lunatics from killing our kids.

    If that sounds like a political philosophy most likely to provoke violence, then you probably have more in common with Hugo Chavez than George Washington.

  10. Mycos says:

    Are you nuts? You sent me to a website whose authors, among a number of flat out kooks, possibly the sanest was many other kooks, include a guy who describes himself as a ‘one man global content provider’, drama critic for the New Criterion, and resident obituarist for the Atlantic Monthly. Chris Patten, EU Commissioner for External Affairs, says of Steyn: ‘It’s wonderful to find a Canadian warmonger, isn’t it?’ while the New Statesman called him ‘Dangerous idiot of the week’.

    “real scholar”??? “Not partisan, conservative”?? EVERY last person I looked at was a BLATANT, self-admitted conservative! How can you say such a thing and live with yourself? I’m reminded of the Army Chief Of Staff who had finally had enough of McCarthy and demanded to know”have you no decency, sir??”

    As for the evolution thing, I had no idea that you were a creationist yourself, but the fact that you are and chose to defend that myth by invoking a straw-man of your own, telling me that evolution “doesn’t even answer the question of life’s origin, nevertheless…”. Hey. Where did you ever get the idea that evolution had anything to do with answering life’s origin? Evolution, as it regards life, only speaks to how the game is played, and has nothing to do with how the teams got to the game.

    But the fact that you thought it did reveals you to be not only conservative, but uneducated as to the most basic aspects of science in general! And yet you have the nerve to dismiss the worlds leading scientists, past and present, but on the subject of terrorism, DHS’s hiring of a guy whose “interest in goals, belief formation, and group processes led to involvement in the social psychology of terrorism.”
    I have been writing and teaching a yearly seminar on this topic, looking at issues such as individual and organizational aspects of terrorism, terrorism as a tool of minority influence, suicidal terrorism and other related topics. I have also been member of various panels of the National Academy of Science devoted to the social/psychological aspects of terrorism. As of 2004, co-director of a Center of Excellence for Research on the Behavioral and Social Aspects of Terrorism and Counterterrorism.”

    And hey…the following is worth the 12 mill alone!

    “We now take it for granted in the United States that political
    conservatives tend to be for law and order but not gun control,
    against welfare but generous to corporations, protective of cultural
    traditions but antagonistic toward contemporary art and music, and
    wary of government but eager to weaken the separation of church
    and state. They are committed to freedom and individualism but
    perennially opposed to extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities, especially gay men and others who blur traditional boundaries. There is no obvious political thread that runs through these diverse positions (or through their liberal counterparts) and no logical principle that renders them all consistent.”

    Pretty much wraps it up, no? LOL

    “Conservative opinions acquire coherence by virtue of the fact that they minimize uncertainty and threat while pursuing continuity with the past (i.e., the status quo) and rationalizing inequality in society. Basic social and motivational differences may also explain why extreme right-wing movements are typically obsessed with purity, cleanliness, hygiene, structure, and order—things that would otherwise have little to do with political positions per se — and why religious fundamentalism is so attractive to right-wing parties and their followers in just about every nation stretching from North America to the Middle East. At a time when communism and leftist extremism are disappearing from the planet, right-wing extremism seems to be on the rise again.”

    So “smile!” Alan Erickson. You’re on Homeland Security TV! Just keep on publishing links to anti-Arab* websites and we’ll make you a regular feature! 🙂

    *You’ll say “anti-Islamic” which you might get away with were it not for the fact that Arabs make up only 15% of the worlds Muslims while those links to terrorism show 99% Arabs, completely ignoring the majority that is done by others. In short, they are “hate” websites.

  11. Allan Erickson says:

    Mycos:

    I guess you missed this so I’ll share it again:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

    Otherwise, your litmus test for all things seems to be–“Conservative?” BAD. Seems a bit narrow-minded which has always been a precursor to tyranny.

    It was bad enough in the 70s during college, worse in the 80s during graduate school, and even worse in the 90s at seminary of all places: the academic tyranny which essentially states, ‘unless you embrace our worldview, you will be rejected as a serious student, and certainly discounted if you aspire to a university teaching career.’

    Do you even realize professors are being fired for simply discussing intelligent design in scholarly publications or in the classroom? So much for academic freedom. If the halls of education are not free, how long will it be before the streets are likewise enslaved?

    At seminary we were told we would be marked down unless we restricted ourselves to gender neutral references in both the written and spoken word concerning God. Thus, professors had the temerity to censor prayers, even thought.

    Hail the thought police. You are apparently one of the minions. You reference Steyn as a war monger. He is no warmonger, and neither is Hitchens, but certainly you embrace Hitchens’ atheism, and decry his staunch support for the Iraq invasion, no doubt causing you severe cognitive dissonance. As to Steyn, look to Canada for a view of America’s future:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/06/18/canadas_thought_police

    In graduate school, psychology was presented as ‘science’ even though the scientific method can not be applied thoroughly and much was left to speculation and correlation studies. Experimenting on humans is so far not really fashionable, and so measureable results elude the psychologist and psychiatrist. And hey, all the tremendous insight into brain function only demonstrates our vast ignorance.

    At undergraduate school all the professors were Freudians and Marxist and Darwinians, and anyone presenting a conservative Christian point of view was never engaged on the merits, but scorned and abused.

    I see you are a faithful member of those traditions. Never argue the merits based on sound information and logical presentation. Always engage with ridicule and personal assault, the preferred tactics of people like Alinsky and Ayers. Ah, Professor Ayers, another glowing example of how modern American universities mature an intellect. From what we know, Professor Ayers hasn’t changed his mind about much in 40 years. So much for the growth made manifest by the constant study of one’s own navel.

    As to evolution and origins and creationism and intelligent design, if inquiries about origins have nothing to do with the study of the mechanics of life then why are Hawkins and so many others seriously interested in the question, the giants of scientific inquiry you laud as exclusive vanguards of truth. After all, the ‘how’ questions often have much to do with the ‘why’ and ‘when’ questions. Proposed explanations of how it all began have always been part of the discussion about biology, the workings of life. Even Hawkins is wont to speculate about aliens planting the seeds of life here on Earth, and thus embraces Intelligent Design. Imagine that, one of the chief apologists for Darwin giving the nod to ID!

    As to creationists being morons for simply believing the plausibilty of a Creator, well, I suppose one can arrogantly dismiss people with informed and valid points of view with a snide wave of the elitist hand, but in doing so, you dismiss intellectual giants like Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Kelvin, da Vinci, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Faraday. Surely you will say if they only had the information you possess they too would come to the dark side, yet speculation of that kind contradicts your claim to pure, objective inquiry and empirical verification.

    One poignant point it seems: Darwin assumed a living cell was simple, and would become more and more complex through the evolutionary changes he described. Modern microbiology shows us that one single living cell is so complex it remains beyond our ability to describe, a universe unto itself, a complete contradition of Darwin’s description, an undermining of the foundation of his entire theory.

    If indeed Darwinians and secular academics insist on defending a theory with holes, a theory challenged for decades by many, many scholars, it raises the question of why.

    Why would people who say they only want the truth work overtime to defend a lie?

    Why do they ignore the fact that biological evolutionists have yet to prove the emergence of new species, for without such proof, there can be no validation Darwin was right, and he remains only someone who described mutation and adaptation by various means. Why do so many so-called intellectuals leave their minds at the door when entering to worship at the church of the primate parade? The basic sermon day to day is: there is no God, human reason is our salvation, everything must center on race, sexism and class, socialism good, capitalism bad, liberalism peaceful, conservatism warmongering, we must take over for the good of the planet using ever-increasing and powerful government to exact ‘change.’ It sounds like a mindless, static chant to me.

    Historically, that sermon ushers in tryanny, because the arrogant give themselves permission to do any number of horrendous things in the name of univeral deliverance.

    As Stalin boldly stated while murdering millions of Ukrainians: “You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”

    On the other hand…

    Conservatives believe in small government existing only to serve the people, governing by the consent of the people, not at the behest of the elite. Small government which tends to preserve freedom for obviousl reasons. Conservatives promote individual responsibility, which tends to promote accountability and harmony and helps make everyone more prosperous, because rather than drag one another down, we lift one another up. We believe in low taxes, which tends to keep government small and preserve freedom and promote prosperity, and a strong national defense, to keep the lunatics from killing our kids.

    Doesn’t sound so nefarious to me, but then again, those who engage politics as war will rush to redefine the enemy to make him a more suitable target.

    Back to an essential question whoever: why do Leftists generally, and academics specifically, insist on forcing humanism and secularism and atheism and Darwinianism when there is so much evidence contradicting the veracity of such schools of thought?

    I have a theory.

    Darwin is powerful gun power in the war to kill God. After all, if God does not exist, and we can demonstrate this by “scientific” explanations, then we are not accountable to a higher being, and we can do what we want. Huxley and many others admitted that there is a strong sexual component to the fixation. Without God restraining behavior and punishing misbehavior, anything goes!

    It is also a power thing. Without God, I am my own god, and I run the show. There is a direct line connecting your thinking to that of Eve in the garden:

    “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman,. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eeyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    She saw the fruit was good, pleasing and desirable for “gaining wisdom” and she at and encourage her husband to do likewise. In disobeying their Creator trying to replace him with their own wisdom they sparked the Fall, and all the death and destruction that has wraught for thousands of years.

    Scripture says “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” Our worldview as Christians tells us those who do not fear the Lord have not even put their foot on the first step toward wisdom. Worse, those who reject the Lord, prove how thoroughly unwise they reallly are.

    And what of the alternative, the reliance on human wisdom?

    How has that worked out for us since the Garden of Eden?

    If words have meaning, and philosophies carry consequences, then we should be able to evaluate a life philosophy and worldview according to the results. We have seen in the United States the prosperity and peace that flows when the people are motivated by righteousness. This was well known by all the classically trained scholars involved with our founding, people like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington and Franklin, all people you would have to reject as morons because they believed in an endowing Creator.

    Yet the evidence showing us the usefulness of a humanistic worldview demonstrates a distinct lack of peace and prosperity. Indeed, despots routinely elbow out God for how can they rule with another king in the picture? Tryannts routinely crush all opposition, as we see in unversities today, intolerant of any freedom which threatens the power structure. It can be rationally asserted there is a direct connection between atheistic presuppositions, and Darwinian assertions to the ovens at Dachau. Even giants of Darwinian evolution regularly proclaim life has no meaning, there is no transcendant foundation for morality, all is chaos, chance and irrational, and thus they contradict themselves working feverishly to establish order where none is possible, opening the floodgates to anarchy and savagery, for only the most powerful determine right from wrong according to the law of the jungle.

    As to Islam, you obviously did not watch the entire video, nor are you aware of the implications of classical Islamic theology as articulated by people long familiar with both Arab culture and global Islamic fundamentalism leading inexorably to jihad. The truth is Islam has always been a religion of conquest and has always promoted the idea of violent evangelism with the clear, stated goal of world domination. The religion of peace defines peace when all are under the yoke of Allah. Miss that central reality and you miss the entire picture, ignoring the fuel flaming the fires of global Islamic terrorism. (In this light, demographic breakdowns are irrelevate, amounting to a $12M academic exercise in mass masterbation.)

    You sound much like Ayers and the nut job from Colorado who would have us believe America is the enemy, conservatives are to blame for radical Islam, the people in the World Trade Center deserved what they got, and if we would only let liberalism reign, we would see peace and harmony. For an object lesson in the insanity of such claims look to the Carter and Clinton administration to see the fruit of weak foreign policy and the accommodation of terrorists. They see it as weakness and escalate. The only time they call for peace is when they are on the verge of annihilation, and suing for peace is only an attempt to buy time to regroup.

    By the way my sources are people who have lived and worked in Muslim cultures for decades, not just this altogether excellent video which captures much of what these people have been reporting for decades. If you care to dig a little you’ll find Thomas Jefferson understood the true nature of Islam and declared war against Muslim pirates attacking our ships off the African coast. You will also find, should you care to inquire, that Muslims have been the biggest slave traders in history, right up to the present time, and for all your liberal concerns about civil rights, why no outcry concerning the treatment of women and children and gays in the Muslim world?

    Finally, as to science and faith being incompatible, try these on for size:

    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BTyreDeMyer111.htm

    http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

    The questions remain: is there a God, and if so, is Christ his only son, the only one able to deliver us from sin and death and usher us into heaven?

    Given the magnitude of such questions, a true truth seeker will devote significant attention to the answers. But an anti-intellectual will comfort himself with the delusion human wisdom will eventually provide salvation, or, he will grimly march forward with the assumption all is meaningless and there is no hereafter.

  12. Mycos, BC, Canada says:

    First, do you agree that, as a rational thinking human beings, there’s an unspoken yet implicit onus on us to aspire to knowing the truth about our existence? And that to form our opinions on what the ‘truth” might be, we should be using the most objective evidence and facts available to us?

    And if so, what website(s) do you feel contain reference material that is factual, objective, and as relatively free of religious or political biases as we are likely to ever find on the web?

  13. Allan Erickson says:

    YES! That is what the Great Conversation in art and all the disciplines has always been about: what is true, what is real, why are we here, what is our responsibility, how can we best live up to our responsibilties? As to what website I might suggest, it depends on the topic and area of inquiry. What do you ahve in mind?

  14. Mycos says:

    My apologies for running out on you right at the moment when it seemed likely we were building to a point wherein some kind of rational discourse could, or was about to take place. The election and subsequent appointments to an Obama Administration have kept me busy elsewhere.

    What I had in mind Alan, was to try and agree upon on a neutral third-party source of information to test the accuracy of the claims we both base our respective cosmologies upon. I realize that right away we would run into the question of whether a God does indeed exist. But to that end I was going to concede the point to you, but NOT your interpretation of who/what He is or what He wants out of mankind….if anything. So we’d have to agree on info from some place like Harvard Divinity School or perhaps even the Vatican. I’m an atheist so for me to offer up these two …site(s) unseen by me as yet!…is a heckuva risk for me too take, but one I’m willing to take if you’ll agree that degrees granted by places like Bob Jones or Oral Roberts U, especially on hard science subjects like biology or geology…or really on anything that is outside the realm of their own particular beliefs…aren’t to be considered as authoritative on anything other than the present state of the conservative Christian ideology now popular in America. Okay? I’m not so naive as to belive that HDS or the Vatican doesn’t have an agenda they would prefer to promote, but I also believe they have sufficient contrainsts against outright lying imposed on them that they would be reasonably safe from the effects of deliberate falsification or purges of factual data where once there was much that was known. I just can’t say that about many of websites managed by active evangelicals, creatiomists, athiests….Satanist,.Muslim jihadi sites, etc. etc.

    You see, I’ve been fascinated now for years about conservative beliefs. Prior to the internet, I guess I had either assumed that they held many of their beliefs either because they didn’t know what the facts were on a particular topic…and so were honestly mistaken in those beliefs and wqould change them once they knew….or perhaps knew they were “probably” wrong but continued saying them to meet another, hidden agenda. These could be such as they were just “going along to get along” or, as I was absolutely certain had to be the case with many of the TV evangelists, they were willfully lying to their flock for either money, power, or out of pure psychopathy. It always seemed to me that there was no way they could be both lying and doing so thinking it would be fine with Jesus…that there was some secret Gospel somewhere that stated lying — to bring souls to Christ of course! — was an end that justified the means.

    But then the internet came along and allowed me to lurk on conservative websites. Now I could could watch what they said to each other based on the assumption that they were saying it among “friends” only and as such had no real reason to lie. For the first time it was now possible to see what they honestly believed without having to go to all the trouble of actively spying on them. After all, what they said in books was all very carefully weighed out and assessed for it’s ability to promote one of the previous goals I spoke of. How was I to know which book was written by a magnificent liar, and which was written in all honesty?

    And what I found..and to my utter amazement…was that a great many, the vast majority even, actually believed what they were saying as being true!!? They really had no idea what a huge and devastatingly hurtful hypocrisy it is — to pick one out of many — to continue sending kids (or anyone for that matter) off to to jail because they chose to smoke a plant whose use has /repeatedly!!/ been shown to have very few negative consequences for it’s smokers. Well, except of course now the very real risk that they’ll be busted and have their lives turned upside down by some conservative wearing a cop uniform and “just doing his job!” enforcing a law that was originally a wholly conservative agenda to dictate what good conservative morality must be /for all of us!/
    And do it with not only a clear conscience, but do it thinking that they are doing right for everyone involved,….even the kid now being bum-raped was sent there “for his own good!”.

    It simply stuns me that anyone can be /so wrong/, about /so many things/, and have /no idea/ that they even are???!!

    And that’s why I want to set up an agreed upon set of reference texts so that we can investigate these apparent inconsistencies over who is right … who is dealing with facts when shaping their worldview… and who is dealing with a set of comforting beliefs ONLY.

    It’s my contention that we both can’t be right about subjects wherein the facts of the matter(s) are well enough known that their is little controversy among those who actually study the subjects.

    You strike me as an educated, intelligent man, so you’re aware what the “rules” are for a fact’s admission into the “true” column. But, to make it clear for our purposes here at least let’s just say that the current state of knowledge on the matter isn’t controversial among those who actually study the subjects at x, y, or z schools. And just as being an atheist doesn’t make me an expert on the history and beliefs of atheism, nor does you re: Christianity, me biology, or you evolution.

    You seem genuinely interested in getting to the crux of whatever this /exceedingly strange/, mirror-like cognitive paradox it is that we seem to viewing the other’s very existence through. Waddya say?

  15. Allan Erickson says:

    I’m in. What say we look at a particular book together by someone not particularly conservative politically so far as I know, an intellectual, and a theologian:

    Ravi Zacharias, author of—

    A Shattered Visage: The real face of atheism

    Deal?

    Posting an essay of his: The Dying Art of Thinking

  16. Mycos says:

    Again…my apologies.

    Okay. I’ll try and locate a copy .

    Would you happen to know of an online edition, by any chance?

  17. Mark45 says:

    Now for our ‘Hunk’ section. ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: