January 25, 1999

[Partial transcript]

Dr. Keyes: What's THE GOOD NEWS TODAY?

Well, we can look at the weekend and see that the sleazy maneuver by Robert Byrd to try to get this trial dismissed was, I think, in its momentum kind of undone by the brilliant efforts of the Republican House Managers to interview Monica Lewinsky. Because, you see, the whole Byrd thing was actually a public relations ploy. You had this individual on the Democrat side, the media was touting him as Mr. Constitution and integrity, and he said a few things that bad-mouthed Bill Clinton a little bit so he'd be set up with some credibility. And then he comes forward to do what he was planning to do all along, because he said all along he wasn't in favor of removal and so forth, and said, "I'm gonna offer a motion to dismiss."

Now in that context, and I'm not saying this was orchestrated or anything, don't get me wrong, but it was an interesting coincidence, wasn't it, that just as this was coming to a head, who should contribute the two cents that were necessary to provide some cover for any of the wimpy Republicans that might want to go along with Byrd's sleazy maneuver, but Pat Robertson, speaking up to tell everybody, "Oh, this show's over with, let's forget about it"? And of course the left-wing media picked up on this and they were hanging that cover out there as far as it would get. "Come on, you guys, even Pat Robertson says x,y, or z." So there's the momentum building in the hope that by the time we reached Monday morning there would be this air of inevitability building, and so forth.

And so what happens? In a wonderful, I thought, and brilliant end run, the House Managers bring up the Lewinsky business, call her in as a witness. Ken Starr cooperating so that they can have an interview with her, and that takes over the weekend the discussion of what's going on. This was good, this was really very good to watch.

And what was even more uplifting to my heart than that tactic was Henry Hyde in his pronouncements over the weekend, who stood on the floor of the Congress and just made the most wonderful pronouncement of principle, in which somebody was talking about the polls and how they should respond. He said he didn't care about the polls, he was going to act with integrity according to the Constitution, and he didn't care if he lost an election every day. Every single day of the week, he was going to stand and do what the Constitution requires. I loved it!

This is integrity. That's what it means, when, no matter how the wind is blowing, you do what's right. And that's what we're supposed to get from our leaders, and what we get from so few of the chief politicos who are out there now. But I just want to take my hat off and say out here, and I hope it gets to him somehow or another, because he's in the midst of this terrible business: Henry Hyde, I not only respected what you did, I love you for it. And this is a man who, of course, has stood with integrity over the years in many respects in the pro-life cause, and so forth. So it's not a surprise, but it's wonderful to see it. It's wonderful to see it, and in the midst of so many signs of corruption, he is right now standing like a stone wall of integrity, and God bless him for it. I thought it was beautiful. So this was the good news over the weekend.

Also good news that others were also not taken in by the transparent maneuvering of the criminal Democrats, and I'll talk about my description of the Democrats in just a minute, but let's listen to what Britt Hume had to say about the Byrd maneuver over the weekend.

(soundbite of Britt Hume)

Ten days ago, Senator Byrd said, correctly, that this ought to end with votes on the Articles. All the other fourteen impeachments we've had all ended with votes on the Articles. I was quite disappointed in Senator Byrd, I think it did a lot of damage to his reputation as Mr. Institution to suggest that this case end on dismissal. That motion will not be approved.

(end of soundbite)

Dr. Keyes: I actually think Britt Hume was obviously right about Byrd, but I think his comment could be extended generally to the Democrats. I think the Democrat reputation suffered severely. They may be in the midst of an orgy of self-delusion at the moment, thinking that nobody has noticed that they have utterly sacrificed every shred of principle, respect for law, respect for the Constitution, respect for integrity, decency, whatever, in their pursuit of a purely partisan power play on this matter--and that they are standing next to this criminal element in the White House and basically saying that we must now become a people who get down on our knees and worship this criminal element, and so long as they keep providing us with the "goodies" we should be happy.

It's like having a drug dealer take over your neighborhood, and because he's using some of his drug money to make your life a little more comfortable, you're supposed to ignore the fact that he is poisoning your friends and neighbors and destroying the integrity of your community. And it's that kind of a corrupt bargain that the Democrats are now offering to the American people. "Accept our crimes, because we're willing to give you this little piece of Santa Claus government policy, and that little piece of Santa Claus government policy." And the people who are willing to come make this corrupt bargain declare themselves to be little better than slaves.

It particularly disappoints me to see many black people signing on to this, because, "Hey, we've been slaves already." I didn't know we were anxious to try it again. But apparently having this kind of slavish bargain on offer, there are some people so little aware of their own heritage that they're willing to reach out and grab at that brass ring, even though it turns out to be a shackle that's gonna be put around their arms and legs. Sad to say.

Watching this whole business, therefore, we are still caught in a kid of quandary, I think, as a people, between a deep pit of corruption that is threatening to swallow up the integrity of our system of self-government, and some sense that there are sterling beacons of integrity out there that offer hope. The question I think we need to be asking right now is which are we? Which are you? Are you part of the corruption, or are you going to stand for integrity? And if you're going to stand for integrity, the next day or two or three are critical moments for you to be speaking up. Have you written to your Senator, called your Senator, called your person in the Senate and said that you want them to act with integrity? Now, if it were me, I'd be telling them, "Don't dismiss, don't give in, don't accept the corrupt Byrd maneuver. You must hear witnesses, you must conduct the trial with integrity," that's what I'd say.

But we should be telling them what we think, even if they're putting their hands firmly over their ears, which I think some of them are. They don't want to listen, they're blocking the Capitol Switchboard. They're doing this, they're doing that to try to keep from hearing. And then the degenerate media keeps putting out its lying polls and propaganda, so that insulated from any contact with their real constituents and awash in this sea of lies, they're then supposed to be moved in the direction of accepting the criminal element that has now taken over the Democratic Party. And I keep asking myself, where are the decent Democrats? Are there none left in this country? Are there any Democrats left who are not willing to be part of this conspiracy, who are not willing to be party to the surrender of their party to this gangsterous criminal element that now wants us to substitute this kind of lawlessness for what ought to be our Constitution and rule of law? There are no Democrats who see through this and want it stopped?

Because it's sad, really, to see a party utterly surrendering itself, making itself the tool of this kind of criminality, and it portends very great dangers for the future. After all, that's what the Communist Party was in a lot of Communist countries. It was the tool of a criminal element, and the people who became part of it in exchange for whatever little privileges and benefits they got were willing to sit back, countenance, and even commit crimes on behalf of the party. Is that what the Democrat Party has now become, so that it now offers us that specter in our politics of a political party willing to be the tool of a criminal element that would than portend the destruction of Constitutional government, when and if they should ever get a consolidated hold on power? Is that what we have to look forward to? Is that what people who are Democrats want?

Because it seems to me that right now, given what their party leaders and others are doing, this is what they represent. Willing to cooperate in the lying, willing to countenance the lawlessness, willing to accept the blackmailing tactics of a low-life like Larry Flynt, so that this now represents where the Democrat Party is taking us. Do you really believe this? Is this where you want to go? Because I find it very hard to accept the notion that people . . . even if they wear a different party label than mine, I've always thought there was in a lot of Americans a basic core of integrity and decency that would stand up and revolt against that kind of lawlessness, no matter what party label it wore.

And this is the sad truth. So where are you? Are there any out there? There are none in the Senate, obviously. Are there any in the Democrat Party at all? Do we have any hope that there will be people with integrity? Or is the party divide now to be a divide between a criminal party and the non-criminal element in our society? Because this is a very dangerous place for us to be, I'm afraid. And if this is what we've come to, then I think we, all of us, need to wake up. There's a lot of work to be done if we're to save America for our children. And that's what I want to do.

A lady called just a little while ago and was talking about her own concerns for her children and her grandchildren--and this is what is on my mind every single day, now that I go through the day doing what I do, and trying to get across to people the critical importance of dealing with this impeachment crisis with integrity. It's not just for our own sakes. Don't we care anymore that our children grow up in a country where they don't have to fear a knock on the door in the middle of the night because lawless elements are abusing police powers without respect for rights, without respect for the Constitution? That's where this Democrat criminal, pornocrat mentality is gonna take us.

(break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome to America's Wake-Up Call. I'm Alan Keyes. Let's go right to the phones, a caller in Port Franks, Ontario, Canada.

Caller: Good morning, Dr. Keyes. I just wanted to comment on the demeanor of the Senators. I'm really disappointed with the Senate of the United States, because with all the talk about bi-partisanship, having myself listened to every hour of the proceedings since the trial started, I have not heard anything from the White House lawyers other than harping on technicalities and if any of the Senators, including the Republicans--there are some of them who consider themselves moderates, most likely--if they have really listened to this, I don't know how they can come to the conclusion again and again that there will never be enough votes to throw out the President.

Dr. Keyes: Well, I think what they've been confessing all along is that in spite of the oath they took to be fair and impartial and come to a conclusion based on fact and evidence, they didn't care about any of that. This whole process is simply, on their part, a cheap, dirty political calculation, and they are reaching their conclusions without any integrity whatsoever. And in doing so, as Bill Clinton has cheapened and demeaned the President's Office. They are now cheapening and demeaning the Senate. And this is very sad, but this is what we're looking at. We have a bunch of leaders who are not up to the task, and who are dragging these institutions down to the low level that they seem to represent.

Caller: Those are exactly my sentiments, Dr. Keyes, and I will continue listening to your show, and I hope that your exhortations will be effective.

Dr. Keyes: Well, I hope so, too. It seems sometimes in life that the more you stick to principle that more likely it is that phonies will abandon you, and so forth and so on, so who knows for how long this show will continue to be on the air? But as long as it is, I will use this platform to speak the truth to the utmost of my ability, because I think that somebody in this country has to join with those like Henry Hyde who are standing firm and strong with integrity, and unwilling to surrender themselves to the corrupt atmosphere of lies that is now dominating so many minds.

Caller: Exactly. Keep up the good work, Dr. Keyes.

Dr. Keyes: Appreciate it very much. Let's go to a caller in Fullerton, California.

Caller: Hi, Mr. Keyes. I'm getting kind of discouraged, maybe I'm just listening to the mainstream press too much. I want to know what you think is going to happen with the trial over the course of this week.

Dr. Keyes: I am not sure. I think we are at that juncture where it depends somewhat on what you and I do. And if we sit on our hands, if we don't intervene . . . . And they're gonna make it harder. I predicted this before, that the Senators would be arrogant, that they wouldn't want to listen, and so forth and so on, that they'd be tougher than the House in terms of their willingness to be responsive to the grass roots, but that means we have to work all the harder to get our message across, particularly to the Republicans. "Drop the ball on this, act without integrity, have a process that doesn't in fact go to its conclusion where there is a vote on the Articles as the Constitution demands, and we'll drop you like a stone." And I think that people of integrity need to send that message loud and clear, particularly to the Republicans throughout the Senate.

And by every means, phone calls--and they may be blocking the lines, so write letters, send telegrams and e-mail, and so forth and so on, but by whatever means possible we need to be getting this message across that we're watching, and we're aware, in spite of the lies being told in the degenerate media.

Caller: We should close our wallets until we see the Republicans, you know, sticking to principles. And I agree with you, I'm glad I saw Henry Hyde doing that. My Senators are Feinstein and Boxer, and I'm afraid they're probably sitting there with their hands over their ears. I would hope that they would get some integrity. I mean, this is, I think it's almost like we're being judged, because we have become an immoral nation, and I believe, I truly believe that if we were a Godly nation, someone like you would be in the White House. I did vote for you in the primary when you ran. I believe you are one of the lone voices of hope that's on the radio these days, speaking the truth. I mean, every word you say, it's like, wow, you're saying exactly what I think.

Dr. Keyes: Well, the sad thing is, and I say this to folks, it's a point that I've made central to my speeches in recent months, we are listening now to these arguments that the President's above the law, right? I think the reason that our ears are being tickled by these arguments is that we have embraced the lie that we are above God's Law. Ultimately, the corruption of our judgment is the direct result of turning our back on what our Founders recognized, which is that fundamental to our liberty and our claim to rights is the Authority of God and our respect for it.

Caller: And that's what they're trashing. They're trashing all those great men of God who helped shape this nation. And I would urge people, especially young people--you know, I'm 25 myself--I say, don't listen to those lies about our past. Go back and research for yourself, find good sources, not these ridiculous innuendo sources, and research the great past of our nation for yourself, and don't let this freedom go away.

Dr. Keyes: Yes, because that is the ultimate result. If you listen and think through what's going on here, we are beginning to hear the old arguments that characterize tyranny and despotism in terms of a slavish willingness to accept favors and benefits from people while putting them on pedestals and in positions where they were above the law, where they would rule society as masters and we would tolerate it because of some supposed material benefit or protection they were giving us, right? That was the principle of serfdom and feudalism and all the old systems of oligarchic oppression that existed around the world, and it's being reintroduced by this new, I think totalitarian-minded criminal element that is now pushing this on us in the midst of the Clinton crisis.

I think they understand what the implications are, too, that in the end they're not just defending Bill Clinton, they're promoting the immoral culture that makes socialism and totalitarianism inevitable. And, sad to say, there are too many people, especially on the conservative and Republican side, who don't see the connection.

I was trying to make it at CPAC in the speech I gave, and I made a point there, but I'm not sure a lot of people in the audience there understood. But I said that the liberals and socialists don't love Bill Clinton in spite of his vices, they love him BECAUSE of his vices. They love him because he's a poster boy for moral depravity. They love him because he is the vehicle through which they can convince the American people that we don't have moral self-control and moral discipline. And a people without moral discipline is a people that then will look to the power of government and the external constraints of force and law as a substitute for their own judgment and self-government in order to keep peace and order, and so forth, in the society.

Such a people, therefore, is fodder for tyranny and socialism, because in order to have liberty you must have moral self-confidence. You must believe that you will do the right thing. If you believe that you're like Bill Clinton and totally out of control of your passions and yourself, then you will not be capable of sustaining your self-government and liberty. And that's what I think a lot of these worshippers of Bill Clinton realize.

(BREAK)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. Let's go to a caller from Mankato, Minnesota.

Caller: Alan, I am for impeachment. However, I do believe in the statistical methods, and how you determine what the people are thinking. Both parties tend to use them. The national press uses them just to find out what people are thinking at the time. I don't think, though, that because we have a representative government, that they should allow that to influence them on what they are thinking.

Dr. Keyes: Why, though, do you think? Because on the one hand, and you know I'm a political scientist, as they say, and had to be exposed to and study all that polling stuff, so to a certain degree I know how that sausage is made, right? And I believe that you can do polling that, done right, can have some validity. But what makes you think that the polls they do are being done in that fashion? Because I have a lot of kind of first-hand reports from people that would suggest that key elements of what is required for the integrity of a scientific poll are being violated routinely, in the way that these polls are taken, and that one of the areas where they have sort of lost control or where they are simply manipulating the process is in the refusal area.

Caller: Okay, well the biggest problem with polls, I believe, is the way and the tone the question is asked.

Dr. Keyes: Not necessarily. No, see I don't believe that. People always harp on that, but I don't think that's the biggest problem. Do you know what I think is the biggest problem? The biggest problem is that these days, in order for them to get their sample of say 1,000, they have to make 3,000 or 4,000 phone calls. And while they're making those 3,000 or 4,000 phone calls, they are having to put down in the refusal category slews of people who didn't answer, weren't the right people, weren't this, weren't that, weren't responsive, and etc. When you say the individual wasn't responsive, what does that mean? Well, according to evidence I've had anecdotally, it can mean that they read you a list of candidates, your candidate wasn't on that list, you volunteered the name of your candidate, and they refused to take it. That's not responsive, and so they put you in the refusal category. It also means, of course, that your candidate doesn't show up in the poll, doesn't it?

Caller: Yeah, well that is a valid point.

Dr. Keyes: Well it's not only valid, that is such, that leaves such a big area for abuse, because it also means that if they call up and you give an answer that is very negative about Clinton and they hang up on you, right, they can put you in the refusal category.

Caller: Well that's absolutely . . .

Dr. Keyes: And then it will be a big surprise we don't get lots of big negative response showing up about Bill Clinton. That is like a big garbage can into which they put whatever responses don't fit with the little outcome they may be seeking to tailor.

Caller: What they do need to do is find out what Democrats and Republicans, what their polls are showing, because they will have inherent bias, of course.

Dr. Keyes: Well, no they won't. See, I think that the most secret polls that are taken in this nation are the ones that are taken by people because they really want to know what's going on, but believe me, they pay big bucks for those polls, and they don't publish those results, by the way.

Caller: Do you happen to know any of those, by the way?

Dr. Keyes: Oh, they're taken all the time. The polls that, generally speaking, we take when we're campaigning don't get published. When people do campaigns and they pay people to do polls, the results of those polls are a closely-guarded campaign secret. Nobody sees them except the principals involved in the campaign. And one of the reasons is that you want those polls to be as accurate as possible, and if they come out for you, that's wonderful and can be a basis for their planning. If they come out against you, mostly what you're looking for is just information that's objective so you can know where the mine fields are, and so forth and so on. So they do want it. It's like people keeping good books, right? A business wants a good set of books, but if a business is up to no good, they'll keep a double set. (chuckling) And I think that the polls we read in the papers are the phony books. (chuckling) This is my own sense, but that's what I believe.

Caller: Well thank you Alan, and have a great day.

Dr. Keyes: Thank you, appreciate it very much.