|
Alan Keyes on Government Reform
Republican challenger for IL Senate; previously Candidate for President
|
We have surrendered our personal sovereignty to government
Through the imposition of the income tax, we have surrendered our economic sovereignty--the control of our money. Through the acceptance of a government-controlled school system, we have surrendered our educational sovereignty--the control of our future.
And through the acceptance of a moral relativism that rejects the most basic premise of our way of life (belief in divine truth), we have surrendered our personal and individual sovereignty, which is the foundation of our discipline, and our freedom.
Source: Organizational website, RenewAmerica.us, "On The Issues"
Aug 3, 2004
Surrendering moral government to courts surrenders freedom
There may be terrible consequences for being good. There may be suffering, death, & deprivation. But we still have the choice. We can spit it all in the eye, or we can stand strong for what we know to be right. In that death we would vindicate the libert
that God has put in our hearts: the liberty to choose His way. That means when we surrender moral government to the courts, we have surrendered the very essence of freedom and its only real meaning, and we will not be free again until we get it back.
Source: Rally for the Ten Commandments, Hillsdale, Michigan
Feb 7, 2004
Congress should have the last word, not the Supreme Court
When they put the whole thing together for the federal court system, they gave jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the US, and then they gave it appellate jurisdiction over all other cases arising under the Constitution, "with such exceptions and under
such regulations as the Congress shall make." When they tell you that the Supreme Court has the last word, they lie! The last word belongs to the representatives of the people, and it's time for them to speak in defense of our right to honor God Almighty
Source: Rally in Blairsville, Georgia
Oct 21, 2003
Obeying the dictate of federal judges means no Constitution
If we must lock-step, knee-jerk obey the dictate of judges on the federal bench when their orders have no basis in law or the Constitution, then we have no laws and we have no Constitution! We have only tyranny and oppression! We reached this point on an
issue that is not the least important issue that a free people can face. Indeed, if we look at the example of the folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we would be justified in asserting that it may be the most important right of all.
Source: Rally in Blairsville, Georgia
Oct 21, 2003
Call halt to “War on this” and “War on that”
There were wars we had to fight to defend this country. Somebody in Washington discovered that this war thing was a good deal. We had the War on Poverty, and the War on Crime, and the War on Drugs, and war on this and war on that.
At the end of these wars-what we find is the poverty is worse, the crime is worse, and drugs are worse. This “war on this” and “war on that,” has been an excuse to make war on the pocketbook and decision-making authority of grassroots Americans.
Source: United We Stand America Conference, p.346
Aug 12, 1995
Only valid reason to go to Washington is to break up power
It is time we abolish aggrandized government power and bureaucratic control, and sweep this nation clean. There is not a single major problem that can be solved from Washington, D.C. There is only one reason to go to Washington. You go to Washington
to break up the power game. You go to bring those resources back to families, back to businesses, back to the grass-roots, community-based institutions where they belong-so we can get on with the business of making this country what it is supposed to be.
Source: United We Stand America Conference, p.346-47
Aug 12, 1995
Campaign reform is hypocritical: leave office instead
McCAIN [to Bush]: If you’re going to allow [donors who] give a million dollars to stay in the governor’s mansion, we’ve got a continuing big problem.BUSH: The people staying with me, these are my friends, John. These are my relatives, [yet you]
somehow question my integrity. You talk a lot about the “iron triangle” and you’re ringing it like a dinner bell with all those fund-raisers.
McCAIN: George, if I’m ringing it like the dinner bell, you’ve got both feet in the trough because you’ve
raised five times the amount of money in Washington [that I have].
KEYES: This whole campaign finance reform thing is just another example of the hypocrisy of these politicians. They’ve shoveled the money in their mouth, then profess to be shocked
at the discovery that it’s there. Then they say we should give up our right to give money to support the causes we believe in because they don’t have the integrity to do their job. We shouldn’t give up our rights. They should give up their offices.
Source: GOP debate in Los Angeles
Mar 2, 2000
Campaigns: No union $, no corporate $, no foreign $
Q: Do you have a campaign finance reform plan?
A: I think that it’s very simple on campaign finance reform. Instead of saying that because these politicians can’t act with integrity, we must give up our rights, let the ones
who don’t have the integrity give up their offices. And let’s have a system that’s very simple. Only individuals capable of voting [can contribute]. No unions, no corporate money, no foreign money.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show
Feb 15, 2000
“Dollar vote” only if you can “ballot vote”
Campaign finance law should be governed by two principles: - No “dollar vote” for anyone not legally able to cast a “ballot vote”
- Immediate comprehensive disclosure of all campaign contributions.
Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT
Jan 13, 2000
Wife Jocelyn’s issues: anti-poverty & anti-abortion
Jocelyn Marcel Keyes, the wife of Alan Keyes, directs a Cathlic soup kitchen when she isn’t home with the couple’s three children.
According to Keyes’ chief-of-staff, Jocelyn is “extra supportive, but she is also very private.” Like her husband, she is also an anti-abortion advocate.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A20
Dec 26, 1999
Campaign reforms: unconstitutional “incumbency protection”
HATCH [to Keyes]: I have no question in my mind that we need to change the campaign finance system that we have. But I think that the McCain-Feingold bill is unconstitutional because it bars the parties and every public interest organization to use
the same money to participate. And it seems to me it’s just plain wrong. What do you think about it?KEYES. All of these approaches are wrong because they’re based on a premise that I think is unconstitutional. If we have the right of free
association, then I think we have the right to associate our money with the causes we believe in, in any amount that we think is necessary to get those causes to work.
HATCH: Amen.
KEYES: For government to step in and for these politicians
to be dictating what we can do under that rubric is a total violation of our Constitutional rights. And I think we ought to abandon it. It turns out to be incumbency protection anyway. They will never devise a system that isn’t in their own interest.
Source: (cross-ref. from Hatch) Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate
Dec 7, 1999
Unlimited contributions, but only by people, & publicized
Let’s devise [campaign finance reform] that’s in the interest of our freedom. More freedom, not less. Simple premises that we should have: No dollar vote without a ballot vote. If you can’t walk into the voting booth and cast a vote, you should not
be able to make a contribution. No corporate contributions. No union contributions. No contributions whatsoever from any entities that are not actual breathing voters who can go cast a vote. Rich folks who want to give a lot of money
to candidates and causes they believe in, [should do so not from] behind PACs and camouflage, but under their own names, right out into the political arena. That will
itself regulate participation of money in our politics. But at the end of the day, publicity tied with our informed voting is the best way to regulate this system.
Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate
Dec 7, 1999
Campaign reform: No $ limits; full disclosure
Remove all limits on contributions and spending, require full disclosure for all contributions and spending.
Source: 1996 National Political Awareness Test, Project Vote Smart
Jul 2, 1996