February 19, 1999

[Partial transcript]

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

Insofar as I put any credence in phony polls, they've got a report in the Washington Times that some of these polls are finding that clear majorities of Americans are saying that moral problems are the biggest worries of the country's life. In a CNN poll, 58% said moral problems were the biggest worry. I, as you know, don't put much credence in polls, and I think that for the Lenten season what I may do is give up talking about these phony polls at all, but if this is anything, it may be one of those nine truths they tell us to get away with their big lies.

I think this is the case, and this has been growing in the country--and the Clinton thing simply helped to confirm the deep anxiety at a moral level that most Americans now feel. And that's another reason why I think that folks like Paul Weyrich need to back off and not confuse the present little moment of Clinton's Pyrrhic victory with anything like a permanent problem for those of us who are pushing for the restoration of America's moral heart. In fact, all that has happened up to now serves the purpose of that restoration, in my opinion.

And thinking about that--by the way, yesterday I had Paul on, and then thereafter he went on Rush Limbaugh's show. And he was talking about how even if a good guy gets elected, he couldn't promote his agenda because the culture has collapsed. And as I was saying, this misses the point, that in order to get elected you'd have to change America's heart, and of course you must be someone who can produce a conviction in the heart.

It's one of the things I'm looking at right now as I watch all these folks standing forward. We can't afford to have for moral conservatism a standard-bearer, even one who is sincere, convicted, says all the right things, would get in there and do all the right things, but who is unable to produce that conviction in the heart, 'cause it's not gonna work. And then Paul's sort of prediction is true. If by some trick you got elected, you still wouldn't be able to do anything because you hadn't produced that conviction in the heart, you hadn't forged a new governing vision that moved the majority of the country.

And that's the challenge that's ahead for us in the next couple of years, to form a new governing vision, a coalition based on that vision, which returns Americans to a sense of the relevance and strength and importance of the great moral principles on which this nation was founded. That's the objective that should be there for the standard-bearer of moral conservatism. And it has to be somebody who can produce that conviction. You can't light fires in the heart without a burning ember, and so we're gonna have to look for a burning ember.

Another point I was thinking about--because some folks out there do me the kindness of saying that I'm a reasonably good speaker. And they often ask me, "How do you do that? How do you make these good speeches?" and so forth. I think they'd be really, some of them, surprised if they understood in its depth the truth of it. But I was just telling one of my colleagues here about this, because I look back on the last several years, and I look at some of the speeches that have had the greatest impact, where people have been apparently most moved by what I had to say and had their hearts affected and their commitment renewed, and there have been a lot of folks like this who have come in to the process with a new sense of energy and commitment. And I look back on those speeches, and I know that in all of the cases of the ones where I look back on them and they had a real impact and they had some kind of influence and people responded well--before I gave the speech, I was sitting there and feeling totally empty and despondent and thinking, "Oh, I don't know what I have to offer, what I can do, what can anybody do."

The interesting thing is that there's often a juxtaposition between my feeling faint-hearted and inadequate to the task, and a speech that turns out really well. Why would you think that is? Well, see I--now don't look at me like I'm crazy here, but just hear me out, this is what I think is true. I think that what is really required in this time to speak effectively to the issues I care about, the moral issues, is that you've got to stand aside, and you've got to let God's truth come true. It has nothing to do with you, that's what I think.

And I think that those moments when I'm sitting there before a speech feeling like, "oh, I can't do this, I'm nothing, I haven't got it, I have no ability, I can't possibly . . ." and I'm feeling sort of despondent and feeling like there's just no hope if I'm the one who's got to do anything, 'cause I've got no capacity to deal with the situation. When I am feeling that way, I'm in the mood to do what? I'm in the mood to surrender. I'm in the mood to just give up, I'm in the mood to surrender.

I actually think that one mustn't mistake that despondency for anything but this. You need, if you're gonna serve the truth, you need to surrender. A lot of people don't see this. I have only come to a really clear understanding of this in the course of the last several years. In order to serve the truth you must surrender. You've got to be in the mood to surrender--meaning, surrender your pride, surrender your belief in your own abilities, surrender the thought that you are the one who's gonna make any difference.

When you reach that point where you're really certain you can't do it, and you're ready to surrender, the one thing you've got to remember--and I wish I had been thinking about this yesterday, 'cause I would have said it to Paul--when you're in the mood to surrender, go right ahead. But don't surrender to the enemy, surrender to God. That's what I would say. Surrender to God, surrender to His truth. Don't mistake that feeling of inadequacy and despondency, that feeling of "we can't do it, we haven't done it, we won't do it"--don't mistake that for a moment when you surrender to the enemy. No, that's the moment when you surrender to the truth, you can't do it, you absolutely can't. We are not going to succeed at restoring the sort of moral heart of America by virtue of this one's ability and that one's excellence and eloquence and that one's organizational skill and this one's money, and then we're all gonna put it together. "We're gonna have this wonderful, power political machine, and we're gonna take over" . . . no, it's not gonna happen that way. It's not gonna happen that way.

We can't do it. Paul is right about that. In that sense, he's seeing a truth. The conservatives, the moral conservatives, cannot succeed at what they're doing on their own. They don't have the ability. We don't have the eloquence, we don't have the intelligence, we don't have the wisdom, we don't have the money, we don't have the power, we don't have what it takes, and we should surrender. But we shouldn't surrender to Bill Clinton, and we shouldn't surrender to the licentious liberals. And we shouldn't surrender to the corrupt totalitarians who are trying to convince us that we are a depraved people. We should surrender to God's truth, and let it take over what we do and not worry about the outcome.

See, 'cause the other thing that I have to do when I'm standing up to give those speeches is--I mean I'm stuck, aren't I? There I am, and in one minute, two minutes Alan, you're gonna have to get up there and say something. "I don't feel it, I can't do it"--this is what's going on inside of me. "I've got nothing." But I still have to get up there anyway, right? That's true.

And so the only way that I can then get through it is by saying, "Well, gotta stop worrying about whether I'm gonna do it well or badly, and just get up there and do it." Meaning to say, you don't worry about the outcome, don't worry about the results. Don't worry about who's gonna like you or dislike you. Just surrender and hang on with everything that you've got to that truth that needs to be spoken, and don't worry about anything else. And that's the way I get through these things, all of them, pretty much.

And I would recommend that as a general piece of advice for people right now in the moral conservative movement. Stop worrying about success, stop worrying about victory, stop worrying about polls, stop worrying about whether Bill Clinton's lies have depraved the heart of America, because you cannot win that battle, and you won't win it. So stop worrying about it. Worry about only one thing: holding fast to the truth and standing aside, putting aside everything you might believe about yourself, and just let God's truth speak through you. And if you can do that, then that truth carries the day, you don't have to. If you can do that, then the power of it carries the day, you don't need any power. And only when we return in what we do in our public life to that kind of faith--which as we know is the kind of faith that is the only thing in point of fact that offers us that ability to win the true victory, right, that ability to surrender, to just open up and let God take over. Unless we're willing to do that in public life, we're not gonna succeed.

But interestingly enough, that's the same spirit of faith that's required, anyway, to live properly. Why would we think that a different spirit would succeed in politics? No different spirit is gonna succeed anywhere. So we need to stop worrying about all this stuff. See, this is what I tell Paul. I don't get up every day worrying about where the polls are, and whether somebody's mentioned my name favorably or unfavorably, and all this. Who cares? I can't afford to think about that anyway, 'cause they control that. The only thing I should be interested in, the only thing we all should be interested in is not what they control, but what God controls. And one of the things He controls ought to be us, and then we'll be okay.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back. I'm Alan Keyes, and this is America's Wake-Up Call.

Today is the day when my column is posted on WorldNetDaily, my commentary, and appropriately enough my commentary is "Cheer Up, Paul," and it's about the need to avoid despondency, and surrender, and retreat, and withdrawal and all of this other sort of stuff, and continue with the proper and appropriate effort to restore America's moral heart. And it's in the wake of Paul's letter and other things, it might be worth taking a look at. And you can get there at www.alankeyes.com. (Note: see also worldnetdaily.com)

And you'll find other things of interest there, other websites that you'll be able to access through the Alan Keyes Show website, including newsmax.com and other sources of good, alternative information from the lies and repressed information that you see in the degenerate propaganda media, what other people call the "mainstream media." I mean, if you're gonna call it mainstream--why do they call it mainstream? I mean, at the most, it's the "polluted stream." But is the mainstream in this country polluted? Because if it's a polluted stream, that means the polluted mainstream? I don't know.

Anyway, you don't need to rely on that. Come to the Alan Keyes Show website. You'll find alternative sources of information that can help you out, and that way you won't feel badly either when you stop watching all these propaganda shows. When you no longer look at NBC news and ABC news and all these other people who are lying to you every which way. Right? You don't have to do it. There are other alternative emerging, and you need to take advantage of them. And you can start on the web, www.alankeyes.com. It's also a place where you'll be able to email me at alan@alankeyes.com, and share with me your thoughts, ideas, information. It's a wonderful source of information and insight for me about what y'all are thinking and what's going on around the country. And stop by worldnetdaily.com and read my commentary. I think you may enjoy it.

Let's get back to the phones. Let's go to a caller in Hewon, California. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Good morning, Alan. I really enjoy watching your show. I've been watching for some time. What I'm gonna talk about is the 45 Democrat Senators and a few of those Republicans--and in my opinion, they're actually worse than Clinton, 'cause they've turned and called evil good and good evil. That's exactly what they've done.

Dr. Keyes: Yep, I think you're right. I think you're exactly right. I think it's especially--well it's true of all of them, right? And they did it when they were under oath to do the opposite, this is what's so clear. Clinton perjured himself and lied and abused his oath of office and the oath he took in the courtroom, and then these Senators who supported him perjured themselves and abused their oath that they took to decide impartially and according to the Constitution and the laws, and they did nothing of the kind. And so I think that you are right. They committed an act that sullied their integrity, right? And what was the constraint on them? This is what I am trying to figure out.

Oh maybe one could argue that Clinton was constrained by his lusts, by his passion, by his fear, by his shame, by his desire to hide this or that. I don't know, I don't buy all those arguments, but maybe you could. What were these Senators constrained by that impelled them to this sacrifice of their integrity? It doesn't make any sense. That means that they had to do it voluntarily and conscientiously, and in that sense they chose what was wrong and did it openly and consciously, in the face of the truth that was in front of them.

Caller: The Republicans Senators, the four or five that switched over, they did it for their own selfish greed. They was only looking, they was only looking at themselves. They wasn't looking at no justice for this country, they was looking at nothing except their political gains down the road. One more thing Alan. You and Pat Robertson would be the two best candidates for President of the United States that this country has.

Dr. Keyes: Wait, wait, wait. I will only demure on one point. And I say this quite seriously though. I like Pat Robertson, I think he's accomplished enormous good in things that he's done. Explain to me what he was doing at the end of this impeachment trial process when he hoisted the banner of surrender in such a way as to provide cover for Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe and these people who, in their pro-abortion hearts stood with the corrupt Bill Clinton. What was he doing?

Caller: He did nothing, he died, you're right.

Dr. Keyes: See, I look at certain things, and I say, "Love you, think you've done wonderful things. Will not follow you anymore because I don't know where you're taking me." Do you understand what I'm saying?

Caller: Yeah, certainly.

Dr. Keyes: And this is a problem for me, and I see it with other folks out there who start to go down a road--and I'm thinking to myself, "I thought you were a good guy. Why are you leading me to this bad place?" You see what I'm saying? Good guys don't lead you to bad places. A good tree bears good fruit, not bad fruit. And when the fruit starts to taste bad, you've got to ask yourself, "Well, you know that was a good tree, but we'd better re-examine this."

Caller: Yeah, you're correct.

Dr. Keyes: So I would be--I mean to say nothing else, I'm just talking about actions here, not people. And I'm not disparaging the individuals in any way, not disparaging Pat in any way, but that judgment and that action struck me as deeply mistaken.

Caller: Yeah, I didn't like that on that point either, and I'm sure I would agree with you 100%, but the man does have a lot of judgment. I would, sorry Alan, you'd be my number one choice for this country for President, there's no question about it.

Dr. Keyes: Well, I hope that what you're choosing there is the things that I stand for. And that means that if somebody else with integrity effectively stands for those things, you'd also back that person. If they were really sincere and good. This is what we've got to keep in mind--and I say that because I think we've all of us got to realize, we get out there, we commit ourselves to somebody we think is good and right, but when the moment comes, we've also got to be prepared to stand for the cause, not just for the person. Does that make sense?

Caller: Yeah, you certainly do. But Alan, I've listened to you for quite a while. You make more sense, and I really can appreciate good judgment, when people make good judgment and make common sense and use good wisdom. And you're the top of the list of any man that I've ever listened to on anything. And I know you're a Christian and so am I. I'm a devoted Christian, and that all makes sense. You've got to tie the two together, you can't just say, "this is politics," or what you're saying. You have to say that I'm under the will of God and I believe that Jesus Christ is the correct man to follow, and I'm gonna follow those moral values, and that's what this country was founded on. These guys don't seem to understand that they were founded on this.

Dr. Keyes: That's right. Well see, that's why we can have confidence--whenever somebody tries to run at me with this separation of church and state and religious fanatic stuff, I say, no, no, no. Declaration of Independence, Founding principles, civic principles, American ideas. This is where I stand, and I do not have to be ashamed, therefore, when I say that we should look to the Creator God as the guarantor and source of our rights, because I say what our Founders said, what our Declaration said, what was said when this nation was born, and what in fact shaped its heart and conscience for success and progress. That's where I stand, and where I will stand until I die.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call.

I want to put one more item on the table here, and it's kind of a throwback to other things, but I see things occasionally and I just wonder what is going on with the thinking, even of folks who are usually good and responsible. There is a piece in the Washington Times today, it's a call to fiscal reform. It's Sam Brownbeck, Rod Gramms, James Inhoffe, Wayne Allard, and John Ashcroft. Includes a lot of folks who are usually pretty reliable on fiscal matters, and overall it's kind of a reasonable discussion of some steps that could be taken for greater fiscal responsibility, and they put in several of these steps in a sort of seven step plan. Pago reform--meaning to say as a critical step to reform, we need to change the Congressional Budget Rules that make it illegal to use cuts in government spending on inefficient programs to pay for tax cuts, enforcement and extension of spending limits, a budget surplus lockbox, they say. "The economy has generated unexpected revenues for the government. However, if we don't lock away this increased revenue for the taxpayers, the government will spend every penny of it, despite the rhetoric about reserving it for Social Security. Lawmakers have already spent 30 billion of this year's budget surplus. We need a lockbox to protect any increased revenue in the future." Sounds like a reasonable idea. Then they go to biennial budgeting, they talk about emergency spending, and the need to avoid breaking the budget with this. Number seven is increased accountability. All of these things are kind of, you know, not objectionable.

But then as step six, they have automatic funding, and they say, "Another mistake that helped create the mess we find ourselves in today is that we still do not have an automatic continuing resolution. This would simply say that if Congress and the President can't work out spending legislation by the end of the fiscal year, the government continues to run at last year's funding levels or slightly less. This will encourage appropriators to complete their business on time and keep all lawmakers in the process, not just a select few, and it would eliminate blackmail attempts from anyone hoping to score political points by threatening a government shut-down."

Does that sound good to you? 'Cause this is one of those good-sounding things that doesn't make any sense at all. And I know that there are, even Trent Lott and these people, they're pushing this idea, but it once again how shortsighted and lacking in any kind of statesmanship these people seem to be. If you have automatic funding of the budget, it means that the Legislative Branch, the Congress, has surrendered the most important Constitutional prerogative it has on an every day basis. That's right. And as I've pointed out before, the history of parliament, of parliaments, when you go back and look at it, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon Great British tradition in Great Britain, where did it come from? It came from the fact that the Executive, the king, had to call together the commons in order to get money. And the fact that they could give it or withhold it at critical moments when he really thought he needed it, that was what gave them clout, and forced him to turn to them and consult with them. And on the basis of that, they started to say, "Yeah, well we're willing to help you out here, kingy baby, but you're gonna have to give us some respect, and here are the rules."

And that started the codification of the kinds of things that folks could expect in the way of limitations on government abuses, due process in the courts, and eventually of course a substantive role in policy. Because I'm not gonna give you the money unless the policies are policies I approve of, and lo and behold you have a Legislative Branch that asserts its power. And what is it based on? The money power, the power of the purse. And when they have this last line here, "eliminate blackmail attempts from anyone hoping to score political points by threatening government shutdown"--excuse me for saying so, but that's where parliaments get their power from, the blackmail of threatening not to give the Executive money unless that Executive is paying attention to what they desire.

So automatic funding means that at a very practical level Congress is gonna surrender this prerogative. And as I pointed out before, a smart President would be able to take this and use it to eliminate the Congress from the budgeting process except in the first budget he submitted. I'll explain that when we get back.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: I'm Alan Keyes, welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. Let's go to a caller in Washington, D.C. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: How you doing, my brother? I believe that instead of focusing our wrath on the people in D.C., we should be focusing our wrath on the people who put those people in D.C. For example, you've been talking about Anita Broaddrick, but you haven't been talking about the other side of the issue. This lady was living with another man while still married, and then going over to see the governor, and you know, that right there is not what you would call a morally superior attitude to life. And second of all, she denied all this under oath. So she put her financial well-being before her name and all this could have been taken care of. Can you imagine if she would have gone to ABC News and said, "This is what the Attorney General of Arkansas did to me yesterday." See what I'm saying?

Dr. Keyes: Oh yeah, I agree with all of that up to a point, though I must confess I don't see how it's at all relevant to the judgment we take, 'cause all things considered, there are many people out there doing many things that I disapprove of, think are immoral and so forth and so on. You notice that we don't spend the time on the program talking about all those things. This is not the Jerry Springer Show. The reason that we talk about Bill Clinton is not because he's out there doing low, immoral things. It's because he's President of the United States, and therefore we have very special interest in his character, because it has implications for our children, our future, our safety, our laws, and the integrity of our Constitution and way of life.

Caller: Right Alan, but . . .

Dr. Keyes: So every actor who plays in this, aside from Bill Clinton, is just incidental. Monica Lewinsky, Tripp, Juanita Broaddrick. I frankly don't have a whole lot of interest in those people. They can be good characters or bad characters. The only thing I wanna know is what is the truth about Bill Clinton's character, 'cause that's what's relevant to my public considerations as a citizen.

Caller: But Alan . . .

Dr. Keyes: And the notion, let me finish this, that somehow or another it is relevant to the question of Bill Clinton's raping somebody whether that person was a good or bad person, strikes me as more than a little bit absurd. If the police come into a room and they find on the floor of that room a brutally murdered, dead prostitute, okay?

Caller: Right.

Dr. Keyes: That doesn't mean, "Oh, this is a dead prostitute, bad person, let's not go after the murderer." Okay? That's absurd.

Caller: Now come on, Alan.

Dr. Keyes: The very thought of that is repulsive because it doesn't matter whether you were a good one or a bad one, a murderer has no right to take your life. It doesn't matter whether you're a woman of virtue, a chaste woman, or not, Bill Clinton or any other man doesn't have the right to violently rape you. Okay?

Caller: Right, but may I say something?

Dr. Keyes: Okay, now and the notion that they do used to be called I think, blaming the victim in rape trials, and it was sure a standard way for vicious rapists to get out from under what they had done. But I think that that's just totally objectionable.

Caller: Alan, what I'm trying to say is this President, his character was known in 1992, and he was elected by . . .

Dr. Keyes: No it wasn't, that's not true. That's not a true statement, it was not known.

Caller: Wait a minute, he was on TV talking about the affair with, um . . .

Dr. Keyes: And lied about it, he lied about it.

Caller: Right, but everybody . . .

Dr. Keyes: Okay, he lied about it, so don't tell me it was known. He lied, and there were gullible people out there who believed him. And he lied, and lied, and lied again, and I know for a fact from the calls that came into this program even a year ago that there were still gullible people out there that believed him, and believed him, and believed him. So if you are the victim, if you are the gullible victim of a liar, your credulity might be to blame, but we can't say that you knew that this was a bad character, 'cause if you were taken in by his lies, you only knew what he told you, which was a lie.

Caller: Alan, I think that when a person like Bill Clinton is elected twice in a row, it shows the type of character in the nation as a whole, you see. I mean, to think that in the 50's you could have had somebody who had tried to get out of the draft, who had had all these tape recordings with women and on, and on, and on--to think that that person couldn't even have been elected to governor let alone President, would have been unbelievable.

Dr. Keyes: Well, now hold on, hold on, no, no, no, no, no. Now we have to be realistic about American life and politics, okay? And the realistic truth about American life and politics is that at the city and state level, American life and politics has occasionally been in various parts of the country about charming scoundrels, pretty much since the country began, okay? You've had your charming scoundrels elected to the machines in Chicago, and the Tammany Hall and other places like that. You've had your charming scoundrels elected Governor of Louisiana and places like that. So, and these were people who committed crimes and frequented prostitutes and whom everybody generally knew lived the high life, drank too much, slept with women, didn't respect the truth, and they put together political machinery and the state level and the local level. They were no better than they should have been and a lot worse than they ought to be, right? This has been happening at the state and local level.

Caller: Wouldn't you say that it's about time that we got one up there?

Dr. Keyes: No, that's not right. What I am saying is we have been blissfully preserved, by and large, from that kind of politics at the national level, because as our Founders anticipated, one part of the country can go bad, that doesn't mean the whole country's going to. And when the whole country is involved, the good parts will tend to neutralize the bad parts and you get a reasonable result. That's what's supposed to happen.

It didn't happen in the case of Bill Clinton, and I think in part it didn't happen because everybody was lied to, the media suppressed the truth. We're sitting here today talking about a continuing example of how in the world the Juanita Broaddrick case, the shocking details of these allegations and the weight of evidence corroborating them, was repressed by NBC News--so that there are still people out there in America who don't know about it and haven't heard the details. Think about that. Think about that. Are they then to blame for our having a rapist in the White House, possibly? They don't know that 'cause they haven't been told. NBC didn't air the interview. There are millions upon millions of Americans who don't listen to The Alan Keyes Show, too bad for them, don't read worldnetdaily.com and other things. Don't even look at the Wall Street Journal. They're not getting this information, and the Democrat Senators wouldn't even go across the street and look at the redacted materials where the details were presented to them. They wanted to cover up their ears, and NBC wanted to cover up these allegations and the weight of evidence supporting them, so that Americans--just as they were in '92 and '96--could be lied to successfully by Bill Clinton.

(soundbite of Bill Clinton)

I don't believe I have any comment on that.

(end of soundbite)

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. Quickly let's go to a caller from Mount Lake Terrace, Washington. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Amen, Alan.

Dr. Keyes: Thank you.

Caller: Um, I want to, I'm calling about who is lying, Bill Clinton or Yeltsin?

Dr. Keyes: Oh that's right, in this dispute over whether or not Yeltsin did in fact call Clinton about Kosovo, where Yeltsin and the Russians say he did call, and the White House says he didn't call.

Caller: Okay, and how is the White House going to prove it? Did they not say they don't tape phone conversations?

Dr. Keyes: They have told us that, I believe, even though I'm not sure they definitely have said that one way or the other.

Caller: I thought that that was, they had no tapes 'cause they don't have a taping system.

Dr. Keyes: Yeah, well, you know it's always kind of confusing with this White House, 'cause one day they say they don't have it, and the next day they say that they don't know that they have it--and I mean this is the problem with liars, isn't it? They can't get their lies straight.

Caller: Alan, the best thing, one good thing has come out of this. I found Alan Keyes. I have so, been so impressed with you and the stands you take, and I appreciate you and just keep on.

Dr. Keyes: Well, I will surely do my best. Thank you. Appreciate it very much.

Caller: You're welcome.

Dr. Keyes: See, but the caller raises a very good point about what happens when you're dealing with known liars in the White House. The Russians say one thing, the White House says another. The White House has taken stands that say, "Well, we don't have tapes. We do have tapes." I mean if they did have tapes they could prove that Yeltsin had called or not called. If they don't have tapes then obviously they were lying. If they do have tapes, however, they were lying when they said they don't have tapes. I mean, on any given day of the week, one could probably get very thoroughly confused trying to figure out which side of the lie the White House is standing on today.

But the other thing that is most distressing, as I pointed out before--here we sit, Americans, watching dispute over a fact between the White House and a foreign government. And I'd like y'all to honestly consider this yourselves. I'm not gonna ask you to call in, you don't have to say anything about it, but just look into your really true heart and conscience and tell me that you can be sure, EVER, that this White House is telling the truth. So, if Yeltsin says he called and Clinton says he didn't call, who do you believe? Hmm? Do you have reason to give strong credibility to Bill Clinton? Do you? Hmm? Because you know he "did not have sex with that woman." (laughter)

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to The Alan Keyes Show.

In the spirit of this entire week, we have been taking as many calls as possible on a range of subjects, though a lot of attention is still focused on the continuing aftermath of the abominable vote in the Senate last Friday, in which the Democrats threw away their moral integrity and some Republicans joined them in perjuring themselves in support of Bill Clinton.

Contrary to the impression trying to be created, and apparently having its sadly depressing effect on some minds, there are a lot of good-hearted Americans who understand what an awful result that was, and who will be joining me, I would think, in wearing what I hope will become the symbol of our continued belief in the truth, and the integrity of our Constitutional system, this upside-down flag. It's an American flag, that's the standard distress signal, when worn in this position it means an emergency situation in which there is imminent danger to person and property.

And I believe without a doubt when you have a man of no character occupying the most powerful office in the land, controlling our military, controlling nuclear weapons and everything else, there is danger to person and property all over the world from such a character. And that's what we're gonna be living with for the next two years, so I think it's a fitting symbol of our situation and condition, a nation in distress. And I've been going out, this little flag here purchased for three bucks, just at a store, you can go out and find these kind of things anywhere you like, and I think that it's an easy way to illustrate the feelings of your heart.

It also, by the way, is not just a statement. One of the reasons that I like it, and I like it displayed this way, just all by itself, is because it's a tool. It's like the precious feet that I wear next to the flag on my lapel. Very often people will look at those and they don't know what it's about, and they say, "Well, what are those for?" And I can explain to them about the pro-life movement. And the upside-down flag is doing the same thing. People come forward, what they're doing now is they want to turn it around. And they say, "Oh you've got your flag turned upside-down." I say, no, that's the way it is, and I'll explain to them why I'm wearing it this way. And sometimes they'll give me a quizzical look, and other times it's like, "You know, I like that idea. I'm going to do that." And so it's not just a statement, it's a tool.

And I would recommend it, if your heart is where mine is with respect to the corruption represented by last Friday's vote, this may be a good way quietly to get your point across, and to test other folks who are out there to see if they are feeling the same way. They take a look at this and when they ask you about it, their response will give you a sense. And as these upside-down flags start to pop up all over America, we will give the lie to those who say that our conscience is dead, that our decent heart no longer exists. That's why I'm doing it, and will continue to point it out from time to time on the program here.

Let's go to the phones, a caller from Avon Park, Florida. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Good morning, a pleasure to talk to you again. I called back in November, I believe. Um, I wanted to talk to you today about a subject that has come up a couple of times on your show, and that's this idea of repealing the 17th Amendment, which puts the power to put Senators in office in the hands of the popular vote rather than in the State Legislatures like it was originally intended to be. And I'll tell you why I think it's time to get rid of this. From the very first minutes of the trial, I was so appalled by the Senate--and the reason is, they get William Renquhist up there in front of them and they require this man, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to take an oath. This man took an oath when he was appointed to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, and that oath was just as much in place when he walked into the door of the Senate as it was when he took office.

Dr. Keyes: Right, and actually I think that that's a mistake on two parts, though, 'cause I think the Chief Justice, with all due respect, should not have acquiesced in that. He should have made it clear, "I am here by appointment of the Constitution of the United States, in my capacity as Chief Justice, not as a member of the Senate, and so my oath as Chief Justice is what governs my conduct in this chair," that's what he should have said.

Caller: And he was the boss, basically. He was the judge, that became a courtroom, and his word was law at that point. And for him to submit to them making him take an oath, I mean it made my skin crawl.

Dr. Keyes: Well it was actually kind of a strange amendment to the Constitution, because it says that the Senators, when sitting for that purpose of impeachment trial, shall be on oath or affirmation. Says nothing about the Chief Justice.

Caller: Absolutely. If you walked into a courtroom, you'll never see the judge take an oath before the trial.

Dr. Keyes: The jury does.

Caller: Exactly, and it was so offensive.

Dr. Keyes: Well, the process from that point of view--'cause you know I pointed this out in terms of the Chief Justice's role, and I tried to point it out to the Chief Justice. Unfortunately we were never able directly to connect, but I know I talked to others who may have raised it with him. I did an article about it, I talked to people in the Senate about it. I think they badly mishandled this aspect of it in ways that over the long term could prove extremely detrimental to the process of impeachment--because the Founders put it together in such a way that when it involved the President, there was an added safeguard for the integrity of the process in the role of the Chief Justice. And they took steps in this impeachment sham that they put together that move in the direction of effectively destroying that safeguard. And it's very dangerous. I know these folks are not good statesmen, a lot of them, they don't think about the future, they're just worried about now. But from a statesman's point of view, their action was extremely, extremely ill-advised and bad for the country's future.

Caller: The Constitution was a beautiful document, and the fact that the Congress, the Legislature was intended to be separated into two bodies, one which represents the people, the House, and the other that represent the States, which is in all intents and purposes a different body. I mean, the people look at things differently than the State Legislature does.

Dr. Keyes: Or to put it differently, it's the people, but in a different guise. The State legislatures represent the people of the states, but they represent those people according to different divisions, and with a different focus when they get elected, right? And that way you're adding something to the judgment at the federal level that otherwise is missing.

Caller: Right, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, I think it's time to uh--I guess it was several weeks ago that a caller said that we should initiate the idea that this amendment should be repealed, and I would have to give my complete agreement.

Dr. Keyes: You express great wisdom, but you know the only folks who will really, truly understand what we are talking about--I believe, at the end of the day there's a common sense to it that people will get, but from the point of view of the Constitution, our Founders were folks who were familiar with the great sort of traditions of political theory. And one of the most important elements when you're putting together a Constitution--stretches all the way back to Aristotle's discussion in ancient times of the different constitutions that existed in the ancient world--is how you divide the people, the divisions as they were called, that were then going to be represented in different bodies that would act for different purposes on behalf of the community. And those divisions, the people in their divisions, were critical to the balance of judgment and action within any given society. And our Founders were aware of this issue, and they knew that the House was to represent the people according to a certain set of divisions, and the Senate was to represent them according to another set of divisions, and that you needed both those elements, the elements that were just based on sort of broad, popular sentiment, and the elements that took particular account of the regional divisions of the people, that those were both essential to the stability of representative government in the country. And we changed that, disregarded that, and I think it's hurt us deeply. Thank you for the observation, really appreciate it.

We have a special treat today, and we're standing online with me right now somebody well and favorably known to all of you. Matter of fact, when I say his name, I am sure that if you could, if we were all together in an audience you would stand up and cheer, because he is one of those folks who I think comes out as one of the few heroes of this whole impeachment business. And I am referring of course to my good friend, and to somebody who was just absolutely true-blue throughout this process from beginning to end, Bob Barr, Representative from Georgia.

(soundbite of applause)

Applause, a standing ovation, yes indeed. A standing ovation, Bob. Thank you sir, and welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Rep. Bob Barr: Thank you, Alan. I'm just very sorry that we couldn't have gotten a little bit of understanding and support from our Senate colleagues. It was a travesty, but I'll tell you, it will be an honor until the day I die to have sat in the Chamber of the U.S. Senate with Henry Hyde and the other managers and presented the case on behalf of the people of this great country.

Dr. Keyes: Well, you did us proud, and you did us a great honor with the integrity that you showed.

When we get back, we're going to be talking to Bob Barr a little about the impeachment trial, its aftermath, and the prospects.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. We have with us a very special guest, Bob Barr, who was one of the House Managers, those people who stood with such forthrightness and integrity to search for and present the truth to the American people. He only is going to be with us till 11:30.

I thought, Bob, what might be best is just to give you a chance to share with people your thoughts, first about the trial itself, and then about what you think are going to be the consequences for the future, since obviously this is having an impact on people's minds and perceptions and spirits, even within the conservative movement. I think some of that impact has been negative in terms of making people despondent and so forth and so on. You were right at the heart of it. What is your sense?

Rep. Barr: Well, the answer to both questions, I think, are very inter-related, Alan--which is, I think, why you've posed them the way you have. What happened in the trial, why things happened in the trial, and what we can take from that in terms of an assessment of the trial as well as the future of the conservative movement and our conservative values are very much intertwined. I prefer to be very optimistic about this.

I was very personally frustrated with the process in the Senate, but that's over. And I think that we showed the country tremendous fortitude, tremendous integrity by pursuing these matters the way we did in the House and through the House Managers. We accomplished a tremendous amount that just three or four months ago people would have thought, even in the Republican Party, we would have been crazy to have hoped for, and that is that we have secured the first impeachment of an elected President for very good and sufficient reasons.

In our country's history, that will remain a stain on this man, and a lesson to future Presidents that cannot be ignored. That is a tremendous accomplishment. Again, against all odds, we had the opportunity to present this case in the Senate, it was effectively taken from us by our colleagues in the Senate, but we stood tall under the leadership of Henry Hyde, and I think showed a tremendous moral victory and a moral lesson to the country that we, particularly as conservatives, ought not to hang our heads in shame at that. We ought not to feel despondent, we ought to go out and about--as I have been doing in my district this last week, since I've been in the district, holding town hall meetings, answering questions, talking about this, and I could not begin to tell you the tremendous response, positive response that I've had personally as I have traveled the great Seventh District of Georgia these past seven days.

People have always been supportive, but the magnitude of it, the enthusiasm has changed dramatically, and it's the result of people being very proud of what we did in the House, as well as being very upset with the reports that we're hearing that the President is intending to seek vengeance on the House Managers. We have the Governor of Georgia who was brought into that, so that has really invigorated people. People here in Georgia don't appreciate the President and the Governor and the James Carvilles and the Larry Flynts targeting men and women who simply stood up for the rule of law and the Constitution. So I think there is tremendous excitement out there that we need to really tap into, and use this as an example of what the conservative movement as the party, in a sense or the movement that upholds our Constitution can accomplish.

Dr. Keyes: Well, I was looking today at a piece in the Washington Times that talked about the fact that, according even to what I call these phony polls from the media, one of the major concerns, if not the major concern right now on the minds of the American people is the challenges to our moral judgment, the moral crisis of the country, the decline in our moral integrity. I think that this whole Clinton episode has actually been a clarifying moment in terms of having a lot of people realize the devastating impact that the loss of moral judgment and integrity is having on our institutions.

Rep. Barr: Well, and it's presenting the country, Alan, with a very clear distinction between the forces of the status quo, which are the forces of liberalism in America, and the forces of the Constitution and the conservative movement. Really for the first time in many years, since President Reagan, we have a very clear distinction for the American people to see. And I think we ought to again, not feel despondent, not feel that we've been beaten. We have a great victory here and a great moral lesson to take to the country while the country is very interested in this.

Dr. Keyes: I think you're right, and I think that's exactly the attitude that needs to be taken. Unhappily we do have some colleagues who are cowering in the sand and letting the media convince them they have something to be defensive about, and so forth and so on. And those folks are liable to get beaten up pretty badly, because I have often said that the root of the word coward may very well be cower, and when you cower off in a corner defensively, you're gonna probably get beaten up pretty badly by a bully like Bill Clinton, 'cause that's what he likes. But if you stand up for the truth right in his face, that truth ultimately will prevail, and you and the House Managers and Henry Hyde and the Senators who found it in themselves to vote for the truth, you won't have to hang your heads in shame when the truth starts to come out about Juanita Broaddrick and these other aspects that indicate Bill Clinton's true character. You won't have to feel that you're responsible for the shadow that overhangs the White House, 'cause you've been fighting for the truth.

Rep. Barr: We, under again the tremendous leadership of Henry Hyde, I think can be very, very proud of what we did. And I think the American people are too. And I don't think that they will appreciate it if we hang our head in shame and say, "Oh we've lost." That's not what the American people expect of conservatives, and that's not what we ought to deliver to them. We should be very proud. Yes, we certainly recognize that everything didn't get accomplished that we would like to have accomplished, but we accomplished a lot and the country wants to see us move forward and take advantage of this opportunity.

Dr. Keyes: See, and I think some of the things I think that were accomplished, and I am going to be speaking out about this every chance I get, truth comes out in these circumstances. And sadly, Bob, among other things, the truth that came before us about the Democrat Party was clear too. The Democrat leadership, en masse, willing to sacrifice the moral judgment and heart of their party for the sake of this perjured individual in the White House, showing sadly that the party is now an instrument of power, not of principle. And people in this country need to understand that. They need to see that truth, that the Democrats are now a party without a heart of moral principle or concern. They'll do anything for the sake of holding onto power, and I think that that's a timely truth. People need to see that clearly as we're making critical choices in our politics in the next few years.

Rep. Barr: Well, you're absolutely correct, Alan. The moral bankruptcy of the Democrat Party has never been more apparent in what they have done in defending this man against the very, very clear and overwhelming evidence of abuse of office, and this is something that manifests itself and we should point this out to the American people in a whole range of areas. The moral bankruptcy of this party as evidenced through its knee-jerk defense of the President in light of serious abuse of office.

Dr. Keyes: 'Cause one of the things that struck me was that from the reports we reliably got, the Democrats refused to look at a lot of the evidence. They didn't want to look at the redacted material, didn't want to consider the Juanita Broaddrick episode, didn't want to hear from witnesses. They were basically in a mode that said power at any cost, and we don't care about the truth. And the fact that y'all were willing to face the truth, however difficult, and in the face of criticism and polls and prognostications about your political demise, you stood for the integrity of Constitution and judgment. That is what I think history will remember, and it's the only thing in this episode that it will praise.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call.

You know, talking to Congressman Barr, who is from Georgia, brings to my mind an article I saw today about the race that is taking place in Georgia to fill the seat that was held by Newt Gingrich. And apparently, in that district the individual being identified in the degenerate media as the front-runner with the Republican label is an individual who is described in an article in the Washington Times in the following way: "In the 1996 Senate primary, where he ran for the nomination, Mr. Isaacson", this is his name, "touted his abortion rights stand and lost in a runoff. This time he is playing down the issue, stressing instead his opposition to a specific kind of late-term abortion and support of parental notification for minors wanting to end a pregnancy."

Now I've got to tell you, I read that and I said to myself, look at that, another one of these cheap, manipulative politicos. He's a pro-abortion guy. He's figured out that that's not gonna win on the Republican side if you're open and honest about it, and so he stands up to use partial-birth abortion and a couple of other things as cover for the fact that he is an Arlen Specter Republican. And you will recall, won't you, that Arlen Specter Republicans vote for Bill Clinton. They don't vote for truth.

So anybody in a primary situation who had a choice, and Mr. Isaacson was up there, why on earth if you care about truth and pro-life issues and other issues of moral concern would you vote for a phony like this? And I'll say it right out, "a phony like this"--somebody who is using certain things to cover up the truth about his convictions for political expediency, because he knows he can't win with the Republican label if he's open about his pro-abortion convictions. This is really a prime example of the kind of thing where I say to myself, don't go this way. It also happens, by the way, that there is someone in the race, Christina Jeffrey, who is strongly pro-life, open, clear about her convictions, absolutely forthright. This isn't some lesser of evils type stuff. Got a good choice, and the question is who's gonna make the good choice? That's in my opinion, in my considered opinion, that's the question.

And the sad thing is you have so many instances like this, and there'll be folks, Mike Medved I suppose would say, "Isaacson is the winner. You've got to vote for the winner, he's the one who's gonna win." He can't win unless he dupes and fools moral conservatives into casting their vote for something they don't believe in, unless they give in to the blandishments of the Mike Medveds of the world and go and vote for some media-generated notion of the winner instead of voting for the things that they know in their hearts to be right and good for the country.

That's the only way a phony like this Isaacson person can win in a situation where they're running against somebody with a Republican label who actually has the right heart and the sincere convictions and will follow through on them. 'Cause for me now, this would be the litmus test, okay? I would sit there thinking to myself, okay, which of these people, when push comes to shove, is gonna vote to convict and remove Bill Clinton from office? Is it gonna be "I'm pro-abortion Isaacson," or is it gonna be "I'm convinced and convicted pro-life, and I'll tell you the truth about it Christina Jeffrey"? That's the question I'd ask. You see, and then I'd look at the results and I'd say, "Whoa, look at this, here is the list of people who voted to support the perjured President, and at the core of that list, five, read 'em, five Isaacson-style Republicans." The Arlen Specters of the world. The people who use partial-birth abortion vote as cover for their true pro-abortion hearts, and then get in there and vote for the lying perjurer in the White House.

Do we need to put people, if you're a conservative and you're a Republican, do you need to put people like this in the Congress of the United States? Just a question I would ask. Now nobody can say on this show I tell anybody how to vote. This is up to the people themselves. I just try to think through things a little bit, and I tell you how I would think it through. And that's how I would think it through. I would sit there looking at these choices and it wouldn't be very hard for me to follow the logic of that situation. I sure couldn't in good conscience put some people in the Congress who were gonna vote for this corrupt, lying, perjured President. And I think that one's abortion views and one's effort to cover up those views is a good indicator of integrity.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: I'm Alan Keyes, welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. Let's go to a caller in Phoenix, Arizona. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Good morning.

Dr. Keyes: Hi.

Caller: Hi. I am calling because the day that the vote was completed on the impeachment trial for President Clinton, I had went out and turned our flag upside-down. Um, it's been flying that way since that day, and not one person has commented, except for yesterday an American Veteran had come into my office. He asked me if I knew that my flag was flying incorrectly. And I said we know the flag is flying upside-down. He said, "Could you tell me why?" I think he thought that we didn't realize that maybe we didn't do it properly. So I told him that it was in my opinion that this country is in distress, and that's why I have my flag upside-down. And he then pretty much told me that he was gonna get over one hundred veterans to come and stand in front of our office to show, because he said this was disrespect for the veterans.

Dr. Keyes: Well you should explain that that's not true. Matter of fact, there's a specific exception that's made in the code of how you handle the flag, and it says, yes, that if you fly it upside-down for no good reason then that is a disrespect. But, the exception is that when it is used as a signal of distress where there will be imminent danger to person and property, right? That's a legitimate use. And I think that there can be no doubt that there is imminent danger to person and property in this country from this lawless President. And so that is not disrespectful at all, and it is actually making the right and proper use of the distress signal. Now, if these veterans that were organized by this person then persisted, it would be because they disagree with your judgment that this nation is in distress, and they would be not talking about whether you're treating the flag with respect, they're actually pro-Clinton Democrats trying to make an issue. You see what I'm saying?

Caller: Exactly.

Dr. Keyes: And we may face that, because there are gonna be pro-Clinton Democrats trying to pretend that this nation is not in distress with this lying perjurer left in office, but that is precisely why I think it is important to use the symbol, in order to get those folks who are on one side or the other to make their choice. And I think we'll see that a lot of people in this country share our distress, that's what I'd be praying for.

Caller: Well I hope so.

Dr. Keyes: But it is going to require a certain courage of our convictions, there's no doubt about it, because you know how the folks on the other side are. And if you make a statement that continues to show that you are not willing to accept the lies that they are telling us, that's gonna upset them greatly. I'm getting that already. These folks are very upset. "Why won't you leave this man alone? Why won't you accept the fact that he's innocent?" They want me to take the perjured vote last Friday against all evidence and truth, and substitute that for what the facts clearly revealed? That's what they want. And I think that this flag symbol is our way of saying we won't swallow that lie.

Caller: Well, that's my way.

Dr. Keyes: Thank you for your courage, I appreciate it, and I think it's the kind of courage and conviction that's gonna be required right now in order to stand against this wind. It blows strong, it's full of lies and it's trying to tear down the stand of integrity that we must take right now against those who want us to buy the whole lack of integrity that Bill Clinton and those who support him represent. And I wear this upside-down flag now as a sign and I am not going to surrender to that lack of integrity. I see this nation in distress and will continue to act to do something about it. And I pray for the day, pray for the day that we will be able to turn it back up right-side, in a sign that this nation has gotten back its bearings, yes indeed.

Let's go to a caller in Decora, Iowa. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Yes, hello?

Dr. Keyes: Hi!

Caller: Um, I just had some comments to make, I'll be quick. I'm glad that we still have some Republican members of Congress who still believe in God and country and right and wrong, but the giants among men are those thirteen House Managers who put the good of our country and our Constitution and our lives ahead of their own job security. They went the extra mile and they are truly the American heroes. But we're also very proud of our Republican Senator, Charles Grassley of Iowa. What I want to say is that we would like to see Asa Hutchinson and James Rogan on the Republican ticket for our next presidential election. We feel that we could trust them with our freedoms, our lives, and everything we have, and I hope their constituents at home know what they have in all of these guys. They are truly rare in politics, and even people who aren't religious they still want someone in government and in the Oval Office that they can trust with all their heart and soul.

Dr. Keyes: That's right.

Caller: And I feel that we don't need a third party like some people want. We should just pick out the jewels we already have and work to put them in there. There's enough good people in the country, I mean the real salt-of-the-earth people, the poor, the well-to-do and those in between who have honor and integrity, and if they would all come together we could get this done. That's all I wanted to say, thank you.

Dr. Keyes: I believe that you spoke truth there, and obviously you don't accept the notion that we ought to retreat and withdraw, because I think there are enough good-hearted people and we need simply to stand with courage and be sure that we are choosing according to that decent conscience and that we are there to be chosen in terms of those people who stand for office and leadership. They should stand with integrity, speak truth without fear, and then let people make up their minds according to that integrity. Yes indeed, thank you very much, really appreciate it and appreciate that thought.

Let's go to a caller in Harrison, Michigan. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Uh, yes sir, I am a first-time caller, and I can't believe how you go on with Barr or Trent Lott. I watched all of the impeachment, and for one thing on Court TV it was a proven fact--I believe they are out of it now, but they had a man on Court TV that was proved that Barr and Trent Lott was in an organization that is just the same thing as like being belongs to the KKK's, and you as an African-American . . .

Dr. Keyes: Hold it ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, hold it. That is not a true statement you just made.

Caller: That is.

Dr. Keyes: They were, it was asserted they had gone to speak to this organization, not that they belonged to it, but that they had spoken before it. And the notion that if you go speak to an organization you're somehow all involved with that organization's agenda is about as absurd as any notion there could be. I've spoken to a lot of left-wing groups in this country, that I absolutely, profoundly disagree with. But I still believe that they have the right to hear from me and from others. And so you don't have to agree with an organization's agenda in order to go a present to them what you believe to be the truth. Matter of fact that's part of the dialogue that needs to take place in a free society.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: I'm Alan Keyes. Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. We've come to that portion of the program I call "The Last Word." Gonna share my last word today with a caller from Arkdale, Wisconsin. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Yes, I'm calling about flying the flag upside-down. I want to encourage anybody that does fly their flag upside-down to continue to do so until we have a respectable and honorable Republican President in the Office of the United States.

Dr. Keyes: Well, I agree, I mean I certainly think that that would be an occasion on which we would turn it right-side up, but can I make a statement that might surprise you?

Caller: What's that?

Dr. Keyes: I would be willing to say that we ought to turn it right-side up even if an honorable Democrat gets elected. This is not a partisan thing with me. I think we're dealing in Bill Clinton with something that's different than just the usual sort of partisan labeling. We're dealing with a true criminal element, and to the extent that he represents this kind of extraordinary unfitness, if there were a Democrat out there willing to repudiate that criminality, I would think we should welcome their election as well. Unhappily, I can't say I see one, certainly not in the U.S. Senate. I certainly don't see one in Vice-President Al Gore, 'cause they all went along with this stuff. But there may be one out there somewhere. (chuckling)

Caller: There may be, and if there was, I would turn my flag right-side up.

Dr. Keyes: That's right. Well I appreciate this. I hope that folks will--in fact, it's just a quiet statement. But I've noticed that it's one, I wore it yesterday at a reception I was at for Radio and Records, and people kept coming up trying to turn it right-side up, and I had to explain to them why I was wearing it. And we got different responses from different people, depending obviously on their persuasion. But a lot of folks said, "I like that idea, I'm going to do that." And I think you might get the same reaction from your friends and neighbors. And then instead of just the lying polls out there, we might see around America a poll that was being quietly taken amongst our people, as more and more of the upside-down flags in various forms--lapel pins, t-shirts, flags flying--I think if we keep this up, this could become a symbol of the quiet rejection of the corruption, lies and lack of integrity that have sadly characterized this process to a degree on both sides of the aisle. Not the House Managers, but certainly the way the Senate Republican leadership handled this, the Democrats, the President himself.

I think a lot of people in this country, regardless of party, have a heart that rejects that corruption of America's respect for law, Constitutionalism and moral decency. And this flag turned upside-down, a symbol of our nation in distress because of our abandonment of its true moral principles and of our commitment to stand against that abandonment and bring America home. Think about it. Back with you bright and lively, I'll be here on Tuesday. Terry Jeffrey gonna fill in for me on Monday. I know y'all love him, be good to him. In the meanwhile, God be with you.