Alan Keyes Fears Obama Tyranny

Stephanie Turner of AC2C Revolt Parties quotes Alan Keyes (h/t Nancy Razik):

>Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law

Former Presidential candidate gives most dire warning yet about Obama agenda
Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes has given perhaps his most dire warning yet, saying that the Obama administration is preparing to stage terror attacks, declare martial law and cancel the 2012 elections, which is why they are demonizing their political enemies as criminals and terrorists.

Keyes is best known for his performance during the 2000 Republican presidential debates, when he was accredited by many media outlets as being the clear winner during a series of debates with George W. Bush and John McCain.

“It’s obvious that they will stop at nothing,” Keyes told attendees of a reception in Fort Wayne, adding, “We may wake up one day and there’s a series of terrorist attacks, the economy is paralysed…martial law will be declared everywhere in the United States and it won’t end until the crisis ends.”

Keyes said that Americans should be thankful if they even see another election in 2012, stating, “If we don’t wake up and work to see that it happens, we will not see another election.”

“The minute they think they can get away with it, they will end this system of government and that is their intention,” added Keyes, noting that everyone acting as if the time we are in was just “business as usual” reminds him of the attitude of politicians in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was rising to power or eastern Europe when the Communists were taking over after the second world war.

Keyes said that because the majority of people are decent-minded, they believe others will play by the rules when this simply isn’t the case, warning that this attitude will allow evil to take over before we can do anything about it.

“It is so clear that we have now put a faction in place - they are not playing by the rules and they don’t intend to play by the rules - if they were playing by the rules they wouldn’t have tried to identify their opposition as criminals,” added Keyes, making reference to the recent controversy surrounding the release of the MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which implied that Americans who exercise and are knowledgeable about their constitutional rights are a threat to law enforcement and potential domestic terrorists.

Keyes said that the only solution was from the bottom up because our leaders “are so gutless that they won’t even ask that the Constitution be enforced for clear, plain, absolutely unequivocal requirements,” and respond meekly with “their lips shut and their hearts terrorized.”

Keyes also warned of Obama’s agenda to create a civilian security force and said it was part of the ultimate agenda to disarm American citizens and create a police state.

Keyes has been a vocal critic of Obama, warning that he is a radical Communist who is determined to destroy America, and that if his agenda is not stopped then the country as we know it will cease to exist.

CITI Training and the Common Rule

I just sent the following e-mail concerning the CITI training program concerning Institutional Review Boards also known as IRBs and human subjects committees. These committees are required for colleges that seek funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. They are supposed to check for abuses of research subjects under a regulation called the "common rule". The common rule stretches the definition of threat to human subjects beyond recognition. If an economist does a survey of consumption habits, the common rule subjects the survey to review by an Institutional Review Board or human subjects committee. The committee can say, for any reason, that the research cannot be done. The grounds for abuse are obvious, especially in America's politicized universities. However, the CITI training, which is run by the University of Miami, Donna Shalala, Queen of Political Correctness, president, took upon itself to say that research findings that are offensive or harmful to the interests of a group constitute a violation of the human subjects rules. That is a lie. My e-mail to a Brooklyn College committee that is aiming to find resources to support faculty research follows:

Dear K---: I just filled out the survey but I wanted to add something. The human subjects committee has had a research document that I provided them on March 1 and has not responded. If the college wishes to support research in the social sciences area, it should consider limiting the scope of IRB review to human subjects issues that go beyond mere surveys of adults. There is no need for such review.

Moreover, I would add that the CITI training module provided by CUNY is deceptive. In particular, it suggests that it is based on the common rule and that research that could potentially find something that is not advantageous to a particular group is subject to restrictions by the common rule. In fact, such a restriction would be a violation of the First Amendment. To question this claim, I went in person to the DHHS in Maryland two years ago and interviewed the people responsible for overseeing regulation of the common rule. They indicated that the claim in the CITI training is untrue. In other words, the CITI training engages in the sort of deception and manipulation that advocates of IRBs claim needs to be stopped in generalizable research. There is no reason for CUNY to tell researchers that if some activist or other finds a research finding objectionable, the researcher violated the common rule and the IRB needs to squelch it. That is a lie in which CUNY currently engages by utilizing the CITI training program.

I would urge CUNY to discontinue the CITI training, which is unethical and deceptive in claiming that research findings can constitute a human subjects issue, and replace it with a training that is honest and truly reflects the regulatory requirements of the DHHS. Not that I agree with that either, but lying, deception and the use of the DHHS regulation to potentially suppress speech and research is inconsistent with a valid research program.

Gold Investors in Tutus: Chuck, Crum Confront Gay Fascism at Kitco

I am a Chicago fan, not of the Cubs or White Sox but of the city. I was last there in '05 and enjoyed it tremendously. Now, two sons of Chicago, Chuck and Jim Crum, have stood up in favor of freedom and against Kitco's, Daniela Cambone's and Bart Kitner's support for gay fascism and suppression of heterosexuals and freedom.

Chuck's and then Jim's e-mails follow:

"Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean

Chuck writes:

I called her, but she kept saying "no comment." I asked her if she was aware that most gold investors are morally conservative and oppose gay marriage, but she would not answer that either.

FYI: The CEO of KITCO is:

Mr. Bart D. Kitner
Kitco Inc
620 Cathcart Suite 900
Montreal, Quebec H3B 1M1
Canada
Website: www.kitco.com
Phone: (514) 875-4820
Fax: (514) 875-6484

Jim Crum writes:

From: jamesjcrum@aol.com
To: dcambone@kitco.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean

Ms. Cambone:

Just a point of clarification, and I will go.

You state: "Unfortunately, we cannot publish commentator’s who have points-of-views that are offensive to readers." Just exactly what is that to be taken as? Offensive to who? Offensive to homosexuals? Offensive to Jews? Christians? People under 18? Offensive to people who feel that Millard Fillmore was our best President?

I will not question your motivation, whatever it might be. You also do have the right to do this, I understand that quite well. But even if permissible, I can judge the behavior, and this does not look right. Frankly, it smells, and Mitchell Langbert has a point here.

I will leave you with a highlight you might wish to well remember:

"The left has whined about McCarthyism for more than fifty years, yet it does not hesitate to apply McCarthyite tactics, ruining careers with ideological litmus tests, when an individual's views do not conform to left wing or homosexual dogma."
& nbsp; - Mitchell Langbert

Have a good evening.

JJC.

The Second Amendment and the Doctrine of Probable Use

There are frequent discussions of whether to limit the ownership of various kinds of weapons such as assault rifles, machine guns and the like. The discussion on this topic has been historically illiterate and has failed to contemplate the fundamental reason for the ownership of guns. Guns are necessary for the public militia to protect the people from state tyranny. Hamilton noted this in the Federalist 29 and the Second Amendment makes this clear when it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the defense of a free state.

Since the purpose of the right to bear arms is largely to protect the public from state tyranny, the public ought to have the right to own weapons that are at least equal to weapons that the state would probably use in an assault on the public to re-enforce tyranny. Thus, if tanks are likely to be used against the public in a rural area, the public militia ought to have the right to own tanks.

Rifles used against tanks would hardly be effective for the defense of a free state. All legal discussion that fails to balance the weapons that the government might use against the people with the threat that private ownership poses to the public is illegitimate and does violence to the Second Amendment. The government's probable use of a given class of weapons against the public ought to be the basis for the legality of gun ownership.