Alan Keyes - the dark horse?
Cactus, Rigby, and other Republican supporters:
If you want to re-vitalize the Republican Party, return it to truly American
values, and win the support of Americans rather than Socialists, you might
consider Alan Keyes as your candidate.
I know, I know. He’s not “viable” because he’s religious and against
abortion; however, I have not seen anything to suggest he would make
church-going mandatory or abortion illegal under the law. Look him over,
please, and give your opinion about Alan Keyes.
Here are some excerpts from his e-mail newsletter for October 25, 1999
***************************************
Begin excerpts
***************************************
Keyes Shines in ABC News Debate
GOP Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes took on 4 other Republican
presidential hopefuls Friday night, October 22, stealing the spotlight and
scoring a major victory for conservative Americans. The debate,
moderated by ABC News' Cokie Roberts and picked up by C-SPAN, featured
Ambassador Alan Keyes delivering a reality check to the other candidates.
Following is a transcript of Ambassador Keyes' remarks, with summaries of
the questions he was answering.
-------
(The candidates were first asked why New Hampshire voters should vote
Republican, given the improvement in the New Hampshire economy during
the
Clinton years.)
Keyes: I actually think that the premise of the question is correct. On the
basis of pure economic issues, we are not going to persuade the American
people to hand the White House from the Democrats to the Republicans.
They never have done so without a good reason, and right now, in the
economic sphere, we don't face a huge crisis; in the
international sphere we don't face one.
I think we do face an enormous crisis. It is a moral crisis. We have been
through the most shameless and humiliating period in our country’s
history, and it has threatened the integrity of our most important
institutions. On those grounds, we absolutely need to change the hands
that are now upon the White House, and give them to folks who will have
the kind of integrity the Democrats have not shown during this moral
crisis.
But I also believe that, based on renewed moral self-confidence, we
reclaim control of our money. Not by piddling tax cuts, not by "plans" that
come from on high claiming that they are going to improve our economy.
We need to get back control of our own money, and we will get back
control of our own money only when we get rid of the socialist structures
that gave that control to government, beginning with the income tax itself.
So I think that the key to making sure we are able to take advantage of
the enormous opportunities our technology is handing us is to get back
control of our money by abolishing the income tax and returning to the
original Constitution of our country, which funded the federal government
with tariffs, duties and excise taxes, not a privacy-invading income tax.
And that is where I think we need to start.
-------
(The next question, from a set proposed by the American Catholic Bishops:
"How will we overcome the scandal of a quarter of our pre-schoolers living
in poverty in the richest nation on earth?" The reference to Senator Hatch
was to his comment that the President can help the problem of poverty by
setting an example of responsibility.)
Keyes: I think it is a little unfair to ascribe it just to personal decisions.
Government helped to create this problem. We had a welfare system that
actually destroyed the family structure, drove the father out of the home,
took away the incentives forwork. And I think we need consciously to
revamp that system, so that it will put incentives behind marriage, behind
the maintenance of a strong family structure, behind the presence of
fathers in the home.
We also need to understand, though, that at the end of the day, helping
people ought to be the business of the charity sector, and the faith sector,
and the private sector. And that is why I think it is so critical to get up off
the money. Government doesn't need to be spending this money. Give it
back to people themselves, let them decide what to do with
it, so they can put it in the channels that will actually strengthen their
families, strengthen their church and faith institutions, to meet the
challenge of doing for one another what needs to be done.
Keyes: The whole premise of the question has to be questioned. One, I
think it is a mistake we have been making for thirty, forty years, that
plays right into the hands of the socialist mentality that, unfortunately,
dominates everybody in our politics. (Cokie Roberts attempts to reply by
mentioning the bishops again.) The Catholic bishops have gone down that
left-wing road, Cokie, and don't tell me otherwise because I am a Catholic
and I know it. And I get to criticize them when they are socialist, because
socialism is not a requirement of our theology. As a matter of fact it goes
against what the Pope has laid out as the best approach to economics.
But the point I want to make is this. The fundamental question we face is
two-fold. Whether it is education or anything else, we know first of all that
throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, that the key to success in
all these areas turns out to be the sort of thing, in fact, that Senator Hatch
was pointing to. If by "example" you mean creating a
moral environment in which there is going to be the decency and the
discipline necessary for people to work together to pass on elements of
their heritage.
My parents were poor, Cokie, and other parents in the black community
were poor, for the longest time. That didn't make them depraved, and it
didn't mean that they couldn't raise decent children who knew how to work
hard and get out of that poverty. I think we have to be careful not to make
money the criterion.
-------
(The next question was whether government should ensure that American
children all receive health care just as the elderly all receive health care.
Senator McCain turned the discussion to the proposed "bill of rights" for
medical patients, including the right to sue health care providers.)
Keyes: I think that it is quite clear that the reason the Democrats favor
this is that they want to unleash the trial lawyers on the existing health
system in order to destroy it, so that they can step in and tell us that the
government has to be the savior. If we can't see that coming, then we are
awfully dumb.
I think that the premise that we need in our health care system is to make
the individuals who are receiving that health care once again into
empowered consumers, who will actually be able to police the relationship
between price and value instead of turning that chore over to
bureaucracies in the government OR the insurance companies. And that is
why we need voucherization. We need medical savings accounts. We need
the things that will once again make those individuals empowered parties,
who will be able to determine who their doctors are, whether they are
getting the kind of service that they need, but who will be able to
ENFORCE that, then, by taking their dollars where they want to take those
dollars.
-------
(The candidates were next asked where they stand on the charge by
President Clinton's National Security Advisor that the Republicans are
becoming "neo-isolationist.")
Keyes: I think that what we have to recognize is that when you live in a
world where you have somebody in a high position like Strobe Talbott who
tells us that the nation-state is going to be a thing of the past, and we
should surrender to some global government, those of us who resist that
idea are not isolationists. We are just defending the sovereignty and the
Constitutional integrity of the United States. And I think it is essential
right now. We should NOT follow the Clinton Administration in the
surrender of American sovereignty.
And we should certainly not accept their betrayal and it's not just
appeasement; it's treachery and in terms of handing off our secrets to the
communist Chinese, and doing God knows what in exchange for their
purchase of influence over our security policies, making decisions that
have transferred our technology and the things that actually gave us the
security edge into the hands of the country that is liable to be our
strongest potential enemy in the course of the 21st century if we are not
careful. It is a huge error.
We need to base our foreign policy on a clear sense of our national
sovereignty, and our national interest, that puts the interests of the
American people in first place, knowing that by doing so we are actually
serving the best interests of the world.
We also need to understand, though and what some of my colleagues
here, I think, do not and that that translates into a policy on trade that is
not willing to surrender the sovereignty of the American people to the
World Trade Organization or any other international body, and that, again
there, is willing to put the interests of our people FIRST, by making it clear
that if you want to come trade in the American emporium, you can help us
bear the freight for keeping that emporium open. I think that is fair to the
American worker.
-------
(The next question was "What about trade? Is it a good thing?" Gary Bauer
asked Steve Forbes if he would repeal most favored nation status for
China, and Forbes gave a long reply that never answered that question.)
Keyes: Two things are clear. One, I think we just need a clear answer to
that very simple question. Most favored nation status for China sends a
signal of business as usual to a bunch of dictators who are brutalizing and
destroying the rights of their people, and we shouldn't be doing it. I think
it is that simple, and one ought to be able to say so.
Second, I think that the answer that was given about fair trade and free
trade always sounds very good, until you think through its implications. It
means that through the mechanism of so-called "free trade,"we are going
to sit down and negotiate a minutiae of regulations and so forth, to be
enforced by what? A bunch of international bureaucrats. So that it turns
out that, as I often tell people, free trade is not free trade, it is managed
trade. It is socialism. And what we are seeing here on this podium, a
bunch of free traders, and what they are actually doing is introducing
socialism into America through the international back door. It is not the
right thing to do, and we oughtn't to accept it.
-------
(Another question from the Bishops' list: "How will we address the tragedy
of 35,000 children dying every day of the consequences of hunger, debt,
and the lack of development around the world?" Cokie adds: "What about
this question of third world debt, and what about this question of the
United States' moral role in the world?")
Keyes: I served as Ambassador to UN Economic and Social Council and
Assistant Secretary of State. I dealt with those issues and having to do
with development and what we do, or don't do, and how third world
countries are doing, and what the terrible situations are in day in and day
out for several years. And I'll tell you the truth: the notion that we can
wave some magic wand, send money, do loans, do whatever, that is
fundamentally going to change the situation of a lot of these developing
countries is false. Do you know why? Because at the end of the day it is up
to the people in those countries themselves to adopt the path of freedom,
and to establish the institutions that can sustain it. Including institutions
we don't always think of, like honest courts, where you can go to suit in
order to sustain business relationships, and things of that kind.
I think, yes, we need to take an interest in helping other countries develop
to the point where they can be effective trading partners with us, but we
shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that some "transfer of resources" is
magically going to achieve this objective if they are not willing to adopt
the right kind of free enterprise policies that will actually sustain their
growth and development.
Keyes: You made a point a minute ago about banks, like there is a
distinction between banks and taxpayers. Excuse me. We have farmers
sitting in Iowa, where we have to appropriate billions of dollars to try to
help them get through hard times. Why? Because that capital isn't being
made available to them through the banking system. So I don't think
that distinction is fair. Our banks shouldn't be giving preference to people
overseas either.
-------
(Question: "How did we get into an educational crisis in America, and how
do we get out?")
Keyes: I think it is clear that one main principle needs to be
re-implemented in our approach to education: parents need to be put in
the diver's seat once again, instead of educrats and bureaucrats. To that
end, we need to break the government monopoly on education by making
sure that the money we spend on education follows the choice of parents,
not the choice of the educrats and the bureaucrats.
That will then do two things. It will make sure that the schools have to be
responsive to the parents, who will then be able to send their children to
schools of their choice, set up new schools if they think that is what is
necessary. But it will also reestablish a vital link that has been broken
between faith and moral viewpoint, and our educational system.
People say, "Why are there guns and killing in school?" Well, I'll tell you.
We got the guns in because we drove God out. And we will get God back
in, when we put parents back in the driver's seat so they can send their
children to schools that reflect their faith, their values, their sense of the
moral priorities that are the real basis for educational success and
motivation.
I think that that two-fold approach, which empowers parents at the
grassroots and which reestablishes the vital connection between education
and our moral discipline and our moral principles are the key to seeing our
schools improve.
What is NOT the key, by the way, is what is often implied when people talk
in these terms of poor and rich, and all this stuff. We have some of the
poorest people in the country in the District of Columbia; we also have
some of the highest per capita spending per student. It hasn't produced
great results, because money is not the key. We need to look at the true
keys, and not talk as if throwing money at education will solve things.
-------
(The next question was why the House voted against school vouchers and
for more federal education spending. In replying, Senator McCain
mentioned that special education programs are being abused by the
transfer of disciplinary problems to special ed programs, but that the
program must be fully funded and this problem solved.)
Keyes: Well, I would have to say that what Senator McCain just said is a
good example of what I think is part of the problem with the whole federal
role in education. Let's not pretend that the things that are being done at
the local level aren't influenced by the sense that, "well, we'll get federal
funds if we move over here," and that the way they make decisions is then
distorted by the fact that the federal government is in various ways
leveraging and manipulating control over those local institutions.
That's why I think it is essential that we stop talking out of both sides of
our mouths, stop talking about "national standards" and "what I'm gonna
do when I get in there to make education this and that." I'll tell you one
thing: it's not what I'm going to do as President that will satisfy the need.
(The question is) am I going to put power back into the hands of people at
the grassroots, so they can do what has to be done? And once I have
achieved that, am I going to do what Ronald Reagan promised to do,
abolish the federal Department of Education, so that we can make it clear
that education is a local, grassroots responsibility?
-------
(Senator McCain was asked how he would have voted if he had been
present for the Senate's recent votes against partial birth abortion and for
overturning Roe vs. Wade. His entire response, over which he stumbled,
was: "I would have voted for the abolishing of Roe vs. Wade," and he
immediately turned the subject back to education, telling a story about
going to a charter school and seeing that it was teaching moral principles
and in this case, the principle of always telling the truth and without
having to teach religion.)
Keyes: By the way, Senator, I think that the abolition of Roe vs. Wade
would deserve a little louder affirmation than that, maybe a little clearer,
in the sense that, "of course" you would have voted to abolish Roe vs.
Wade, because it is not a matter of majority vote. If our basic principle is
correct, and our rights come from the Creator, then they don't come from
our mother's choice.
We need, at every opportunity, as we had to do with slavery and civil
rights, to remind the American people that we, as a people, claim our
rights based upon a premise that forbids it to us to deny those rights to
other human creatures of God, including the creatures in the womb.
I think that that was what that vote was about. I am glad that the
Republicans in the Senate overwhelmingly affirmed that truth. And I think
that it is a disgrace to suggest that we can back away from that
fundamental principle of truth, and then expect our children to accept the
notion that we ought to tell the truth. Because if we abandon our
fundamental principles, and we don't have the moral character at the
public policy level, then we are setting such a bad example of truth for our
children that we should expect their consciences to be corrupted.
***********************************************
Council for National Policy
Alan Keyes gave a spectacular speech at the Council for National Policy
meeting in San Antonio on October 8, 1999, as he addressed a large
gathering of conservatives from around the nation. He stressed that we
must be strong in dealing with the moral crisis in our country, and that we
must not try to get away from Socialism simply by electing phony
socialists of our own. The crowd cheered as Alan proclaimed the principles
of the declaration, and a very vocal group of Texans reacted particularly
enthusiastically when Alan revealed Bush to be what he really is, a
socialist in Republican clothes. Alan argued that this Bush strategy would
not only alienate the Republican grassroots, but would also earn nothing
but disdain from the liberals, since they would rather see real socialists
running the country than the imitation kind.
Earlier in the day, the Keyes 2000 National Youth Coordinator, Dmitri
Smirenski, participated in a panel discussion with the Forbes 2000 Youth
Coordinator. They addressed the Youth Council for National Policy about
their perspective youth campaigns. Dmitri discussed the appeal of Alan
Keyes to students, the issues on which the youth campaign differentiates
Alan Keyes from other conservative candidates, and general youth
campaign strategy. He also answered questions about the difficulties of
promoting a conservative candidate on liberal campuses.
***********************************************
Students for Keyes 2000
This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 2nd Northwest
Conservative Leadership Conference, put on by the Young America's
Foundation, a right wing campus activism organization. I can tell that
people are hungry for conservative leadership in America, and at the same
time, winning is very important. But the message I tried to articulate to
students this weekend is that G.W. Bush has not proven himself to be a
genuine conservative leader. And if we hope to restore the White House
and America to an era of hope and national leadership starting January 20,
2001, we cannot place our trust in men of less urgency than we have to.
And we don't have to sacrifice another few years of moderate governing
for the mere sake of victory. True victory will only be achieved when the
presidency is restored to a seat of honor and integrity and straightforward
vision.
--HANS ZEIGER Coordinator, Students for Keyes Washington
*******************************************
-- Visit us at http://www.Keyes2000.org to subscribe to this update.
-- Or send a subscription request to Ambassador@Keyes2000.org
-- Visit http://www.keyes2000.org/get_involved/ to donate.
-- For the Brand New Activist's Action List (for info on a daily basis).
Please go to our website address below and sign-up: http://www.keyes2000.org/get_more_info/grassroots.html
*******************************************
End of excerpts
*******************************************
PLEASE, read Keyes’ take on our Second Amendment:
http://www.keyes2000.org/issues_and_speeches/index.html
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 26, 1999).]
Cactus, Rigby, and other Republican supporters:
If you want to re-vitalize the Republican Party, return it to truly American
values, and win the support of Americans rather than Socialists, you might
consider Alan Keyes as your candidate.
I know, I know. He’s not “viable” because he’s religious and against
abortion; however, I have not seen anything to suggest he would make
church-going mandatory or abortion illegal under the law. Look him over,
please, and give your opinion about Alan Keyes.
Here are some excerpts from his e-mail newsletter for October 25, 1999
***************************************
Begin excerpts
***************************************
Keyes Shines in ABC News Debate
GOP Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes took on 4 other Republican
presidential hopefuls Friday night, October 22, stealing the spotlight and
scoring a major victory for conservative Americans. The debate,
moderated by ABC News' Cokie Roberts and picked up by C-SPAN, featured
Ambassador Alan Keyes delivering a reality check to the other candidates.
Following is a transcript of Ambassador Keyes' remarks, with summaries of
the questions he was answering.
-------
(The candidates were first asked why New Hampshire voters should vote
Republican, given the improvement in the New Hampshire economy during
the
Clinton years.)
Keyes: I actually think that the premise of the question is correct. On the
basis of pure economic issues, we are not going to persuade the American
people to hand the White House from the Democrats to the Republicans.
They never have done so without a good reason, and right now, in the
economic sphere, we don't face a huge crisis; in the
international sphere we don't face one.
I think we do face an enormous crisis. It is a moral crisis. We have been
through the most shameless and humiliating period in our country’s
history, and it has threatened the integrity of our most important
institutions. On those grounds, we absolutely need to change the hands
that are now upon the White House, and give them to folks who will have
the kind of integrity the Democrats have not shown during this moral
crisis.
But I also believe that, based on renewed moral self-confidence, we
reclaim control of our money. Not by piddling tax cuts, not by "plans" that
come from on high claiming that they are going to improve our economy.
We need to get back control of our own money, and we will get back
control of our own money only when we get rid of the socialist structures
that gave that control to government, beginning with the income tax itself.
So I think that the key to making sure we are able to take advantage of
the enormous opportunities our technology is handing us is to get back
control of our money by abolishing the income tax and returning to the
original Constitution of our country, which funded the federal government
with tariffs, duties and excise taxes, not a privacy-invading income tax.
And that is where I think we need to start.
-------
(The next question, from a set proposed by the American Catholic Bishops:
"How will we overcome the scandal of a quarter of our pre-schoolers living
in poverty in the richest nation on earth?" The reference to Senator Hatch
was to his comment that the President can help the problem of poverty by
setting an example of responsibility.)
Keyes: I think it is a little unfair to ascribe it just to personal decisions.
Government helped to create this problem. We had a welfare system that
actually destroyed the family structure, drove the father out of the home,
took away the incentives forwork. And I think we need consciously to
revamp that system, so that it will put incentives behind marriage, behind
the maintenance of a strong family structure, behind the presence of
fathers in the home.
We also need to understand, though, that at the end of the day, helping
people ought to be the business of the charity sector, and the faith sector,
and the private sector. And that is why I think it is so critical to get up off
the money. Government doesn't need to be spending this money. Give it
back to people themselves, let them decide what to do with
it, so they can put it in the channels that will actually strengthen their
families, strengthen their church and faith institutions, to meet the
challenge of doing for one another what needs to be done.
Keyes: The whole premise of the question has to be questioned. One, I
think it is a mistake we have been making for thirty, forty years, that
plays right into the hands of the socialist mentality that, unfortunately,
dominates everybody in our politics. (Cokie Roberts attempts to reply by
mentioning the bishops again.) The Catholic bishops have gone down that
left-wing road, Cokie, and don't tell me otherwise because I am a Catholic
and I know it. And I get to criticize them when they are socialist, because
socialism is not a requirement of our theology. As a matter of fact it goes
against what the Pope has laid out as the best approach to economics.
But the point I want to make is this. The fundamental question we face is
two-fold. Whether it is education or anything else, we know first of all that
throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, that the key to success in
all these areas turns out to be the sort of thing, in fact, that Senator Hatch
was pointing to. If by "example" you mean creating a
moral environment in which there is going to be the decency and the
discipline necessary for people to work together to pass on elements of
their heritage.
My parents were poor, Cokie, and other parents in the black community
were poor, for the longest time. That didn't make them depraved, and it
didn't mean that they couldn't raise decent children who knew how to work
hard and get out of that poverty. I think we have to be careful not to make
money the criterion.
-------
(The next question was whether government should ensure that American
children all receive health care just as the elderly all receive health care.
Senator McCain turned the discussion to the proposed "bill of rights" for
medical patients, including the right to sue health care providers.)
Keyes: I think that it is quite clear that the reason the Democrats favor
this is that they want to unleash the trial lawyers on the existing health
system in order to destroy it, so that they can step in and tell us that the
government has to be the savior. If we can't see that coming, then we are
awfully dumb.
I think that the premise that we need in our health care system is to make
the individuals who are receiving that health care once again into
empowered consumers, who will actually be able to police the relationship
between price and value instead of turning that chore over to
bureaucracies in the government OR the insurance companies. And that is
why we need voucherization. We need medical savings accounts. We need
the things that will once again make those individuals empowered parties,
who will be able to determine who their doctors are, whether they are
getting the kind of service that they need, but who will be able to
ENFORCE that, then, by taking their dollars where they want to take those
dollars.
-------
(The candidates were next asked where they stand on the charge by
President Clinton's National Security Advisor that the Republicans are
becoming "neo-isolationist.")
Keyes: I think that what we have to recognize is that when you live in a
world where you have somebody in a high position like Strobe Talbott who
tells us that the nation-state is going to be a thing of the past, and we
should surrender to some global government, those of us who resist that
idea are not isolationists. We are just defending the sovereignty and the
Constitutional integrity of the United States. And I think it is essential
right now. We should NOT follow the Clinton Administration in the
surrender of American sovereignty.
And we should certainly not accept their betrayal and it's not just
appeasement; it's treachery and in terms of handing off our secrets to the
communist Chinese, and doing God knows what in exchange for their
purchase of influence over our security policies, making decisions that
have transferred our technology and the things that actually gave us the
security edge into the hands of the country that is liable to be our
strongest potential enemy in the course of the 21st century if we are not
careful. It is a huge error.
We need to base our foreign policy on a clear sense of our national
sovereignty, and our national interest, that puts the interests of the
American people in first place, knowing that by doing so we are actually
serving the best interests of the world.
We also need to understand, though and what some of my colleagues
here, I think, do not and that that translates into a policy on trade that is
not willing to surrender the sovereignty of the American people to the
World Trade Organization or any other international body, and that, again
there, is willing to put the interests of our people FIRST, by making it clear
that if you want to come trade in the American emporium, you can help us
bear the freight for keeping that emporium open. I think that is fair to the
American worker.
-------
(The next question was "What about trade? Is it a good thing?" Gary Bauer
asked Steve Forbes if he would repeal most favored nation status for
China, and Forbes gave a long reply that never answered that question.)
Keyes: Two things are clear. One, I think we just need a clear answer to
that very simple question. Most favored nation status for China sends a
signal of business as usual to a bunch of dictators who are brutalizing and
destroying the rights of their people, and we shouldn't be doing it. I think
it is that simple, and one ought to be able to say so.
Second, I think that the answer that was given about fair trade and free
trade always sounds very good, until you think through its implications. It
means that through the mechanism of so-called "free trade,"we are going
to sit down and negotiate a minutiae of regulations and so forth, to be
enforced by what? A bunch of international bureaucrats. So that it turns
out that, as I often tell people, free trade is not free trade, it is managed
trade. It is socialism. And what we are seeing here on this podium, a
bunch of free traders, and what they are actually doing is introducing
socialism into America through the international back door. It is not the
right thing to do, and we oughtn't to accept it.
-------
(Another question from the Bishops' list: "How will we address the tragedy
of 35,000 children dying every day of the consequences of hunger, debt,
and the lack of development around the world?" Cokie adds: "What about
this question of third world debt, and what about this question of the
United States' moral role in the world?")
Keyes: I served as Ambassador to UN Economic and Social Council and
Assistant Secretary of State. I dealt with those issues and having to do
with development and what we do, or don't do, and how third world
countries are doing, and what the terrible situations are in day in and day
out for several years. And I'll tell you the truth: the notion that we can
wave some magic wand, send money, do loans, do whatever, that is
fundamentally going to change the situation of a lot of these developing
countries is false. Do you know why? Because at the end of the day it is up
to the people in those countries themselves to adopt the path of freedom,
and to establish the institutions that can sustain it. Including institutions
we don't always think of, like honest courts, where you can go to suit in
order to sustain business relationships, and things of that kind.
I think, yes, we need to take an interest in helping other countries develop
to the point where they can be effective trading partners with us, but we
shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that some "transfer of resources" is
magically going to achieve this objective if they are not willing to adopt
the right kind of free enterprise policies that will actually sustain their
growth and development.
Keyes: You made a point a minute ago about banks, like there is a
distinction between banks and taxpayers. Excuse me. We have farmers
sitting in Iowa, where we have to appropriate billions of dollars to try to
help them get through hard times. Why? Because that capital isn't being
made available to them through the banking system. So I don't think
that distinction is fair. Our banks shouldn't be giving preference to people
overseas either.
-------
(Question: "How did we get into an educational crisis in America, and how
do we get out?")
Keyes: I think it is clear that one main principle needs to be
re-implemented in our approach to education: parents need to be put in
the diver's seat once again, instead of educrats and bureaucrats. To that
end, we need to break the government monopoly on education by making
sure that the money we spend on education follows the choice of parents,
not the choice of the educrats and the bureaucrats.
That will then do two things. It will make sure that the schools have to be
responsive to the parents, who will then be able to send their children to
schools of their choice, set up new schools if they think that is what is
necessary. But it will also reestablish a vital link that has been broken
between faith and moral viewpoint, and our educational system.
People say, "Why are there guns and killing in school?" Well, I'll tell you.
We got the guns in because we drove God out. And we will get God back
in, when we put parents back in the driver's seat so they can send their
children to schools that reflect their faith, their values, their sense of the
moral priorities that are the real basis for educational success and
motivation.
I think that that two-fold approach, which empowers parents at the
grassroots and which reestablishes the vital connection between education
and our moral discipline and our moral principles are the key to seeing our
schools improve.
What is NOT the key, by the way, is what is often implied when people talk
in these terms of poor and rich, and all this stuff. We have some of the
poorest people in the country in the District of Columbia; we also have
some of the highest per capita spending per student. It hasn't produced
great results, because money is not the key. We need to look at the true
keys, and not talk as if throwing money at education will solve things.
-------
(The next question was why the House voted against school vouchers and
for more federal education spending. In replying, Senator McCain
mentioned that special education programs are being abused by the
transfer of disciplinary problems to special ed programs, but that the
program must be fully funded and this problem solved.)
Keyes: Well, I would have to say that what Senator McCain just said is a
good example of what I think is part of the problem with the whole federal
role in education. Let's not pretend that the things that are being done at
the local level aren't influenced by the sense that, "well, we'll get federal
funds if we move over here," and that the way they make decisions is then
distorted by the fact that the federal government is in various ways
leveraging and manipulating control over those local institutions.
That's why I think it is essential that we stop talking out of both sides of
our mouths, stop talking about "national standards" and "what I'm gonna
do when I get in there to make education this and that." I'll tell you one
thing: it's not what I'm going to do as President that will satisfy the need.
(The question is) am I going to put power back into the hands of people at
the grassroots, so they can do what has to be done? And once I have
achieved that, am I going to do what Ronald Reagan promised to do,
abolish the federal Department of Education, so that we can make it clear
that education is a local, grassroots responsibility?
-------
(Senator McCain was asked how he would have voted if he had been
present for the Senate's recent votes against partial birth abortion and for
overturning Roe vs. Wade. His entire response, over which he stumbled,
was: "I would have voted for the abolishing of Roe vs. Wade," and he
immediately turned the subject back to education, telling a story about
going to a charter school and seeing that it was teaching moral principles
and in this case, the principle of always telling the truth and without
having to teach religion.)
Keyes: By the way, Senator, I think that the abolition of Roe vs. Wade
would deserve a little louder affirmation than that, maybe a little clearer,
in the sense that, "of course" you would have voted to abolish Roe vs.
Wade, because it is not a matter of majority vote. If our basic principle is
correct, and our rights come from the Creator, then they don't come from
our mother's choice.
We need, at every opportunity, as we had to do with slavery and civil
rights, to remind the American people that we, as a people, claim our
rights based upon a premise that forbids it to us to deny those rights to
other human creatures of God, including the creatures in the womb.
I think that that was what that vote was about. I am glad that the
Republicans in the Senate overwhelmingly affirmed that truth. And I think
that it is a disgrace to suggest that we can back away from that
fundamental principle of truth, and then expect our children to accept the
notion that we ought to tell the truth. Because if we abandon our
fundamental principles, and we don't have the moral character at the
public policy level, then we are setting such a bad example of truth for our
children that we should expect their consciences to be corrupted.
***********************************************
Council for National Policy
Alan Keyes gave a spectacular speech at the Council for National Policy
meeting in San Antonio on October 8, 1999, as he addressed a large
gathering of conservatives from around the nation. He stressed that we
must be strong in dealing with the moral crisis in our country, and that we
must not try to get away from Socialism simply by electing phony
socialists of our own. The crowd cheered as Alan proclaimed the principles
of the declaration, and a very vocal group of Texans reacted particularly
enthusiastically when Alan revealed Bush to be what he really is, a
socialist in Republican clothes. Alan argued that this Bush strategy would
not only alienate the Republican grassroots, but would also earn nothing
but disdain from the liberals, since they would rather see real socialists
running the country than the imitation kind.
Earlier in the day, the Keyes 2000 National Youth Coordinator, Dmitri
Smirenski, participated in a panel discussion with the Forbes 2000 Youth
Coordinator. They addressed the Youth Council for National Policy about
their perspective youth campaigns. Dmitri discussed the appeal of Alan
Keyes to students, the issues on which the youth campaign differentiates
Alan Keyes from other conservative candidates, and general youth
campaign strategy. He also answered questions about the difficulties of
promoting a conservative candidate on liberal campuses.
***********************************************
Students for Keyes 2000
This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 2nd Northwest
Conservative Leadership Conference, put on by the Young America's
Foundation, a right wing campus activism organization. I can tell that
people are hungry for conservative leadership in America, and at the same
time, winning is very important. But the message I tried to articulate to
students this weekend is that G.W. Bush has not proven himself to be a
genuine conservative leader. And if we hope to restore the White House
and America to an era of hope and national leadership starting January 20,
2001, we cannot place our trust in men of less urgency than we have to.
And we don't have to sacrifice another few years of moderate governing
for the mere sake of victory. True victory will only be achieved when the
presidency is restored to a seat of honor and integrity and straightforward
vision.
--HANS ZEIGER Coordinator, Students for Keyes Washington
*******************************************
-- Visit us at http://www.Keyes2000.org to subscribe to this update.
-- Or send a subscription request to Ambassador@Keyes2000.org
-- Visit http://www.keyes2000.org/get_involved/ to donate.
-- For the Brand New Activist's Action List (for info on a daily basis).
Please go to our website address below and sign-up: http://www.keyes2000.org/get_more_info/grassroots.html
*******************************************
End of excerpts
*******************************************
PLEASE, read Keyes’ take on our Second Amendment:
http://www.keyes2000.org/issues_and_speeches/index.html
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 26, 1999).]