- Name: Pete M.
- Location: Oakland, CA
- Thrilling Days of Yesteryear
- Jesus' General
- Public Domain Progress
- Bartholomew's Notes
- Uncle Horn Head
- Vox Day
- Nothing New Under The Sun
- No More Mister Nice Blog
- Liberal Oasis
- Mouse Words
- Femme Fatal
- The Infinite Stitch
- Roger Ailes
Prepare to be horrified...
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Who Would Jesus Vote For?
Well, that's what Alan's saying anyway (Hooray for Alan!). And that's quite an endorsement, coming from the Savior of humankind and all.
Here's the latest news from NBC5 in Chicago:
Illinois Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes injected religion into his race against Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday.
You don't say.
According to a list of quotes put out by the Democratic candidate, Keyes said in a radio interview at the Republican National Convention that Jesus would not vote for Obama.
Evidently Jesus and Principled Alan had been enjoying a Jamba Juice when the King of Kings turned to Alan and said, "You know, I'd never vote for that lying socialist bastard Osama or Obama or whatever the heck his name is."
The quote was part of a list Obama sent reporters of Keyes' accusations and epithets about him since Keyes became a candidate, NBC5 political editor Dick Kay said.
Kay also reported that Keyes called Obama a "socialist and a liar" on a cable access news show on Monday.
Cable access sounds about right, to tell you the truth.
Alan Keyes, God's Choice To Lead Illinois
Obama said he wants to win big to give Keyes a spanking because Keyes wages a scorched earth campaign. Keyes then went into a very long analysis of the word "spanking" and suggested it might be related to slavery and insulting to African- Americans. He would not answer when asked directly if he was insulted.
Frankly, I'm a little bit disturbed that Obama mentioned wanting to give Keyes a spanking, too, but for entirely different reasons.
Apparently, though, Principled Alan's statement was somewhat controversial and he explained thusly:
"Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died," Keyes said. "And I'm not the only person, obviously, who thinks if you are a representative of me, I cannot vote for you if you would ignore the dignity and claims of that child's life. So, yes, I did respond quite logically -- you'll see it's quite logical, right -- with the conclusion that Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
On the other hand, we can now say with a fair degree of certainty that Christ loves media-seeking opportunists who abandon any pretense of principles at the first sign of national attention.
Keyes, who will be greatly outspent, relies on free media in his campaign against Obama, Kay reported. As a result, he frequently calls news conferences to respond to responses. First, he criticizes Obama. When Obama responds, Keyes calls a news conference to respond, which is what he did on Tuesday.
That's what sets the Dark Window apart, ladies and gentlemen. We'll criticize Alan Keyes whether he responds or not.
In other related news, Mary Mostert, a regular contributor to Alan's website, heard about an interview Mr. Keyes gave at the Republican Convention and she was quite impressed. She just wrote a column that basically recaps a lengthy exchange between an interviewer and Alan Keyes at the Convention and says that what Keyes told the man should be "required reading in every sex education class in the country."
Mary Mostert, Sex Expert
Was Alan getting all steamy and erotic? You be the judge:
Alan Keyes: “No, the point of the matter is that marriage, as an institution, involves procreation. It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate. Therefore, they cannot marry. It is a simple logical syllogism, and one can wish all one might, but pigs don’t fly and we can’t change the course of nature.”
Mike Signorile: "Well, one can wish that Bob and Liddy Dole would have a child, but that’s just impossible. Pigs can’t fly.
Alan Keyes: No, I’m sorry, that is incidental. In point of fact, Bob and Liddy Dole can have children. They incidentally face problems that prevent them from doing so. In principle..."
Mike Signorile: “Don’t homosexuals incidentally face problems too?”
Alan Keyes: “No, you don’t understand the difference between incident and essence.
Sounds like Alan's been watching Dr. Strangelove again. But instead of implying that he's insane, let's allow him to continue with his talk of essences and such:
Homosexuals are essentially incapable of procreation. They cannot mate. They are not made to do so.
Is Alan saying that homosexuals are "made?" Seems like quite an admission.
Therefore the idea of marriage for two such individuals is an absurdity.”
Mike Signorile: “But one or the other in the couple can procreate. The men can donate their sperm, the women can have babies.
Alan Keyes: “The definition and understanding of marriage is “the two become one flesh.” In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals.
Mike Signorile: But what about a heterosexual couple who cannot bear children and then adopt? They are not becoming one as flesh, they are taking someone else’s flesh.
Alan Keyes: “And they are adopting the paradigm of family life. But the essence of that family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism. This is unacceptable.”
Indeed! If we were to start allowing marriages based on love or shared responsibility, this nation would go straight to hell. If you're not getting married as a representation of the paradigm of family life then you're not really getting married, you stupid liberals!
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE]: Do you really believe that, that Mary Cheney . . .
Alan Keyes: “By definition, a homosexual engages in the exchange of mutual pleasure. I actually object to the notion that we call it sexual relations because it’s nothing of the kind.
Alan prefers to call it "hide the sausage."
[UNIDENTIFIED VOICE]: “What is it?”
Alan Keyes: “It is the mutual pursuit of pleasure through the stimulation of the organs intended for procreation, but it has nothing to do with sexuality because they are of the same sex. And with respect to them, the sexual difference does not exist. They are therefore not having sexual relations.
Well, hell...If they're not having sexual relations, what's all the danged fuss about? And since "stimulation of the organs intended for procreation" without actually procreating has nothing to do with sexuality, then why were all the Wing Nuts still so upset about Clinton?
Anyway, I'll let Mary Mostert have the last word:
Keyes’ sex education lesson to a confused homosexual ought to be required reading in every sex education class in the country. It might begin scaling back the flood of misery, disease and early death that await those who chose to get involved in homosexual and lesbian life styles.
As our dear friend Seb might say, "We can't add anything to that!" (by the way, WCAATT is apparently a registered trademark of, well, me!)
So make sure you vote with Jesus this November, dear readers! Don't forget that a vote for Obama is a vote for Satan. And while you're at it, stop looking at all that porn. You should be getting everything you need from Alan!