MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 5, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
As you can see, we are starting off a little differently this evening, because when I was driving in today, I got a call from one of my aides here on the staff of the program. And they were telling me about a breaking story that had appeared first starting with “The Washington Post” piece that was posted up on the Internet, a “Guardian” piece, other things that started to come out suggesting that there was a stir in the context of the Olympic Games that U.S. athletes had planned to carry the World Trade Center flag into the opening ceremonies at the Olympic Games. And that they had been told they could not do this by the Olympic Committee.
And the rationale that was given for these things in various ways I think has raised a lot of questions — did raise a lot of questions in the minds of folks who were looking at this situation. And I‘ve got to tell you truthfully, I want to try to get to the bottom of it. And in fact, in the last few minutes, I have been listening to a briefing that was being done by the International Olympic Committee, involving as well the Salt Lake Olympic Committee. I think we have standing by here Michael Moran, who is with the U.S. Olympic Committee.
It‘s the sort of story that raises a lot of questions. And immediately we heard it, it raised hackles with me. But you know how I am. I like to get to the facts, try to get to the bottom of things before we come to a conclusion. And so we have been trying to search out just what was going on in the course of the day with this proposal. And we have with us right now on the phone, I understand — right — Michael Moran, who is with the U.S. Olympic Committee, and who is going to give us their take on this situation.
Mr. Moran, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MICHAEL MORAN, USOC SPOKESMAN (via telephone): Thank you, Alan, and I hope we can make some sense of this, because it has been a crazy day.
KEYES: Well, can you tell me what exactly is the status of this situation? Was there, in fact, a plan to have the athletes carry the flag into the stadium? Were objections made? I have here stories that have actually pretty clear quotes from various members of the Olympic Committee and so forth about it. What was going on?
MORAN: Alan, about a month ago, we began to try to put together a plan. We felt, and we had heard from some athletes that we wanted to do something, and they wanted to do something special to honor the memory of the attacks on this country, the victims and their families.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: So could I stop you right there for a second, Mike? This was something that you heard from the athletes.
MORAN: We had a lot of our athletes, who were making statements during their trials and during their competitions about America and what had happened. And so we began to formulate an idea about when our team marched into the Olympic Stadium on Friday night, we proposed to the IOC that we have a group of athletes on this team, who had been on one or more Olympic teams, veteran athletes, carry the flag. And we talked to the Port Authority people about it, and it made great sense, and we thought this was sensational. When we approached the IOC...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Can I stop you there for a second, Michael? Michael, Michael, can I stop — Michael, can I stop you for one second? I just want to clarify a point. When you say “have them carry the flag into the stadium,” was it unusual that they would carry a flag? Or was it unusual to carry this flag? Or what was the proposal?
MORAN: It would be very unusual, Alan, to carry this flag. Every delegation is preceded by its flag.
KEYES: OK.
MORAN: It‘s like they are elected an athlete from each team, and then — but what we proposed was in addition to that, at the end of our team, as the American team finished coming into the stadium, additional American athletes would carry the World Trade Center flag. The IOC Commission said to us that the protocol, the practices for the opening ceremony‘s March of the Athletes had never allowed for anything other than what it had been.
But they proposed to us, and they offered us a suggestion. And that was in the Olympic Games, the host country‘s flag is raised, along with the playing of its Anthem. And why not have the World Trade Center flag in this very riveting moment — a very stunning moment, Alan, actually at the opening ceremony — that flag that is raised in the Olympic Stadium be the ground zero flag, the World Trade Center flag with all of the attention paid? And we said at that time, that we felt that was a great compromise in this, because it would bring the attention to the memories of the victims, to the incident, to their families, and we were pleased with that alternative. And that is where it stands right now.
KEYES: Well, would you mind if I asked a couple of questions just to clarify what might be some misunderstandings? Because there were stories posted, one of which had the Olympic Committee‘s Coordinating Commission telling USOC president, Sandy Baldwin, that many nations had suffered, and that allowing the American team to carry the flag would not be proper.
There is also a quote from Anita DeFrantz, the American IOC member: “Every country in the IOC has issues. As Americans, we have to understand it‘s a world event, and that we are a guest even though we are the host nation.”
Now, when you say compromise, was there some objection based on this kind of reasoning?
MORAN: Well, those statements made by Anita and the IOC, Alan, are factual. There is no question. But what I would like to point out is that when we proposed this idea, and they came back to us, the IOC, with the proposal to use this flag in this manner in the opening ceremony, it was significant. They were not attempting to deflate the issue or get away from it. They did, however, use the protocols that they have always maintained that each nation marches with its flag in front, and there are no additional scenarios or anything else involved in this ceremony.
But given what we were, the opportunity to display this flag in this stadium on Friday night, we still felt we came away with a win.
KEYES: Well, see — but I‘m not — well, I don‘t want to argue you, Michael, but I‘m trying to understand what it is that we were fighting against. Because usually the word “win” implies that there was a battle, and I‘m not sure what the battle was over. If there so much respect for our situation or so much understanding of it, were the rationales that were stated here just misstatements? Because it sounds to me like there were people out there saying that this was going to be some — I don‘t know — display of inappropriate American patriotism — that this was our issue, and it shouldn‘t somehow intrude into this international event. Was that reasoning part of the objection?
MORAN: I think parts of it were. I think they do view the Olympic Games as an international event. Of course, it‘s on American soil, but nonetheless, we are simply — our country is simply the host to the Games. Their statements about honoring the memory of September 11 also were very clear.
We are disappointed. Make no mistake about it. Our athletes and the U.S. Olympic Committee put this idea together with a great amount of emotion. We wanted to do this. We felt that our athletes carrying this flag into the stadium would be something that would last a lifetime for Americans.
Our athletes, by their performance here in Salt Lake City, Alan, in their very small way would like to make Americans feel better. Lord knows we need that. The idea was rejected. There is no question about it. We are hopeful that the ceremony, as it stands right now, and I know Mitt Romney, from the Organizing Committee, has said within the last hour he does support our original idea and disagrees with the IOC‘s position, respectfully.
So who knows that might happen? I know that there will be now significant attention focused on this issue, significant attention focused to the memory. Our athletes certainly would have liked to have done this, but as it stands tonight, what we will have is the raising of this flag in the Olympic Stadium in a moment of terrific pageantry and emotion.
KEYES: Well, Michael, I want to thank you very much for coming on and sharing these insights with us, and for being so sincere in the presentation that you have made. I want to thank you very much, and I want you to convey to the U.S. athletes the respect and pride that we have, and that we share their heart on this issue. And we understand their desire to display what must have been — I think like all of us, they have been working under this burden as they trained, as they prepared for this event. It was one of those things that hit us all hard, and the fact that they can bounce back and will put on the kind of wonderful performance we know we will get. Our prayers are with them, and our pride is with them. And I want to thank you for being with us tonight.
MORAN: Thank you very much, Alan.
KEYES: Appreciate it very much.
Now I am joined by folks who would have been part of our panel. Now, you have to understand, we had planned a show on immigration. And these were the folks who had come in to talk about it, before I had my chat with Pat Buchanan, who is still going to be with us by the way. So Pat is going to be joining us, and we will be talking about the immigration issue and some of the thoughts that he has had, the book that he has written, and he and I will go back and forth a little about that.
But this issue struck me deeply. And I want to explain it for one second why it was. It struck me deeply precisely for the reasons I was just explaining to Mike Moran. And I‘ve got to tell you, I am not satisfied with what I heard here. I think basically we had some objections that were made to this on grounds that were deeply insulting to the American people in our time of grief, but also on grounds, by the way, that falsify the significance of the September 11 events. September 11 isn‘t our issue. As our president stood before the world to declare that assault was an assault on the world, and there is no neutrality in the war against terrorism, and that was clear.
And so I certainly hope that all of this didn‘t imply that the International Olympic Committee wants to stand in some neutral position and declare that somehow this is an American issue, and that it doesn‘t represent, in fact, a world concern that deserves to be remembered at a world event. I hope they are not saying that, but it‘s not clear to me they are not.
But that was my reason for believing that we should focus some time and attention on this tonight. And joining me here, and we‘ll be having a chance to get their reactions. We will be taking calls and comments from you, but joining me right now, we have John Ward, a first-year law student at George Washington University, Luciana Mashore, a financial analyst, and Wiley Drake, a Southern Baptist pastor from Buena Park, California. He also works with the homeless.
And I just want to spend a minute here you all to get your sense of this. John, why don‘t I start with you? You have been reading about this. We have told you a little bit about it. You have heard the facts as they were explained by Michael Moran. What do you think of what went on here?
JOHN WARD, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV. STUDENT: Alan, I think it‘s a perfect example of political correctness going too far. In the new era of political correctness, it is PC. It can be anything but proud of being an American. And that is the problem as I see it.
KEYES: Wiley, what do you think?
WILEY DRAKE, PASTOR: Well, I see it going not only too far in political correctness, but I see it as an outright attack. They are saying to our men, who fought to be in these Olympics, they are saying, “You can‘t carry your flag.” Now, yes, they are allowing us to carry our flag out front the way they say we‘ve got to do it. They are saying, “You can‘t take this tattered flag.” They are not just taking political correctness to the extreme. They are saying “You cannot do it.” And I am here to say I am upset. I am angry at the Olympic Committee for saying our people can‘t carry the flag.
KEYES: Luciana, what your take on this?
LUCIANA MASHORE, FINANCIAL ANALYST: I don‘t believe that it was the Olympic Committee‘s place to determine whether or not the team should be able to carry the flag inside the stadium. I think that it was actually insulting to call this a — quote — “American issue.” You are correct. This is not an American issue. This is a world issue. The world is being faced with acts of terrorism. It happened here today, however, it will happen somewhere else tomorrow.
KEYES: See, this is exactly my though, and I guess I am kind of wondering if we accept the take that they are giving us on this, that this is somehow a big favor that they are doing for us, I think we are making a huge mistake. We are allowing an understanding of the September 11 events to walk there on two legs as if this is now just America‘s business and America‘s concern and America‘s problem, and the rest of the world doesn‘t share with us, even though 80 nations, people from 80 nations died in that building.
DRAKE: That‘s right.
KEYES: That wasn‘t just an assault on American people. That was an assault on something, where everybody had gathered to do their work and trade and so forth and so on. And I am sitting here thinking to myself, How dare they imply that this is an issue that somehow is restricted to American hearts and American concerns, and doesn‘t deserve to be signalized before the entire world.
DRAKE: Alan, the flag is red, white and blue. It‘s all-American, but that tattered flag represents 80 nations that died in that building.
KEYES: Well...
WARD: Alan, my point is if this attack had occurred in — god forbid — in downtown Paris, I don‘t think there would be any controversy that the French could take the tattered flag in there.
DRAKE: That‘s right.
WARD: It is because it is the American flag, and it is not popular in this world anymore to be an American, and that‘s the problem.
KEYES: Well, you know, I think there was a quote here that particularly caught my attention that had come I think from — let me see here — “A tribute of some kind will occur now before the show, Organizer Committee President Mitt Romney suggested.” And they went on in this story that had been posted with the “Guardian” — “It‘s not designed to be a patriotic American display,” he said. “While the experience of 9/11 certainly impacts on all of us, there should not be a direct tribute in the ceremony itself.”
And I must say, I read that, and I found it deeply disturbing and insulting to the event, to the reality and significance of this event and totally contrary, by the way, to what our president himself has said about the significance of this event.
Right now, we have someone on the spot in Salt Lake City. Let‘s hold on for a minute here. Joining us from Salt Lake City, Sean Kelly, a reporter for the “Denver Post” — welcome, Sean.
SEAN KELLY, “DENVER POST” REPORTER: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Thank you for joining us. I have one question. What is your understanding of how all of this came about? I am kind of curious. It sounded from Mike Moran as if this was an initiative from the athletes that then had to get processed through the whole Olympic bureaucracy.
KELLY: That‘s pretty much my understanding too. At a press briefing about an hour ago, Bob Ctvrtlik, who is a former Olympic volleyball player and now an IOC member from the United States, said as much. This came from the athletes, and there was never really a definite plan formed and presented to the IOC, according to Ctvrtlik.
KEYES: Now, did you get the sense? Because the quotes that we saw on the Internet and other places made it seem as if objections were being made, because this was going to be somehow an intrusion of American issues and American concerns into the international event. Was that part of the problem?
KELLY: Well, not according to the IOC. That‘s what we thought originally. They made it very clear that these are not just America‘s Games. They are international in scope, and there are so many different countries here. It‘s not just focused on America. However, the IOC folks this evening said they plan to honor America...
KEYES: Sean, Sean, we really have to go.
KELLY: Yes.
KEYES: I appreciate your joining us, and thank you for sharing that background with us. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We have been talking in the first part of the program here about a story that has been breaking in the course of the day that suggests that an idea that apparently had originated with U.S. athletes on the Olympic team that they would carry in the tattered flag that was recovered from the World Trade Center — that they would carry that into the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games.
And in the course of the day, there were pretty circumstantial reports that this idea had been broached and rejected by the International Olympic Committee. And some folks, including members of the International Olympic Committee and members of the United States Olympic Committee, suggested that the rationale for this rejection was basically that it would introduce too much patriotism, an element of parochial American interests into this international event.
Here, you see a picture of the flag that we are talking about. It was also featured at the Super Bowl just recently. And to me, when I read over these remarks as I have explained, that this was the rationale. It wasn‘t just the objection itself. It was the fact that it was couched in terms that suggested that somehow the 9/11 attacks were just a problem for America, were just something that we should be concerned about. And if we wanted to remember it, if we wanted to express some sense of the significance of this watershed event that was something that the world didn‘t have to care about, but they might do us a favor and let us show something or other out there.
I have to confess, the more I think about it, the more I see the kind of explanations we are getting, the more outraged I become. Now, we are joined here by the panel, the folks just like you. We all gathered together to talk about immigration, but this is on my heart, and I wanted to share it with you all today. We have John Ward, Luciana Mashore, Wiley Drake, who is a Southern Baptist pastor, and we are joined as well in Salt Lake City by Sean Kelly, who is with the “Denver Post” and has actually been out there standing in the cold. It looks like it is pretty chilly out there.
KELLY: Yes, it‘s a little cold, Alan — thanks.
KEYES: You are welcome. Well, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to be with us. And let me just ask you a question, because when I was talking with Mike Moran, he was very diplomatic, and I thought that he was doing his best not to sort of stir the controversy. But I got the feeling that he was also disappointed. And that in point of fact there had been a desire on the part of U.S. athletes to signalize this special situation, and that they are disappointed that it didn‘t come about. Is that your impression?
KELLY: I think that‘s correct. The IOC is trying to characterize this as a misunderstanding, but I think it‘s going to be interesting to see what the athletes have to say on Friday.
KEYES: Well, see, because I have to confess y‘all, I think it‘s a misunderstanding that it may be that the IOC has misunderstood the way in which America looks at this situation and these events. Because I find it particularly offensive that they would want to suggest that 9/11 events are kind of parochial American issues. Sean, is it your sense that they really believe that somehow this is just an American thing? Because that‘s not how we see it.
KELLY: They were very clear to make sure we knew that all of the IOC countries and all of the IOC members viewed this as an international incident, an international tragedy. However, by not putting this flag up, I don‘t know what they are saying to the athletes — the American athletes.
KEYES: Thank you so much, Sean. We really appreciate — especially appreciate the second effort that you have made standing out in the cold to bring this important information to us. Thank you for being on the show — really appreciate it.
KELLY: Thanks, Alan.
KEYES: Let me go back to the panel here and ask you a very simple question, because I have watched this. I know how I feel about it, but in listening to the explanations and the sort of secondary suggestion that was made, do you buy this? Do you think that what they are doing, in fact, is intended to show some respect? Or are they just trying to get out from under a controversy?
MASHORE: I think it‘s actually disrespectful. The IOC cannot see this is as an international issue and having however behind it. If it were truly seen as an international issue, then the American team would be able to walk in with the flag. They see this as raising the flag outside of the team being able to bring it in as secondary. They do not see this as an international issue. And I agree, I think that the statements that this was a political issue, an American issue, that is a fact. Although they may go back and say tomorrow on the news that, no, this is not what we meant. Their actions are showing that‘s exactly what they meant.
DRAKE: Well, that‘s exactly what they are doing by not allowing these men and women to carry this flag in there that represents, as I said, 80 countries, and what happened to 80 countries, 80 people that, you know, from 80 countries that died in that attack, it is indeed a worldwide event. And if it were any other country — I think John is right about that — if it were any other country, there would be no reason to say, “No, you can‘t do that.” If that would have been France or England or any other country attacked brutally the way we were attacked, and they wanted to take a tattered flag in from the U.K., no one would say anything. They would say, “Oh yes, it‘s OK. Let them do it.”
KEYES: As a matter of fact, I think they would want to suggest that we were somehow callous and lacking in understanding if we didn‘t...
(CROSSTALK)
DRAKE: If we were to dare say that, if that had happened to the U.K. and we were to dare say, “Oh no, this is an international event, don‘t make it U.K.,” we would be accused of just absolutely, you know, desecrating them. And I think that‘s exactly what they are doing. They are desecrating the memory of these people.
WARD: Alan, if they won‘t change this, the president of the United States should declare that the United States will not partake in the Olympics this year. That is where we stand at this point. It‘s a serious issue.
KEYES: One of the things that disturbed me, and I do believe that this is something that ought to concern the president, because he declared how the world should look at this. He made it very clear after the event, this isn‘t an American thing. This was an attack on the entire world. This is something where the entire world has to join forces against the evil of terrorism.
The International Olympic Committee is acting like this is business as usual, acting like this event somehow stands in the normal realm of political discourse. And I think that‘s a big mistake.
Let‘s go to Joe from Florida — Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Thank you. My opinion on this is that not only was this a worldwide issue, because terrorism happens all over the world. It‘s not necessarily reported in the papers in the large type as we had for September 11 obviously. But you do find that that is happening everywhere, if you read back into the newspaper.
And this is a situation, where the International Committee is saying — basically they are slapping us in the face, and I find very serious offense to that. It is something that affects the entire world, not just the U.S. And as your guest said, if this was France or England, nobody would have a problem, but it‘s basically a case of, hey, we‘re going to rub the Americans down as foreign countries tend to do.
KEYES: Joe, thank you. Let‘s go to Kathy in Pennsylvania — Kathy, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
KATHY: Good evening. My statement is that the days immediately following September 11, I saw pictures on e-mail and on TV of people all over the world lighting candles and bringing flowers. And what has happened since then that this is no longer the case? That we are now isolated and once again on our own. We are a world country. We provide financial assistance to numerous countries. We provide military assistance. What has happened? Where has the world gone?
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) once again.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Kathy, I think we need to be careful, though, not to equate the International Olympic Committee with the world, because we have learned in the run-up to these Olympics that there can be some serious problems with this Olympic Committee. That they take some views that may not always even be in the best interest of the Olympics. So I wouldn‘t want us to think that this was the world somehow backing away. Maybe it‘s just some short-sighted people on this Committee, who don‘t understand the significance of these events.
That‘s why I think we have got a serious problem, and maybe they need to have some words of wisdom from the American people on this point, so they would understand a little better where this fits. Because I think that the notion that somehow or another they are doing us a favor, if the world is reminded of September 11, this is not only deeply insulting, it is a betrayal of the cause in which we fight, which is a cause that‘s not about America. It‘s about the security of the world, including the hundreds of millions we had to spend on security for these Olympics. I don‘t understand how they could have missed this point.
Let‘s give our thanks to John, Luciana and Wiley — thank you so much, and thank you for being so gracious as well with the little change of focus there on the program. It was ideal, in fact, to have you all with us today, because we could get an immediate sampling, I think, of the heart of the people.
And next, we‘re going to have the “Bottom Line” with Pat Buchanan. I am going to be joined with Pat to talk a little bit about his ideas on immigration, and we‘ll be going back and forth on the topic that we were focused on today. And that is still, of course, on our minds and part as well of our consideration in the midst of this struggle against international terrorism. Stay right there — we‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We‘ve now come to that part of the program we call THE BOTTOM-LINE.
We‘re talking today with author and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan about an issue that arises in the context of the whole war against terror, or at least is made more acute by it, the question of immigration. Or the question of the whole effort in America to welcome, to assimilate, to deal with the fact that we are a population of folks who come from all over the world.
Pat Buchanan has written a new book titled “The Death of the West” in which he takes on these issues, sometimes, as usual with Pat, in a way that is both provocative and controversial.
Welcome to the show, Pat. Really appreciate you joining us.
PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR: Well, thank you very much, Alan.
KEYES: Before we get into the immigration questions, I‘m really curious. You‘ve been listening to the discussion of this whole international Olympic committee brouhaha. What do you make of all of this?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think — first, I think the gesture of the athletes, the American athletes who wanted to march into that stadium, beneath the flag of their compatriots and fellow Americans and all the rest of those folks who were massacred and murdered on September 11th. It was a grand and noble gesture. I think it would have been a magnificent moment.
Everyone in America who suddenly saw them appear with that flag would have had tears in their eyes, and probably stood up in their living room and cheered.
And what has happened now is we‘ve got a bureaucratic decision by people without heart or kidney or spleen, an idiotic little rule book decision, which I think is an insult to the American people.
If I were president of the United States, I would quietly tomorrow morning, Alan, call up the Olympic committee and say please change that decision and let them march under that sacred flag, or I‘m going to have to make a statement this afternoon of how profoundly disappointed I am, as president of the United States, in your decision. And I think you could get it reversed.
KEYES: I have to tell you, I agree wholeheartedly with that. I think it‘s something that calls for that kind of action, because the whole attitude has called in to question fundamental principles we‘ve articulated with respect to the war on terrorism, the significance of 9-11, and the fact that that flag, as you say, Pat, it doesn‘t just represent American lives lost. That flag is now a symbol of the international reality of the war against terrorism. That it strikes everyone and that everyone needs to join together in the fight against it. And they‘re belittling this.
BUCHANAN: Well, it is a sacred flag. That‘s exactly right. And with this insult, they seem to be saying that the values that flag represents and where it flew conflict with Olympic values.
And I find that profoundly offensive. I don‘t know why an international Olympic committee could not see what this flag represents to us and to people all over the world who saw what happened on September 11th, and know what it stands for.
KEYES: See, I think, though, that actually leads us, in a way, into the first question I wanted to pose to you in the context of immigration, because we know that we‘re faced with a real challenge here. I‘ve talked about it. You‘ve talked about it many times over the course of the last several years.
But one of the things that I think is always front and center for me is, just like that tattered flag from the World Trade Center, it‘s an American flag, but in fact it‘s a symbol of humanity now. It‘s something that blankets universally a threat that has to deal with all human beings.
I think that‘s true of our whole country. That we are in fact of universal significance to all humanity. That that in fact is represented in the diversity of our population.
A lot of people have taken away from your writing the sense that you‘re not committed to that universalism, that you don‘t think in fact we should continue that tradition of openness to the world, which in fact we have come to represent. Do you think that in order to deal with the challenge of immigration, we must abandon America‘s commitment to it‘s universal human significance for the world?
BUCHANAN: No, I do not. Not at all.
Because of what we represent, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, values we‘ve stood for, what America stands for. We do have — I believe America stands for many of the ideas that are best in the world, and I would like to see mankind look at these and move toward them.
But we are also, Alan, even though we come from all over the world, we are a separate and a unique people, we Americans. We‘ve been forged by a melting pot. Into that pot have come people from Africa, from Europe, from all over the world, but out of it has come one distinct nation and people.
And what I fear is now the melting pot is cracked and broken. People are preaching multiculturalism as though there is not an American culture to which we have all contributed. Multiculturalism, in my view, is in some ways hostile to and opposite the idea that we have a unique American culture.
And what I think we need to do is first get immigration under control. Secondly, begin teaching every child in this country the English language that Alan Keyes, whose ancestors came from Africa speaks, and Pat Buchanan, whose ancestors spoke Gallic and German, that I speak. And to teach them all the greatness and glory of America.
This is our country. Washington and those people are our forefathers. People aren‘t learning that anymore, and I‘m afraid we‘ve breaking down. It is “E Pluribus Unum”. Out of many, one. And that‘s the unity — after the diversity, is what — we all came together after September 11th. That was the good thing about it.
KEYES: One of the things that we dealt with on this program, we looked at the fact that, for instance, in New Jersey the education department wasn‘t going to include in the curriculum the names of Washington and Jefferson and Franklin and the great founders.
The problem you point to is very real, but here I have a question. You open in your book, you talk about the demographics, the birth rates among certain elements of the American population. Some people take away from that, Pat, the sense that you are identifying American culture with a certain race, and that it‘s all about what white folks did, and so forth and so on, and bringing other people from other parts of the world has somehow diluted that.
Now I look back at the founders, and sure, these were white folks with a certain background, but they articulated ideas that were universally applicable. Are we talking, here, about something that is somehow out of and confined to a particular racial group? Or are we dealing with something that is in fact common to all of us, even though certain insights were articulated by people with a certain background?
BUCHANAN: Well, as you know, almost all of the founding fathers — when I went to parochial school, they were proud to say we had one signer of the Declaration of Independence who was a Catholic. I think only 1 percent of the population of the country was Catholic. And now it‘s about 25 percent and I‘m a Catholic.
So what I‘m saying by this is, you‘re right. What they put together, these ideas, were for all time and for all of. Though most of the folks then were of English origin, everybody who came to this country partakes of America and they are Americans.
What I am saying, though, is that Western ideas, and we are part of Western civilization — and I put Russia in that category now that Communism is gone. And I put other — you know, that is part of the civilization to which it belongs.
And my point in this book, Alan, is that there is not a single Western country that now has a birth rate that is going to enable it to survive in its present form through this century. Not one. In the Islamic nations, I couldn‘t find a single one where the birthrate is not exploding.
What has happened? I believe it is this, that countries, when they lose faith, when they lose their religion, when they lose the belief system that created their culture and the civilization, and ours was predominantly Christianity, that when that ties, people die, cultures die and the civilization dies. And that is what I want to protect.
KEYES: But let me ask you, though, because it seems to me — I am greatly concerned about the fact that we need to be welcoming people to America, teaching them and educating them in American principles, getting that real commitment of heart to the unique American way of life that represents, I think, a hope for the destiny of the world.
How is that to be served if don‘t keep the doors of this country open to all people who in fact want to share in that experience? People who are just coming to exploit us economically, things of that kind, I think we need to begin to take some serious steps to tell those folks don‘t come. But if people from all different backgrounds in fact want to come and commit themselves to the American idea, in fact, isn‘t that what the country is about? We shouldn‘t shut the door in the face of those people, should we?
BUCHANAN: No. But you make a very good point. People who simply come here for a job and they come across the border for a job, and they‘re loyal to another country, that‘s not who we want here.
People who come here and despise America so much that they cheered September 11th, we don‘t want them here. People who break the law and break into America, we say, look, I can understand why you want to come here, but, look, you got to get in line with other folks, folks who have spent years, who love America and the one thing they want is to have their children grow up and become part of this new America, part of that. Those are the folks we want here, Alan.
Second —
KEYES: But let me ask you a question, Pat, before you go on, because I need to clarify this. There have been a lot of folks who have read your book, listened to the statements you have made in different interview, they‘ve come away with the impression that you think we ought to close this countries borders, shut the whole immigration process down and essentially sort of close off what has been that avenue of access to the world and aspiration for the world. Is that in fact the position you take?
BUCHANAN: No. My position is basically this. Is that, look, we Americans decide who comes in and when. We have to cut off illegal immigration. There are something like 8 million to 11 million in this country right now, who broke into our country. We should stop illegal immigration cold.
Legal immigration, I believe, we should have a moratorium of 250,000 a year. That is a normal amount for the United States of America.
KEYES: You would have immigration, but you‘d limit it to 250,000?
BUCHANAN: Yes. And then I would have a national debate on whether, in this multicultural society now, which people are trying to impose on us, where the melting pot is cracked, where huge numbers of people are coming from Mexico, for example, and Mexican folks are saying down there this is (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we‘re taking it back culturally and socially from Mexico. We‘re going to have to debate this.
What I see — and for several years — and then, the American people and the Congress should decide exactly how much immigration we can take, because we can‘t take the whole world here, and when they come in. And if we don‘t do that, I think we‘re risking what I see happening in Europe, all over the world, which is Balkanization, decomposition, separatism. It‘s happening in — you see it in England. You see Corsica breaking away. The Basque country breaking away.
KEYES: One thing that I would say, though, one of the problems I see, and I think that you talk about this in your book. Is the fact that we have actually abandoned in America the process of educating people when they come in the special principles and identity of the American way of life.
Our schools have retreated from our commitment to that special understanding of principle, of human dignity, of human justice, of free enterprise. These things that constitute our unique identity and in fact represent, I think, a universal appear for the world.
I think we need to spend some time restoring our commitment to those things so that we are confident in what we offer to those who are coming and also confident in the demand we make, that they must commit themselves to our way of life.
BUCHANAN: You speak in terms of what I call the credo nation, and we are that nation. That‘s what Arthur Schlesinger speaks of and others. If Quincy Adams and Washington and Woodrow Wilson and TR spoke of another America.
Anyone can become a good American, from any country, any continent in the world. But it takes time to assimilate folks from different countries, continents, cultures and civilizations into what is America. And so then after this melting pot works for a while, they become Americans. They‘re no longer Germans coming over here. They‘re no longer Polish Jews alone. They‘re Americans.
And that takes time, Alan. And we‘re not giving the melting pot time.
KEYES: Pat, it does take time, and since it takes time, I want to invite you back.
BUCHANAN: OK. In other words, I‘ve taken too much time.
KEYES: No, you haven‘t taken too much time, but I think that we have just begun this discussion and over the course of time we will be able to get into it more deeply, and I think that we‘ll be able also to clarify what have been I think some unfair misunderstandings of the position that you and I and others take on this issue.
I appreciate you for coming with me tonight and sharing that with the audience and helping us to get a start on that question. Thank you so much, Pat Buchanan. Look forward to seeing you again.
Later, I‘ll share with you a personal note about what the attorney general of New York is up to with respect to crisis pregnancy centers. We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let‘s hear what‘s on your mind.
Let‘s go to Terrell (ph) in Maryland. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
TERRELL: Yes, how are you?
KEYES: Hi.
TERRELL: I want to talk about this flag issue, as it pertains to the Olympics. I am as American as anyone. I‘ve fought for our country. I‘m a former Marine.
But let me tell you, I think we sometimes lose it, because we think everyone should feel the way we feel when we have a problem.
There are terrorists all over the world that have bothered people for many, many years. And we‘ve know this has happened. But we haven‘t come to their aid. But because this happened to us on our soil, we want everyone to bend to us. And I think we should realize that we have a big stake in what happens across the world and we have to be fair.
KEYES: Well, Terrell the one area where I — well, first off, I don‘t think this is an American problem.
TERRELL: OK.
KEYES: I don‘t think this is about us at all. And we have in the past reacted to and against terrorist episodes in other parts of the world. In Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. That was part of the policy that led us to adopt harsh measures against Iraq, against Syria, against Iran and other countries that were aiding and abetting terrorism.
We had a list of terrorist practicing states where we have brought to bear sanctions and other policies aimed at discouraging them long before we were struck by this, long before it hit our homeland, when it was claiming the lives of others in Europe and in the Middle East.
So I think you‘re not being fair to us. And all we‘re saying to the world right now is this is your business. Don‘t try to pretend it‘s just about us, because we didn‘t abandon them in those days when our homeland was not being struck.
Let‘s go to Joe in Pennsylvania. Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Hi, Alan. I just wanted to talk for a minute about the whole illegal immigration idea. It‘s just really tragic that when you have eight to 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, it takes a tragedy like September 11th to make us really aware of this.
I mean, I‘m in Pennsylvania, and from what I hear now, from what Patrick Buchanan has been saying on different things, supposedly New York state has a policy now where they might grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who are staying there.
I mean, if I went to...
KEYES: You know, I think that we in fact were awakened on September 11th in a way that leads a lot of Americans to be willing to look at something that some of us have realized is a very real problem.
I‘m deeply committed to America‘s universal significance, to opening to humanity, to the fact that we actually have gathered here human beings of all stripes and variety. But I think we have an obligation to have a responsible immigration policy.
Thanks for your calls. Really appreciate it.
Next, a personal note that I‘m going to share with you.
You‘re watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: I understand that Mark Spitzer (ph), the attorney general in New York, has launched a campaign to destroy the Crisis Pregnancy Centers in his state by legal harassment.
If I weren‘t here tonight, I would have been helping to raise money for a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Oklahoma City. I know the folks who are involved in this work very well. Loving and compassionate people who seek to offer an alternative to folks so they won‘t be destroying that innocent life in the womb.
For people who pretend they are pro-choice, why on earth would you want to eliminate that choice of love and compassion? That‘s my sense of it.
Thanks for joining us. Lester Holt is up next, live from Salt Lake City. I‘ll see you tomorrow.
As you can see, we are starting off a little differently this evening, because when I was driving in today, I got a call from one of my aides here on the staff of the program. And they were telling me about a breaking story that had appeared first starting with “The Washington Post” piece that was posted up on the Internet, a “Guardian” piece, other things that started to come out suggesting that there was a stir in the context of the Olympic Games that U.S. athletes had planned to carry the World Trade Center flag into the opening ceremonies at the Olympic Games. And that they had been told they could not do this by the Olympic Committee.
And the rationale that was given for these things in various ways I think has raised a lot of questions — did raise a lot of questions in the minds of folks who were looking at this situation. And I‘ve got to tell you truthfully, I want to try to get to the bottom of it. And in fact, in the last few minutes, I have been listening to a briefing that was being done by the International Olympic Committee, involving as well the Salt Lake Olympic Committee. I think we have standing by here Michael Moran, who is with the U.S. Olympic Committee.
It‘s the sort of story that raises a lot of questions. And immediately we heard it, it raised hackles with me. But you know how I am. I like to get to the facts, try to get to the bottom of things before we come to a conclusion. And so we have been trying to search out just what was going on in the course of the day with this proposal. And we have with us right now on the phone, I understand — right — Michael Moran, who is with the U.S. Olympic Committee, and who is going to give us their take on this situation.
Mr. Moran, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MICHAEL MORAN, USOC SPOKESMAN (via telephone): Thank you, Alan, and I hope we can make some sense of this, because it has been a crazy day.
KEYES: Well, can you tell me what exactly is the status of this situation? Was there, in fact, a plan to have the athletes carry the flag into the stadium? Were objections made? I have here stories that have actually pretty clear quotes from various members of the Olympic Committee and so forth about it. What was going on?
MORAN: Alan, about a month ago, we began to try to put together a plan. We felt, and we had heard from some athletes that we wanted to do something, and they wanted to do something special to honor the memory of the attacks on this country, the victims and their families.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: So could I stop you right there for a second, Mike? This was something that you heard from the athletes.
MORAN: We had a lot of our athletes, who were making statements during their trials and during their competitions about America and what had happened. And so we began to formulate an idea about when our team marched into the Olympic Stadium on Friday night, we proposed to the IOC that we have a group of athletes on this team, who had been on one or more Olympic teams, veteran athletes, carry the flag. And we talked to the Port Authority people about it, and it made great sense, and we thought this was sensational. When we approached the IOC...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Can I stop you there for a second, Michael? Michael, Michael, can I stop — Michael, can I stop you for one second? I just want to clarify a point. When you say “have them carry the flag into the stadium,” was it unusual that they would carry a flag? Or was it unusual to carry this flag? Or what was the proposal?
MORAN: It would be very unusual, Alan, to carry this flag. Every delegation is preceded by its flag.
KEYES: OK.
MORAN: It‘s like they are elected an athlete from each team, and then — but what we proposed was in addition to that, at the end of our team, as the American team finished coming into the stadium, additional American athletes would carry the World Trade Center flag. The IOC Commission said to us that the protocol, the practices for the opening ceremony‘s March of the Athletes had never allowed for anything other than what it had been.
But they proposed to us, and they offered us a suggestion. And that was in the Olympic Games, the host country‘s flag is raised, along with the playing of its Anthem. And why not have the World Trade Center flag in this very riveting moment — a very stunning moment, Alan, actually at the opening ceremony — that flag that is raised in the Olympic Stadium be the ground zero flag, the World Trade Center flag with all of the attention paid? And we said at that time, that we felt that was a great compromise in this, because it would bring the attention to the memories of the victims, to the incident, to their families, and we were pleased with that alternative. And that is where it stands right now.
KEYES: Well, would you mind if I asked a couple of questions just to clarify what might be some misunderstandings? Because there were stories posted, one of which had the Olympic Committee‘s Coordinating Commission telling USOC president, Sandy Baldwin, that many nations had suffered, and that allowing the American team to carry the flag would not be proper.
There is also a quote from Anita DeFrantz, the American IOC member: “Every country in the IOC has issues. As Americans, we have to understand it‘s a world event, and that we are a guest even though we are the host nation.”
Now, when you say compromise, was there some objection based on this kind of reasoning?
MORAN: Well, those statements made by Anita and the IOC, Alan, are factual. There is no question. But what I would like to point out is that when we proposed this idea, and they came back to us, the IOC, with the proposal to use this flag in this manner in the opening ceremony, it was significant. They were not attempting to deflate the issue or get away from it. They did, however, use the protocols that they have always maintained that each nation marches with its flag in front, and there are no additional scenarios or anything else involved in this ceremony.
But given what we were, the opportunity to display this flag in this stadium on Friday night, we still felt we came away with a win.
KEYES: Well, see — but I‘m not — well, I don‘t want to argue you, Michael, but I‘m trying to understand what it is that we were fighting against. Because usually the word “win” implies that there was a battle, and I‘m not sure what the battle was over. If there so much respect for our situation or so much understanding of it, were the rationales that were stated here just misstatements? Because it sounds to me like there were people out there saying that this was going to be some — I don‘t know — display of inappropriate American patriotism — that this was our issue, and it shouldn‘t somehow intrude into this international event. Was that reasoning part of the objection?
MORAN: I think parts of it were. I think they do view the Olympic Games as an international event. Of course, it‘s on American soil, but nonetheless, we are simply — our country is simply the host to the Games. Their statements about honoring the memory of September 11 also were very clear.
We are disappointed. Make no mistake about it. Our athletes and the U.S. Olympic Committee put this idea together with a great amount of emotion. We wanted to do this. We felt that our athletes carrying this flag into the stadium would be something that would last a lifetime for Americans.
Our athletes, by their performance here in Salt Lake City, Alan, in their very small way would like to make Americans feel better. Lord knows we need that. The idea was rejected. There is no question about it. We are hopeful that the ceremony, as it stands right now, and I know Mitt Romney, from the Organizing Committee, has said within the last hour he does support our original idea and disagrees with the IOC‘s position, respectfully.
So who knows that might happen? I know that there will be now significant attention focused on this issue, significant attention focused to the memory. Our athletes certainly would have liked to have done this, but as it stands tonight, what we will have is the raising of this flag in the Olympic Stadium in a moment of terrific pageantry and emotion.
KEYES: Well, Michael, I want to thank you very much for coming on and sharing these insights with us, and for being so sincere in the presentation that you have made. I want to thank you very much, and I want you to convey to the U.S. athletes the respect and pride that we have, and that we share their heart on this issue. And we understand their desire to display what must have been — I think like all of us, they have been working under this burden as they trained, as they prepared for this event. It was one of those things that hit us all hard, and the fact that they can bounce back and will put on the kind of wonderful performance we know we will get. Our prayers are with them, and our pride is with them. And I want to thank you for being with us tonight.
MORAN: Thank you very much, Alan.
KEYES: Appreciate it very much.
Now I am joined by folks who would have been part of our panel. Now, you have to understand, we had planned a show on immigration. And these were the folks who had come in to talk about it, before I had my chat with Pat Buchanan, who is still going to be with us by the way. So Pat is going to be joining us, and we will be talking about the immigration issue and some of the thoughts that he has had, the book that he has written, and he and I will go back and forth a little about that.
But this issue struck me deeply. And I want to explain it for one second why it was. It struck me deeply precisely for the reasons I was just explaining to Mike Moran. And I‘ve got to tell you, I am not satisfied with what I heard here. I think basically we had some objections that were made to this on grounds that were deeply insulting to the American people in our time of grief, but also on grounds, by the way, that falsify the significance of the September 11 events. September 11 isn‘t our issue. As our president stood before the world to declare that assault was an assault on the world, and there is no neutrality in the war against terrorism, and that was clear.
And so I certainly hope that all of this didn‘t imply that the International Olympic Committee wants to stand in some neutral position and declare that somehow this is an American issue, and that it doesn‘t represent, in fact, a world concern that deserves to be remembered at a world event. I hope they are not saying that, but it‘s not clear to me they are not.
But that was my reason for believing that we should focus some time and attention on this tonight. And joining me here, and we‘ll be having a chance to get their reactions. We will be taking calls and comments from you, but joining me right now, we have John Ward, a first-year law student at George Washington University, Luciana Mashore, a financial analyst, and Wiley Drake, a Southern Baptist pastor from Buena Park, California. He also works with the homeless.
And I just want to spend a minute here you all to get your sense of this. John, why don‘t I start with you? You have been reading about this. We have told you a little bit about it. You have heard the facts as they were explained by Michael Moran. What do you think of what went on here?
JOHN WARD, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV. STUDENT: Alan, I think it‘s a perfect example of political correctness going too far. In the new era of political correctness, it is PC. It can be anything but proud of being an American. And that is the problem as I see it.
KEYES: Wiley, what do you think?
WILEY DRAKE, PASTOR: Well, I see it going not only too far in political correctness, but I see it as an outright attack. They are saying to our men, who fought to be in these Olympics, they are saying, “You can‘t carry your flag.” Now, yes, they are allowing us to carry our flag out front the way they say we‘ve got to do it. They are saying, “You can‘t take this tattered flag.” They are not just taking political correctness to the extreme. They are saying “You cannot do it.” And I am here to say I am upset. I am angry at the Olympic Committee for saying our people can‘t carry the flag.
KEYES: Luciana, what your take on this?
LUCIANA MASHORE, FINANCIAL ANALYST: I don‘t believe that it was the Olympic Committee‘s place to determine whether or not the team should be able to carry the flag inside the stadium. I think that it was actually insulting to call this a — quote — “American issue.” You are correct. This is not an American issue. This is a world issue. The world is being faced with acts of terrorism. It happened here today, however, it will happen somewhere else tomorrow.
KEYES: See, this is exactly my though, and I guess I am kind of wondering if we accept the take that they are giving us on this, that this is somehow a big favor that they are doing for us, I think we are making a huge mistake. We are allowing an understanding of the September 11 events to walk there on two legs as if this is now just America‘s business and America‘s concern and America‘s problem, and the rest of the world doesn‘t share with us, even though 80 nations, people from 80 nations died in that building.
DRAKE: That‘s right.
KEYES: That wasn‘t just an assault on American people. That was an assault on something, where everybody had gathered to do their work and trade and so forth and so on. And I am sitting here thinking to myself, How dare they imply that this is an issue that somehow is restricted to American hearts and American concerns, and doesn‘t deserve to be signalized before the entire world.
DRAKE: Alan, the flag is red, white and blue. It‘s all-American, but that tattered flag represents 80 nations that died in that building.
KEYES: Well...
WARD: Alan, my point is if this attack had occurred in — god forbid — in downtown Paris, I don‘t think there would be any controversy that the French could take the tattered flag in there.
DRAKE: That‘s right.
WARD: It is because it is the American flag, and it is not popular in this world anymore to be an American, and that‘s the problem.
KEYES: Well, you know, I think there was a quote here that particularly caught my attention that had come I think from — let me see here — “A tribute of some kind will occur now before the show, Organizer Committee President Mitt Romney suggested.” And they went on in this story that had been posted with the “Guardian” — “It‘s not designed to be a patriotic American display,” he said. “While the experience of 9/11 certainly impacts on all of us, there should not be a direct tribute in the ceremony itself.”
And I must say, I read that, and I found it deeply disturbing and insulting to the event, to the reality and significance of this event and totally contrary, by the way, to what our president himself has said about the significance of this event.
Right now, we have someone on the spot in Salt Lake City. Let‘s hold on for a minute here. Joining us from Salt Lake City, Sean Kelly, a reporter for the “Denver Post” — welcome, Sean.
SEAN KELLY, “DENVER POST” REPORTER: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Thank you for joining us. I have one question. What is your understanding of how all of this came about? I am kind of curious. It sounded from Mike Moran as if this was an initiative from the athletes that then had to get processed through the whole Olympic bureaucracy.
KELLY: That‘s pretty much my understanding too. At a press briefing about an hour ago, Bob Ctvrtlik, who is a former Olympic volleyball player and now an IOC member from the United States, said as much. This came from the athletes, and there was never really a definite plan formed and presented to the IOC, according to Ctvrtlik.
KEYES: Now, did you get the sense? Because the quotes that we saw on the Internet and other places made it seem as if objections were being made, because this was going to be somehow an intrusion of American issues and American concerns into the international event. Was that part of the problem?
KELLY: Well, not according to the IOC. That‘s what we thought originally. They made it very clear that these are not just America‘s Games. They are international in scope, and there are so many different countries here. It‘s not just focused on America. However, the IOC folks this evening said they plan to honor America...
KEYES: Sean, Sean, we really have to go.
KELLY: Yes.
KEYES: I appreciate your joining us, and thank you for sharing that background with us. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We have been talking in the first part of the program here about a story that has been breaking in the course of the day that suggests that an idea that apparently had originated with U.S. athletes on the Olympic team that they would carry in the tattered flag that was recovered from the World Trade Center — that they would carry that into the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games.
And in the course of the day, there were pretty circumstantial reports that this idea had been broached and rejected by the International Olympic Committee. And some folks, including members of the International Olympic Committee and members of the United States Olympic Committee, suggested that the rationale for this rejection was basically that it would introduce too much patriotism, an element of parochial American interests into this international event.
Here, you see a picture of the flag that we are talking about. It was also featured at the Super Bowl just recently. And to me, when I read over these remarks as I have explained, that this was the rationale. It wasn‘t just the objection itself. It was the fact that it was couched in terms that suggested that somehow the 9/11 attacks were just a problem for America, were just something that we should be concerned about. And if we wanted to remember it, if we wanted to express some sense of the significance of this watershed event that was something that the world didn‘t have to care about, but they might do us a favor and let us show something or other out there.
I have to confess, the more I think about it, the more I see the kind of explanations we are getting, the more outraged I become. Now, we are joined here by the panel, the folks just like you. We all gathered together to talk about immigration, but this is on my heart, and I wanted to share it with you all today. We have John Ward, Luciana Mashore, Wiley Drake, who is a Southern Baptist pastor, and we are joined as well in Salt Lake City by Sean Kelly, who is with the “Denver Post” and has actually been out there standing in the cold. It looks like it is pretty chilly out there.
KELLY: Yes, it‘s a little cold, Alan — thanks.
KEYES: You are welcome. Well, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to be with us. And let me just ask you a question, because when I was talking with Mike Moran, he was very diplomatic, and I thought that he was doing his best not to sort of stir the controversy. But I got the feeling that he was also disappointed. And that in point of fact there had been a desire on the part of U.S. athletes to signalize this special situation, and that they are disappointed that it didn‘t come about. Is that your impression?
KELLY: I think that‘s correct. The IOC is trying to characterize this as a misunderstanding, but I think it‘s going to be interesting to see what the athletes have to say on Friday.
KEYES: Well, see, because I have to confess y‘all, I think it‘s a misunderstanding that it may be that the IOC has misunderstood the way in which America looks at this situation and these events. Because I find it particularly offensive that they would want to suggest that 9/11 events are kind of parochial American issues. Sean, is it your sense that they really believe that somehow this is just an American thing? Because that‘s not how we see it.
KELLY: They were very clear to make sure we knew that all of the IOC countries and all of the IOC members viewed this as an international incident, an international tragedy. However, by not putting this flag up, I don‘t know what they are saying to the athletes — the American athletes.
KEYES: Thank you so much, Sean. We really appreciate — especially appreciate the second effort that you have made standing out in the cold to bring this important information to us. Thank you for being on the show — really appreciate it.
KELLY: Thanks, Alan.
KEYES: Let me go back to the panel here and ask you a very simple question, because I have watched this. I know how I feel about it, but in listening to the explanations and the sort of secondary suggestion that was made, do you buy this? Do you think that what they are doing, in fact, is intended to show some respect? Or are they just trying to get out from under a controversy?
MASHORE: I think it‘s actually disrespectful. The IOC cannot see this is as an international issue and having however behind it. If it were truly seen as an international issue, then the American team would be able to walk in with the flag. They see this as raising the flag outside of the team being able to bring it in as secondary. They do not see this as an international issue. And I agree, I think that the statements that this was a political issue, an American issue, that is a fact. Although they may go back and say tomorrow on the news that, no, this is not what we meant. Their actions are showing that‘s exactly what they meant.
DRAKE: Well, that‘s exactly what they are doing by not allowing these men and women to carry this flag in there that represents, as I said, 80 countries, and what happened to 80 countries, 80 people that, you know, from 80 countries that died in that attack, it is indeed a worldwide event. And if it were any other country — I think John is right about that — if it were any other country, there would be no reason to say, “No, you can‘t do that.” If that would have been France or England or any other country attacked brutally the way we were attacked, and they wanted to take a tattered flag in from the U.K., no one would say anything. They would say, “Oh yes, it‘s OK. Let them do it.”
KEYES: As a matter of fact, I think they would want to suggest that we were somehow callous and lacking in understanding if we didn‘t...
(CROSSTALK)
DRAKE: If we were to dare say that, if that had happened to the U.K. and we were to dare say, “Oh no, this is an international event, don‘t make it U.K.,” we would be accused of just absolutely, you know, desecrating them. And I think that‘s exactly what they are doing. They are desecrating the memory of these people.
WARD: Alan, if they won‘t change this, the president of the United States should declare that the United States will not partake in the Olympics this year. That is where we stand at this point. It‘s a serious issue.
KEYES: One of the things that disturbed me, and I do believe that this is something that ought to concern the president, because he declared how the world should look at this. He made it very clear after the event, this isn‘t an American thing. This was an attack on the entire world. This is something where the entire world has to join forces against the evil of terrorism.
The International Olympic Committee is acting like this is business as usual, acting like this event somehow stands in the normal realm of political discourse. And I think that‘s a big mistake.
Let‘s go to Joe from Florida — Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Thank you. My opinion on this is that not only was this a worldwide issue, because terrorism happens all over the world. It‘s not necessarily reported in the papers in the large type as we had for September 11 obviously. But you do find that that is happening everywhere, if you read back into the newspaper.
And this is a situation, where the International Committee is saying — basically they are slapping us in the face, and I find very serious offense to that. It is something that affects the entire world, not just the U.S. And as your guest said, if this was France or England, nobody would have a problem, but it‘s basically a case of, hey, we‘re going to rub the Americans down as foreign countries tend to do.
KEYES: Joe, thank you. Let‘s go to Kathy in Pennsylvania — Kathy, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
KATHY: Good evening. My statement is that the days immediately following September 11, I saw pictures on e-mail and on TV of people all over the world lighting candles and bringing flowers. And what has happened since then that this is no longer the case? That we are now isolated and once again on our own. We are a world country. We provide financial assistance to numerous countries. We provide military assistance. What has happened? Where has the world gone?
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) once again.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Kathy, I think we need to be careful, though, not to equate the International Olympic Committee with the world, because we have learned in the run-up to these Olympics that there can be some serious problems with this Olympic Committee. That they take some views that may not always even be in the best interest of the Olympics. So I wouldn‘t want us to think that this was the world somehow backing away. Maybe it‘s just some short-sighted people on this Committee, who don‘t understand the significance of these events.
That‘s why I think we have got a serious problem, and maybe they need to have some words of wisdom from the American people on this point, so they would understand a little better where this fits. Because I think that the notion that somehow or another they are doing us a favor, if the world is reminded of September 11, this is not only deeply insulting, it is a betrayal of the cause in which we fight, which is a cause that‘s not about America. It‘s about the security of the world, including the hundreds of millions we had to spend on security for these Olympics. I don‘t understand how they could have missed this point.
Let‘s give our thanks to John, Luciana and Wiley — thank you so much, and thank you for being so gracious as well with the little change of focus there on the program. It was ideal, in fact, to have you all with us today, because we could get an immediate sampling, I think, of the heart of the people.
And next, we‘re going to have the “Bottom Line” with Pat Buchanan. I am going to be joined with Pat to talk a little bit about his ideas on immigration, and we‘ll be going back and forth on the topic that we were focused on today. And that is still, of course, on our minds and part as well of our consideration in the midst of this struggle against international terrorism. Stay right there — we‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We‘ve now come to that part of the program we call THE BOTTOM-LINE.
We‘re talking today with author and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan about an issue that arises in the context of the whole war against terror, or at least is made more acute by it, the question of immigration. Or the question of the whole effort in America to welcome, to assimilate, to deal with the fact that we are a population of folks who come from all over the world.
Pat Buchanan has written a new book titled “The Death of the West” in which he takes on these issues, sometimes, as usual with Pat, in a way that is both provocative and controversial.
Welcome to the show, Pat. Really appreciate you joining us.
PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR: Well, thank you very much, Alan.
KEYES: Before we get into the immigration questions, I‘m really curious. You‘ve been listening to the discussion of this whole international Olympic committee brouhaha. What do you make of all of this?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think — first, I think the gesture of the athletes, the American athletes who wanted to march into that stadium, beneath the flag of their compatriots and fellow Americans and all the rest of those folks who were massacred and murdered on September 11th. It was a grand and noble gesture. I think it would have been a magnificent moment.
Everyone in America who suddenly saw them appear with that flag would have had tears in their eyes, and probably stood up in their living room and cheered.
And what has happened now is we‘ve got a bureaucratic decision by people without heart or kidney or spleen, an idiotic little rule book decision, which I think is an insult to the American people.
If I were president of the United States, I would quietly tomorrow morning, Alan, call up the Olympic committee and say please change that decision and let them march under that sacred flag, or I‘m going to have to make a statement this afternoon of how profoundly disappointed I am, as president of the United States, in your decision. And I think you could get it reversed.
KEYES: I have to tell you, I agree wholeheartedly with that. I think it‘s something that calls for that kind of action, because the whole attitude has called in to question fundamental principles we‘ve articulated with respect to the war on terrorism, the significance of 9-11, and the fact that that flag, as you say, Pat, it doesn‘t just represent American lives lost. That flag is now a symbol of the international reality of the war against terrorism. That it strikes everyone and that everyone needs to join together in the fight against it. And they‘re belittling this.
BUCHANAN: Well, it is a sacred flag. That‘s exactly right. And with this insult, they seem to be saying that the values that flag represents and where it flew conflict with Olympic values.
And I find that profoundly offensive. I don‘t know why an international Olympic committee could not see what this flag represents to us and to people all over the world who saw what happened on September 11th, and know what it stands for.
KEYES: See, I think, though, that actually leads us, in a way, into the first question I wanted to pose to you in the context of immigration, because we know that we‘re faced with a real challenge here. I‘ve talked about it. You‘ve talked about it many times over the course of the last several years.
But one of the things that I think is always front and center for me is, just like that tattered flag from the World Trade Center, it‘s an American flag, but in fact it‘s a symbol of humanity now. It‘s something that blankets universally a threat that has to deal with all human beings.
I think that‘s true of our whole country. That we are in fact of universal significance to all humanity. That that in fact is represented in the diversity of our population.
A lot of people have taken away from your writing the sense that you‘re not committed to that universalism, that you don‘t think in fact we should continue that tradition of openness to the world, which in fact we have come to represent. Do you think that in order to deal with the challenge of immigration, we must abandon America‘s commitment to it‘s universal human significance for the world?
BUCHANAN: No, I do not. Not at all.
Because of what we represent, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, values we‘ve stood for, what America stands for. We do have — I believe America stands for many of the ideas that are best in the world, and I would like to see mankind look at these and move toward them.
But we are also, Alan, even though we come from all over the world, we are a separate and a unique people, we Americans. We‘ve been forged by a melting pot. Into that pot have come people from Africa, from Europe, from all over the world, but out of it has come one distinct nation and people.
And what I fear is now the melting pot is cracked and broken. People are preaching multiculturalism as though there is not an American culture to which we have all contributed. Multiculturalism, in my view, is in some ways hostile to and opposite the idea that we have a unique American culture.
And what I think we need to do is first get immigration under control. Secondly, begin teaching every child in this country the English language that Alan Keyes, whose ancestors came from Africa speaks, and Pat Buchanan, whose ancestors spoke Gallic and German, that I speak. And to teach them all the greatness and glory of America.
This is our country. Washington and those people are our forefathers. People aren‘t learning that anymore, and I‘m afraid we‘ve breaking down. It is “E Pluribus Unum”. Out of many, one. And that‘s the unity — after the diversity, is what — we all came together after September 11th. That was the good thing about it.
KEYES: One of the things that we dealt with on this program, we looked at the fact that, for instance, in New Jersey the education department wasn‘t going to include in the curriculum the names of Washington and Jefferson and Franklin and the great founders.
The problem you point to is very real, but here I have a question. You open in your book, you talk about the demographics, the birth rates among certain elements of the American population. Some people take away from that, Pat, the sense that you are identifying American culture with a certain race, and that it‘s all about what white folks did, and so forth and so on, and bringing other people from other parts of the world has somehow diluted that.
Now I look back at the founders, and sure, these were white folks with a certain background, but they articulated ideas that were universally applicable. Are we talking, here, about something that is somehow out of and confined to a particular racial group? Or are we dealing with something that is in fact common to all of us, even though certain insights were articulated by people with a certain background?
BUCHANAN: Well, as you know, almost all of the founding fathers — when I went to parochial school, they were proud to say we had one signer of the Declaration of Independence who was a Catholic. I think only 1 percent of the population of the country was Catholic. And now it‘s about 25 percent and I‘m a Catholic.
So what I‘m saying by this is, you‘re right. What they put together, these ideas, were for all time and for all of. Though most of the folks then were of English origin, everybody who came to this country partakes of America and they are Americans.
What I am saying, though, is that Western ideas, and we are part of Western civilization — and I put Russia in that category now that Communism is gone. And I put other — you know, that is part of the civilization to which it belongs.
And my point in this book, Alan, is that there is not a single Western country that now has a birth rate that is going to enable it to survive in its present form through this century. Not one. In the Islamic nations, I couldn‘t find a single one where the birthrate is not exploding.
What has happened? I believe it is this, that countries, when they lose faith, when they lose their religion, when they lose the belief system that created their culture and the civilization, and ours was predominantly Christianity, that when that ties, people die, cultures die and the civilization dies. And that is what I want to protect.
KEYES: But let me ask you, though, because it seems to me — I am greatly concerned about the fact that we need to be welcoming people to America, teaching them and educating them in American principles, getting that real commitment of heart to the unique American way of life that represents, I think, a hope for the destiny of the world.
How is that to be served if don‘t keep the doors of this country open to all people who in fact want to share in that experience? People who are just coming to exploit us economically, things of that kind, I think we need to begin to take some serious steps to tell those folks don‘t come. But if people from all different backgrounds in fact want to come and commit themselves to the American idea, in fact, isn‘t that what the country is about? We shouldn‘t shut the door in the face of those people, should we?
BUCHANAN: No. But you make a very good point. People who simply come here for a job and they come across the border for a job, and they‘re loyal to another country, that‘s not who we want here.
People who come here and despise America so much that they cheered September 11th, we don‘t want them here. People who break the law and break into America, we say, look, I can understand why you want to come here, but, look, you got to get in line with other folks, folks who have spent years, who love America and the one thing they want is to have their children grow up and become part of this new America, part of that. Those are the folks we want here, Alan.
Second —
KEYES: But let me ask you a question, Pat, before you go on, because I need to clarify this. There have been a lot of folks who have read your book, listened to the statements you have made in different interview, they‘ve come away with the impression that you think we ought to close this countries borders, shut the whole immigration process down and essentially sort of close off what has been that avenue of access to the world and aspiration for the world. Is that in fact the position you take?
BUCHANAN: No. My position is basically this. Is that, look, we Americans decide who comes in and when. We have to cut off illegal immigration. There are something like 8 million to 11 million in this country right now, who broke into our country. We should stop illegal immigration cold.
Legal immigration, I believe, we should have a moratorium of 250,000 a year. That is a normal amount for the United States of America.
KEYES: You would have immigration, but you‘d limit it to 250,000?
BUCHANAN: Yes. And then I would have a national debate on whether, in this multicultural society now, which people are trying to impose on us, where the melting pot is cracked, where huge numbers of people are coming from Mexico, for example, and Mexican folks are saying down there this is (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we‘re taking it back culturally and socially from Mexico. We‘re going to have to debate this.
What I see — and for several years — and then, the American people and the Congress should decide exactly how much immigration we can take, because we can‘t take the whole world here, and when they come in. And if we don‘t do that, I think we‘re risking what I see happening in Europe, all over the world, which is Balkanization, decomposition, separatism. It‘s happening in — you see it in England. You see Corsica breaking away. The Basque country breaking away.
KEYES: One thing that I would say, though, one of the problems I see, and I think that you talk about this in your book. Is the fact that we have actually abandoned in America the process of educating people when they come in the special principles and identity of the American way of life.
Our schools have retreated from our commitment to that special understanding of principle, of human dignity, of human justice, of free enterprise. These things that constitute our unique identity and in fact represent, I think, a universal appear for the world.
I think we need to spend some time restoring our commitment to those things so that we are confident in what we offer to those who are coming and also confident in the demand we make, that they must commit themselves to our way of life.
BUCHANAN: You speak in terms of what I call the credo nation, and we are that nation. That‘s what Arthur Schlesinger speaks of and others. If Quincy Adams and Washington and Woodrow Wilson and TR spoke of another America.
Anyone can become a good American, from any country, any continent in the world. But it takes time to assimilate folks from different countries, continents, cultures and civilizations into what is America. And so then after this melting pot works for a while, they become Americans. They‘re no longer Germans coming over here. They‘re no longer Polish Jews alone. They‘re Americans.
And that takes time, Alan. And we‘re not giving the melting pot time.
KEYES: Pat, it does take time, and since it takes time, I want to invite you back.
BUCHANAN: OK. In other words, I‘ve taken too much time.
KEYES: No, you haven‘t taken too much time, but I think that we have just begun this discussion and over the course of time we will be able to get into it more deeply, and I think that we‘ll be able also to clarify what have been I think some unfair misunderstandings of the position that you and I and others take on this issue.
I appreciate you for coming with me tonight and sharing that with the audience and helping us to get a start on that question. Thank you so much, Pat Buchanan. Look forward to seeing you again.
Later, I‘ll share with you a personal note about what the attorney general of New York is up to with respect to crisis pregnancy centers. We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let‘s hear what‘s on your mind.
Let‘s go to Terrell (ph) in Maryland. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
TERRELL: Yes, how are you?
KEYES: Hi.
TERRELL: I want to talk about this flag issue, as it pertains to the Olympics. I am as American as anyone. I‘ve fought for our country. I‘m a former Marine.
But let me tell you, I think we sometimes lose it, because we think everyone should feel the way we feel when we have a problem.
There are terrorists all over the world that have bothered people for many, many years. And we‘ve know this has happened. But we haven‘t come to their aid. But because this happened to us on our soil, we want everyone to bend to us. And I think we should realize that we have a big stake in what happens across the world and we have to be fair.
KEYES: Well, Terrell the one area where I — well, first off, I don‘t think this is an American problem.
TERRELL: OK.
KEYES: I don‘t think this is about us at all. And we have in the past reacted to and against terrorist episodes in other parts of the world. In Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. That was part of the policy that led us to adopt harsh measures against Iraq, against Syria, against Iran and other countries that were aiding and abetting terrorism.
We had a list of terrorist practicing states where we have brought to bear sanctions and other policies aimed at discouraging them long before we were struck by this, long before it hit our homeland, when it was claiming the lives of others in Europe and in the Middle East.
So I think you‘re not being fair to us. And all we‘re saying to the world right now is this is your business. Don‘t try to pretend it‘s just about us, because we didn‘t abandon them in those days when our homeland was not being struck.
Let‘s go to Joe in Pennsylvania. Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Hi, Alan. I just wanted to talk for a minute about the whole illegal immigration idea. It‘s just really tragic that when you have eight to 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, it takes a tragedy like September 11th to make us really aware of this.
I mean, I‘m in Pennsylvania, and from what I hear now, from what Patrick Buchanan has been saying on different things, supposedly New York state has a policy now where they might grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who are staying there.
I mean, if I went to...
KEYES: You know, I think that we in fact were awakened on September 11th in a way that leads a lot of Americans to be willing to look at something that some of us have realized is a very real problem.
I‘m deeply committed to America‘s universal significance, to opening to humanity, to the fact that we actually have gathered here human beings of all stripes and variety. But I think we have an obligation to have a responsible immigration policy.
Thanks for your calls. Really appreciate it.
Next, a personal note that I‘m going to share with you.
You‘re watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: I understand that Mark Spitzer (ph), the attorney general in New York, has launched a campaign to destroy the Crisis Pregnancy Centers in his state by legal harassment.
If I weren‘t here tonight, I would have been helping to raise money for a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Oklahoma City. I know the folks who are involved in this work very well. Loving and compassionate people who seek to offer an alternative to folks so they won‘t be destroying that innocent life in the womb.
For people who pretend they are pro-choice, why on earth would you want to eliminate that choice of love and compassion? That‘s my sense of it.
Thanks for joining us. Lester Holt is up next, live from Salt Lake City. I‘ll see you tomorrow.