Alan Keyes, Rick Scarborough, Don Feder, Gary Bauer, et al.
November 17, 2003

RICK SCARBOROUGH: The Ten Commandments petition drive really grew out of an experience that took place in our regard in Montgomery, Alabama. I've been a good friend and supporter of Chief Justice Roy Moore since he first came into national prominence. A few years ago, we made a pledge of commitment to stand behind him in the event that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him, so in August the 16th, Vision America organized the rally that drew, according to published reports, about ten thousand people.

I was there the day that the judge was served with the court order to remove the Ten Commandments; I was there the day that the other eight justices veiled the Ten Commandments monument briefly; I was there the day that he was formally removed from office; and I was there the day that the trial was conducted, which I would characterize, in many regards, as a kangaroo court. Nine appointed people who were accountable to no one, virtually, removed a sitting judge from the state of Alabama who stood principally on the things that matter most to us.

Chief Justice Roy Moore is not leading this effort, but is simply an example of what I have called judicial tyranny--what I have, in fact, written about is judicial atheism: legislating from the bench a new morality.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that in that entire circuit, those states under the jurisdiction, at the present time, public officials cannot acknowledge God. As we travel this country now, conducting rallies across the nation, we are seeing a growing crescendo, larger in every city, larger crowds than we expect. We've been in a number of different states, we have other rallies pending across the country. I believe that this issue of judicial tyranny is one that has finally galvanized many who've never been political in past to stand up for what is right.

One thing that I'm saying to the crowds where I speak, often with thousands of people in attendance, what I'm saying is that what has perhaps been the natural outgrowth of this judicial activism for the last forty years will perhaps result to the greatest awakening this country has seen. Our intent is to gather millions of signatures over the course of the last ten months, twenty-four original signatories that are on the petition that has been distributed, they're all agreeing to, through their organizations, promote this single petition.

Somewhere in the fall of next year, in September, we are projecting we're going to present that petition with all of the signatories to the appropriate officials, demanding that Congress practice Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution, reining in judicial tyranny, and once again practicing constitutional law in this country.

And I would say, regarding Judge Roy Moore, this statement: God often does his best work right after a crucifixion. We have seen a crucifixion of a good man, but I believe God will vindicate this man in time in this country.

Thank you.

DON FEDER: Alan Keyes, with the Declaration Foundation.

ALAN KEYES: Good afternoon. I am setting in strong support of this effort because I think that what has happened to Judge Roy Moore in Alabama illustrates the destruction of our Constitution by the federal courts, over the course of the last 60 years or so.

Under the phony rubric of a right that they claim to derive from the First and Fourteenth Amendments, they have, in fact, violated the explicit wording of the Constitution, and usurped the right of the states and the people of the states to acknowledge God and honor Him as they decide, in and through their state institutions.

That means we have two problems going on here. One is the courts' assault on the piety of our people, on the acknowledgment of God, which is, of course, essential to all our principles--and according to our founding principles, our rights come from the Creator, God.

The second is the federal judiciary's usurpation of the right of the states and the people of the states (explicitly reserved to them by the First and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution), to address issues of religious establishment without dictation or interference by the federal government.

Our piety is being assaulted and our Constitution is being destroyed. I know some people have tried to claim that there is an issue of law-breaking with Roy Moore, but in fact the law is being broken by the federal judges. The supreme law of our land is the Constitution, and they are explicitly in violation of that reservation of power which the Constitution made on this issue to the states and the people of the states.

That means that the true law-breakers are on the bench, and the true issue of the rule of law is whether we shall have a constitutional system or a system of dictatorship by the federal judges. They have already established such a dictatorship. The question is whether through our representatives in Congress, we can apply the provision of the Constitution that can rein them in, that can exclude from their jurisdiction that which the First Amendment has removed from their purview.

I think that by gathering, all around the county, people who are outraged by this assault on our piety, and who are willing to come together in a movement to restore the constitutional right of the people and the states to acknowledge God, we will finally put this country back on a sound footing--both in terms of its moral character and its constitutional integrity.

FEDER: Gary Bauer, American Values.

GARY BAUER: Good afternoon. I share with all my colleagues here this afternoon the feeling that America is at a very important moment in this debate over the proper role of acknowledging God in our society.

As many of you know, I worked for Ronald Reagan for eight years, and for many years longer than that, Reagan had one speech that he gave over and over again. In fact, those of us who worked for him called it "The Speech." One of the lines in that speech was simple this: Reagan used to say that America would either be one nation under God, or it will be just one more nation that's gone under.

Well, the sophisticates and the elitists got a real kick out of that line, and mock him about it and make fun of him--but I think average Americans understood completely what he was trying to say.

On the drive over here from my offices in Northern Virginia, I had the occasion to go past the Washington monument and reminded myself that at the very top of it in Latin is the phrase, "Praise be to God." And in fact, on every monument in this town, and on virtually every public building in this town, etched into the stone, are words that make it absolutely clear that our liberty comes from no man--not from a good president, not from five magical votes on the Supreme Court, and not from a Republican Congress.

The Founders believed deeply that liberty came from God, that He was the Author of it, and the only one who could protect it for us. I think most people in the United States today still believe that.

Now, it's conceivable that somebody could sandblast all those walls in official Washington, but what they can't do is sandblast off the hearts of the American people this commitment to the idea that God is the Author of our liberty.

So, I'm here to pledge, and American Values will do everything that we can, to gather signatures--and quite frankly, I don't think it's going to be that hard. I think the difficult thing is going to be accommodating everybody around the country that wants to sign on to this.

This is an important moment for the country over a fundamental question, and it's one that I'm convinced in the end we will, in fact, win.

Thank you.

FEDER: Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Jews for Morality.

RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN: [Recites prayer in Hebrew] "And I would be pleasing to the Almighty." I hope that Mr. Call, and Mr. Glassroth, and Judge Myron Thompson won't defrock me for reciting a prayer in a public forum outside the confines of my own synagogue. The fact is, I saw a postage stamp machine at Union Station that was flashing a message reading, "God bless America." Now these three stooges probably want to fight all the postal workers and cancel their pensions. The pseudo-legal gang-rape of Justice Roy Moore is an example of creeping Liebermanism. Just as Senator Joe Lieberman speaks of his religious values while supporting the homosexual agenda and partial-birth abortion--which even Ed Koch and Patrick Moynahan refer to as murder and infanticide--in other words, Lieberman attempts to make pork Kosher, so too the judicial dictatorship talks about the Constitution and people's rights, while it turns two centuries of Americanist history and tradition on its head.

Yet, the same people who support the Ten Commandments' public displays subscribe to a hands-on God, a God of cause-and-effect, a God reward and punishment. The terrible fires in California, the constant mounting dead in the morass of Iraq, this past week's hailstorms, hailstorms in Los Angeles, floods and winds which the Associated Press reports wreak havoc across the country--God is sending us a message.

To those who discover a constitutional right of sodomy as they reject display of the Ten Commandments; support starving Terri Schiavo to death and the elimination of pre-born babies; but take God out of the Pledge and civil discourse: what catastrophe is required for them to stop their domestic moral terrorism?

We are in the process of losing our liberties. Judge Roy Moore's fight for the Ten Commandments is the equivalent of Paul Revere's ride to the 21st Century. We plead with the president and Congress to rein in the runaway judiciary. Let the president nominate this patriot, Roy Moore, to a federal judgeship, and let Congress declare the immoral suasion by voting yea or nay to this appointment, and let the people judge Congress. Let us set our signatures on this petition, and return to religious moral values, and return those values to their rightful historic place in the public arena, and pray that God reverses future catastrophes.

God bless Reverend Scarborough and Vision America for their vital work.

FEDER: Father Frank Pavone, Priests for Life.

FATHER FRANK PAVONE: We're delighted to stand here in support of these efforts. Brothers and sisters, we live in country that was founded by religious men--men who went to schools which, by today's standards, would defined as seminaries or Bible colleges; men who were involved in the editing of hymnals, the translating of Bibles, and the assertion clearly, clearly established that any law that the government they were establishing would ever pass, any decision of any court that was established in this nation would ever hand down, was always subject to the higher law: the law of Almighty God.

Our Founding Fathers did not establish a democracy. In a strict democracy, whatever the majority says goes, and there's no higher appeal--so that if most people were to say that murder were OK, it would be OK, and any other kind of vice that they may want to make legitimate. Instead, our Founders established a republic, not governed by the rule of the mob, but by the rule of law, and always with the understanding that above any human law, there is a higher law.

The effort to preserve our right to acknowledge God, to display the Commandments, to proclaim the truth of His authority, is not essential simply to the survival of the religious life of this nation, it is essential to the survival of the nation, period.

And that's why we stand in strong support of these efforts, and why, brothers and sisters, we are likewise convinced that we will prevail.

FEDER: Janice Crouse, Concerned Women for America.

JANICE CROUSE: Thomas Nagel in his book The Last Word wrote, "I don't want there to be a God. I don't want a universe like that."

Today, there are more and more people who are taking that stance. They don't want there to be God. They don't want a universe where there is an Authority to whom they are accountable.

Far too many of them are judges who are legislating their personal views into public policy, and far too many of them are politicians who are using demagoguery to convince people that religious freedom is the problem--that people of faith who believe in the Ten Commandments are extremist. Though they never substantiate such charges with actual examples of something extreme that has been done, their demagoguery is an effective tool in getting their personal ideology shaped into public policy. And that, after all, is the goal.

Without moral accountability, we have no reverence for life. There is a lawless demand for the right to kill unborn babies in the womb. The next big goals are the right to kill the aged and the infirm, and to make children autonomous from their parents, to enable children to make decisions--especially regarding abortion--without parental consent.

The Ten Commandments provide basic principles for a basic civil society. They describe how people ought to interact with each other with honor and integrity, and they state our relationship with God. The Ten Commandments lay down boundaries for honorable behavior. These commandments acknowledge that there must be accountability. Democracy depends upon honorable behavior among citizens.

From the 9th Circuit Court decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, to campus speech codes that prohibit speaking biblical truth about homosexuality, religious freedom is being demolished all around us.

But this is not just a Judeo-Christian issue. It's not even just an issue for religious people. All liberty is at stake when any liberty is threatened.

FEDER: Tony Perkins, Family Research Council.

TONY PERKINS: Well, after eight years of elected office, I'm a recovering politician, so I will try to keep my remarks to two minutes.

The Family Research Council obviously stands in strong support of the work of upholding the Ten Commandments--not only publicly, but privately. In fact, I told my wife this morning I was coming over to speak about the Ten Commandments, and she asked me, "Well, how have you done on the Ten Commandments today?" I said, "I've done just fine. I've kept all of them." And she said, "Well, it's still early."

You know, indeed, as the Rabbi pointed out, the symbolism as well as the substance of this moment cannot escape us. It was just a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments should stay in a closet in Alabama. Now, bear in mind that this was the same court that, in June of this year, let everything else out of the closet when they legalized sodomy.

You know, I don't believe these judges have put the Ten Commandments in the closet for safe-keeping, so as not to break them. I think what they have done is they have put them in the closet hoping the American culture will forget where they were placed. The Ten Commandments would then be erased from the American public's mind. I don't think that will happen. We'll not let it happen.

You know, the courts are using the phrase "the Constitution says," and they're using that not as elected judges, or using that not as the authority to interpret the Constitution and laws, but rather to impose their own ideas--ideas which, in most cases, are hostile to our Judeo-Christian foundation and origin, which are the bed-rock of our nation.

Now, lest people think we're against judges, I would want to correct them. We're not against judges. I watch Judge Judy. You know, some people may think that's family entertainment, but I can tell you, the never-ending saga of these non-elected federal judges overstepping their authority to legislate from the bench is not entertainment. In fact, it is not suitable for any audience--any audience, that is, that values democracy.

My friends, I cannot think of a more foundational element of our republic than the Ten Commandments. It's time that we begin the process of repairing the foundations, and that must begin by us taking the jack-hammer away from the federal courts that are chipping away, with each and every decision, at our religious foundation in this nation.

We must demand that Congress act, and act now, by limiting the federal judiciary's authority on such issues as the national motto of "In God We Trust," the Pledge of Allegiance, marriage, and yes, even the Ten Commandments.

The Family Research Council will be very much involved in this battle. In fact, they have taken the Ten Commandments out of the schools, but we've put them back by way of book covers. We encourage people to visit our website, at www.frc.org, and get your book covers and take the Ten Commandments back to school.

FEDER: And our last speaker this afternoon, Jill Farrell, with the Free Congress Foundation.

JILL FARRELL: Well, this is the day the Lord has made.

Religious intolerance and religious persecution are generally symptoms of a society in turmoil. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom posts countries of particular concern. Among the usual suspects are China, Sudan, and North Korea, where the restriction of religious freedom is assuredly only one of a whole host of human rights violations regularly perpetrated. Thankfully, America has not fallen to those levels, but the rule of law itself will deteriorate without the support of religious ideals.

Ben Franklin, that likable skeptic, speculated, "If men are so wicked as we see them now with religion, what would they be if without it?"

We are living in a time when the world seems to be at war of its Creator, and the battle cry is, "Don't interfere with my good time."

General happiness and authentic joy is being abandoned for temporary thrills and life-altering spills. Many in our society seriously misunderstand what God intended when He gave us His instruction manual. For instance, theft destroys the basis of trust needed for a civil society; adultery destroys families and casts chaos into future generations. The morality expressed in the Ten Commandments reflects the nature of the universe. These are the words of wisdom from the Manufacturer. They simply say, "For best results, do it this way."

Many critics have argued they've decided the Ten Commandments may offend people of other religions, but that is an extremely weak argument. I'm usually offended when I watch TV in a public building. But people who enter the courthouse do not have to acknowledge or respect the Ten Commandments. America's courts are abandoning a school of thought and a wealth of beliefs and practices that have brought us through the last several thousand years.

This is not just a matter of changing courses in midstream, it's just jumping off and diving, alone and unguided, into the unforeseeable rapids. There are about four thousand monuments to the Ten Commandments in city and county courthouses across the United States. To be honest and consistent, we would have to remove and strip every monument from every public building in America--then justice will not only be blind, but it will be naked, as well.

Our plaques to the Ten Commandments are not graven images that we wish to see worshipped. They should hold the exact meaning, no more and no less, for which they were intended: as the simple, visual reminders of the principles on which all of Western civilization was founded.

FEDER: There's just one more word, ladies and gentlemen. The purpose of the press conference, obviously, is to launch our "Save the Ten Commandments: God's Contract With America" petition drive. You should all have copies of the petition in your press kits. If you're a member of the media, you should have picked up a press kit coming in. There'll be a copy of the petition inside the press kit. I would ask you to pay particular attention to the 24 original signers. Think about who they represent--the millions of people in these organizations, the millions of people who look to them for leadership. This issue is galvanizing America--religious America, conservative America, middle America--like no other issue that I've seen in my lifetime.

* Q & A *
FEDER: Now, we ask for questions only from members of the media, and we'd like you to direct your question to one of the speakers.

Q: Sir, could you give us details on the timetable involved in the petition, and where that petition will go once it's reached the point you want.

FEDER: If you wouldn't mind, let me have Pastor Scarborough answer that question.

SCARBOROUGH: Our intention is to gather signatures until September of next year. The exact date has not been determined, but we are right now investigating the possibility of a major march on Washington in that month, during which time we will present millions of signatures to the appointed authority in the Congress--or the president, himself, if he will give us that opportunity. But we're going to give this to Congress, primarily, to hopefully mandate both to provide the political will and cover the legislation to be passed that, by the way, some of our members are working with members of Congress to draw up at the present moment to rein in the judiciary and limit their jurisdiction in matters of religion.

Q: Mr. Scarborough, all of these organizations have said they're going to support this petition, but how is exactly is it going to be circulated?

SCARBOROUGH: Every organization has approved taking the content of this petition, and using it in the manner they so choose, with their personal ministry logo, or however they want to do that--but the thing we've chosen to give guidance to is one petition, rather than scores of petitions with differing content.

So, this was a work among the various organizations who gave input. The file copy you see, every organization has adopted that as their own, so when we present the petition to appointed authority, it will be consistent.

Q: A question for Ambassador Keyes. I'm Steve Calder (sp), from Associated Press. It would appear that over recent events in this case and in other cases involving people of faith, people of faith are very easy to ignore. I think that your petition drive, even if you get ten million signatures, it's going to be very easy to ignore. What then? If you still have judicial tyranny a year from now, if it's not an issue in the campaign, if all you're doing is P.R., what next?

KEYES: Well, I guess I will have to differ, because I actually think that over the course of the last 20-odd years, people of faith have become more and more fundamental to American life and politics. That's particularly true, of course, on the Republican side, where the core of the Republican majority is, in fact, people of faith. The Republican candidates around this country cannot win their elections if they ignore people of faith and tread on their sensibilities--and that has been shown time and time again. Even in the case of an outcome like California that we saw recently, the only reason Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor today is because of arguments that were made by people like Sean Hannity and others, gulling people of faith into supporting this so-called lesser of evils.

So, I think that on the table is the clear proof that people of faith play an absolutely critical role in our politics. The second point, though, which I think is important is, there are two things here: can the people be ignored? (No, I don't think so.) The second is, can the issue be ignored?

And I think that the issue that's being put on the table, and was put on the table by Justice Moore, actually transcends the people--because it goes to the question of whether of not we still have constitutional government in America.

If, in point of fact, the federal judges can issue orders that ignore the clear and explicit language of the Constitution, and substitute for it a claim of their own power that is denied by the Constitution, then we don't have a Constitution any more, we have a dictatorship of the judiciary.

That issue has not been squarely placed before our representatives. In the course of the next year, it will be placed before them, and the question's going to be, "Are you going to restore our Constitution or not?" And depending on the answer to that question, we are going to see a crisis of constitutional proportion, such as we have not seen in this country in quite a long while. So, I think they're going to have to move.

Q: If I could follow up quickly, does that then bring us back to the situation in which the Declaration of Independence was issued--that essentially says, there's a tyranny here. The people have a right to rebel against tyranny? I know this is thinking outside the box. Maybe. Other nations dissolve. They came close to doing it in Canada. Could that happen here?

KEYES: Well, first of all, I think that the wonderful thing about our Constitution is that our Founders foresaw these problems. They foresaw the possibility of an abusive judiciary, and they put into the hands of the people's representatives the tools needed to rein them in and get them back in line. There is no need for us to resort to any kind of extra constitutional measures, because the constitution provides the remedy.

Article 3, Section 2, allows the representatives of the people to remove from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court those issues which they believe have been subjected to this kind of abuse.

So, I would argue that we're not going to see that kind of crisis, because our Constitution provides for dealing with these abuses--and where that provision is made in the Constitution, you don't have to violate the Constitution in order to restore it. And that's the beautiful thing about our founding document. We, the people, can move to remedy its defects. The only question is, can we get organized and do it?

SCARBOROUGH: Let me just say a word regarding your question, as well. I'm one of those who's been ignored, as a pastor and a Baptist preacher. Much of the last thirty years of my life in ministry passed through churches or doing crusades, and what pizza parties and celebrities and other means that we would often use to collect the corral would not do, the ACLU has now done for us. Everywhere we rent a venue, we exceed the capacity from common, ordinary people, who have never been politically engaged before, without music, without fanfare, we just announce that we're holding a rally on behalf of the Ten Commandments, and we're seeing record crowds come.

I believe something has happened here that, so far, the press has missed. It has happened in ordinary America, among ordinary Americans who are sick and tired of having their will just stepped over, and the whole country dismantled and destroyed without ever having their voice heard through the vote, the ballot-box. There is, in effect, a revolution taking place. It's being ignored by the media, but it's happening.

FEDER: Yes, other questions--and could you mention the media outlet you're with? Ah, yes, this lady. You haven't a chance to ask questions, have you?

Q: Julia Dane (sp), Washington Times. Tell me, what sorts of legislation specifically would rein in the federal judiciary? I need some sort of idea. And wasn't it a mixture of states, district, and federal judges that did him in? I mean, it wasn't just federal, was it? I mean, was the judge's panel at the end who ousted him?

FEDER: Let me have Alan Keyes answer that question.

KEYES: First, as to the legislation, it's actually a fairly simple thing. Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, I think, three narrowly-defined circumstances arising under the Constitution. In all other cases arising under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. And, by the way, just so that everyone will understand, that doesn't mean appeals from lower federal courts, because according to the establishment in Article 3, the lower federal courts don't have to . . . .

[break in tape]

The judges do not decide their own jurisdiction. The Congress decides their jurisdiction. And so, all we need is simple legislation that says, "In order to assure respect for the First Amendment according to its terms, the Congress hereby excepts from the jurisdiction of all federal courts all those matters which, by the conjoint effect of the First and Tenth Amendments, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people."

That would remove from their jurisdiction, in particular, the matter of the establishment of religion--and in the preamble, they could specify the specific areas that have caused problems leading them to take this action, so that it would be very clear just what it was that they were dealing with. They have the authority to do it. They can do it quite easily.

On the Judge Moore question: this is where, I think, in fact, the media have failed a little bit to present a clear picture to people. Bill Pryor, [along with] eight--at least five of the eight associate justice with Roy Moore--all campaigned on the basis of the right to display the Ten Commandments. They agreed with Judge Moore on this question, they say, and they believe that, in fact, they have the right, state officials have the right, and Alabama has the right to display the Ten Commandments. They said to so repeatedly during their public statements and pronouncements. Bill Pryor has even repeated that recently. What they claim was the basis for their action against Judge Moore was not a disagreement with his position on the Ten Commandments, but their view that he was under an obligation to obey this order from a federal judge, even though they all disagreed with it.

So, it is the question that I address--the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Justice Moore's action or the judge's order that, in fact, was separating and dividing people at the state level. They all agreed on the right of the state to, in fact, display the Ten Commandments. So, the really fundamental issue here is that issue of lawfulness: did the federal judge have a lawful right to issue this order, when there is no law and no constitutional provision that in any way gives grounds for his authority?

Justice Moore, of course, rightly said no, and he stood on those rights which are guaranteed to him as a state official by the U.S. Constitution--because the U.S. Constitution is very clear on this point: the federal government can have no lawful authority to address the issue of establishment. That includes the federal courts. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and there can't be a constitutional basis [unintelligible; audio distortion] . . . the Constitution on this subject.