Alan Keyes
May 11, 2000

Good evening. Sorry I'm a little late--subject to the vagaries of airline travel these days. And we actually jumped in here the last part in one of these little planes, bouncing around a little bit today. It was kind of windy. So, if it takes me a minute to settle down, it's probably because my brains are still jiggling from the flight. [laughter]

But I want to thank you for taking a moment or two to share time with me to think through the challenge that is facing our nation right now--a challenge that can be obscured a little bit by the material circumstances in which we find ourselves, but which, nonetheless, I think is on the minds of many Americans. It's also a challenge that has an enormous practical bearing politically on what we are likely to see take place in this country this fall. Now, I don't want to make any assumptions about whom I am talking to, so, I'll take a little poll first. Do we have any Republicans here? [laughter, clapping]

Anybody want to raise your hands? We have a few Republicans, obviously. And anybody here might want to see the Clinton era brought to an end and Al Gore defeated? [applause and cheering] I rather thought so. But see, on both counts, though, I've got some bad news, I'm afraid. [laughter] I do. And it's actually good news, but it's bad news. Right? I mean, the good news is that this country's still in the midst of an economy that's more than chugging along--even making allowances for the fact that since Bill Clinton is President, they're probably lying about all the numbers. [laughter]

I can attest from my travels around the country to the reality that unemployment is low. That, in some places, you actually have what we haven't seen in America in some time, an employment crunch, where folks can't find the workers that they that need, they are so desperate to get people in. This is not necessarily wonderful, but it does indicate, doesn't it, that the economic machine is moving right along. So, there may be a little trace of inflation here or there, but it doesn't appear to be anything that we need to worry about at the moment, overall. So, that as these things go, the economy's only in the best shape that it's been in the lifetimes of most Americans. That's good news, for most Americans.

It's bad news, politically, for the Republican Party.

So, I have to tell you that in good economic times, and I would assume that goal is for unprecedentedly good economic times, in good economic times, the American people have never, at least not in the 20th century--one professor went all the way back to 1880, I understand, with an analysis, and he found the same thing--the American people have never, in good prosperous economic times, taken the White House from one party and given it to another. Do you realize that? Never happened. Therefore, you look at the precedents, and you're going to come to a hard and fast conclusion that, as we chug along in great economic times, the Democrats are likely to prevail in November. I know it's sad. It's sad. But those are the hard facts. We are walking uphill. We are walking into the stiff wind of material prosperity, and the fact that that makes a lot of people kind of complacent.

In one respect, it's perfectly understandable. Americans are not like some folks in the world. We actually seem to still have a semblance of common sense, and even gratitude.

You know, when Winston Churchill did a great job during the Second World War, after the war ended, and he had lead his people to victory over the terrible Nazi menace and inspired their hearts and encouraged them and built up their armed forces--after he had been proven right in every committee he'd sat in in the 1930's, and all the things he thought the country should do, and did such a wonderful job, they kicked him out of office.

See, generally speaking, Americans don't do that. Do a good job, and we'll leave you in there. And very often, the measure of that good job is how well off people are doing, in a material sense.

And, if that's a measure of a good job, regardless--now, you can get in an argument if you want, "They didn't do anything." Sad to say, see? Do you know when we really get into problems doing that? We get into problems trying to do that because we want to pretend that we shouldn't give credit to the incumbent party in the White House, and then all our Congress people will be out there saying you should give credit to our incumbent people in the Congress. So, why are people looking at that? If we're going to credit to one set of politicians, why not give credit to the others? Especially since we know, in our heart of hearts, that neither set politicians deserves that credit, but it belongs to the credit of the American people. [applause]

So, if we're handing out credit where credit is not due, we'll give it to the Democrats in the White House, as well as the Republicans in the Congress, who'll come around begging for it at election time. You can see, that kind of puts us in an awkward situation, doesn't it? Because, if Americans are in a mentality that says, "Let's reward incumbents for this wonderful material prosperity," that puts Democrats back in the White House and that puts the Republicans back in control of Congress, because that's where the incumbency lies right now--and we'll lose the presidential election.

Now, judging by the enthusiastic response I got a minute ago, that makes a lot of you in this room unhappy. The thought that we are going to continue the Clinton era--the Clinton era of moral betrayal, the Clinton era that betrays our national security, the Clinton era that assaults our control over our schools, and our money, and our lives--ought very well to make you sick to death. But more than that, it ought to make you fearful of the future of freedom and self-government in America. I think a few more years of these rapacious destroyers of our character and liberty, and we won't have any liberty left.

And I thought it was proven, once again, in the way that they handled this whole business down in Miami. Now, regardless of which side you mean to take in this supposed "family dispute," it does seem to me that most people with common sense would kind of reach the conclusion that you wouldn't want to deal with that family squabble with automatic weapons. [applause] But apparently, in this, as in many other things, Janet Reno is a stranger to common sense and decency. [laughter] And so she sends in the people armed with automatic weapons, and so forth.

The other thing that wasn't a coincidence, of course, is that this particular travesty--which, by the way, has been decried even by folks on the left. Don't you think that's amazing? I mean, when you have Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes agreeing to decry the same thing, you got to know something's wrong. [laughter] And that's what happened in this particular case.

So, we know something's up. But isn't it interesting that in this episode, just as we've seen before, this administration crosses the line, uses these kind of tactics--in order to do what? In order to serve the interest of a communist dictator. [applause] And you notice how they love to kowtow to these communist dictators, just about how they are doing now with China? And they're out there, "Oh, for permanent, Most-Favored Nation status, for this brutal dictatorial regime that tortures Christians and priests and ministers, and forces women into abortions and sterilizations. Let's give them money and capital and access to our markets." That's sad, isn't it? But again, same mentality prevails. What the communists want, the communists get during the Clinton era.

Now, I will not dwell too long, though, on the fact that where permanent MFN status for China is concerned, there are, sadly, a great many Republicans willing to do the same little dance.

But it's typical of Clinton. I mean, he went out of the way to make sure they got our secrets. Right? That's in case they weren't moving fast enough to develop the nuclear arsenal with which to destroy our cities. We are charitable people. And this administration, out of, I guess, compassion for the Communist Chinese government, felt we that ought to give them a helping hand! [laughter]

So, we looked the other way when they walked off with our nuclear secrets and with technology that was needed to beef up the accuracy of their missiles, and the capital that was needed to make sure they could apply the technology faster! [laughter]

So, when we get into a spat in the next century with the Communist Chinese, and the missiles are coming across and blowing up our cities, those of us who are here will at least have the satisfaction of knowing it's a proof of good old American know-how. [laughter]

Yeah, all together too typical of the Clinton administration. So, it's right that we should want them gone, that we should want to bring this era to an end before it brings our Republic to a close.

But, in these good economic times, how are we to do that? I would feel pretty well hopelessly discouraged by this, but for one thing. But for one thing--and it's a big one. This administration may be presiding over economic times that are pretty good. It may have locked on to a situation where, as a result of the fruits of the many years of courageous and clear leadership, we got during the Reagan era. They may be reaping the fruits of world of peace, a world cleared of dangerous Communist adversaries in the Soviet Union. And that may, in fact, be a time in which he [Clinton] presides--but when we look at the areas for which he is responsible, when we look at the areas where his Democratic buddies circled the wagons around his shameless lying, lack of integrity, his betrayal of his oath, his assault on the Constitution of the United States, what we find is whatever the material condition of this country, this era has been characterized by the greatest betrayal of this nation's moral character, and moral decency, and moral principle that we have ever seen in the history of our country! [applause]

But there are some reasons why some complacent and indifferent Americans might just let this all chug along. I think there are even more compelling reasons why Americans of decent heart and conscience would rise up in order to clean house, in order to make sure that we do not have to live continually with the ongoing stench of their moral corruption and turpitude. But what that suggests, my friends, is that in the course of this upcoming election, I don't think we're going to see a contest that, at least from a Republican point of view, turns in its prospects on material proposals on what we do about this or that--even issues that, in the past, were salient for us, like taxes, and which I believe are really important when we understand the real nature of those issues. I don't think they're going to be cutting edge issues for Republicans this fall.

And I'll have to tell you that speculation like that is already going on in the liberal media. A while back, I saw an article in the Washington Post in which they were talking about how the state tax, on right and left were in agreement now that under the present tax laws, Americans were paying effective tax rates that were 10% or below. How many of you feel like that? [laughter] Well, that's what they said in this article. And they cited polls that showed that, in terms of these proposals waiting to come forth, "I'm going to give you this in taxes, and that in taxes, and we're gong to have a tax cut and give money to people." Apparently, for whatever reason--either because they are flush right now, and don't care that much for this marginal income, or because they no longer believe in these phony promises--Americans are not being moved by this prospect, by the tax cuts and all these things that used to give some ground for Republican politicians.

Now, I've got to tell you, might come as a shock to you, but I'm kind of glad that's true. I am. And I'm glad it's true, because I'm sick to death of this phony manipulation of the tax issue. I really am. [applause]

I thought of it during the course of the debates, and I'd sit there, and I'd listen to my colleagues, and you'd have this one over here saying, "My plan is going to get $1800 to pay for . . . ," "My plan will give more money to middle class section," "My plan will give more money to this one and that one." "I'm going to give more money to you. Vote for me." And when I got the floor and had an opportunity to address it, I always liked to look audiences in the eye and say, "Look, wait an minute here, before you get all excited about what these politicians are offering to do for you, why don't you step back and ask yourself a simple question? Whose money is it anyway?" [laughter and applause]

I mean, here we have these guys engaged in this wonderful competition, in order to do what? They're engaged in a competition to see whether or not you're going to be galled into voting for them because they're going to give you a smidgen of your own money back. [laughter] And this is supposed to come as some wonderful, grand gesture on their part which we should fall down on our knees and thank "massa politician" and "massa government" for giving us the fruits of our own hard earned labor, telling us that we now have a surplus in the budget. This is great.

I was asked this question, in fact, on the radio coming in, in terms of the surplus and what ought to be done with it. And I'll have to say what I said and have said many times before. Think about it this way. You go into the local car dealer and you purchase an automobile. You take it home and a few months later you get a letter from the car dealer that says, "We've just been going over the books. And we find that you've overpaid for that vehicle by $5,000." And then they say, "And we're going to have a meeting tomorrow to decide whether and how much of it we'll going to give back to you." [laughter]

Now, how many of you would be overjoyed at the prospect that your car dealer was actually thinking about giving you a little of your money back--while, of course, investing the rest in whatever they saw fit? So, why do we let politicians get away with this?

First, we have them raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, and all this--taking money out of the purpose it was intended for, using it to build up their patronage coffers, expand the government in all kind of ways it that shouldn't have been done in any case. Okay, now, we come to a time of a little greater economic opportunity, perhaps. They say, "Well, we've got this surplus," and it's starting to emerge now, even despite the Social Security Trust Fund. In fact, for several years they were claiming surpluses that really came out the Trust Fund, but we're actually getting into the period where the surpluses are going to be even in excess, but they're still taken from the Trust Fund. Okay. Until we come to this time when they're claiming these surpluses, what do they say? "Well, we're going to debate whether or not we'll give you what you overpaid for government services." So, whether we overpaid for government services, this is an opportunity for politicians, and not for us? It's an opportunity for them to decide what they shall do with that money to further structure us into subjection with welfare-style programs and other programs intended to make us dependent--where they really take tax issues, and by dribbling and drabbling them out in terms of targeted tax cuts and other things, they will again even use an issue as tax cuts to turn us into serfs and wage-slaves of the government. [applause]

Is this the way it's supposed to be? That's why I believe that this isn't the real tax issue. The real tax issue, when you look at the heritage of this nation and when you understand where we're coming from, the real tax issue is not understood until you go back and realize that the present system of income taxation at the federal level is one that would not have been constitutional under the original Constitution of the United States. Do you realize that? Couldn't have done it. Couldn't have done it. That's why they claimed that to pass the 16th Amendment, in order to make it constitutional for the federal government to impose an income tax. Because, the way our Founders wrote the Constitution, such a direct tax on the income of individuals could not constitutionally be imposed.

Now, why do you think that was? Do you think the Founders of this country just didn't understand about all the different possibilities of taxation? Far from it. They had been subjects of one of the most greedy and rapacious monarchies in the history of the world, that had, through all their various means, come up every possible form of taxation, in order to wring an extra penny out of the British people. They knew all about income taxation and every other form of taxation. They rejected that taxation at the federal level, because they did not think it compatible with liberty and self-government to hand that kind of control over our national income to the national government. [applause] They say this because it's not compatible with liberty.

I, frankly, don't understand why we think it is. It's not very hard to think through where we are under this tax system. A little hint of it ought to come from the fact that one of the early advocates of a national income tax, in terms of political organization, was Karl Marx. [laughter] And, in fact, he and Engels in the tracts that they wrote in the 1830's, 40's, late 30's, 40's, and they were laying out the program of socialism, communism, and how you achieve it--one of the key pillars of that agenda was the imposition of a national income tax.

Now, why? Well, because they understood that if you had that kind of an income tax, it in principle hands control of your money over to the government--and, of course, they were into government control of money and means of production and everything else. That's what they thought was good.

And here in the 20th century we have valiantly fought, we say, against socialism and communism. We have defeated the great shadow of evil that was over there in the Soviet Empire, in order to drive socialism as a specter from the future destiny of human kind. Now, meanwhile, we have adopted one of the main premises of socialism as part of our own structure for financing the government--and it's not, sadly, the only feature of socialism that we have adopted, but it may be one of the most salient ones. And it's obvious, of course, that it hands control of our money to the government.

I mean, you think about it. I make a deal with you that I'm going to let you have control of a certain percentage of my income. Sound good? Only to people who don't know how little income I make. [laughter] Okay, so, but in addition to that, I'm going to let you decide what percentage that will be. Sound good? Now, if you put two and two together, and I have given you control over a certain percentage of my income, and you decide what the percentage will be, how much of my money, in principle, do you control? [laughter] How much, how much? All of it. Every last penny of it is under your control. If I am going to turn over to you a certain percentage of my income, and you get to determine what that percentage will be, well, then I've turned over to you the authority to make it 100%, if you feel like it. That is what we do with the income tax.

And then we have nerve to be surprised when the politicians start talking as if all the money belongs to them, and they're doing us a favor when they let us keep any. Why do they talk that way? Because, under the income tax system, that's the truth. In principle, all our national income is controlled by them; and, if we get even a little bit of it, that is, I guess, due either to the goodness of their hearts, or their fear that if they turn the heat up too soon the frog will jump out of the pot.

The fact that they intend to turn it up and boil us to economic death ought to be clear, though--even in these moral times when our revulsion against this system has produced a little momentary respite in what had been a constant and ever spiraling increase in the government's control of our money.

So, I think that the key issue that confronts us in taxation is not how much they're going to give to us. No. Because that keeps us within the same syndrome where we're being manipulated by their control. If we want to restore real self-government in America, if we want to put ourselves back in a position of being a sovereign people, then we need to remember what Blackstone said, and what our Founders deeply understood: "The power over someone's resources is a power over their will." Give control over your resources to your national government, and that government undermines and controls your will and destroys your choice, and, therefore, destroys real self-government! [loud applause]

There is only one solution to that. There is only one solution. It's clear, it's good. We need to return to the original Constitution of this country. [applause] We don't need to flatten the income tax. We don't need to reform the income tax. We don't need to restructure the income tax. We don't need to simplify the income tax. We need to abolish the income tax! [loud applause] And return to the situation of freedom intended for our people. [applause] That's the truth of it.

And I'm glad to say I have been campaigning on this premise through, now, almost two presidential election cycles. I started back in '96. And I would say that we needed to abolish the income tax, and people would sit there looking at me as if to say, "And here we thought you were sane . . ." [laughter] "Just when we were thinking you were making sense, you come up with a crazy proposal like this." Frankly, folks have begun come to look at the truth of it, begun to realize that, yes, death and taxes are inevitable, but not income taxes. Right? These are not inevitable--and, in fact, they were not intended to be a tool in the hands of the national government. It is one of those things which we handed to them that has been used and abused to undermine and destroy what ought to be the federal nature of our Constitution, and the ability of individuals, in fact, to control the destiny of family and community and state. Time and again in all areas of our lives, sadly, we are seeing that kind of surrender of self-government.

Not only where the money is concerned, but also where the schools are concerned, where we're more and more allowing the national government to move in and take over control of education--and it's not because it produces better results, you have noticed that, right? [laughter] When we want the best results, we get the best results from those institutions that are structured in such a way as to maximize the involvement, participation, power, and responsibility of the parents, who have, before God, the first responsibility for their children. [loud applause] These are the kinds of things that we need to be aware of and wary of as we face the future, because they suggest a real destruction of our liberty in this country. I'm not just using that phrase "destruction of our liberty, destruction of our republic" in the abstract. And I am not predicting, either, that it's something that's going to happen. My friends, it is happening. It is already far advanced.

We can see that again, in terms of the assault of our Second Amendment rights. You've noticed that, too, I suppose--where, more and more, every time an incident of violence occurs in America now, politicians come forward and say, "Since these bad people have used violence, these good people must be deprived of their weapons." [laughter] You do, I guess, see the logic of that? Because if you do, I wish you would enlighten me. [laughter] But nothing about the gun control agenda has ever struck me as that logical anyway, since they keep telling us, among other things, "We ought to get these guns out of the hands of criminals." So, how are you going to do that? "Well, we're going to pass more laws against having these guns." I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "Now, let me think here. What is the simple definition of a criminal? Somebody who breaks the law." [laughter] So, by definition, if you're a criminal, you're somebody where for whom the laws aren't very efficacious. They really don't have an effect on your behavior. [laughter] So you can proliferate laws till the cows come home, you're not going to affect the behavior of criminals.

The thing about criminals is that they ignore and break laws. [laughter] So, when somebody comes to you and says we're going to pass a law to deal with this criminal behavior, you tell them, no. No, we send out the police and we enforce the laws we've got, to deal with criminal behavior. [loud applause] Don't come to me and tell me, "I've got to take away your means of self-defense. I've got to ignore your basic and fundamental God-given right to defend family and person and property."

That's what it is, you know. I realize that the folks at the ACLU try to pretend that our rights come from our Bill of Rights, but as I often ask school kids who will give me that response when I ask them where our rights come from, I say, "Well, the Founders of this country who wrote the Bill of Rights fought a revolution in the name of their rights. The Bill of Rights hadn't been written yet, so where did their rights come from?" [laughter]

This gets me to what is, in fact, the main point of what I have to say tonight. Faced with this threat to our freedom--which I think is epitomized by the assaults and the degradation of the Clinton era--we really have to ask ourselves what we do, how we meet this challenge, and what, in fact, is the key to understanding it and dealing with it. And in the end, I think that key can be understood, if we really see what we're looking at in these Clinton years.

It was not an accident that the key crisis of this administration did not come in an area of economic management or international cares--however incompetent and egregious the betrayals we suffered in some of those areas. No. It came in the area of a clear and unprecedented lack of moral character and integrity. And I don't think that's an accident.

I think, in fact, the Clinton era is representing to us the fundamental, the root danger that we face right now as a people. The reason that more and more of our rights are being undermined, the reason that we are surrendering more and more of the aspects of self-government, is that we are allowing the destruction of character and conscience, and undermining the sense that we are fit to be a free people. And the Clinton era exemplifies that assault. As clear as day, we can see that that lack of character, that ever-increasing corruption of character, is not just affecting, but it is undermining, paralyzing, destroying the integrity of our institutions of self-government at the highest level.

And I don't just limit that, by the way, to Bill Clinton's lying and his moral turpitude, and all. I don't just mean that his constitutional betrayal. No. But what I think really exemplifies the loss of integrity in our . . . [end of side of tape]

. . . our entitlement to all our rights that all men are created equal and endowed, not by the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, or the laws, or the or the judges, or the courts; endowed by their Creator, endowed by God Almighty with our inalienable rights. [loud applause] And if God is the source of our rights, then the authority of God must be respected in the exercise of those rights, or they will be destroyed. See, that's where we've gone wrong. We have lost the sense of our moral foundation.

And you know the issue that epitomizes it? I know I don't have to tell many of you this, because I know Idaho. It is still true, but we need to understand how important it is, because the issue that epitomizes this more than any other is this issue where we have come forward and lied to people--our women in this society--told them that against a clear, explicit premise on which our whole way of life is based is that they have the right to reach into the womb and snuff out that innocent life found therein, on the basis of their role of convenience and choice. This can't be true. Either our rights come from God, or they come from our mother's choice. And if they come from a human choice, then the whole premise of our republic has been discarded and overturned. That's where we are right now.

It's one of the reasons that I often tell people that, in one sense, you know, that our republic is already dead, and what we're going to decide is whether we're going to wake up in time to help to recover and restore its life. Because, that which is the soul of it, that which is the living principle of truth from which our self-government is derived, we have already, in these court decisions like Roe vs. Wade, abandoned it. We must get back to that moral ground, or the lack of it will destroy our character and open the door through which we destroy ourselves.

I think that's the key challenge that we face today. I don't think that there's anything more important than that. And what is interesting is that we've now come to a juxtaposition of challenges, because on the one hand we have this challenge to America to restore our sense of moral principle and integrity, and on the other, we have the challenge to the Republican Party to win an election in the fall. And there is only one hope for us in that election. It is not the material competition, it is not all the issues that involves money and material security. The only hope we have of victory in these booming economic times is to drive home the point of the Democrats' moral betrayal. If we do not meet the moral challenge that faces America, then we cannot meet the political challenge that faces us in November. [long applause]

In some ways, it's a remarkable situation. It's one of those things that, if I didn't already deeply reveal a belief in God, it would sure lead me in that direction. You've got to know in a situation like this, the only way that you can get this done is to do what's right for your country. If you don't do what's right for America, you can't do what's right for yourselves. I love it. It just has a wonderful ring of truth to it. But it also has a deep and ominous implication for the future of our nation.

Now, the question we must seriously ask ourselves--and I know that at moment I ask it with some risk to my so-called political fortunes, but I still think it has to be raised. Because I look at what's been going on in terms of this whole process we've been through in the course of the last several months to choose the Republican nominee for president--and I want you just to consider carefully, clearly, given the nature of the challenge we've faced, given the fact that we must go forward in November, and we must articulate the moral crisis of the nation, defeat the Democrats on the basis of that area where they are truly vulnerable given their utter and egregious betrayal of America's moral principles and decency.

How many of you can honestly say that you survey the political scene and you think that the way things are shaping up in the nominating process that we are going to have the most effective champion for making that point in November? Do you really think so? That's one of those things that worries me deeply. And as we work through the rest of this process, we're going to be tempted down at the convention, and so forth--we have some people coming forward already, saying, "If you want victory, you're going to have to get rid of the pro-life plank. If you want victory, you're going to have to put Tom Ridge or some other pro-abortion person on your ticket." I'll tell you clearly, straight in the front. I believe that if we make that error, if we think we're going to achieve victory by compromising on those very moral principles, when we ought to be standing up to defend against those Democrats who are destroying them, then we will lose, and we will deserve, by God, to lose. [loud applause]

And we will lose, because if we go down that road, we'll be failing our nation, failing our character, failing our heritage, failing our children, failing ourselves, failing that vision of hope for human dignity and self-government that this nation is supposed to represent. And I, frankly, don't think that God or the American people will reward that kind of betrayal and lack of integrity with a victory at the polls. We'll see.

So, I think that as Republicans and as Americans we need to commit ourselves, unequivocally, now, to place this moral challenge at the top of our agenda; to resolve that we shall make it a point with our votes, with our words, with everything we do to encourage the nation to address this challenge; to restore in our policies that respect for the moral foundations of our nation's life, without which we cannot sustain our character--and having restored that character, that we will move to restore our control over our money, over our schools, over our communities, over our lives, so that we can, in fact, hand on to new generations, intact and in full bloom, the blessings of liberty.

I believe that that's what we need to be about this fall. I guess that's why I'm still out here talking to people, because it's never too late, at least in terms of the commitment we're willing to make in this regard. Key decisions will have to be taken in the weeks ahead before we get to the fall, and I think we need as many people standing up whether in the votes, in the voting booths that are left [in the primaries], or in the votes in the convention that's going to be held, and making it clear that the Republican Party must stand firm in its championing of those moral principles and positions which are the key to our nation's better destiny.

And that is what I would appeal to you, in fact, to enlist to do as you approach decisions that are still to be taken here in Idaho. I think that this nation needs to have a party that will clearly and effectively represent the great moral principles of our founding. I have believed all my life that that party is the Republican Party. But we've come to a time that will test that belief. And I think what we need to be clear on is that, if the party meets the challenge, then I think it will go on not only to victory in the fall, but to greater and greater things--because it is working on behalf of this nation's true heritage.

On the other hand, if we don't lead it, then millions of Americans who might otherwise be our supporters and be encouraged by our leadership will turn away from us. And in that turning away, they will destroy the party's prospects of any victory whatsoever. And some people will say, "Does this mean you want the Democrats to win?" I don't want any of this, see. I want the party to stay right where it belongs, and I'll fight to keep it there. But the fact that I want something doesn't mean that it can be produced by lies, and by compromises with truth and integrity. It can't be. And the folks who come forward to suggest that somehow or another it will be are simply digging the pit into which the party will fall. I won't have it. [applause] I won't have it.

In that regard, and understanding that challenge, I would ask for prayers, and I'd asked for your help, and I'd ask for your determination to be part of that coalition of folks within the Republican party who are going to fight to make sure it stays on the solid ground of American moral principles--to offer the kind of leadership that will not only offer to the American people the prospect that Gore and Clinton and all their moral turpitude will be gone, but that those who will replace them will replace them in the spirit of those true moral principles that will raise the standard of our hope for the better destiny of this world on high. Where Reagan raised it, and where it truly belongs. God bless you. [long applause] Thank you.

Q & A session

Ron Vieselmeyer, Idaho State Coordinator, Keyes 2000: We have a brief presentation here for Dr. Keyes.

Keyes: Thank you. God bless you.

Vieselmeyer: I just want to read this. It reads on here: "Alan Keyes, presidential candidate. Thank you from your Idaho grassroots supporters for your sincere dedication to restore America's moral foundation, for your passion to correctly interpret the Constitution, and for your courage to boldly speak the truth."[applause]

Keyes: Thank you. Thank you very much. [applause]

I'll take a few questions. I don't have a whole lot of time. But you all took the trouble to come out. I want to take the trouble to make sure that you are . . . Yes.

Question: Should inheritance tax be abolished?

Keyes: Should inheritance tax be abolished? Yes. That simple. Why? Well, see I have a problem. The government moves in, and while you're earning it, it now depresses your prospect of accumulating wealth by taking a lot of the surplus out of your hands and out of your control. And if you managed somehow to circumvent the effects of that and build up a little wealth that you can hand on to future generations, unless you can hire fancy lawyers and do other stuff, it's very likely that they'll move in and take away 1/3rd to 2/3rds of that away from you when you die.

Exactly what are we doing in this country? Why are we allowing ourselves to be put in a position where we can't build it up now, and we can't hand it on to future generations as a foundation on which they can build later? That's wrong. It's depriving us of what ought to be one of the fundamental birthrights of freedom. Ah, and so I think it ought to be abolished.

Yes.

Question: What about Pat Buchanan?

Keyes: Yes, I'm . . . [laughter] Well, see I'm--two things. First, let me say clearly. I did not and still do not understand Pat's decision to leave the fray in the Republican Party and go over to the Reform Party. I certainly share to a certain degree the frustration that Pat and some other conservatives have felt in the course of this whole election season. But I think that everything that has happened still confirms that within Republican ranks at the grassroots there is a solid majority for conservative and moral conservative positions. I do not think that it's wise to abandon that majority. I would rather work so that it can be effectively brought together behind articulate leadership so that we can see the victory that it deserves.

And that's not going to be easy, as we've seen. A lot of work is done to manipulate us with Trojan horses and people coming forward saying, "I'm a conservative." And when the crunch comes, they betray us. Have you noticed that? Have you noticed that? They win us with truths in order to betray us in deepest consequence. That's happened to such a degree, it's just shocked me this year. And I'll say the name that comes to mind in that regard is Gary Bauer. I've got to tell you, I've never been as disappointed--I want to say, this is from my heart, here. I have never been as disappointed in anybody as I was when I watched somebody I had worked with and loved and respected and admired for many years come forward in the course of this campaign, and then after going through all this and after championing, what? Opposing most favored nation status for China, opposing the homosexual agenda of the liberals and so forth, demanding that there should be pro-life judges on the court and so forth and so on. And so he goes forward and says that's what he believes, so forth and so on, and when the crunch comes, what does he do? He endorses somebody who stood against every single thing that he had stood for during the campaign. How can you do this? This took my breath away. I can see sitting back and doing nothing, doing this, doing that, but going out and standing with somebody who, on every particular, has stood against the things you profess to believe? Where's the integrity in this?

So, I don't know. Things have happened that just make me wonder. There's a lot going on--and not all of it, I think just worldly stuff--aimed at confusing and befuddling the decent conservative majority in this country. But we just have to continue to do the work of articulating as clearly as possible. Because I think that once we get a clear message to the people, many people respond. That's been my experience, and it is still my hope, and I want to do what I know is the hard work of doing it.

So, I don't understand why Pat left the fray in that regard, and I couldn't join him over there--because, well, let's look at it: here I am fighting to keep the Republican Party true, to keep the pro-life plank in the platform, to make sure that we have a ticket that is thoroughly pro-life with no pro-abortion individuals on it. Now, meaning no offense, all that's already true. The platform on which we stand right now as Republicans is a solid, conservative, pro-life platform, because the platform produced in 1996 is one of the best ever written for the Republican Party from the conservative point of view. We are fighting to keep that so. Right? So, we're going to go from that fight to keep something good over to the Reform Party, where they don't even pay lip service to the moral principles of the nation? Where the pro-life issue has been anathema, because Ross Perot and his buddies are so thoroughly pro-abortion? Where you have got to stand cheek by jowl with all these pro-abortion politicians betraying the truth of it to the American people? I can't do that. And I don't understand why he's doing it. So, we'll see.

And that, you notice, I'm not questioning his personal commitment to the pro-life cause, or anything like it. But this isn't just about personal commitment. It's been about an effort to keep the party committed, and I believe, by the way, that effort is critical. Because the media in this country would dearly love to portray the pro-life position as some kind of fringe loony position. They can't do it because of truth, and because we are the majority within the Republican Party. It, therefore, is clear that the truth of it is that this is a grassroots, mainstream position that reflects the deepest integrity of our moral heritage. The fight, therefore, is to make sure that that vehicle of truth is still represented in this nation's life. That's why I think fighting for the future of the Republican Party is so important.

That doesn't mean that I would never contemplate leaving. Indeed, if they gut the moral principles and put some pro-aborts on the ticket, I'll have to go, because they will have left me. And I have said clearly, and I mean to live by this simple truth, "As for me and my house," as Joshua said, "we will serve the Lord." [applause]

We will not serve party. We will not serve anything above that. And so, if the party departs from the moral truth, I'll stick with the moral truth. But I think if I were going to do that, it's very much more likely that I would go over to, I don't know, the Taxpayers Party than I'd go to the Reform Party. Howard Phillips--have they changed their name now? Are they Conservatives? I forget. Constitution Party, yes. I'd go over to Howie, because whatever one may say as people often do about [inaudible], they are going to be on the ballot in about 35 states, and they are committed in their platform to every thing that decent conservatives profess to believe. So, I always have looked upon Howie as somebody who--I won't join him, because I think we need to fight to keep the Republican Party clear and that we can win. But in the event that that doesn't happen, it probably isn't such a bad thing that somebody's out there preparing a place in case we need it. [laughter]

Yes. In the back there.

Question: Yes, where do you personally draw the line between freedom and legislation against vice and sinful activities?

Keyes: Well, first of all, I think that at the national level, right, we should not have legislation against vice or sinful activity, because that's essentially what's meant by the First Amendment--that, at the national level, we're not going to have a national government dictating to us what shall be the kind of structures and moral standards and other things that ought to reflect, what? Faith, religious conscience, whatever, for the nation. The Founders learned from the terrible hard lessons of the wars in Europe that allowing national governments to impose their will on provinces and cities and towns could lead to devastating conflicts, and they wanted to avoid that. So, they said to the national government, "You stay out of this."

That implies, doesn't it, that at the state and local level it's quite appropriate for people to say, "This is the community we live in. Here are the standards that we want to prevail, and we live in this community. We don't want our children exposed to things that are going to undermine the integrity of their commitment to family life. You get that out of here. We don't want them exposed." [applause]

So, at that level, I think it's perfectly reasonable for communities to be able to establish standards. And to have standards that reflect what they believe to be the moral requirements of their community life.

And so that's where I draw the line. It's really a line that's implied by the federal nature of our Constitution, and that, I think, needs to be respected, so that we will have, on the whole as a nation, freedom.

And that, by the way, even means freedom for things that I deeply disagree with, including, by the way--right now you have folks that are trying to use the force of law at the national level to try to force everybody to accept homosexuality. This is the clearest assault on our First Amendment rights of religious exercise that we have ever seen in the history of this country, and we've got to stop it. [applause] They have no right to dictate to people that they must accept what is clearly in contradiction to their deep religious scriptures and faith. And when they do that by force of law, they're persecuting us. And they are destroying our First Amendment freedoms. Right?

But, by the same token, if folks who disagree with that were the majority--and I don't know the San Francisco city council, if they have [laughter]--then they have the perfect right to legislate in San Francisco that they're going to have this or that. Even in Vermont, where I went to speak against this notion that there ought to be this part with domestic union and all this. I mean, if these folks think through this, they realize that they're destroying the institution of marriage. They're utterly withdrawing what ought to be the state's respect for the family as an institution antecedent to politics that can demand that all political structures respect the requirements of family life. I think that's true. I went up there to talk against it.

But once Vermont has passed this stuff, I think the people of Vermont, they will work to change it, overturn it, get rid of it. But under the constitutional federal system, they have the right to do it. And if you don't like it, you can move somewhere else. That's the whole purpose of federalism. Right? Don't like what's happening in San Francisco, don't live there. Don't like what's happening in Vermont, go live somewhere else.

But if the people of San Francisco and Vermont try to abuse the Constitution in order to force other communities to accept the abandonment of moral principles they have embraced, that's where we need to draw the line. Stand up and defend our rights, so we have communities according to our moral principles. [loud applause]

And under that rubric, as you can see, we're going to have a diverse nation in which, at a certain level, tolerance is going to be required, but we'll also have a nation where people will be able in their communities, states, and localities to establish the standards that they believe most consistent with a decent way of life. This was the promise of federalism. This was the promise of true constitutionalism in America, not that we would be all the same in our beliefs and practices, but that we would be all the same in our opportunity to live in communities that reflected those beliefs and practices.

Yes. One more.

Question: Isn't it that a lot of results of the moral degradation of America is actually due to the court system as in such cases as [inaudible] or Roe vs. Wade that they create rights that don't actually exist? So, if you were in the executive branch, what could you do to help solve these problems of the judicial branch, which actually leads to the moral degradation rather than actually enacting legislation?

Keyes: Very important question. And the first premise of it is very true, too. I think that the courts have been an outstanding source of assault on the moral integrity of the country, where individuals sitting on the bench have been able to assault and overturn long-standing moral principles--and very often based on arguments that are patently false, too. Now, one thing I think that is needed to deal with that is that we need to restore, as I am trying to do in our politics, respect for the basic principles that govern the nation.

You see, they have been sitting on the bench pretending that whatever they say goes. "The law is what the judge says it is. No restraints." No, that's not true. This wasn't intended to be some kind of judicial despotism. And in the decisions they make, they, too, are required to respect the fundamental principles the nation is founded on. So, when they make decisions that contradict those Declaration principles, that undermine our commitment to the belief, for instance, that we are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, when they make Roe vs. Wade decisions that fly in the face of that principle, we should not accept this.

What do we do, you say? Well, since the courts are not tyrannies in the federal Constitution at the federal level--and most state constitutions, too, by the way, put mechanisms in the hands of both the Legislature and the Executive, aimed at making sure the Judiciary cannot abuse its position, and defending the people against these assaults. And I think we ought to use them. Take the Legislature, for instance. The Congress of the United States has the power, for instance, to determine the jurisdiction of the lower courts in the federal system. Have you noticed them using it lately in order to prevent some of these abuses? No. They don't have the courage. They also have the power, by the way, to impeach judges sitting on the bench. But the lawyers and the judges cry, "You can only do that if we commit crimes." That's not true. The impeachment power--as I argued in the case of Bill Clinton, so I argue in the case of judges--it was not just intended to punish malfeasance. It was intended to prevent the usurpation of the powers of one branch by another. And if the judiciary is so acting as to encroach upon the prerogatives of the legislature, then the legislature has the right to look those judges in eye and say, "Stop it, or we'll remove you from the bench." [applause] That's what they ought to do.

Final point. I hear a lot, these days, about how important the judicial appointments are, and I agree with that up to a point, for the President. But only up to a point. And not up to enough of a point that I am willing to look past a whole bunch of other failings, when somebody tells me, "Well, if we don't get this one or that one, then Al Gore will get his judicial appointments." All right, but think about this, my friends. We had Republican Presidents, including two clearly conservative Presidents like Ronald Reagan, with the appointment power, for years. They had it for long enough and they made enough appointments that we should have gotten a good, clear, solid conservative majority on the Court. Did we get it? No. And I know that in some cases we didn't get it because we had some ringers slipped on us, like David Souter. And we were told, "Trust Mr. Bush on this. This is a good guy." Well, we trusted him, and he's not a good guy. [laughter] Okay.

But then we had other examples, which ought to give us pause for thought. One of the best in that regard is Sandra Day O'Connor. Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, right? Yes, of course. And my friends, you look at her on paper, she looked real good. You look at her records. You look at her decisions. She looked great. She looked like a solid, pro-life, conservative justice. But have you noticed that her voting record over the years has gotten all slippery and slidy all over the place? Not reliable at all.

See, I think that what we underestimate is the fact that these judges sit on the bench, these justices, especially in Washington--and they're living in Washington. They've become part of Washington. They've become part of the community where the prevailing wind blows in a certain direction, and they go out to dinner, and they eat with people, and they meet people, and they read editorials and all that, and they become part of the community where growth is defined as abandoning your conservative viewpoints. [laughter] And this, I'm afraid, is what happens on the bench.

So, I don't believe that the appointment power is decisive here, unless we are putting, along with it, people who can effectively articulate the conservative viewpoint in such a way as to make sure we don't lose control of that cultural environment. We have lost control of it. And we've lost control of it because we have continually followed political leaders who cannot articulate--either because they don't have the competence or they don't have the conviction to defend--our views. [applause] They need to stop.

Last point, and I know it's way past late. Last point. The President actually has some direct powers in regard to how he responds to the Judiciary. Let me use an example. Let's say the court made a decision--as the government under Clinton administration was tempted to do--and they decide that if you're a federal employee, you can't have any kind of any kind of religious symbols or paraphernalia in your place of work. Can't put a Bible on your desk. Can't put the Ten Commandments on the wall in your office or anything. Let's say a court decided that an individual who had done this was in the wrong, and they said you had to stop because this is somehow unduly influencing others, and it violates separation of church and state.

Now, here's the question I have for you. In a situation like that, I think it behooves us to remember that within each of these branches everybody who takes office swears to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. Right? Now, when you take that oath, are you swearing to do that according to your conscience or somebody else's? I think it has to be according to your conscience, right? So, what you believe to be unconstitutional must then govern your sense of action. So, what if I'm in the presidency. The court makes such a decision, and I look at it and I feel, as I certainly would, "That's unconstitutional. That interferes with the free exercise of religion. That's wrong." As President, do I have to look at that judgment the way a lot of people think you do, and they say, "Well, they've overturned that," or, "they've established that law, and I have to go along with it. I will now issue an executive order telling everybody to get the Bibles off their desks and the religious paraphernalia"? Do I have to do that? No. Not only don't I have to do that, but in good conscience I could not do it and be true to my oath. I could not as President take a step that I believed to violate the fundamental constitutional rights of our people.

And since, as President, I embody in my person a co-equal branch of government, contrary to what some folks say, I don't have to do what the court says. The President does not have to simply accept the judgments of the Supreme Court, except in one thing: in the particular case where that judgment is made. And in the particular case where that judgment is made, the court has the valid authority to decide that case. That's what the Constitution says. But just as something--food for thought here--where particular cases are concerned, where particular individuals are said by the court to be guilty of this or that offense or violation, what power does the President have? The pardoning power! So, if I think the courts are doing something unconstitutional, I don't have to issue any general edicts that respect it, and I can void the effect in the particular case by pardoning the individual involved.

The Constitution is written in such a way, therefore, that the courts don't have to be allowed to run rampant. The other branches of government--if we put into place people with the knowledge and the competence and the courage to do so--can bring the judges back into line. And that's what I think we need to do. But that decision is obviously in the hands of the people. We keep on putting these politicians in place who can't put two sentences together that reflect the things we dearly believe. [laughter] Who don't have the knowledge or background to articulate what I just said. Which, by the way--and this is the thing I don't like to point out very often, but I didn't get that from some gaggle of advisers really, but what I just walked you through comes from my own long study of the Constitution of the United States. And I think we need people in our politics who commit that kind of effort to understanding and representing the things that we need to understand in order to preserve our freedom.

God bless you. Thank you very much.

[loud applause and cheering]