AlanKeyes.com AmericanRightToLife.org

[Vine&FigTree]

Reflections on a Radio Appearance

Reflections on a Radio Appearance

Now that I've taken a trip to the bank and the pharmacy, I've had a chance to relax.

I'm not a veteran politician, nor a veteran radio personality. I was extremely nervous appearing on BEL. Shaking, rapid breathing, etc.

I've been on the radio a couple of times before. I was interviewed by John Stewart (no, not the one on The Daily Show, but the one mentioned here) on Southern Calif.'s most powerful Christian radion station, KBRT. I took a class from him at what is now Trinity Law School. He was familiar with some litigation I was involved in at the time, and he invited me on the show to tell his audience about my case. Even though he was welcoming and cordial, and basically on my side, I was still very nervous.

So you can imagine how nervous I was being interviewed by a pitbull like Bob Enyart! :shocked:

I'm concluding that Enyart's style is much like that of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. When he invites someone on his show with whom he does not agree, he does not do so with the same motivation John Stewart had: of allowing the guest to explain his position. Hannity constantly does the "Just answer yes or no!!" when Hannity has already made his point and his guest wants to make a point of his own, a point contrary to Hannity's dogma.

So I'm wondering why it is so many Christians are afraid of letting "the other side" be heard ... why they don't want to hear what the other person has to say. It must be because that would force them to think, and re-think their own position.

I don't think the program I appeared on makes Christians look very good. I probably should have declined the invitation to appear.

Another lesson learned:

Well, actually, I haven't learned what the lesson is.

I've been on "the campaign trail" a few times, in a very limited degree, and I have learned that there will always be an unexpected question. You try to get your "soundbites" down, so that you have a clean 10-second blurb on abortion, free trade, immigration, or whatever you think the questions are going to focus on. But I don't yet have a 10-second soundbite on the 14th Amendment. I'll have to review the MP3 tonight when it's posted, but I think my last words before I was rudely cut off were "I don't support the 14th Amendment." Not a great line to leave in the listeners' ear.

What I meant to say was, I don't support Bob Enyart's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is also the interpretation of the Rov v. Wade court.

But I do believe that the 14th Amendment was a federal war crime perpetrated on the states. Nothing good has come of it, and Bob Enyart is taking the Amendment to new depths.

I should have learned from Ron Paul's appearance on "Meet the Press." Ron Paul gained notoriety with his position against the war in Iraq, and Tim Russert interrogated him on The Civil War 150 years ago! The purpose was not to inform voters, but to make Ron Paul look "kooky."

Bob's purpose was not to pursue the truth, but to slander Ron Paul and anyone foolish enough to defend him on BEL.

I always say, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." I think I still believe that.

 

[PKevman]

Bob's purpose was not to pursue the truth, but to slander Ron Paul and anyone foolish enough to defend him on BEL.

VF&T:

You make yourself look foolish easily enough with statements such as this one. It doesn't take much effort from someone else to expose your foolish views. Hopefully one day you'll repent and take a stand for righteousness' sake.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Let's have a fact-filled conversation

Let's have a fact-filled conversation

VF&T:

You make yourself look foolish easily enough with statements such as this one. It doesn't take much effort from someone else to expose your foolish views. Hopefully one day you'll repent and take a stand for righteousness' sake.

Repent of what . . . specifically? Go ahead . . . expose my foolish views.

What's foolish about not wanting the federal government to take over the criminal codes of all 50 states?

Have you read this page with an open mind, PastorKevin?

By the way, speaking of nervous:
After the phone went dead when I was cut off, I started listening live. Was Bob so worked up that he went over time and forgot to close the show?

 

[PKevman]

Bob's purpose was not to pursue the truth, but to slander Ron Paul and anyone foolish enough to defend him on BEL.

VF&T:

You make yourself look foolish easily enough with statements such as this one. It doesn't take much effort from someone else to expose your foolish views. Hopefully one day you'll repent and take a stand for righteousness' sake.

 

[PKevman]

Bottom line. You call my friend and my brother in Christ a liar I could care less what you have to say. You've debunked yourself from the beginning.

 

[PKevman]

If you idiots want to talk about issues and think your positions are better than Bob's then fine. Expose those issues. Expose those views that you say are wrong.

When you come on this forum calling my brother in Christ a liar, I could care less what you have to say, because the man is no liar.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

If you idiots want to talk about issues and think your positions are better than Bob's then fine. Expose those issues. Expose those views that you say are wrong.

When you come on this forum calling my brother in Christ a liar, I could care less what you have to say, because the man is no liar.

Anyone who says Ron Paul is not pro-life is violating the Ninth Commandment. Anyone who says this is misleading people, leading them away from the truth. To say Ron Paul is not pro-life slanders a Christian and dishonors Christ.

Read what Ron Paul himself says: Congressman Ron Paul on Abortion

My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.

But not the government of Mexico, and not the federal government. The issue, under the U.S. Constitution, belongs to the state governments.

Ron Paul: "while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06

 

[Granite]

Bottom line. You call my friend and my brother in Christ a liar I could care less what you have to say. You've debunked yourself from the beginning.

Then you're being too emotional to think clearly, which probably explains a lot.

 

[Lighthouse]

Are you calling at the right time?
Are you calling the right number?
I'm there (at the studio) infrequently but I've never seen anyone just let the phone ring off the hook.

I meant that you never answer when I call. Not lately. I even sent you a text on NYE, and never got a response.

 

[PKevman]

Then you're being too emotional to think clearly, which probably explains a lot.

Or people can learn to actually debate and discuss issues. When you come in and build your argument around "Bob did not care about the truth" you've built it on a faulty premise because you cannot know whether or not the other guy did not care about the truth unless you actually know the guy pretty well or he told you that. In the case of Bob I know for a fact that it's a faulty premise any time someone starts in with "Bob's lying about Ron Paul" or "Bob doesn't care about the truth", because I know those things are not true of Bob in general.

 

[Granite]

Or people can learn to actually debate and discuss issues. When you come in and build your argument around "Bob did not care about the truth" you've built it on a faulty premise because you cannot know whether or not the other guy did not care about the truth unless you actually know the guy pretty well or he told you that. In the case of Bob I know for a fact that it's a faulty premise any time someone starts in with "Bob's lying about Ron Paul" or "Bob doesn't care about the truth", because I know those things are not true of Bob in general.

Based on the link Vine provided I think it's clear Enyart distorted the facts and pruned them as he saw fit to make a point. Enyart, and others like him here, does not seem to care for the idea of decentralized governmental power or states's rights and seems to believe the federal government's law-word is the only one with any significance, or the only one that should be sought. Any other alternative appears to alarm him. He's attacking Ron Paul with vigor with clouded judgment and not a firm grasp of the facts, just as you and others on TOL are doing.

If you think it is beyond the realm of possibility for Enyart not to have made significant mistakes, at the very least, then you're even less reasonable than I thought.

I think Enyart has played fast, loose, and reckless enough with the facts in the past (his bizarre and totally gratuitous attack on the Ramsey family following their daughter's murder immediately comes to mind) for someone to reasonably accuse him of not caring much about the truth so much as he cares about pushing buttons. Such is the free-spirited nature of having a radio show.

VFT responded to Enyart point by point and made a spirited defense. I notice no one here has touched on the link he provided or the arguments he made. This does not surprise me.

Paul's opinions are consistently distorted or misunderstood here. Again, I am not surprised.

 

[death2impiety]

Kevin Craig, "I don't support the 14th amendment."

:vomit:

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Or people can learn to actually debate and discuss issues.

I would have LOVED to have actually debated and discussed the issues when I was on BEL. That wasn't on the agenda, apparently.

When you come in and build your argument around "Bob did not care about the truth" you've built it on a faulty premise because you cannot know whether or not the other guy did not care about the truth unless you actually know the guy pretty well or he told you that.

I didn't come here starting with an argument against Bob; I came here with the facts about Ron Paul and the 14th Amendment.

http://enyart.KevinCraig.us

In the case of Bob I know for a fact that it's a faulty premise any time someone starts in with "Bob's lying about Ron Paul" or "Bob doesn't care about the truth", because I know those things are not true of Bob in general.

That wasn't my starting premise. I agree that it's not true of Bob "in general," but now that I've seen first-hand how the facts are treated, I'm convinced it is definitely true in the case of Bob's unhinged reaction to Ron Paul. Bob is off track in his vicious attacks on Ron Paul -- an admirable Christian and bold defender of the unborn in Congress -- and I hope Bob has people in his life who are not just "groupies," but will hold him accountable to Christian standards of treating other people.

 

[death2impiety]

Kevin Craig, "I don't support the 14th amendment."

:vomit:

That certainly sums up your position V&FT.

If Georgia is lynching blacks and the state will do nothing about it, AND and you do not believe the federal government should intervene, who should?

I'm looking for one word or one sentence here. Something like...Great Britain or... mercenaries..:idunno:

Or, "no one should intervene, the blacks will have to leave Georgia."


...Ghastly.

 

[death2impiety]

I would have LOVED to have actually debated and discussed the issues when I was on BEL. That wasn't on the agenda, apparently.I didn't come here starting with an argument against Bob; I came here with the facts about Ron Paul and the 14th Amendment.

http://enyart.KevinCraig.us

That wasn't my starting premise. I agree that it's not true of Bob "in general," but now that I've seen first-hand how the facts are treated, I'm convinced it is definitely true in the case of Bob's unhinged reaction to Ron Paul. Bob is off track in his vicious attacks on Ron Paul -- an admirable Christian and bold defender of the unborn in Congress -- and I hope Bob has people in his life who are not just "groupies," but will hold him accountable to Christian standards of treating other people.

What facts you nut?
Our government has the means to protect the innocent and you don't believe it should. :kookoo:

 

[Granite]

What facts you nut?
Our government has the means to protect the innocent and you don't believe it should. :kookoo:

The government having the means to do good is certainly not enough reason to believe they should. This applies to a lot of issues including abortion.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

If Georgia is lynching blacks and the state will do nothing about it, AND and you do not believe the federal government should intervene, who should?

Georgia IS lynching blacks. So is Mississippi and Texas. Texas even lynches white Christians who lead Bible studies in prison, as in the case of Karla Faye Tucker, lynched by the "Christian conservative" George Bush.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/karla.html

But I assume what you mean by "Georgia" is "private citizens of Georgia" are lynching blacks, and the government of Georgia is not prosecuting the lynchers for murder.

As far as I know, "lynching" (as you describe it) has never been legal. Corrupt local prosecutors simply look the other way.

But now let's turn it around. Imagine your state passes a law against home Bible studies. The legislature relies on the 14th Amendment as used by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous "Kelo" eminent domain ruling, saying that all private residences are not "zoned" for "public assemblies" like Bible studies.

Fortunately, your local district attorney is Ron Paul, and he refuses to prosecute any Christians under the state statute for holding Bible studies in their homes.

What you want, apparently, is for President Hillary Clinton to have the power to send the national guard to your state to arrest the Christians, overruling the discretion of your local authorities. That would be perfectly legal under your 14th Amendment scenario.

America's Founding Fathers would have nothing to do with your 14th Amendment theory. They recognized that the real danger is not the "abuse of power," but the power to abuse. You're giving that power to the federal government.

...Ghastly.

I agree.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

What facts you nut?
Our government has the means to protect the innocent and you don't believe it should. :kookoo:

When you say "our" government, you apparently devote more loyalty to the feds than to your local government.

The 14th Amendment, as you advocate it, gives the federal government the power to protect the innocent, but also the power to protect their murderous mothers, which is in fact how the 14th Amendment has been used by the feds.

Ron Paul says we should take that power away from the feds and return it to local authorities, where the Constitution originally vested it. It's much easier to change local prosecutors than it is to change Presidents of the United States. America's Founding Fathers understood this. Why don't today's "Christian conservatives?"

 

[Lighthouse]

Kevin Craig, "I don't support the 14th amendment."

:vomit:

I was surprised, and not surprised, at the same time, when I heard that.

 

[Lighthouse]

Georgia IS lynching blacks. So is Mississippi and Texas. Texas even lynches white Christians who lead Bible studies in prison, as in the case of Karla Faye Tucker, lynched by the "Christian conservative" George Bush.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/karla.html

But I assume what you mean by "Georgia" is "private citizens of Georgia" are lynching blacks, and the government of Georgia is not prosecuting the lynchers for murder.

As far as I know, "lynching" (as you describe it) has never been legal. Corrupt local prosecutors simply look the other way.

But now let's turn it around. Imagine your state passes a law against home Bible studies. The legislature relies on the 14th Amendment as used by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous "Kelo" eminent domain ruling, saying that all private residences are not "zoned" for "public assemblies" like Bible studies.

Fortunately, your local district attorney is Ron Paul, and he refuses to prosecute any Christians under the state statute for holding Bible studies in their homes.

What you want, apparently, is for President Hillary Clinton to have the power to send the national guard to your state to arrest the Christians, overruling the discretion of your local authorities. That would be perfectly legal under your 14th Amendment scenario.

America's Founding Fathers would have nothing to do with your 14th Amendment theory. They recognized that the real danger is not the "abuse of power," but the power to abuse. You're giving that power to the federal government.



I agree.

:singer:Here we go 'round in circles!