Alan Keyes
January 29, 2000

Well, first of all, thank all of you for coming. We've had a very lovely afternoon here today. I had a chance to meet some folks up and down the street there in Franklin. And actually, I guess--maybe unusually, I'm not sure, for this campaign context--I actually found a couple of folks who were actually willing to talk about the issues. This is always good. And more surprising to them, they found a candidate who was actually willing to talk about the issues. Golly!

I actually think, though, that whether you look at it from the point of view of political expediency, or from the point of view of what this country requires as we step into the new century ahead, there is, in fact, one overriding issue of importance to this nation's life--and that is the issue of our allegiance to the moral principles on which our country was founded. [applause]

And of course, in the last several years we've seen all kinds of evidence that our departure from the moral heritage of our country is beginning to have effects that are very destructive--in terms of our institutions and our leadership. They have produced an episode more shameful, perhaps, than any in the history of the country. They have revealed a degree of moral paralysis and timidity in our representatives that does not bode well for the future of our institutions.

But I don't think the moral crisis of this country is about one man, one party, or even one institution in our society. I think it's about us. It's about who we are, as a people, and who we mean to be, and whether or not we are going to reclaim the character and identity that is needed to hold on to and perpetuate our liberty. That's a very serious challenge in every generation of America's life, but it is especially so for us, because I think we've come to that crisis that Lincoln and others predicted--the crisis that will determine the fate of our institutions of self-government, because it involves the question of whether or not we, in fact, in our actions, and choices, and in our hearts, respect the moral requirement of our freedom.

Our founders articulated a clear and great principle when the nation was founded, that our rights come from the Creator, God. Those rights are the basis of our elections, of our self-government, of our due process in the courts, of our sense of security in our life, and person, and property. But they rest upon a single, clear premise: that our rights come from God and must be exercised with respect for the authority of God. [applause]

In the course of the last thirty-odd years, we've turned our back on that one, though. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, we, sadly, have gone from a regime that respects that basic truth to one that now is trying an experiment that I think is very dangerous. It harks back to the days of slavery in the pre-Civil War era--an experiment based on believing that the rights of our humanity are conditioned by human choice, rather than based on the unconditional will of God.

If we stay on this road, we'll lose everything that is valuable in our free way of life. It is not possible for us to remain today a society in which we have thrown away the idea that every human being, regardless of their power, or position, or circumstance, has a dignity that rests on a claim that is not subject to human choice. It's not possible for us reject that and remain free--and I mean that both in a principled sense, but also in a literal sense. That's the basis for conscience, and self-control, and self-discipline. Lose those things, and freedom becomes a curse. It leads to violence, and to broken families, and to broken homes. It leads to schools in which the environment is no longer conducive to education because it is colored by fear, and anxiety, and violence.

We are seeing these symptoms all around us now, throughout our society, touching up as individuals in our lives. These are not abstractions. These are real consequences that come from our unwillingness to acknowledge that moral heritage is the indispensable condition of liberty.

I think that our top priority, therefore, has to be to address these moral issues, to restore our allegiance to our great moral principles, and then--on the basis of our restored moral self-confidence--to begin to reclaim, in those areas of our lives where we have surrendered rights and responsibility, to begin to reclaim those rights.

That's why I think it's important that we should stand forward to reclaim control of our money, by abolishing the income tax and returning to a system of taxation that puts the control and decision-making power and responsibility back in the hands of the people, themselves. [applause]

I think that it's important, as well, to reclaim control of our future. As we restore respect for that principle which allows the children who are the bearers of that future to sleep peacefully in the womb, I think we need to reassert our responsibility for that future by restoring control of our schools to the hands--not of government, not of state government, not of local government--to the hands of the parents who stand before God as responsible for the education of their children.

I think these things are critical to our future success. But they rest, in the end, on our willingness to renew our self-confidence by restoring our faith and allegiance in the moral heritage and the moral principles of our country. That's why I spend so much time talking about the issue of abortion, because it is an issue that epitomizes this moral challenge--an issue that constitutes the explicit rejection of our most important moral principles.

Until we have gotten it right again, until we have brought our position on this in line once again with the principles of our great Declaration of Independence, we will not be able to renew our moral strength, we will not be able to face our future with confidence.

But if we do, then I think we need have no fear. Great horizons of opportunity are opening up--based on our science and on our technology, based on our renewed willingness to work together as one people, as one nation under God. If we, in fact, rediscover that common moral ground, then we can move forward into the new century sure that we shall fulfill what is, in each generation, the responsibility of Americans to pass on the blessings of liberty to new generations, to hold high the better hope that we are supposed to represent--not just for our children, but for people all over the world.

God bless you. [applause]

*Q & A session*

Thank you. As I understand it, I have time to take some questions.

QUESTION: All of our social institutions are a direct reflection upon society, itself. Given the whole relativististic philosophy that we have in this country today influencing society, how, then, do social institutions come about to try to change that, since they are a direct reflection of our society?

KEYES: I think the question is a very good one. I would have to start by saying that I'm not sure, though, that moral relativism is necessarily characteristic of our whole society. I actually don't think so. I think we have some elites in our universities, in our media, in areas that are, to be sure, quite influential in our lives and certainly quite visible in our lives. We have people who have surrendered to this relativism.

But I don't think that's true of most people. I think at some common sense level, most Americans still understand that there better be a fundamental difference between right and wrong, or they'll end up on the wrong side of wrong. And that's common sense. Because most of us aren't Bill Gates or Donald Trump. We don't have a lot of power in our hands to protect ourselves from the abuses of those who think that our rights are only relative, and that the value of our lives is only circumstantial.

That's why I think the Declaration--its words, its meaning--still has tremendous power for the overwhelming majority of Americans. The only reason that that has waned a little bit is because we haven't had leaders with the determination to think through how those principles apply to the great issues that we face, and to stand firmly for the results, for the consequences, that those principles have to have for our judgments on important issues.

And that's why I'm doing what I'm doing--because I think that to stand forward, to be clear, to be firm, to be consistent in a way that harks back to those principles will help to revive, to make them once again living principles in which our people have confidence, and which they use and apply in making the important judgments of our political life. That, I think, is the way in which we can overcome this drift toward a relativism that cannot sustain our freedom.

This is the sad truth of it. For without those fundamental principles--those insights that our founders laid out--we will return to the pattern of human behavior that prevailed for thousands of years before this nation was founded. That is a pattern of "might makes right," that is a pattern of "gold rules," that is a pattern of "you have no rights that must be respected by power and wealth superior to your own." This cannot be if we want to remain a free and decent people. That being the case, I think that we have to work hard to restore our allegiance to the principles that allow us, all of us, to claim respect for our common humanity.

QUESTION: The Focus on the Family Citizen Magazine and Parade Magazine identified one of the key issues to be who the next president will appoint to the Supreme Court, by the virtue of maybe three to five Supreme Court justices over the next eight years. What's your opinion on that, sir?

KEYES: The fact is, the appointment power alone doesn't guarantee that you're going to get any particular result over the course of time--whether it's with the abortion issue or anything else. That's why I continue to support, and pledge to promote, the Human Life Amendment--which would help, at least, to make clear what the Constitution says about the protection of life in the womb. I think that that's an important fact.

But overall, in terms of the abuse, of course that's not the only area we have to fear. The abuse of judicial authority runs the gambit now, including direct assault on vital social institutions. A court decision in Vermont my very soon pose a great threat to the heterosexual, monogamous, marriage-based family that is the very cornerstone of our entire civilization--and by one court making a decision, we may see an assault against that institution that it's not clear we can withstand.

We are going to have to come up with effective ways that go beyond just appointment power, to deal with this kind of judicial tyranny that is unbridled use of judicial power to legislate when they're not supposed to. That means Congress needs to start reasserting--at least with respect to the federal courts--the powers given it in the Constitution to scrutinize the behavior of the court, to determine the jurisdictions of the federal court on various issues, to assert an oversight power to make sure that the court isn't simply running roughshod over what the people believe to be a right understanding of the Constitution.

The executive has the same possibility, and would have to start thinking about . . . When I stand up there and put my hand on the Bible--they still do that, you know, in spite of all the secularism [laughter]--and swear, so help me God, that I'm going to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, I think that means that I have to do that, right? Well, one of these days, some president's going to be in office--it'll be me, if I'm elected next November--and it's going to occur to them to remember that the executive power is vested in them. Right? That means that every executive institution and agency is merely an extension of the president's person.

Now tell me, can my person be allowed to do something that violates my conscience and my understanding of the Constitution, if I took an oath to uphold the Constitution? No, it doesn't.

So if some court somewhere tells the president to do something that the president believes to be unconstitutional, does the president have to do it? We haven't thought about this question in years, but the answer to that question is, no, he does not. The branches are coequal, and that means that they have equal responsibility for interpreting the Constitution when they act in their appropriate constitutional role. Therefore, it is not just a question of the appointment power. If we want to have a restoration of real constitutional government, both the Congress and the president will have to begin to assert their real responsibility for the integrity of the Constitution. And I pledge to do that. [applause]

QUESTION: Ambassador Keyes, should you go on the win the nomination for the Republican Party, and be the standard-bearer, and then subsequently go on to be elected at the general election as the next president of the United States, would you walk us through what you would do in the first hundred days in office?

KEYES: Well, I think my priority would be, first of all, to restore the integrity of executive branch action with respect to the life in the womb--to make it clear that nobody who was acting as part of my executive person would be authorized to take any action which violated the clear constitutional rights of that life in the womb. That is something that was done by Ronald Reagan. It would be restored by Alan Keyes, day one. And that would help, at least within the executive branch, to restore the integrity of our respect for constitutional rights for all of those people under the jurisdiction of our federal government, and who came in contact with the executive branch.

That would be step one. Step two would, of course, be--and it's wonderful to make these things coincide, because inauguration takes place now about the same time that we commemorate the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. And I think that juxtaposition would be a very good time to take the oath and then put on the table before Congress, in cooperation with members of Congress, the Human Life Amendment that is needed in order to correct the abuse the court has engaged in on this issue. And then, to stand before the American people--and for a change, by the way, I think that this would mean to stand before them literally. We have had march after march after march, where some right to life people go to Washington--even during the Reagan years, what they got when they gathered together on the Mall was a message from the president. What they'll get in a Keyes administration is, they'll get the president standing and marching with them and speaking to the people of this country the truth about abortion. [applause]

So, second thing, I would be working with Congress in order to make sure, first, that every action the executive branch takes, and then with every measure we are looking at in education begins to base our approach to education on the simple principle that the money we spend on education follows the choice of the parents, not the choice of educrats, bureaucrats, and politicians. School choice, across the board in our educational policy.

And the third priority will be to put before the Congress of the United States that legislation and that constitutional amendment that would be necessary in order to do what I think is the essential step in restoring our economic control, our economic sovereignty as a people. I would take the steps necessary to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, to abolish the income tax, and to move this country back to a tax system based on our original Constitution. Those would be my priorities. [applause]

Finally--and this is not part of a political agenda. There are aspects to the presidency that any president is going to have to deal with from day one, because they are essential to the responsibilities of the federal government. First and foremost on that agenda is the issue of our national security and defense. I believe that the Clinton administration has been the most dangerous, the most ineffective, the most treacherous administration in the history of our country. I believe the damage done to the morale of our armed forces, and the damage that has been done as a result of their willingness, carelessly or treacherously, to give our secrets to folks like the communist Chinese dictators, has done serious damage to our prospects over the course of the next several years. We'll have to take immediate steps to correct that, immediate steps to rebuild the morale of our armed forces, immediate steps to rebuild the material condition of our troops, so that they are not treated with such contempt that in serving their country, they end up on the welfare roles.

I think that we will have to take immediate steps to respond to the threat created by the Clinton administration's treachery. If we have, sadly, given to the communist Chinese the technical ability, over the next several years, to build missiles that will have a superior capability in reaching and targeting our cities and our people and our arms, then it is an obligation morally and prudentially of any administration to move forward as quickly a possible with the development and deployment of an anti-missile defense for the people of the United States. [applause]

And finally, I would want to make clear right from the beginning a restoration of our national sovereignty and our international economic affairs. That would mean, to begin with, two major points: no MFN status for China, and a U.S. withdrawal from the World Trade Organization. [applause]

QUESTION: What is your stand on the voucher system? Almost seven years ago, I opened up an alternative school. And it has been a terrible struggle. I believe in the five "r's": reading, math, writing, respect and responsibility. I try to teach that. [23:00] What would you do to try to keep a good school like that in operation?

KEYES: As I said, I think that the Keyes administration would be based on the premise that our whole educational system ought to be moving in the direction of school choice. That means that money that we spend ought to be allocated according to the choice of the parents. Simply put, the end result we should be trying to achieve is that if, in any given state or area, there's a per capita amount that is spent on the children in that state for education, then up to that per capita amount, it should follow the parents to whatever school they chose to send their child to. So that, if they wish to send their child to your school, then you would be able to have--through a voucher or some other arrangement--a system where that school would then say, "These are the children in our school, and this, therefore, is the amount that corresponds to those children that should flow to this school." And that way, the parents become the key decision makers, the ones who direct the flow of the common communal resources we devote to education, rather than having bureaucrats and politicians sit around and determine what that ought to be.

In that way, of course, people who start schools like your own--if you're doing a good job, and you start to attract people because of the result you're producing for their children, you'll also at the same time be attracting a flow of resources that will support the educational alternative you represent.

Exactly. Exactly. Now, some people say, "Oh, that's going to harm the government schools"--I call them the "government schools" to distinguish them. Because I think the term "public schools" ought to be used for any school that is going to be funded with public money, and under my plan, that wouldn't just be the government-run schools. But I don't think this inherently harms government-run schools. All it would do is provide them with an incentive to stay in close touch with the wishes and needs of the parents of their children, and to be able to provide, in a satisfactory way, evidence that they are in fact fitting children both morally and informationally for the task of being citizens, and for the task of taking care of themselves and their families in the world.

And if that happens, any school that is able to produce a competitive result will certainly attract parents to send their children to that school--and under the present circumstances, the government schools would have, in facilities and other things, a great advantage so long as they were doing a good job.

But the people who determine that--and here, differ from G. W. Bush. He keeps saying he doesn't want to be the educational superintendent, and then he keeps coming forward with proposals that would require that he be the educational superintendent. Maybe he wants to be, but he doesn't want to call himself that, I guess. He has said that we would have at the national level a decision-making ability, with respect to which schools are bad, and which schools are good, and which schools stay open, and which schools close. I don't think that's for the federal government to decide. It ought to be the choices of parents that result in that, not the choices of bureaucrats.

Yes, ma'am--oh, you hold that up, you gotta get my attention. [laughter]

QUESTION: I knew that would get your attention! [volume] If you would share the essence of your publication with the people who were so kind to be with you this afternoon.

KEYES: You want me to talk about my book? What a hardship! [laughter]

Well, I did write this book. Several years ago--I think this version of it, the trade paperback, is still available somewhere. It's called "Masters of the Dream." I think that it's worthwhile reading, because what I tried to do in this book is to think about the experience of black Americans in terms of the importance of the moral heritage and culture of black America, in the survival of black people during slavery and in the years that followed--in terms of rebuilding family structures and other things. And then, of course, I talk a little bit about how I think the programs and approaches that we followed during the New Deal and during the Great Society actually had a devastating effect on the black community--precisely because it came from a culture that could not work comfortably with the institutions of faith and moral character that were the heart and soul of the black community.

If you understand that part of black history, then you know what sometimes they don't want to tell you. The institutions that were most vital to black Americans--in terms of the community, and social cohesion, and family, and individual character--were the churches! The churches, the churches, the churches!

You come in with a bunch of government programs where you say, "Don't mention God, can't have faith," and you have pushed aside what were the central institutions of the black community. And I think that's part of the reason that these programs didn't work well, that they failed--that, in fact, they ended up producing more harm than good.

People tell me that this is not the easiest book in the world to read. It's kind of got a lot of things said in a short time, and sometimes that means you do have to read it slowly, mind you.

Oh, you want to get my signature? [laughter] I'll give you my signature, if someone will give me a pen, I'd be glad to do that. Next question--I think I can write and chew gum at the same time. Yes?

QUESTION: How would your tax program work? For instance, I know it's the national sales tax. But do you keep the mortgage interest deductions, and do you keep the charitable deductions . . . or, how does it work?

KEYES: Well, let me walk through that with you, if you'll have a little patience. Deductions from what? Ask yourself that question, "Deductions from what?" You see, because this tax question, itself, will no longer have any meaning under that system. Those deductions are deductions from your statement to the government of how much money you've made, right? You will not have to give the government such a statement. It will be none of the government's business how much money you made! [applause]

And by doing that, we're, by the way, restoring very key elements of our privacy and our sovereignty as a people. The government shouldn't have this information. It has been one of the key cornerstones of communism and socialism to turn such information to the government, so they could cast longing eyes on the money we make and the wealth that we build up.

No. So you wouldn't need any of that--because guess what? There would be 100% deduction for everybody in America. All the money you make would be withdrawn from the government's purview. And it would get back into government's purview only after you decide what to do with it, and only after you make the decision, "I'm going spend this money on taxed goods."

Now, in order to make sure that you will have the leeway to control the level of taxation, what you do is structure the system so that there is market basket of goods and services not subject to the federal tax. And that means that anybody who wants to give himself a tax cut, all he has to do is confine himself to those goods and services not subject to the tax--covering every area of basic need in this society. There would be bicycles not subject to the tax, and houses not subject to the tax, and cars not subject to the tax, and food not subject to the tax, so everything you need to do in life, you'll find a corresponding set of products not subject to the tax which would be available for you. Now, those probably aren't going to be your fancy luxury products, or the things that correspond to your wonderful dreams about what you're going to do when you get rich. They'll be the products that provide you with the basic requirement that need in order to fulfill--right?--the given purpose of that object. Just necessities. Poor people, people on fixed incomes--they won't be subject to tax, if they confine their purposes to these non-taxed goods.

But other working people--any working person--would be able to get out from under the federal tax, wouldn't have to go to an accountant, don't need H&R Block, no fancy lawyers. [applause] No, really. The whole marketplace will reorganize itself in order to help you save on your taxes.

Imagine this, because it will happen. You'll have tax-free K-Mart--stores that will stock on their shelves only tax-free goods, so that anybody with common sense will be able to give themselves a tax cut just by confining themselves to the tax-free economy, as it were. And that will also be the case in department stores and other places. You think that somebody's going to set up a tax-free K-Mart, and K-Mart's not going to set up a tax-free section? You're crazy.

So by the time we get over with it, we'll have the equivalent of duty-free stores all over the country, and people will not need any fancy advice in order to reduce their tax burden--they'll just need a little common sense. That will put within the reach of every American what is now only within the reach of the wealthy, and that will rectify what I think are the fundamental inequities of the so-called progressive income tax--where they try to lie to us and say that they're taxing the wealthy with progressive rates, and then behind our backs they set up a structure that allows the wealthy to control the incidents of taxation, and get away with paying next to nothing. That will go by the boards. And not only that, but other people who right now never get taxed--it should bother us a little bit that you have all these folks out there, if you happen to be a criminal in this country right now, somebody who just naturally disregards law, then you don't pay taxes. You get out there, and your ill-gotten gain never much contributes to the welfare of the rest of us. Well, under this system, if you want to enjoy your ill-gotten gain by buying all the nice things available in this society, you'll have to pay the tax. It's not much of a consolation, but it'll be something.

All of these advantages, combined with a system that has a natural limit on taxation--because after all, the legislatures under a system like this have to think like business people. If they will impose a tax rate that's too high, they will raise the price of the goods and their revenues will fall, just the way it does for business people. So they'll have a natural incentive not to overtax us in any given point, because if they do, they lose their money.

The founders--Hamilton, actually, in the Federalist Papers--describes this system of taxation flip-forward in the original Constitution, and in these very terms. He talks about how it encourages both a healthy prudence in the tax policy, and it encourages unity in the different economic sectors of the society. Right now, we have a let's-you-and-him-fight tax system, where the politicians get up there and manipulate us into sitting there looking at the other guy--"You're paying less than me"; "You're paying more than me"--fighting with each other over who pays what, right? They divide and conquer. They divide us in order to conquer our money, and they've done a very good job of it. Under this tax system, the example I'd give would be--remember the luxury boat tax? You all would probably remember it in this part of the country pretty well. They imposed that tax, and what was its result? As I recall, tens of thousands of people were threatened with the loss of their life and livelihood, right? Was it just the workers, or also the managers and the owners? It was everybody. That means that when the problem hit, there was a unifying effect. And instead of having class resentment and warfare, and this one resenting that one, people were standing solidly together, saying, "Don't destroy our industry. We're all hurting here." That produced a unified result. They marched over to the politicians, smacked them around a little, and the tax was repealed.

That's the kind of result that you can get from a sales tax system, because it creates, when it's abused, a coalition of forces that transcends the usual lines, unites people, in order to save what is precious to all of them: the source of their life and livelihood. All of these advantages would come from the system that I advocate, and I think that it's high time. Plus, I can't resist.

QUESTION: Your number one issue, Dr. Keyes--your belief that a human being is created at the instant of conception--is denied by popes Gregory XIV, and Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and even so recent as St. Alphonsus Liguori, who lived one century after the invention of the compound microscope. Were all of these authoritative leaders of your church wrong?

KEYES: Well, see, you've misstated my position. I have never said, and I do not espouse the view, that life is created at conception. I don't espouse that view because that's not what the scripture says. What the scripture says is, "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee." What the scripture says--Psalm 139--is that "I knew all of the number of your days before there was as yet one of them." And that means that from the point of view of creation, we are existent in the mind of God--complete, total, perfect--before anything happens in the womb. And that puts the whole question of creation beyond our subject, will, or determination. Not for us to be bothered about. God prepares the manuscript of our life in secret. He only publishes it in the womb. Therefore, the question you raise is irrelevant to our political discussion. [applause]

QUESTION: I want to know what you feel about NAFTA. All of the countries involved in the NAFTA community--don't they promote child abuse work labor, and if so, what are the reasons the United States doesn't repeal that law?

KEYES: See, I think that NAFTA was sold to us on a false basis, and that when you pursue what has actually happened, it has not been good for America. It's not good for America, among other things, for the very reasons he raised.

What is happening in terms of what's supposed to be the enforcement of common understandings of what level of regulation there should be to protect children from abuse, and workers, and other things like this--I think those kinds of agreements are in some ways inherently problematic for us. Because either we're going to see them enforced in such a way that we don't really get equity, or they will be enforced, and that means we turn over power over the economic affairs of our country and other countries to what is essentially an international socialist bureaucracy. I don't like it either way.

And therefore, I think that such arrangements have inherent problems. I'm not saying that, when it comes down to it, we shouldn't sit down, work it out with other countries an understanding of the terms on which we're going to trade with them. I think that ought to be done in a way that maximizes the return to the American people, on the market we have created with our sacrifice and work, so that we get what essentially we deserve--a premium rent for access to the world's most important and lucrative marketplace. And that ought to be done on a basis that respects our requirements and that reaches an understanding. Yeah, we can offer a break to some countries, and discounts, and so forth, but in return for tangible benefits that go beyond letting a few international corporations make their profit at the expense of the rest of us.

I also think that applies wholesale to the World Trade Organization, and things like that, where we have turned over huge chunks of our sovereignty to a body that we do not elect, that does not represent us, and yet that can make decisions that affect the life and livelihood of everyday Americans. We live now with the possibility of legislation without representation--the very thing our founders fought against--being imposed on us because we have accepted what is essentially not a free trade, but socialist internationalism in the economy. I reject it, and I would want to move us back to a regime, or toward a regime, where we essentially take a business-like approach. I am not an isolationist, I am not a protectionist. I'm just somebody who believes that we ought to get the best return for what is, in many ways, in the international economy, our major asset: our market. And that's what I would try to produce as president.

QUESTION: [unintelligible]

KEYES: You raise a question that I simply don't understand, sometimes. I go around, I meet all kinds of people who are conservatives, and when they hear me describing the whole trade situation, they clap and they're all gung-ho, and I say, "Who you voting for?" and they're voting for Bush. [laughter] Or they're voting for Forbes or somebody.

Don't folks realize that one of the major differences among Republicans right now is the difference between those of us who want to defend and strengthen the national sovereignty of our country, and those globalists and internationalists who are perfectly happy to surrender it, so long as somebody's making a profit. And that, by the way, includes every single person who is now my competition in this race. There isn't an exception there.

Gary talks a lot about Most Favored Nation status for China, but he doesn't tell you that he'd keep us in the World Trade Organization, and that in fact, he is, like the rest of them, a free-trader. And I reject the concept of free trade, because it's too expensive. If you go in for dinner and they tell you you're going to get a free dinner, and then when you get the bill you not only have to pay $180 for two, but they also require that you work for two weeks in the kitchen--you might suspect that freedom was actually not freedom, but a form of bondage for which you're going to pay through the nose.

That's what we're being offered. This isn't free trade, it's socialism. I reject socialism at home; why do I accept it in the international arena? [applause]

QUESTION: Does our First Amendment right to free speech really mean that Marilyn Manson and rap artists can sing, advocate, preach immorality, misogyny, violence? Is allowing them in the music industry to regulate itself enough? As a parent, am I expected to just read the label, or check all the words that are printed inside?

KEYES: I have to say, I obviously understand and share the concern. I think we have to approach questions, however, that involve any suggestion of prior censorship or restraint with great care. And we have to approach them with great care because we have to remember that sometimes people you like will control that censorship power, and other times people you really don't like will control it.

Day one, they will be censoring the lyrics of this nasty bad music over here that encourages rape and sexual licentiousness. Day two, somebody else gets elected, and they will be censoring quotes from the Bible on how homosexuality is an abomination.

I feel safer in a country where nobody has that kind of power. Can't be used against me, and I won't try to use it for me. We will all, therefore, simply respect the fact that people get to say and do some things we don't like.

But, but--we can, and we have an obligation to, articulate standards and uphold public decency. And by that, I mean this: first, you define what a public place is. I think the definition is actually fairly easy. A public place is any place at all to which our children may gain unimpeded access. That's a public place.

That sets a nice standard, because it also reminds you of why you have such standards--so that those of us who are trying to raise our children in this way and that won't have to fear they're going out and being sullied and polluted in various ways by what's going on in the public environment. In the name of, therefore, keeping that public environment free of that kind of stuff, you establish a standard and you say, "Keep your stuff out of the public places." Keep it out of the public library. If you're going to be on the internet, set up barriers that make sure that only authorized adult persons can have access to your junk. If you're going to do it in other ways, in movie houses and bookstores, segregate those stores in such a way that they aren't going to give unimpeded access to the public.

That doesn't require that I restrain your expression; it simply requires that I organize the distribution of the result, so that we can maintain public places that will be free of what are regarded as offensive materials.

I think that's critical. And that is the kind of approach that I would recommend, which doesn't involve censorship and abuse, it simply involves maintaining standards of public decency--so that if we are aware and responsible, as people and parents, we will be able to act, and work, and live in such a way as to avoid those things we believe to be offensive, and can act on the assumption that our children will, by and large, also be able to avoid them. That's what I think we can ask for, and that's what I would seek to pursue--encouraging this at the state and local level, because I don't think it's a federal responsibility, necessarily. Working at it at the level of national things, I think it is a national responsibility on the internet, for instance, to come up with ways that will reflect this kind of approach, and that's what I would work to do.

QUESTION: I direct my question a little bit back to the defense issue. My question is relative to the lack of clarity in the presidential directives in how we're using our defense forces or military in peace-keeping, peace enforcement, and so forth. I'm very uncomfortable--you mentioned the timidity of our politicians these days, and it does appear so, each time a very significant event comes up, Congress' hands are tied to declare whether we should be involved or not, and consequently the executive has had a wide range of flexibility. Could you please talk a little bit to how you see the way we're being used internationally for these engagements, and whether you buy into the global engagement in the way it's been used?

KEYES: In answer to the latter, no, I do not. I reject globalism. I reject it in principle.

And globalism, in my opinion, is not just how we use our forces. Because, if we understand the uses of those forces, they are actually being used to promote a concept of global sovereignty. That's what happened when NATO moved against Yugoslavia. They moved against Yugoslavia on the presumption that they acted on behalf of some fugitive global sovereign whose decent law they were enforcing against these abusers within Yugoslavia. Such a sovereign does not exist, and I do not believe that such a sovereign should ever exist--at least, not anytime in the near future. Why? Am I just against internationalism and cooperation? No. I'm just against giving up our Constitution and our freedom.

It's hard enough to try to keep the federal government on a basis that is somehow reflective of our rights and representative government. How many people think you could keep a global government on that basis? It's impossible. Global government will equate with tyranny--that is to say, with arbitrary government not based on representations that does not respect our rights and dignity as a people. Why should we give up liberty in order to move into a globalist regime that doesn't respect our freedoms? Why should we allow our military forces to be used in order to establish and act on the claims of such a presumptive sovereign? I think this is crazy. I will stop it, right away--and will move in a direction that does not reject our cooperation with other countries, that does not even reject our leadership in the world, but that does so on the basis of a clear sense of our own national sovereignty, and values, and interests.

That's step number one. Step number two: unusually, perhaps, for a president, I will go into office believing that if I swear to uphold the Constitution, that also means I have to uphold my conscientious understanding of Congress' role under the Constitution. Just because, at any given moment, it's going to be inconvenient for me to remember that Congress has the power to declare war, I don't believe I should allow that to get in the way of respecting that power. Clinton did.

The Kosovo business not only violated the fundamental principle, it explicitly violated the law that was put in place to try to, in a make-shift way, restore some semblance of Congress' role in the war declaration business. And guess what? The law provided that he tell the Congress when we deployed the forces. He did. It also provided that sixty days later, if Congress had not affirmatively approved--this was not a case of just acquiescing. The law says that Congress must pass a resolution that actually, in a positive way, approves of the deployment. And if, after sixty days, they have not done so, the president must withdraw our forces unless he can make the argument that that withdrawal must be delayed a bit for the safety of our forces. That's the only reason.

And of course, there was no such argument in the case of Kosovo whatsoever. We continued the deployment beyond sixty days, the War Powers Act was treated as a dead letter, and one of the vital areas of our security as a people was disregarded.

One of the ways in which would-be tyrants and dictators and regimes that want to abuse you have done it throughout history is to get you involved in wars, keep you involved in wars, and then use those wars as an excuse to pillage your pocket, and limit your rights, and in other ways, curtail your liberty. That's the standard practice. That's why the power to declare war is put in the Constitution--so that we wouldn't be subject to a government that can willy-nilly against our will and without consulting us keep us constantly involved in warfare. That is not good for freedom. You can't remain a free people if you are constantly and always being subject arbitrarily to wars that may or may not be in your interests.

So, it is very important, this power to declare war. And I think that in everything that I did as president I would want to act in such a way as to respect those constitutional terms, to revive the practice that when you have the time, and when there is the deliberative opportunity, obviously, in meeting emergencies and other exigencies, the president has to act to defend us if we're attacked and our interests are attacked. But within the of limits of that kind of emergency response, if I honestly feel that we need to do x, y, or z in military terms that are going to engage this country in a prolonged military action, I believe it is my responsibility as president to go to Congress and, on behalf of the American people, seek Congress' approval for that action. [applause]

QUESTION: If you're going to be the president of the United States, I know that a lot of the people that are on welfare--I was hoping that there would be some kind of a work-type program where people can not just earn more foodstamps, but make something out of themselves. Handicapped people, as well, who are on fixed incomes that would like to go to work, but yet they can't work because there are people out there who say that we can't let you work because we don't want to be paying in case something happens to you. It hurts a lot of us because you've got people out there who are able to work, but they don't want to work. Yet, you've got people out there that can't work because there's something wrong with them. They want to work, but they can't because no one will hire them. And that's rough on a lot of us.

KEYES: I actually think that the whole situation you've just described is one of the legitimate reasons why the Social Security system was established. You sometimes think that Social Security only meant that you were providing for a version of a kind of retirement insurance. But it also encompassed things like trying to help people who had prematurely lost a wage earner in their family, and it encompassed things like dealing with a situation of people who were faced with difficulties and disabilities in order to try to create conditions in which they would be able to sustain their lives.

But one of the things I think we've neglected is that, as far as I can tell in this society, for most people, decent folks want to have a role in taking care of themselves. Just being dependent on somebody else is nobody's idea of dignity, most of the time. And so, you need to make provisions in what you are doing when you reach out a hand of help to respect the dignity of the people that you help. And how do you do that? By respecting their desire to take care of themselves, to work, to make a contribution not only to themselves but to their society. And that's one of the reasons, I think, the way in which we've gone about this has sometimes been wrong.

Instead of working through government bureaucracy, we can, even when we are going to support things with some government help, we should work through institutions in the community that bring together the institutions of faith and the business people in that community, to work together to reach out a helping hand--to provide real jobs and real opportunity in the context that respects the dignity of the people that you're working with. And I believe that the institutions that can do that most effectively would be our institutions of faith and mutual cooperation at the local level. And government programs ought to be structured so that the money we spend on these areas will be funneled through such institutions into programs that will stop, work with, and listen to people who are in need and yet do not just want to sit there getting a check from somebody--who actually want to work with people in their community to better themselves in the community. That's the kind of approach we need to take. [applause]

Thank you very much.