Radio interview
Alan Keyes on Crosstalk, VCY America Network
September 28, 2007
JIM SCHNEIDER, HOST: And thank you for joining us on Crosstalk here on VCY America Network.
You know, I think perhaps more this election than others, there's just a renewed interest as to where we're going as a nation — the concerns that we have as to the direction of our country, and who is running that is going to best represent those interests and issues and values that you and I hold dear.
If you can believe this or not, we are just over thirteen months away from electing the next president of the United States, and we are just a couple of months away from caucuses and spring primaries. And a number of states are posturing themselves for who is going to be amongst the early birds as to holding their primaries and caucuses and all the issues at hand. And we're just within a few months of some major decisions being made here as a nation as to who is going to show up on the final ballot.
We are hoping to get a broad array of guests and speakers here on Crosstalk to help keep you informed on the candidates, their issues, and some of the matters going on. And by dealing with these political issues, we make it very clear that we are not, Crosstalk and VCY America, are not endorsing any candidate who may appear on the program. The guests are on the program for purposes of discussion and information, to discuss the issues, their positions, where they stand on those matters, and how this impacts you as voters here across this land.
It's our privilege to have with us today on Crosstalk Dr. Alan Keyes. He is a candidate for the office of president of the United States of America. He is a former Assistant Secretary of State. Alan Keyes spent eleven years with the U.S. State Department. He served in the U.S. Foreign Service and on the staff of the National Security Council, before becoming Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations between 1985 and 1988. In the interim, from 1983 to 1985, he served as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where he represented America's sovereign interests in the U.N. General Assembly.
Alan Keyes was President of Citizens Against Government Waste, founder of "National Taxpayer's Action Day," and as the two-time Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland, challenged some liberal Democrats. In the 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes elevated the national political debate as a candidate for president.
He had his own syndicated radio show through the 1990s, America's Wake-Up Call, and a television commentary show, Alan Keyes is Making Sense, during 2002 on MSNBC. He is currently writing books and speaking publicly on America's moral crisis.
He does have his Ph.D. in Government from Harvard, wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory, and served as interim President of Alabama A&M University in 1991. He speaks French, has studied Spanish, Russian, and ancient Greek. He is the author of Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America, and also Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America's Moral Destiny.
Dr. Alan Keyes, nice to have you with us on Crosstalk.
ALAN KEYES: I'm glad to be with you. Thank you for having me.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, we were watching for many, many months the whole aspect of the presidency and the field of candidates growing, and growing, and growing, then all of a sudden we saw Tommy Thompson drop off, and wondering, oh, we've got our field of candidates now, and just a matter of a couple of weeks ago, you made an announcement over the weekend, stating that you were putting your hat in the ring to be a candidate for president of the United States of America. Tell us what made you decide to run for president.
KEYES: Well, I think it has been quite obvious. We actually have a range of kind of phony choices on the Republican side, starting, of course, with Rudy Giuliani, who is diametrically opposed to everything that grassroots Republicans believe and stand for.
So, you've got one candidate, like Giuliani, who is against everything that the Party platform has declared for the years since, what, 1980, when Ronald Reagan ran for president. All the things that folks have worked for, everything that faithful Christians and others came out of the pews to vote for, Rudy Giuliani is against.
He wants gay marriage. He supports abortion, and things of this kind. He's actually, on the issues of moral principle, to the left of Hillary Clinton.
And, of course, if you are on those issues to the left of Clinton, that means you have abandoned the American Declaration of Independence, and whatever lip service you may pay to the Constitution, you no longer believe in its principles.
So, he erases the moral difference between the Republican and Democrat parties, and millions of Republicans like myself will not vote for him under any circumstances, because we have made a promise to God that we will never support pro-abortion people.
SCHNEIDER: Uh-huh.
KEYES: So, the Republicans are on the road to destroying the party's integrity by putting up such a candidate.
And then you have Mitt Romney, who was pro-abortion his whole career. When his ambition dictated it, he decided that since now he wants to run for president, he's going to pretend that he's pro-life.
The only thing he can tell us about the past is that he was lying when he said that he was pro-abortion and that he supported gay marriage, and other things that have been the hallmarks of his career throughout his political life. So, we're suddenly to believe in his conversion, even though the only evidence of political integrity that we have is his own admission that he had none, when he was all those years working for the causes that destroy America in principle?
So, we've got one guy who's bad and telling the truth about it, one guy who's bad and lying about it, and then we've got a couple of people like John McCain who long ago declared war on the grassroots, Fred Thompson, who, unlike Ronald Reagan . . . when Ronald Reagan ran, he had been an actor . . .
SCHNEIDER: Let me have you back up on John McCain. You said he declared war on the grassroots.
KEYES: Right.
SCHNEIDER: Just define that for us.
KEYES: Well, he supported McCain-Feingold and other measures that were intended to guarantee that grassroots organizations would no longer be able to function in our politics . . .
SCHNEIDER: Uh-huh.
KEYES: . . . with provisions that prevented them from sharing information about how somebody had voted, and what they had done, with provisions that made it difficult to raise money and do other things.
It seems like folks like this are bent on consolidating little cliques in control of our politics. They want to make sure that the only people who can enter the political arena effectively are those who are supported by abortion-minded money, or those who have won the stamp of approval by the ungodly media.
And I use the term "ungodly" descriptively. It's not a pejorative. It is simply reminding people that every time they are asked, 90% of the people in the media say either that they don't believe in God, or they don't believe that God has any role to play in human morality.
That is something diametrically opposed to the understanding and belief that not only is on the hearts of many Americans, but is actually the founding principle of our country.
When the Declaration of Independence was penned, stating the principles from which we derive our claim to rights and self-government, it was clearly stated that we are created equal and endowed by our Creator, God, with our unalienable rights.
So, if God has no role to play in human morality and justice, we have no claim to liberty.
We have people like this, who have rejected the basic principles of the country. And then you have Fred Thompson, whose basically only claim is that he's an actor. So, he's not a good guy, but he can act like one.
And they pretend that this is some similarity with Ronald Reagan, but Ronald Reagan wasn't somebody playing a character. He had spent sixteen years standing up, come what may, under barrages criticism from the liberal Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans and others, because he refused to give up his belief in this country's basic principles, and he insisted on standing firmly against Communism.
He had character. He wasn't playing a character.
And so, in the so-called "top-tier" candidates that have been pre-selected for us by the ungodly media and the abortion-minded money, there are no choices. And that's one of the reasons why the grassroots folks in the Republican Party have been standing back looking at this and saying, "Well, on the one hand, we have these people who are all phonies, and on the other hand, we have folks who are not compellingly articulating the case that must be made."
They are not compellingly articulating the case that must be made for the restoration of our moral principles, for our allegiance to the Declaration, for our allegiance to God's authority — from which we claim our rights — and our willingness to respect that authority in our policies and laws:
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, Amity Shlaes, a speaker at Hillsdale College, recently made a comment on the timidity of the current field of candidates in the conservative realm. Do you agree that there is a general lack of courage today to say the hard things that need to be said?
KEYES: I'm not sure it's a lack of courage so much as a lack of any kind of understanding. You have folks who are standing up, mouthing words, but they haven't really spent their lives thinking through and really absorbing and digesting what these words are all about, and what the concepts are that in fact give substance to the language that is often spoken by conservatives.
We have people who are pretending to positions they can't defend. I was reminded of this during the Values Voter Debate, when Governor Huckabee responded to a question about the Mexico City Policy — you may remember this — and it was from Janet Folger. It was just one of those "yes or no" questions — we flipped a switch — and he took the position that was in line with the belief of a lot of pro-life people, that we should apply the Mexico City Policy to our domestic institutions.
But then he made a comment, just sort of out of the blue, saying, "Well, this isn't a Mexican government policy, is it? Because I wouldn't want to promise to enforce some Mexican government policy in the United States." [paraphrase]
And with that, I think there was a slight intake of breath from the audience, because he revealed that he didn't have the faintest idea what the Mexico City Policy was all about.
This meant that he was taking a position he didn't understand. And if you take a position you don't understand, what's going to happen when you come under assault for that position from the other side?
Which he certainly will, by the way. Because this is a promise that we are going to withhold funds from hospitals and other institutions — federal funds — that practice abortion. That was the policy that the U.S. government applied to international, non-governmental organizations, under the Mexico City Policy.
So, there will be a huge outcry from the pro-abortion ranks, from the Hillary Clintons and others. They will pummel us for taking this position. And if we have Governor Huckabee out there trying to defend himself, he would just eventually say, "Oh I didn't . . ." and before you are done with it, he would be all embarrassed, and we would be all embarrassed, because he wouldn't know how to defend that policy.
So, I think this is part of the problem.
I don't hear any of them, for instance, when they are asked questions about pro-life, about family, about other things, they don't return to Declaration principles. They don't make the simple, clear, logical argument that shows that our claim to rights and our claim to self-government comes from our respect for the authority of God, and therefore, we not only have the right, we have the obligation to implement that respect when we are considering laws and policies.
It's fairly simple. But they don't say it. And I don't know whether they haven't thought it through, or whether they are just mouthing words and don't really believe in the arguments and the principles that give those words substance and meaning.
But that's what we need. That's what allows one to be bold.
I'm pretty bold when I say things, because I know I have a solid grounding in the principles and the history of this nation's heritage, and I can make those arguments clearly and forthrightly and consistently, and so I'm not afraid to stand forward and proclaim the truth.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, the first candidate that you mentioned as you came on was that of Rudy Giuliani, and recently, there was a release that came out from Gary Bauer — he's a previous presidential candidate, himself — who was saying this, he said, "Unless we get some of the second-tier candidates," and you already alluded to the fact that the national media is determining who that upper tier is, but he said, "unless some of the second-tier candidates decide to drop out and get behind one individual to support, we're going to have a Giuliani/Clinton presidential election."
How do you feel about that, that the second-tier candidates should be dropping out at this point?
KEYES: Well, I think that that's a lot of nonsense. These people are always trying to stampede us towards some phony choice, because this bad thing will happen or that bad thing will happen.
You know, that's a devilish tactic, because it means that at the end of the day, we're always going to be choosing mediocrity and the lesser of evils.
SCHNEIDER: We're going to pick up with that thought when we return from the break. It's kind of unfair to ask a big question like that here, just as the theme music is coming on. We'll be back in just 60 seconds, and we'll pick up with that topic when we return.
[break]
SCHNEIDER: You're listening to Crosstalk at the VCY America Network. Jim Schneider with you today, as we are looking forward to the upcoming presidential elections, and specifically getting to know the candidates a little bit better, their positions, their views, their background on public policy-related issues.
Dr. Alan Keyes is with us today on the program. And, again, by featuring candidates from time to time on Crosstalk does not imply endorsement of any nature. We are having them with us in order to — for purposes of discussion on the issues, to find out where they stand on these public policy issues.
And just before I asked that long question before the break, Dr. Keyes, we were speaking with regard to Gary Bauer's comment about the second-tier candidates: maybe we should see them fall by the wayside, all come together to back a candidate, otherwise, it's going to be a "Giuliani/Clinton election," he says. Go ahead with your thoughts.
KEYES: Well, this is the usual kind of Satan vs. Beelzebub scenario these people want to saddle us with as an excuse for mediocrity. We need to find the best right now, or America is not going to survive.
And how do we do that? People need to see what's going on, and look at what they really think is right for this country. Find the person who articulates that, and stand with that person — but don't wait until election day to stand with them.
And this is the big problem. All these people, Bauer and everybody else, talk as if politics goes on somewhere else, and then a choice is presented to the people. Do we live in the old Soviet Union, or something? You know, where these people used to predetermine what choices people had, and then you went to the polls in some sham to vote for whoever they told you were your choices?
No. In America, we are supposed to determine the choices.
And that means that at this critical stage, we shouldn't be stampeded around by Gary Bauer or anybody else with their scare tactics. We should be looking for what is best for America, and each of us should be standing forward to back it up.
And that's what we're doing at "America's Revival." That's what I'm calling this effort. We are inviting people to go to AlanKeyes.com, a-l-a-n-k-e-y-e-s dot com. You will find there what we call the "Pledge for America's Revival," and we ask folks to do two simple things.
Sign the Pledge, which includes a lot about the need to restore our godly principles in the policy areas like abortion, and marriage, and economic life, where this is going to have an effect — restoring our right respect for the family; restoring our right for the integrity and self-confidence of our people in things like the Second Amendment; restoring the integrity of our national sovereignty by defending our borders and instituting policies that will enforce our immigration laws and make sure we have a secure border all around this country. All of those things.
But if they really believe that that is best for America, then they need to start working for it.
So, we ask them for two things: to make a pledge that they will give at least $5, and that they will find at least 5 other people who they will draw in to support the effort.
People say, "Oh, I'm going to wait until election day." You can't. Sitting back and acting like politics is something you watch on television, something that goes on somewhere else — no.
People are leaving comments and saying, "When will your campaign come to Iowa?" And I'm thinking to myself, "Do you believe in what I believe in? Are you willing to work for it? Because then this effort is already in Iowa, and you should be making it. This effort is already in New Hampshire, and you should be making it. This effort is already in Florida."
And everywhere else where there are people who believe these things, they need to stand up and be the leaders in their family, in their churches, in their workplace, in their communities, in their Bible studies. Everywhere they think they can find people of like-mind, they need to challenge them to stand up and be counted.
And we are going to keep careful track of those pledges. And as that number grows, we will have a reality to look to that puts the lie to the media pollsters and others who try to stampede us with their lying illusions into believing that the people who really want the restoration of principle in this country don't have the numbers to get it. We do! But only if we are willing to bear witness to that fact by standing forward, right now, to let that number grow so that people will see and be strengthened in their confidence to also stand forward with us.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, what would you define as being the single most important issue facing our nation at this time?
KEYES: The single most important issue is the issue of whether we are going to respect innocent life in the womb, whether we are going to restore our respect for the fundamental principle from which our rights come: that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator — not by constitutions, not by laws, not by presidents, not by justices, but by God Almighty — with our unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life.
Do you realize that that is also involved in the War in on Terror? What are we defending? We are defending the principle that no one, even in war, has the right consciously to target and take innocent human life. The moral cause of the war is the same as the moral cause involved in our opposition to things like abortion.
We must stand for that principle. We must restore the bedrock foundation of our claim to govern ourselves, else our liberty is lost, and what then are we fighting for?
And then we've got to begin to apply those principles consistently. If we are, indeed, a sovereign people, how can we let a handful of judges dictate the destruction of marriage in this country — usurping what the Constitution says is the authority of our elected representatives?
Everywhere the people have been asked, they have supported traditional marriage, and yet these judges are assuming an arbitrary and abusive authority they do not have under our constitutional system, in order to dictate the destruction of that natural family system that also was ordained by God Almighty.
When He gave us our rights, He gave us the unalienable right to live in families where we know who our mother and father are; where we know what the responsibilities of parenting are; where we know that those responsibilities will be met out of respect for the will and authority of God, just as our rights must be respected by government, out of respect for the will and authority of God.
So, all of these things I think become the primary concern. We have got to restore that basic principle which involves our allegiance to and respect for the Declaration's clear statement that our rights come from God, and that therefore we must exercise them and establish laws and policies that respect the will and authority of God.
And then, we've got to start applying these things in specific areas, including:
KEYES: Well, see, I think, sadly, that this is an inevitable consequence of our willingness to accept a lie that has been perpetrated again by the courts against one of the most fundamental and important rights we have, which is the free exercise of religion.
This lie is something called the "separation of church and state," which they claim is somewhere in our Constitution, and which they have used to drive God and every consideration of our respect for His authority out of our politics, out of our public life, out of our laws, and which they therefore have used to undermine those laws which were framed to protect the integrity of the man-woman, monogamous, marriage-based, procreational family — the natural unit ordained by God's authority.
So, I think that that's the root of all of this. We have surrendered this most fundamental right by giving in to a lie.
How can we, as a people who claim our sovereignty on the basis of this simple principle, that we are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, how could we have ever accepted the notion that we can have a politics in which we don't get to refer to, and dwell upon, and deliberate on the existence of God, the nature of His authority, the nature of His will and laws, and how they apply in our lives?
If God does not exist, we have no claim to rights. If we have no claim to rights, we have no claim to self-government — and the whole way of life in freedom we enjoy collapses.
So, we have accepted this lie when it's aimed at the very heart of our freedom, and what we are seeing now is the consequences, where instead of just saying, as they once said, "Oh, we're just trying to get the freedom from discrimination," no, they now want to discriminate against Christians. They want to discriminate against people who will stand up and proclaim God's will with respect to decent sexuality. They want to establish a regime that persecutes and jails those who exercise their right to live according to these beliefs.
And so, we see what happens. When we give up the fundamentals, we end up, at the end of the day, living through the surrender of our liberty. And that's exactly what is happening.
SCHNEIDER: Ladies and gentlemen, we're speaking with Dr. Alan Keyes today. He is a presidential candidate. In just a few minutes, we'll be taking your phone calls to Dr. Alan Keyes, and today we are going to ask that you be very precise, that you have your well-worded question all set to go. We're not going to have the opportunity for you to ask multiple questions, just one question that you would like to ask on public policy issues.
And so, if you would have a question for Dr. Alan Keyes on that topic, our phone number here is 800-733-9829. Just a precise question you have on a public policy-related issue, and we will look forward to your calls and participation here in just a few minutes.
Dr. Keyes, we have seen Alan Greenspan come up with his recent book, in which he is stating that President George Bush refused to use fiscal discipline in his administration, that it has only worsened this economic future for this United States. And there are a lot of conservatives right now who feel kind of betrayed by a conservative president who is spending way out of control. Any comments on the spending, and where we are heading fiscally as a nation?
KEYES: Well, I think one of the great sources for grief and dismay for a lot of people like myself and others who have worked hard in support of the Republican leadership over the years is the utter betrayal of fiscal responsibility that we have witnessed and did witness when the Republicans were in control of the Congress.
I think that's why they lost control in 2006 — not because the Democrats are any good, but because a lot of people who had voted for the Republicans were feeling discouraged and betrayed. They had seen runaway fiscal irresponsibility.
And you know what the cause of it is? People who, once they get into power, think that the government budget exists to keep them there. And so, they are willing to indulge in all kinds of spending programs and other kinds of things that increase their patronage that leave people beholden to them for this highway and that special project, so they can get votes.
I think what people want is representatives who will understand that their job is to serve the best interests of the United States of America, to respect its principles, to secure its strength, and to make sure that steps are taken to get out of the way of our people, so that they can sustain the prosperity and economic destiny of this country.
But that's not what we got. Instead, we got a lot of people enlarging bureaucracies, because that increases their power, and increasing government spending, because that increases their power. That has been the principle of the Democrats for decades — all about how they stay in power by using other people's money.
I think it was just disgusting to watch the Republicans succumb to the same mentality, and we need to get somebody in office who will stop it, and who holds a position of clear understanding of our need to dedicate ourselves to two things: this country's present strength and survival, and the fulfillment of the obligations we owe to our posterity.
According to the Constitution, the ultimate aim of this government is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." We don't get to spend this nation into bankruptcy and then pass the results on to our children, because the Constitution says part of the job of this government is to secure their access to the blessings of liberty, not to destroy it.
And so, I think we need to fulfill that responsibility.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Alan Keyes with us. After the break, we'll come back to your phone calls at 800-733-9829. We'll try and take as many questions as possible today on public policy issues. This is Crosstalk on the VCY America Network.
[break]
SCHNEIDER: Keeping you informed on vital issues, this is Crosstalk on the VCY America Network. Our guest today, Dr. Alan Keyes, candidate for president of the United States of America. And here as we enter this next segment, our phone lines are open to take your phone calls on a fast question that you might have. We will not have time for you to linger on the phones, but have your question prepared, and we will have Dr. Keyes give a response to you. The number is 800-733-9829.
We're going to begin with Mark who is calling in from South Milwaukee. Mark, you are on the air.
CALLER (MARK): Hi. I really have a comment. I'm very grateful that I've been listening this afternoon, because I have been kind of twisting. I didn't have any idea who I was going to vote for, and I would just like to tell Dr. Keyes that he has my vote, and I'm very grateful for it.
KEYES: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I really hope that folks like you and others who are listing to me and feel moved because they have on hearts and in their minds a lot of the same things that I care about — we need to stand forward.
I think that real politics is not about what some leader says or does. It's about what the citizens of this country do.
My slogan is, "Every citizen a leader." And that means that where you live, in family, and workplace, you must take the lead in finding and drawing toward the effort the people who in their hearts and minds share this commitment to the restoration of America's real moral foundations and its strength.
That's why I invite people to go to AlanKeyes.com, a-l-a-n-k-e-y-e-s dot com. If you don't have access to the internet, then talk to somebody who does. Get online and sign the Pledge that you find there.
Because — I'll be honest. I've been through a lot of campaigns where there were well-wishers and the people who say, "Alan, I'm going to vote for you!" and so forth. But you know what really counts? What really counts is whether we stand forward to make the effort happen, to make the result happen. That's how people govern themselves. That's how they make sure that it's not some little clique of money or some little clique of power that's controlling things, because they have made the outcome.
That's what we are doing at AlanKeyes.com: creating a vehicle where people then reach out, find others, get them to sign, and we keep track of the number. I want to know long before the Iowa caucuses, long before the votes in Wisconsin and elsewhere, how many people we have got in our army. The Bible says that before you go into battle, you should count up the number of your forces. And that's what we hope to do at AlanKeyes.com.
If folks want to support, then the only way to support, really, is to go sign that Pledge and get to work, because this isn't about what I'm doing. It's about what you're doing.
SCHNEIDER: Mark, thanks so much for the call. Here, we're going next to Charles in Medford, Oregon. You're on the air, Charles.
CALLER (CHARLES): Yes, I would also comment on gratitude and appreciation, Dr. Keyes, because I think that the wisdom is that we make the difference, not who others choose that we have for candidates. We're the ones who choose the candidates. It's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's my comment.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Charles. Appreciate your call. Our number is 800-733-9829. Al in Whitewater, you're on the air.
CALLER (AL): Hello, Dr. Keyes?
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: Where do you stand on gun control? Do you believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy a gun?
KEYES: Well, I actually accept that definition of gun control which says that gun control equals making sure that you hit what you aim at. I think that beyond that, the Constitution of the United States makes it clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms, that that right is not to be abridged.
And what's it for? Some people think that it's so we can have sports and recreation. That's not true. It's so that people will understand that the people of a free country must always be prepared to defend their liberty.
And therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is part of our characteristics as a free people, and we sustain it because of that — because of that fundamental, sound principle that says that people must be prepared to stand forward in defense of their liberty, in defense of their country, and must have the character, the courage, the self-discipline and confidence to use the tools of self-defense rightly. And therefore, they will learn about them, they will be educated, they will be responsible in their use.
So, I strongly support the real meaning of the Second Amendment, and I oppose the efforts to make our people afraid of the instruments of self-defense.
That's what happened in the Middle Ages. In medieval times, peasants weren't supposed to pick up weapons. That was for the nobility. That was for the aristocrats. Well, I think we have gotten well beyond the notion that little cliques like that should be controlling us. And if we want to remain a free people, then we have to have the confidence, the sense of discipline and responsibility that it takes to understand and use the instruments that exist for our defense.
Final point. I think a lot of the reason that all this gun control is out there, is that people say, "Violence! The gun creates that!" No, it doesn't. Christ told us about that. These wicked things come from the heart, not from the things.
And therefore, if we raise up the heart to revere God, to respect His will, to have the discipline that accepts and observes the Ten Commandments, respects innocent life, and so forth, then we don't have to be afraid of ourselves when we pick up a gun or anything else, because we know we're not going to use it for any evil purpose.
SCHNEIDER: Appreciate your call here, as well, this afternoon. Our number, 800-733-9829. Next to the state of Georgia, Dalton, Georgia. J.D., you're on the air.
CALLER (J.D.): Mr. Ambassador, I will deliver unto you twenty-two votes when the time comes. I want to ask what you think about the NAFTA "Superhighway" and the possibility of a proposed North American Union.
KEYES: Let me quickly say two things. I hope that you will visit AlanKeyes.com, and work to deliver those twenty-two people as Pledge signers right now, so that they will add to that number that appears on our website. We hope it will grow into the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people standing forward, because the larger that number grows, the more we put the lie to those who say that the people who believe as we do are few in number. It's a lie, and we need to stand forward and be counted, so that others will have the confidence to resist that lie. So, I hope that you will deliver those twenty-two Pledge signers as soon as you can.
And second, I totally oppose all of these things that aim at destroying our sovereignty and acting as if our borders don't exist — erasing the line of demarcation between our sovereignty, and Mexican sovereignty, and Canadian sovereignty.
I don't mind cooperating with other countries. But I think the destruction of the purview of the sovereign people of the United States is really the destruction of humanity's hope for the survival of liberty. I oppose it, and as president, I will make sure that it is brought to a screeching halt.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, J.D., for the call. We're going next to Joe. You're on the air, Joe.
CALLER (JOE): Hello, Alan. This is Joe. I was just wanting you to enlighten us on the difference between Ron Paul's type of government and what you propose.
SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you, Joe.
KEYES: Well, I think that in many respects — and people often comment on this — we have similar views on certain things. But the fundamental difference is that I believe in liberty. He says he believes in liberty. But I think that liberty has a moral basis, and that that moral basis has to be passed on from generation to generation: that the principles are stated in our Declaration of Independence, and that we must be careful to make sure that those principles are respected in our policy, so that we don't go down roads that destroy the moral character, the moral discipline, the moral self-confidence of our people.
And in a lot of the stands that he's taking on specific questions, I think that Ron doesn't show enough sensitivity and enough real understanding of the need to inculcate and respect and defend that moral character. These things don't happen on their own.
Children, for instance . . . At the debate on the Values Voter site, he said he didn't understand what role government had in making people moral, and it shocked me. We have, don't we, a public education system that's under the control of the government. Does anybody really believe that it's possible to have decent education without a moral foundation? So, as long as the schools are being controlled by government mechanisms, the government is involved in the business of moral education. It's just not doing it right.
And so we can't escape it. If we want to remain free, we must sustain the moral character and principles that are needed for freedom and that means respecting the morality that is required of a free people.
And I think in many respects, Ron Paul simply doesn't grasp that to my satisfaction, and he takes stands on a number of issues that do not reflect what I think is the necessary deep commitment to make sure that we maintain that moral character and strength.
SCHNEIDER: Frank in Burlington, you're on the air.
CALLER (FRANK): Yeah, my question is, if you did not receive the nomination for the party, and you decided to run on a third-party ticket, what would you say to those people who are of the belief that if you are voting for a third party, you are wasting your vote?
KEYES: Well, I believe you waste your vote any time you vote for wickedness.
Any time you vote in a way that departs from what you deeply and conscientiously believe to be God's will, and what's right, and what's just, that's a wasted vote.
I judge my vote, not in light of whether you win or lose, but whether you're standing where God wants you to stand, and if you are, you are the victor, because He's the only Judge that ultimately matters, and success with Him is the only success that ultimately matters.
And so, that's how I understand it. You do your duty, you do what's right, and you put your faith in God and Jesus Christ, and He will take care of the rest of it.
The folks who are looking to come to some outcome that the world regards as successful, they get manipulated into doing exactly what these folks want, which is choosing "the lesser of evils." Do you know what that means? That means that when you stand before the Lord, He's going to say, "I saw you choose evil in that." And even if you thought it was the lesser evil, He's going to say, "It was evil nonetheless. And guess what? All that stuff you were voting about and thinking about — it's all gone now. The only thing that's left is good, and you didn't choose it."
SCHNEIDER: Our next call from the state of Ohio. Scott, you're on the air.
CALLER (SCOTT): Hi, Dr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: I've gone toe-to-toe with solid Christian war over the issue that Iraq is or is not a just war. In 5,000 words or less, how would you debate, or what arguments would give for a just war for the Iraqi campaign?
KEYES: I think that that arises because G.W. Bush has done such poor job of presenting what we're doing in Iraq. He acts as if we're over there trying to impose a form of government on the people of Iraq. I'm all in favor of helping people establish representative government, and republican self-government, and government based on the sovereignty of the people, but you can't for it on them. You don't spread that kind of thing by wars — and that's not why we're in Iraq.
We are in Iraq because on 9/11 we were attacked by a bunch of terrorists. That phenomenon of terrorism today is focused and centered in the Middle East. The infrastructure of terror involves states like Iraq that have supported terrorism, and Iran, that are supports of terrorism.
I take a simple fact. In defense of ourselves — because we were attacked, and we have these people violating the fundamental principle of conscience, which is that you do not consciously target innocent human life (that is now accepted by the whole world, at least with their mouths). They violated that principle. Terrorism, by definition, is a crime against humanity, therefore.
And so, we stand in defense of that principle that you must respect innocent life. Now, how are we to do it effectively? Should we wait until we come over here to kill our unarmed people? Or should we send our armed people to face them — turning terrorism into warfare — so that our armed and trained people are the ones who will be out there, facing these dangerous thugs and making sure that they don't get to do their evil?
So, I think that properly understood, our operations in the Middle East — Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere against terror — they satisfy the requirement of a just war. This requires that you be acting for two reasons: 1) in defense; and 2) for the sake of innocent life, and the principle that respects it.
Both those criteria are satisfied, so long as we see what we're doing in the right context: the context of our strategic effort against terrorism. And that's not something you can leave to tomorrow.
I worked on this problem when I was in the government, and I can tell you right in front: you can't harden your defenses against terror in a passive way. You must go after them before they get to you, or you will fail to maintain the security of your people.
SCHNEIDER: We're going to take a 60-second break, and come back to the final segment of Dr. Alan Keyes, as we're taking your phone calls at Crosstalk, 800-733-9829. Thanks for joining us. We'll be right back.
[break]
SCHNEIDER: And you're listening to Crosstalk here at VCY America. As we said at the outset of the program, we are not endorsing candidates through the program by providing this forum for them to share their views on many different issues, getting opportunity for you as the listeners, the common, ordinary citizens across this nation, to ask those questions that are important to you as you consider your vote coming up for the 2008 presidential election.
And we're taking your calls here today at Crosstalk. We continue in Morristown, Tennessee, and we have Brent who is calling. Brent, you're on the air.
CALLER (BRENT): Hello, Dr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: I've got one quick question. It seems like a lot of our economy is headed towards China. It seems like a lot of our jobs are headed towards China. But at the same time, it seems like we're getting substandard products back from China, and an attitude of, "Well, that's the way it is. Just deal with it."
Do you feel like the government needs to step in? And if so, would it be something that you would be willing to take care of?
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Brent.
KEYES: Yes, it is, because the problem that you are perceiving was caused by the government in the first place, by free trade policies unfair to our interests, unfair to our people, unfair to our safety and health, that have been put in place in order to serve the interests of a little clique of folks who are making money hand over fist on the China trade, while the American people suffer.
And that's why I have not been a supporter of this whole notion that free trade is an end in itself somehow — especially when it turns out to be socialist-managed trade, not free trade at all, and when it works against the best interests of our people. As consumers and workers, I think at the end of the day, we are being deeply hurt.
That's why I have always been a supporter of the idea that, yes, we want to trade with other countries, but on a fair basis — on a basis that requires that there be some equity and equality in terms of the burdens that are borne; in terms of respect for the kinds of regulations that help us to sustain the health and safety of our people; in terms of respect for the quality of life we have built up in this country, that we don't let American workers see their labor cheapened by competition with slave labor in countries like China.
So, yes, I think there is a definite role to be played by government. Since it caused the problem, I think I would take active steps to make sure that we rectify that problem by throwing out this whole phony regime of free trade, and starting to concentrate on making sure we do trade with other countries on a fair, on an equitable basis that respects our sovereignty and the requirements of our prosperity.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Brent. Let's go next to Ron, calling from Lacrosse. You're on the air.
CALLER (RON): Well, Dr. Keyes, I'm calling about the immigration, both the legal and illegal. Like, with the Mexicans it's illegal, and with the Muslims it's legal. What are you going to do about those problems?
KEYES: Well, I think the most important thing is, we have got to get control of this situation — and that means we have got to establish our control of the border, so that people only enter this country on the terms that we established by law.
I think the terms that we established by law ought to be dictated by the best interests of our country. And that's been a problem, because folks have been making all kinds of arguments that act as if we need to make the interests of the people of the United States secondary, and we need to be changing the whole character of our country, in order somehow to accommodate the influx of folks who have come here in violation of our laws. I don't think that's true. I think we have to stop it.
Fundamental changes are needed in immigration law: including getting rid of what's called citizenship by right of soil, that just because you are in this country and born in this country, you are a citizen. I think it ought to come — as it does in almost every country in the world — because either your mother or your father are citizens, so that we don't have folks who just come here to have children so that those children can be citizens of the United States and they can then derive a benefit from that. I think that's a very bad idea.
And I think that, as you suggest, when we are dealing with countries, particularly those who have not been taking the kinds of stands that would have prevented these terrorists from becoming such a scourge to humanity — we ought to make sure that we are not allowing people from those countries into the United States in ways that essentially open the back door to terrorists to come here, establish themselves, and do their harm to the American people.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you so much, Ron. Nicole is next from Pensacola, Florida. Nicole, you're on the air.
CALLER (NICOLE): Oh, hello.
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: Hey, um, we were just listening to the show, and we want to ask, do you think that homosexuals . . . do you think terrorist acts should be accepted?
KEYES: Say again?
CALLER: Like, do you think terrorist tactics should be accepted? Like what you were talking about earlier, sending money over to the troops? Yeah.
SCHNEIDER: What is your question, Nicole?
KEYES: I'm not sure I understand the question.
SCHNEIDER: Well, let's go on to Tim in Bloomer. You're on the air, Tim.
CALLER (TIM): Yeah, hi. Dr. Keyes, I was just wondering what is your view on slavery reparations.
SCHNEIDER: OK. Thank you, Tim.
KEYES: Well, I think a lot of people are talking about apologies, and so forth and so on, for slavery, and reparations in the sense of doing something that we're going to do that's going to make up for slavery, and I think that's false, and have said so all the time.
I believe that in that sense, the price for slavery was paid by the many folks who stood forward with courage, gave their lives on the battlefields of the Civil War, and there is nothing we can add to their sacrifice. They basically made it with their lives and with their blood, and we should stop acting like that didn't happen.
What we can do, however, is acknowledge that there were wounds that resulted — real and actual wounds that resulted — from that. And instead of trying to deal with those wounds by creating huge government bureaucracies that have actually, through welfare programs and other things, destroyed families, undermined the sense of moral discipline, deprived people of the kind of family structure and other things that are needed to assure real success, I proposed a long time ago that we ought to take a leaf out of the book of the old Roman Empire.
When people had been damaged, either by a natural disaster or a failure in war or something else, they were relieved of the burden of supporting the public weal for a certain length of time. In this case, it would have been, for instance, instead of having the huge Great Society programs, you would have just looked at people and said, "We understand there were wounds. We want to help repair them. We know you can only do it for yourself, through your own initiative, so we are going to relieve you of the burden of paying income tax for thirty years, while you are putting your lives back together."
Imagine, even right now, what that would do in the case of New Orleans. I think it's one of the first things I would want to do as president. I'd look at New Orleans and say, "Instead of creating some huge government bureaucracy that creates more money for politicians to put in their freezers and use in other ways for their own personal power, let's just look at New Orleans, and say that the Katrina-impacted area will be an area that anybody who starts a new business or returns there to reestablish their business, they will be exempt from federal income taxes for the next ten years."
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, we're out of time here.
KEYES: I think that would set a tremendous economic boon that would repair the damage without the need to do these hurtful socialist things that have produced so much harm.
SCHNEIDER: And your contact information, Dr. Keyes?
KEYES: Go to AlanKeyes.com, a-l-a-n-k-e-y-e-s dot com. Read and sign the Pledge, and let's get busy.
SCHNEIDER: Thanks for being with us here today.
You know, I think perhaps more this election than others, there's just a renewed interest as to where we're going as a nation — the concerns that we have as to the direction of our country, and who is running that is going to best represent those interests and issues and values that you and I hold dear.
If you can believe this or not, we are just over thirteen months away from electing the next president of the United States, and we are just a couple of months away from caucuses and spring primaries. And a number of states are posturing themselves for who is going to be amongst the early birds as to holding their primaries and caucuses and all the issues at hand. And we're just within a few months of some major decisions being made here as a nation as to who is going to show up on the final ballot.
We are hoping to get a broad array of guests and speakers here on Crosstalk to help keep you informed on the candidates, their issues, and some of the matters going on. And by dealing with these political issues, we make it very clear that we are not, Crosstalk and VCY America, are not endorsing any candidate who may appear on the program. The guests are on the program for purposes of discussion and information, to discuss the issues, their positions, where they stand on those matters, and how this impacts you as voters here across this land.
It's our privilege to have with us today on Crosstalk Dr. Alan Keyes. He is a candidate for the office of president of the United States of America. He is a former Assistant Secretary of State. Alan Keyes spent eleven years with the U.S. State Department. He served in the U.S. Foreign Service and on the staff of the National Security Council, before becoming Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations between 1985 and 1988. In the interim, from 1983 to 1985, he served as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where he represented America's sovereign interests in the U.N. General Assembly.
Alan Keyes was President of Citizens Against Government Waste, founder of "National Taxpayer's Action Day," and as the two-time Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland, challenged some liberal Democrats. In the 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes elevated the national political debate as a candidate for president.
He had his own syndicated radio show through the 1990s, America's Wake-Up Call, and a television commentary show, Alan Keyes is Making Sense, during 2002 on MSNBC. He is currently writing books and speaking publicly on America's moral crisis.
He does have his Ph.D. in Government from Harvard, wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory, and served as interim President of Alabama A&M University in 1991. He speaks French, has studied Spanish, Russian, and ancient Greek. He is the author of Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America, and also Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America's Moral Destiny.
Dr. Alan Keyes, nice to have you with us on Crosstalk.
ALAN KEYES: I'm glad to be with you. Thank you for having me.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, we were watching for many, many months the whole aspect of the presidency and the field of candidates growing, and growing, and growing, then all of a sudden we saw Tommy Thompson drop off, and wondering, oh, we've got our field of candidates now, and just a matter of a couple of weeks ago, you made an announcement over the weekend, stating that you were putting your hat in the ring to be a candidate for president of the United States of America. Tell us what made you decide to run for president.
KEYES: Well, I think it has been quite obvious. We actually have a range of kind of phony choices on the Republican side, starting, of course, with Rudy Giuliani, who is diametrically opposed to everything that grassroots Republicans believe and stand for.
So, you've got one candidate, like Giuliani, who is against everything that the Party platform has declared for the years since, what, 1980, when Ronald Reagan ran for president. All the things that folks have worked for, everything that faithful Christians and others came out of the pews to vote for, Rudy Giuliani is against.
He wants gay marriage. He supports abortion, and things of this kind. He's actually, on the issues of moral principle, to the left of Hillary Clinton.
And, of course, if you are on those issues to the left of Clinton, that means you have abandoned the American Declaration of Independence, and whatever lip service you may pay to the Constitution, you no longer believe in its principles.
So, he erases the moral difference between the Republican and Democrat parties, and millions of Republicans like myself will not vote for him under any circumstances, because we have made a promise to God that we will never support pro-abortion people.
SCHNEIDER: Uh-huh.
KEYES: So, the Republicans are on the road to destroying the party's integrity by putting up such a candidate.
And then you have Mitt Romney, who was pro-abortion his whole career. When his ambition dictated it, he decided that since now he wants to run for president, he's going to pretend that he's pro-life.
The only thing he can tell us about the past is that he was lying when he said that he was pro-abortion and that he supported gay marriage, and other things that have been the hallmarks of his career throughout his political life. So, we're suddenly to believe in his conversion, even though the only evidence of political integrity that we have is his own admission that he had none, when he was all those years working for the causes that destroy America in principle?
So, we've got one guy who's bad and telling the truth about it, one guy who's bad and lying about it, and then we've got a couple of people like John McCain who long ago declared war on the grassroots, Fred Thompson, who, unlike Ronald Reagan . . . when Ronald Reagan ran, he had been an actor . . .
SCHNEIDER: Let me have you back up on John McCain. You said he declared war on the grassroots.
KEYES: Right.
SCHNEIDER: Just define that for us.
KEYES: Well, he supported McCain-Feingold and other measures that were intended to guarantee that grassroots organizations would no longer be able to function in our politics . . .
SCHNEIDER: Uh-huh.
KEYES: . . . with provisions that prevented them from sharing information about how somebody had voted, and what they had done, with provisions that made it difficult to raise money and do other things.
It seems like folks like this are bent on consolidating little cliques in control of our politics. They want to make sure that the only people who can enter the political arena effectively are those who are supported by abortion-minded money, or those who have won the stamp of approval by the ungodly media.
And I use the term "ungodly" descriptively. It's not a pejorative. It is simply reminding people that every time they are asked, 90% of the people in the media say either that they don't believe in God, or they don't believe that God has any role to play in human morality.
That is something diametrically opposed to the understanding and belief that not only is on the hearts of many Americans, but is actually the founding principle of our country.
When the Declaration of Independence was penned, stating the principles from which we derive our claim to rights and self-government, it was clearly stated that we are created equal and endowed by our Creator, God, with our unalienable rights.
So, if God has no role to play in human morality and justice, we have no claim to liberty.
We have people like this, who have rejected the basic principles of the country. And then you have Fred Thompson, whose basically only claim is that he's an actor. So, he's not a good guy, but he can act like one.
And they pretend that this is some similarity with Ronald Reagan, but Ronald Reagan wasn't somebody playing a character. He had spent sixteen years standing up, come what may, under barrages criticism from the liberal Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans and others, because he refused to give up his belief in this country's basic principles, and he insisted on standing firmly against Communism.
He had character. He wasn't playing a character.
And so, in the so-called "top-tier" candidates that have been pre-selected for us by the ungodly media and the abortion-minded money, there are no choices. And that's one of the reasons why the grassroots folks in the Republican Party have been standing back looking at this and saying, "Well, on the one hand, we have these people who are all phonies, and on the other hand, we have folks who are not compellingly articulating the case that must be made."
They are not compellingly articulating the case that must be made for the restoration of our moral principles, for our allegiance to the Declaration, for our allegiance to God's authority — from which we claim our rights — and our willingness to respect that authority in our policies and laws:
- Starting with the way we understand things like marriage;
- Starting with our respect for the life of children in the womb;
- And continuing with our insistence that the sovereignty of the American people, based on those Declaration principles, be respected by these tyrannical judges who have been trying to usurp the power of our elected legislatures; and be respected by our elites that have been destroying the integrity of our sovereignty by neglecting our borders and adopting policies that essentially declare that it's open season, in terms of entry into the United States, against our security interests and our economic interests.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, Amity Shlaes, a speaker at Hillsdale College, recently made a comment on the timidity of the current field of candidates in the conservative realm. Do you agree that there is a general lack of courage today to say the hard things that need to be said?
KEYES: I'm not sure it's a lack of courage so much as a lack of any kind of understanding. You have folks who are standing up, mouthing words, but they haven't really spent their lives thinking through and really absorbing and digesting what these words are all about, and what the concepts are that in fact give substance to the language that is often spoken by conservatives.
We have people who are pretending to positions they can't defend. I was reminded of this during the Values Voter Debate, when Governor Huckabee responded to a question about the Mexico City Policy — you may remember this — and it was from Janet Folger. It was just one of those "yes or no" questions — we flipped a switch — and he took the position that was in line with the belief of a lot of pro-life people, that we should apply the Mexico City Policy to our domestic institutions.
But then he made a comment, just sort of out of the blue, saying, "Well, this isn't a Mexican government policy, is it? Because I wouldn't want to promise to enforce some Mexican government policy in the United States." [paraphrase]
And with that, I think there was a slight intake of breath from the audience, because he revealed that he didn't have the faintest idea what the Mexico City Policy was all about.
This meant that he was taking a position he didn't understand. And if you take a position you don't understand, what's going to happen when you come under assault for that position from the other side?
Which he certainly will, by the way. Because this is a promise that we are going to withhold funds from hospitals and other institutions — federal funds — that practice abortion. That was the policy that the U.S. government applied to international, non-governmental organizations, under the Mexico City Policy.
So, there will be a huge outcry from the pro-abortion ranks, from the Hillary Clintons and others. They will pummel us for taking this position. And if we have Governor Huckabee out there trying to defend himself, he would just eventually say, "Oh I didn't . . ." and before you are done with it, he would be all embarrassed, and we would be all embarrassed, because he wouldn't know how to defend that policy.
So, I think this is part of the problem.
I don't hear any of them, for instance, when they are asked questions about pro-life, about family, about other things, they don't return to Declaration principles. They don't make the simple, clear, logical argument that shows that our claim to rights and our claim to self-government comes from our respect for the authority of God, and therefore, we not only have the right, we have the obligation to implement that respect when we are considering laws and policies.
It's fairly simple. But they don't say it. And I don't know whether they haven't thought it through, or whether they are just mouthing words and don't really believe in the arguments and the principles that give those words substance and meaning.
But that's what we need. That's what allows one to be bold.
I'm pretty bold when I say things, because I know I have a solid grounding in the principles and the history of this nation's heritage, and I can make those arguments clearly and forthrightly and consistently, and so I'm not afraid to stand forward and proclaim the truth.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, the first candidate that you mentioned as you came on was that of Rudy Giuliani, and recently, there was a release that came out from Gary Bauer — he's a previous presidential candidate, himself — who was saying this, he said, "Unless we get some of the second-tier candidates," and you already alluded to the fact that the national media is determining who that upper tier is, but he said, "unless some of the second-tier candidates decide to drop out and get behind one individual to support, we're going to have a Giuliani/Clinton presidential election."
How do you feel about that, that the second-tier candidates should be dropping out at this point?
KEYES: Well, I think that that's a lot of nonsense. These people are always trying to stampede us towards some phony choice, because this bad thing will happen or that bad thing will happen.
You know, that's a devilish tactic, because it means that at the end of the day, we're always going to be choosing mediocrity and the lesser of evils.
SCHNEIDER: We're going to pick up with that thought when we return from the break. It's kind of unfair to ask a big question like that here, just as the theme music is coming on. We'll be back in just 60 seconds, and we'll pick up with that topic when we return.
[break]
SCHNEIDER: You're listening to Crosstalk at the VCY America Network. Jim Schneider with you today, as we are looking forward to the upcoming presidential elections, and specifically getting to know the candidates a little bit better, their positions, their views, their background on public policy-related issues.
Dr. Alan Keyes is with us today on the program. And, again, by featuring candidates from time to time on Crosstalk does not imply endorsement of any nature. We are having them with us in order to — for purposes of discussion on the issues, to find out where they stand on these public policy issues.
And just before I asked that long question before the break, Dr. Keyes, we were speaking with regard to Gary Bauer's comment about the second-tier candidates: maybe we should see them fall by the wayside, all come together to back a candidate, otherwise, it's going to be a "Giuliani/Clinton election," he says. Go ahead with your thoughts.
KEYES: Well, this is the usual kind of Satan vs. Beelzebub scenario these people want to saddle us with as an excuse for mediocrity. We need to find the best right now, or America is not going to survive.
And how do we do that? People need to see what's going on, and look at what they really think is right for this country. Find the person who articulates that, and stand with that person — but don't wait until election day to stand with them.
And this is the big problem. All these people, Bauer and everybody else, talk as if politics goes on somewhere else, and then a choice is presented to the people. Do we live in the old Soviet Union, or something? You know, where these people used to predetermine what choices people had, and then you went to the polls in some sham to vote for whoever they told you were your choices?
No. In America, we are supposed to determine the choices.
And that means that at this critical stage, we shouldn't be stampeded around by Gary Bauer or anybody else with their scare tactics. We should be looking for what is best for America, and each of us should be standing forward to back it up.
And that's what we're doing at "America's Revival." That's what I'm calling this effort. We are inviting people to go to AlanKeyes.com, a-l-a-n-k-e-y-e-s dot com. You will find there what we call the "Pledge for America's Revival," and we ask folks to do two simple things.
Sign the Pledge, which includes a lot about the need to restore our godly principles in the policy areas like abortion, and marriage, and economic life, where this is going to have an effect — restoring our right respect for the family; restoring our right for the integrity and self-confidence of our people in things like the Second Amendment; restoring the integrity of our national sovereignty by defending our borders and instituting policies that will enforce our immigration laws and make sure we have a secure border all around this country. All of those things.
But if they really believe that that is best for America, then they need to start working for it.
So, we ask them for two things: to make a pledge that they will give at least $5, and that they will find at least 5 other people who they will draw in to support the effort.
People say, "Oh, I'm going to wait until election day." You can't. Sitting back and acting like politics is something you watch on television, something that goes on somewhere else — no.
People are leaving comments and saying, "When will your campaign come to Iowa?" And I'm thinking to myself, "Do you believe in what I believe in? Are you willing to work for it? Because then this effort is already in Iowa, and you should be making it. This effort is already in New Hampshire, and you should be making it. This effort is already in Florida."
And everywhere else where there are people who believe these things, they need to stand up and be the leaders in their family, in their churches, in their workplace, in their communities, in their Bible studies. Everywhere they think they can find people of like-mind, they need to challenge them to stand up and be counted.
And we are going to keep careful track of those pledges. And as that number grows, we will have a reality to look to that puts the lie to the media pollsters and others who try to stampede us with their lying illusions into believing that the people who really want the restoration of principle in this country don't have the numbers to get it. We do! But only if we are willing to bear witness to that fact by standing forward, right now, to let that number grow so that people will see and be strengthened in their confidence to also stand forward with us.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, what would you define as being the single most important issue facing our nation at this time?
KEYES: The single most important issue is the issue of whether we are going to respect innocent life in the womb, whether we are going to restore our respect for the fundamental principle from which our rights come: that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator — not by constitutions, not by laws, not by presidents, not by justices, but by God Almighty — with our unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life.
Do you realize that that is also involved in the War in on Terror? What are we defending? We are defending the principle that no one, even in war, has the right consciously to target and take innocent human life. The moral cause of the war is the same as the moral cause involved in our opposition to things like abortion.
We must stand for that principle. We must restore the bedrock foundation of our claim to govern ourselves, else our liberty is lost, and what then are we fighting for?
And then we've got to begin to apply those principles consistently. If we are, indeed, a sovereign people, how can we let a handful of judges dictate the destruction of marriage in this country — usurping what the Constitution says is the authority of our elected representatives?
Everywhere the people have been asked, they have supported traditional marriage, and yet these judges are assuming an arbitrary and abusive authority they do not have under our constitutional system, in order to dictate the destruction of that natural family system that also was ordained by God Almighty.
When He gave us our rights, He gave us the unalienable right to live in families where we know who our mother and father are; where we know what the responsibilities of parenting are; where we know that those responsibilities will be met out of respect for the will and authority of God, just as our rights must be respected by government, out of respect for the will and authority of God.
So, all of these things I think become the primary concern. We have got to restore that basic principle which involves our allegiance to and respect for the Declaration's clear statement that our rights come from God, and that therefore we must exercise them and establish laws and policies that respect the will and authority of God.
And then, we've got to start applying these things in specific areas, including:
- The defense of our national sovereignty, the integrity of our borders, the enforcement of our immigration laws by establishing strong control that will defend the integrity of the sovereign people of the United States;
- Restore our respect for our constitutional system, by curbing the abusive powers that these judges have assumed to dictate our laws, instead of living under laws that are made by our representatives;
- And I think we also have to get rid of the abusive tax system, the income tax system, which involves a fundamental violation of our constitutional right from the get-go in the implementation of this system, and which ought, therefore, to be discarded in favor of a FairTax system that no longer requires that we surrender basic constitutional rights in order to fund our government.
KEYES: Well, see, I think, sadly, that this is an inevitable consequence of our willingness to accept a lie that has been perpetrated again by the courts against one of the most fundamental and important rights we have, which is the free exercise of religion.
This lie is something called the "separation of church and state," which they claim is somewhere in our Constitution, and which they have used to drive God and every consideration of our respect for His authority out of our politics, out of our public life, out of our laws, and which they therefore have used to undermine those laws which were framed to protect the integrity of the man-woman, monogamous, marriage-based, procreational family — the natural unit ordained by God's authority.
So, I think that that's the root of all of this. We have surrendered this most fundamental right by giving in to a lie.
How can we, as a people who claim our sovereignty on the basis of this simple principle, that we are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, how could we have ever accepted the notion that we can have a politics in which we don't get to refer to, and dwell upon, and deliberate on the existence of God, the nature of His authority, the nature of His will and laws, and how they apply in our lives?
If God does not exist, we have no claim to rights. If we have no claim to rights, we have no claim to self-government — and the whole way of life in freedom we enjoy collapses.
So, we have accepted this lie when it's aimed at the very heart of our freedom, and what we are seeing now is the consequences, where instead of just saying, as they once said, "Oh, we're just trying to get the freedom from discrimination," no, they now want to discriminate against Christians. They want to discriminate against people who will stand up and proclaim God's will with respect to decent sexuality. They want to establish a regime that persecutes and jails those who exercise their right to live according to these beliefs.
And so, we see what happens. When we give up the fundamentals, we end up, at the end of the day, living through the surrender of our liberty. And that's exactly what is happening.
SCHNEIDER: Ladies and gentlemen, we're speaking with Dr. Alan Keyes today. He is a presidential candidate. In just a few minutes, we'll be taking your phone calls to Dr. Alan Keyes, and today we are going to ask that you be very precise, that you have your well-worded question all set to go. We're not going to have the opportunity for you to ask multiple questions, just one question that you would like to ask on public policy issues.
And so, if you would have a question for Dr. Alan Keyes on that topic, our phone number here is 800-733-9829. Just a precise question you have on a public policy-related issue, and we will look forward to your calls and participation here in just a few minutes.
Dr. Keyes, we have seen Alan Greenspan come up with his recent book, in which he is stating that President George Bush refused to use fiscal discipline in his administration, that it has only worsened this economic future for this United States. And there are a lot of conservatives right now who feel kind of betrayed by a conservative president who is spending way out of control. Any comments on the spending, and where we are heading fiscally as a nation?
KEYES: Well, I think one of the great sources for grief and dismay for a lot of people like myself and others who have worked hard in support of the Republican leadership over the years is the utter betrayal of fiscal responsibility that we have witnessed and did witness when the Republicans were in control of the Congress.
I think that's why they lost control in 2006 — not because the Democrats are any good, but because a lot of people who had voted for the Republicans were feeling discouraged and betrayed. They had seen runaway fiscal irresponsibility.
And you know what the cause of it is? People who, once they get into power, think that the government budget exists to keep them there. And so, they are willing to indulge in all kinds of spending programs and other kinds of things that increase their patronage that leave people beholden to them for this highway and that special project, so they can get votes.
I think what people want is representatives who will understand that their job is to serve the best interests of the United States of America, to respect its principles, to secure its strength, and to make sure that steps are taken to get out of the way of our people, so that they can sustain the prosperity and economic destiny of this country.
But that's not what we got. Instead, we got a lot of people enlarging bureaucracies, because that increases their power, and increasing government spending, because that increases their power. That has been the principle of the Democrats for decades — all about how they stay in power by using other people's money.
I think it was just disgusting to watch the Republicans succumb to the same mentality, and we need to get somebody in office who will stop it, and who holds a position of clear understanding of our need to dedicate ourselves to two things: this country's present strength and survival, and the fulfillment of the obligations we owe to our posterity.
According to the Constitution, the ultimate aim of this government is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." We don't get to spend this nation into bankruptcy and then pass the results on to our children, because the Constitution says part of the job of this government is to secure their access to the blessings of liberty, not to destroy it.
And so, I think we need to fulfill that responsibility.
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Alan Keyes with us. After the break, we'll come back to your phone calls at 800-733-9829. We'll try and take as many questions as possible today on public policy issues. This is Crosstalk on the VCY America Network.
[break]
SCHNEIDER: Keeping you informed on vital issues, this is Crosstalk on the VCY America Network. Our guest today, Dr. Alan Keyes, candidate for president of the United States of America. And here as we enter this next segment, our phone lines are open to take your phone calls on a fast question that you might have. We will not have time for you to linger on the phones, but have your question prepared, and we will have Dr. Keyes give a response to you. The number is 800-733-9829.
We're going to begin with Mark who is calling in from South Milwaukee. Mark, you are on the air.
CALLER (MARK): Hi. I really have a comment. I'm very grateful that I've been listening this afternoon, because I have been kind of twisting. I didn't have any idea who I was going to vote for, and I would just like to tell Dr. Keyes that he has my vote, and I'm very grateful for it.
KEYES: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I really hope that folks like you and others who are listing to me and feel moved because they have on hearts and in their minds a lot of the same things that I care about — we need to stand forward.
I think that real politics is not about what some leader says or does. It's about what the citizens of this country do.
My slogan is, "Every citizen a leader." And that means that where you live, in family, and workplace, you must take the lead in finding and drawing toward the effort the people who in their hearts and minds share this commitment to the restoration of America's real moral foundations and its strength.
That's why I invite people to go to AlanKeyes.com, a-l-a-n-k-e-y-e-s dot com. If you don't have access to the internet, then talk to somebody who does. Get online and sign the Pledge that you find there.
Because — I'll be honest. I've been through a lot of campaigns where there were well-wishers and the people who say, "Alan, I'm going to vote for you!" and so forth. But you know what really counts? What really counts is whether we stand forward to make the effort happen, to make the result happen. That's how people govern themselves. That's how they make sure that it's not some little clique of money or some little clique of power that's controlling things, because they have made the outcome.
That's what we are doing at AlanKeyes.com: creating a vehicle where people then reach out, find others, get them to sign, and we keep track of the number. I want to know long before the Iowa caucuses, long before the votes in Wisconsin and elsewhere, how many people we have got in our army. The Bible says that before you go into battle, you should count up the number of your forces. And that's what we hope to do at AlanKeyes.com.
If folks want to support, then the only way to support, really, is to go sign that Pledge and get to work, because this isn't about what I'm doing. It's about what you're doing.
SCHNEIDER: Mark, thanks so much for the call. Here, we're going next to Charles in Medford, Oregon. You're on the air, Charles.
CALLER (CHARLES): Yes, I would also comment on gratitude and appreciation, Dr. Keyes, because I think that the wisdom is that we make the difference, not who others choose that we have for candidates. We're the ones who choose the candidates. It's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's my comment.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Charles. Appreciate your call. Our number is 800-733-9829. Al in Whitewater, you're on the air.
CALLER (AL): Hello, Dr. Keyes?
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: Where do you stand on gun control? Do you believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy a gun?
KEYES: Well, I actually accept that definition of gun control which says that gun control equals making sure that you hit what you aim at. I think that beyond that, the Constitution of the United States makes it clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms, that that right is not to be abridged.
And what's it for? Some people think that it's so we can have sports and recreation. That's not true. It's so that people will understand that the people of a free country must always be prepared to defend their liberty.
And therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is part of our characteristics as a free people, and we sustain it because of that — because of that fundamental, sound principle that says that people must be prepared to stand forward in defense of their liberty, in defense of their country, and must have the character, the courage, the self-discipline and confidence to use the tools of self-defense rightly. And therefore, they will learn about them, they will be educated, they will be responsible in their use.
So, I strongly support the real meaning of the Second Amendment, and I oppose the efforts to make our people afraid of the instruments of self-defense.
That's what happened in the Middle Ages. In medieval times, peasants weren't supposed to pick up weapons. That was for the nobility. That was for the aristocrats. Well, I think we have gotten well beyond the notion that little cliques like that should be controlling us. And if we want to remain a free people, then we have to have the confidence, the sense of discipline and responsibility that it takes to understand and use the instruments that exist for our defense.
Final point. I think a lot of the reason that all this gun control is out there, is that people say, "Violence! The gun creates that!" No, it doesn't. Christ told us about that. These wicked things come from the heart, not from the things.
And therefore, if we raise up the heart to revere God, to respect His will, to have the discipline that accepts and observes the Ten Commandments, respects innocent life, and so forth, then we don't have to be afraid of ourselves when we pick up a gun or anything else, because we know we're not going to use it for any evil purpose.
SCHNEIDER: Appreciate your call here, as well, this afternoon. Our number, 800-733-9829. Next to the state of Georgia, Dalton, Georgia. J.D., you're on the air.
CALLER (J.D.): Mr. Ambassador, I will deliver unto you twenty-two votes when the time comes. I want to ask what you think about the NAFTA "Superhighway" and the possibility of a proposed North American Union.
KEYES: Let me quickly say two things. I hope that you will visit AlanKeyes.com, and work to deliver those twenty-two people as Pledge signers right now, so that they will add to that number that appears on our website. We hope it will grow into the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people standing forward, because the larger that number grows, the more we put the lie to those who say that the people who believe as we do are few in number. It's a lie, and we need to stand forward and be counted, so that others will have the confidence to resist that lie. So, I hope that you will deliver those twenty-two Pledge signers as soon as you can.
And second, I totally oppose all of these things that aim at destroying our sovereignty and acting as if our borders don't exist — erasing the line of demarcation between our sovereignty, and Mexican sovereignty, and Canadian sovereignty.
I don't mind cooperating with other countries. But I think the destruction of the purview of the sovereign people of the United States is really the destruction of humanity's hope for the survival of liberty. I oppose it, and as president, I will make sure that it is brought to a screeching halt.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, J.D., for the call. We're going next to Joe. You're on the air, Joe.
CALLER (JOE): Hello, Alan. This is Joe. I was just wanting you to enlighten us on the difference between Ron Paul's type of government and what you propose.
SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you, Joe.
KEYES: Well, I think that in many respects — and people often comment on this — we have similar views on certain things. But the fundamental difference is that I believe in liberty. He says he believes in liberty. But I think that liberty has a moral basis, and that that moral basis has to be passed on from generation to generation: that the principles are stated in our Declaration of Independence, and that we must be careful to make sure that those principles are respected in our policy, so that we don't go down roads that destroy the moral character, the moral discipline, the moral self-confidence of our people.
And in a lot of the stands that he's taking on specific questions, I think that Ron doesn't show enough sensitivity and enough real understanding of the need to inculcate and respect and defend that moral character. These things don't happen on their own.
Children, for instance . . . At the debate on the Values Voter site, he said he didn't understand what role government had in making people moral, and it shocked me. We have, don't we, a public education system that's under the control of the government. Does anybody really believe that it's possible to have decent education without a moral foundation? So, as long as the schools are being controlled by government mechanisms, the government is involved in the business of moral education. It's just not doing it right.
And so we can't escape it. If we want to remain free, we must sustain the moral character and principles that are needed for freedom and that means respecting the morality that is required of a free people.
And I think in many respects, Ron Paul simply doesn't grasp that to my satisfaction, and he takes stands on a number of issues that do not reflect what I think is the necessary deep commitment to make sure that we maintain that moral character and strength.
SCHNEIDER: Frank in Burlington, you're on the air.
CALLER (FRANK): Yeah, my question is, if you did not receive the nomination for the party, and you decided to run on a third-party ticket, what would you say to those people who are of the belief that if you are voting for a third party, you are wasting your vote?
KEYES: Well, I believe you waste your vote any time you vote for wickedness.
Any time you vote in a way that departs from what you deeply and conscientiously believe to be God's will, and what's right, and what's just, that's a wasted vote.
I judge my vote, not in light of whether you win or lose, but whether you're standing where God wants you to stand, and if you are, you are the victor, because He's the only Judge that ultimately matters, and success with Him is the only success that ultimately matters.
And so, that's how I understand it. You do your duty, you do what's right, and you put your faith in God and Jesus Christ, and He will take care of the rest of it.
The folks who are looking to come to some outcome that the world regards as successful, they get manipulated into doing exactly what these folks want, which is choosing "the lesser of evils." Do you know what that means? That means that when you stand before the Lord, He's going to say, "I saw you choose evil in that." And even if you thought it was the lesser evil, He's going to say, "It was evil nonetheless. And guess what? All that stuff you were voting about and thinking about — it's all gone now. The only thing that's left is good, and you didn't choose it."
SCHNEIDER: Our next call from the state of Ohio. Scott, you're on the air.
CALLER (SCOTT): Hi, Dr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: I've gone toe-to-toe with solid Christian war over the issue that Iraq is or is not a just war. In 5,000 words or less, how would you debate, or what arguments would give for a just war for the Iraqi campaign?
KEYES: I think that that arises because G.W. Bush has done such poor job of presenting what we're doing in Iraq. He acts as if we're over there trying to impose a form of government on the people of Iraq. I'm all in favor of helping people establish representative government, and republican self-government, and government based on the sovereignty of the people, but you can't for it on them. You don't spread that kind of thing by wars — and that's not why we're in Iraq.
We are in Iraq because on 9/11 we were attacked by a bunch of terrorists. That phenomenon of terrorism today is focused and centered in the Middle East. The infrastructure of terror involves states like Iraq that have supported terrorism, and Iran, that are supports of terrorism.
I take a simple fact. In defense of ourselves — because we were attacked, and we have these people violating the fundamental principle of conscience, which is that you do not consciously target innocent human life (that is now accepted by the whole world, at least with their mouths). They violated that principle. Terrorism, by definition, is a crime against humanity, therefore.
And so, we stand in defense of that principle that you must respect innocent life. Now, how are we to do it effectively? Should we wait until we come over here to kill our unarmed people? Or should we send our armed people to face them — turning terrorism into warfare — so that our armed and trained people are the ones who will be out there, facing these dangerous thugs and making sure that they don't get to do their evil?
So, I think that properly understood, our operations in the Middle East — Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere against terror — they satisfy the requirement of a just war. This requires that you be acting for two reasons: 1) in defense; and 2) for the sake of innocent life, and the principle that respects it.
Both those criteria are satisfied, so long as we see what we're doing in the right context: the context of our strategic effort against terrorism. And that's not something you can leave to tomorrow.
I worked on this problem when I was in the government, and I can tell you right in front: you can't harden your defenses against terror in a passive way. You must go after them before they get to you, or you will fail to maintain the security of your people.
SCHNEIDER: We're going to take a 60-second break, and come back to the final segment of Dr. Alan Keyes, as we're taking your phone calls at Crosstalk, 800-733-9829. Thanks for joining us. We'll be right back.
[break]
SCHNEIDER: And you're listening to Crosstalk here at VCY America. As we said at the outset of the program, we are not endorsing candidates through the program by providing this forum for them to share their views on many different issues, getting opportunity for you as the listeners, the common, ordinary citizens across this nation, to ask those questions that are important to you as you consider your vote coming up for the 2008 presidential election.
And we're taking your calls here today at Crosstalk. We continue in Morristown, Tennessee, and we have Brent who is calling. Brent, you're on the air.
CALLER (BRENT): Hello, Dr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: I've got one quick question. It seems like a lot of our economy is headed towards China. It seems like a lot of our jobs are headed towards China. But at the same time, it seems like we're getting substandard products back from China, and an attitude of, "Well, that's the way it is. Just deal with it."
Do you feel like the government needs to step in? And if so, would it be something that you would be willing to take care of?
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Brent.
KEYES: Yes, it is, because the problem that you are perceiving was caused by the government in the first place, by free trade policies unfair to our interests, unfair to our people, unfair to our safety and health, that have been put in place in order to serve the interests of a little clique of folks who are making money hand over fist on the China trade, while the American people suffer.
And that's why I have not been a supporter of this whole notion that free trade is an end in itself somehow — especially when it turns out to be socialist-managed trade, not free trade at all, and when it works against the best interests of our people. As consumers and workers, I think at the end of the day, we are being deeply hurt.
That's why I have always been a supporter of the idea that, yes, we want to trade with other countries, but on a fair basis — on a basis that requires that there be some equity and equality in terms of the burdens that are borne; in terms of respect for the kinds of regulations that help us to sustain the health and safety of our people; in terms of respect for the quality of life we have built up in this country, that we don't let American workers see their labor cheapened by competition with slave labor in countries like China.
So, yes, I think there is a definite role to be played by government. Since it caused the problem, I think I would take active steps to make sure that we rectify that problem by throwing out this whole phony regime of free trade, and starting to concentrate on making sure we do trade with other countries on a fair, on an equitable basis that respects our sovereignty and the requirements of our prosperity.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Brent. Let's go next to Ron, calling from Lacrosse. You're on the air.
CALLER (RON): Well, Dr. Keyes, I'm calling about the immigration, both the legal and illegal. Like, with the Mexicans it's illegal, and with the Muslims it's legal. What are you going to do about those problems?
KEYES: Well, I think the most important thing is, we have got to get control of this situation — and that means we have got to establish our control of the border, so that people only enter this country on the terms that we established by law.
I think the terms that we established by law ought to be dictated by the best interests of our country. And that's been a problem, because folks have been making all kinds of arguments that act as if we need to make the interests of the people of the United States secondary, and we need to be changing the whole character of our country, in order somehow to accommodate the influx of folks who have come here in violation of our laws. I don't think that's true. I think we have to stop it.
Fundamental changes are needed in immigration law: including getting rid of what's called citizenship by right of soil, that just because you are in this country and born in this country, you are a citizen. I think it ought to come — as it does in almost every country in the world — because either your mother or your father are citizens, so that we don't have folks who just come here to have children so that those children can be citizens of the United States and they can then derive a benefit from that. I think that's a very bad idea.
And I think that, as you suggest, when we are dealing with countries, particularly those who have not been taking the kinds of stands that would have prevented these terrorists from becoming such a scourge to humanity — we ought to make sure that we are not allowing people from those countries into the United States in ways that essentially open the back door to terrorists to come here, establish themselves, and do their harm to the American people.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you so much, Ron. Nicole is next from Pensacola, Florida. Nicole, you're on the air.
CALLER (NICOLE): Oh, hello.
KEYES: Hi.
CALLER: Hey, um, we were just listening to the show, and we want to ask, do you think that homosexuals . . . do you think terrorist acts should be accepted?
KEYES: Say again?
CALLER: Like, do you think terrorist tactics should be accepted? Like what you were talking about earlier, sending money over to the troops? Yeah.
SCHNEIDER: What is your question, Nicole?
KEYES: I'm not sure I understand the question.
SCHNEIDER: Well, let's go on to Tim in Bloomer. You're on the air, Tim.
CALLER (TIM): Yeah, hi. Dr. Keyes, I was just wondering what is your view on slavery reparations.
SCHNEIDER: OK. Thank you, Tim.
KEYES: Well, I think a lot of people are talking about apologies, and so forth and so on, for slavery, and reparations in the sense of doing something that we're going to do that's going to make up for slavery, and I think that's false, and have said so all the time.
I believe that in that sense, the price for slavery was paid by the many folks who stood forward with courage, gave their lives on the battlefields of the Civil War, and there is nothing we can add to their sacrifice. They basically made it with their lives and with their blood, and we should stop acting like that didn't happen.
What we can do, however, is acknowledge that there were wounds that resulted — real and actual wounds that resulted — from that. And instead of trying to deal with those wounds by creating huge government bureaucracies that have actually, through welfare programs and other things, destroyed families, undermined the sense of moral discipline, deprived people of the kind of family structure and other things that are needed to assure real success, I proposed a long time ago that we ought to take a leaf out of the book of the old Roman Empire.
When people had been damaged, either by a natural disaster or a failure in war or something else, they were relieved of the burden of supporting the public weal for a certain length of time. In this case, it would have been, for instance, instead of having the huge Great Society programs, you would have just looked at people and said, "We understand there were wounds. We want to help repair them. We know you can only do it for yourself, through your own initiative, so we are going to relieve you of the burden of paying income tax for thirty years, while you are putting your lives back together."
Imagine, even right now, what that would do in the case of New Orleans. I think it's one of the first things I would want to do as president. I'd look at New Orleans and say, "Instead of creating some huge government bureaucracy that creates more money for politicians to put in their freezers and use in other ways for their own personal power, let's just look at New Orleans, and say that the Katrina-impacted area will be an area that anybody who starts a new business or returns there to reestablish their business, they will be exempt from federal income taxes for the next ten years."
SCHNEIDER: Dr. Keyes, we're out of time here.
KEYES: I think that would set a tremendous economic boon that would repair the damage without the need to do these hurtful socialist things that have produced so much harm.
SCHNEIDER: And your contact information, Dr. Keyes?
KEYES: Go to AlanKeyes.com, a-l-a-n-k-e-y-e-s dot com. Read and sign the Pledge, and let's get busy.
SCHNEIDER: Thanks for being with us here today.